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)
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 15, Number 11
[ Page 10891 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Joining us in the gallery this morning are about 45 children from an elementary school in Kamloops, A.E. Perry, and their teacher Mr. Hitchens. There are also several parents who have joined them for the trip. They're going to be spending the whole week on this trip. I ask the members of the House to help me make them welcome.
The Speaker: Hon. members, before calling Mr. Clerk I'd just like to respond to the hon. member for Okanagan East, who last Thursday made an allegation on a matter of privilege, stating that a motion adopted by the House to strike Committee A as a Committee of the Whole with restricted membership caused the hon. member to be excluded from voting in a division in Committee A.
This issue was canvassed as a question of privilege last April 7 by the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who then alleged that the restricted membership of Committee A denied members the right to enter into debate and the right to vote. I refer the hon. member to a ruling of the Chair on this very issue, dated April 12, 1994, a decision which I urge the hon. member to read carefully. At that time the Chair could not find a prima facie breach of privilege.
The point raised by the hon. member for Okanagan East last week did not provide the Chair with new facts which would lead to a different conclusion on the same issue. By a decision of the House, the membership of Committee A was established at 24 members and did not include the name of the member for Okanagan East. Well-established practice in our parliamentary system stipulates that the right to vote in a committee of the House requires membership in that committee, either through appointment by the House or through a substitution under an established mechanism. The member has given the Chair no indication that she duly substituted for another member of Committee A at the time of the division, and therefore she was not eligible to vote.
The hon. member referred to the Chair's undertaking to redress a situation which would improperly deny members access to any section of Committee of the Whole. The member will note that the Chair alluded to access by members to committees of the House in terms of attendance, participation and debate, and clearly not in terms of voting in a committee.
For the above reasons, and for those stated in the Chair's ruling of April 12 on this very issue, I cannot find a prima facie case of privilege.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Before proceeding, pursuant to standing orders, I would advise members that the House will be sitting tomorrow afternoon.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Today's business will be Committee of Supply in both committees. In Committee A, we will go to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, followed by the Ministry of Government Services; in Committee B, we will proceed with the Attorney General's estimates, followed by Attorney General ministry legislation.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
(continued)
On vote 16: minister's office, $424,063 (continued).
M. de Jong: I wonder if I could go back to an issue that we touched on only peripherally way back when these estimates started: the Legal Services Society, particularly the method by which it is funded. I don't intend to rehash all of the questioning and answers concerning the Agg report and its recommendations -- not at this point, anyway. The question I have for the Attorney General relates to that society's practices when information comes to it concerning allegations of fraud -- and it is fraud -- where an individual has been deemed eligible and the society later becomes aware or receives information that that person may not be eligible.
Quite frankly, the way this often comes about is in matrimonial situations where one spouse is covered by legal aid and the other isn't. I can say with some candour that there is a tendency in many instances on the part of the individual covered by legal aid to simply grind the other party into the ground. It's not costing them anything to go back to court time and time again, and the other party -- often the husband -- is obliged to finance his legal costs entirely. It represents a real inequity, and oftentimes justice isn't served, because one of the parties is simply put at a terrible financial disadvantage.
Can the Attorney General indicate whether that matter has been brought to his attention? Has he received information through some of the officials he places on the board that would indicate that they are addressing that issue and what they are doing to respond to information they receive concerning allegations of fraud on the part of individuals receiving legal services?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First, I have not directed members of the society to do anything. I need to make it really very clear that it's not my practice to do that, and it's not appropriate to do so. The board is independent and operates on its own. Second, the Legal Services Society has an internal mechanism by which it reviews any suggestions that decisions have been made inappropriately or that fraud is being committed. So that process is there for review.
The general point the member makes about one side in a matrimonial dispute not having their own money involved and grinding the process is a valid comment. One of the reasons some of the recommendations for change have been made is that this is seen as a way of assisting the system, from a financial perspective, and assisting the parties as well, in the long term. I hope that answers the questions the member has.
M. de Jong: It does, in part. The perspective I bring to the debate in this forum is that so much of the Attorney General's budget represents allocations to the Legal Services Society. I don't think it's inappropriate for the Attorney General to demand vigilance of that organization in terms of seeking out and disqualifying members of the public who have misrepresented their income and their eligibility.
[10:15]
The information I have received from various sources, and from my own experience, is that unlike other government agencies, such as Social Services, where there is a more
[ Page 10892 ]
rigid approach -- some would say not rigid enough -- to acting on information that is received, the experience within the Legal Services Society is quite the opposite. Once eligibility has been granted, the society is loathe to act on additional information it receives that suggests that eligibility may have been lost. Circumstances can certainly change over the course of one or two years of litigation. I bring that information to the Attorney General's attention and ask that.... Within the framework of this estimates debate, wherein we know that so much of the Attorney General's budget represents allocations to the Legal Services Society, I submit that it is not inappropriate to ask of the Attorney General that he demand vigilance on the part of the Legal Services Society.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's a fair point. It's also important for me to say that the Legal Services Society has very much improved its audit capacity and its activity in respect of auditing and looking into suggestions of fraud or ineligibility, where eligibility has been determined, or a change in circumstances. They do spot audits as well. It's fair to say that in the last little while the systems at the Legal Services Society have improved dramatically. I will also undertake to make sure -- and I'm sure there won't be any problem with this, because I think they do it anyway -- that the senior staff at the LSS receive copies of the Blues of this debate.
A. Warnke: My question for the Attorney General.... I won't belabour it -- maybe just a few questions. It involves something that the Oppal inquiry probably will be involved with as well, and it is to put on the record something that's a little outstanding. The case I refer to involves the Matsqui police, and I have wrestled with this as well. One criterion of justice is whether someone has really had their due in dealing with the legal process, and in ensuring that justice is done. One particular case in Matsqui involves the police and allegations of misconduct by the police. The argument goes that it involves a person whose livelihood and family have been affected, and who basically would want to seek a royal commission of inquiry. I think the Attorney General knows the case I'm referring to. The original request was turned down, yet on appeal through the ombudsman, the ombudsperson actually ruled in favour of reopening the case so that some form of royal commission of inquiry could deal with it. Obviously the Oppal inquiry will look into these matters, but by the same token, I would like to solicit the Attorney General's opinion of the best approach to pursue this matter and deal with the case so that it is not tied up. I'm sure the Attorney General is aware of the immense pressure that has been placed not only by one particular person but by a number of persons with regard to Matsqui and other cases as well -- North Vancouver, West Vancouver and so on. I would like to ask the Attorney General about the conditions under which a royal commission of inquiry can deal with matters of, let's say, the alleged police brutality in Matsqui. Is it being pursued? Would the Attorney General care to comment on that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, this is an issue that goes back to some discussions that were held last year between the member and the Assistant Deputy Attorney General. Correspondence was exchanged between the member and myself. We indicated very clearly at that time that the issues raised by this situation, and raised by the member, are very much in front of Mr. Justice Oppal. We're looking forward to his recommendations in respect of these procedures so that we can, in fact, have a process and a set of procedures in place that ensure that everybody has fair treatment and that the public interest is served. We're waiting for Mr. Justice Oppal's report. At this stage, there is not much more I can say.
A. Warnke: I thank the Attorney General for that response. I guess what I'm essentially trying to get at at this stage is: does the Attorney General really look forward to something coming from the Oppal inquiry, whereby cases such as that will have their day in court, through the justice system? Will the Attorney General be guided by what he suggests is a process and a set of procedures? Will he be guided exclusively by the Oppal inquiry, or will his ministry want to initiate any action to ensure that insensitive cases of this kind the parties making the inquiry will be satisfied?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think that at this stage it's prudent to await Mr. Justice Oppal's report. I can't predict what he's going to say, nor can I predict what our response to his report and recommendations will be. It's now best for all of us to await the report, read it with care and make sure that all the public concerns the member raises are dealt with -- and we can go from there.
A. Warnke: I have one last question. On the matter of the case I have in mind, I believe there was a recommendation by the ombudsperson. Has the Attorney General looked at what the ombudsperson put forward? Would he care to respond to that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The ombudsman made a recommendation, and we responded to it in a way that was different from what the ombudsman requested. Essentially, the issues have been sent to Justice Oppal for broad consideration. That has been our response.
A. Warnke: Just to clarify that, where it stands now, I'm to understand, is that the Attorney General's ministry has examined the ombudsman's report. The Attorney General has said that the ministry has responded differently.... By the same token, because there is the Oppal inquiry, the matter now is turned over to the Oppal inquiry. And that's where it currently sits. Is that correct?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The general issues -- the procedures or the way in which matters of this kind are dealt with -- are in front of Mr. Justice Oppal, and that's what we're awaiting. In April of last year the deputy minister indicated to the ombudsman that, for a variety of reasons, we would not be calling a public inquiry on that particular issue.
R. Chisholm: I have two or three questions here for the minister. I'd like to start off with the Gary Thompson case. I'd like to hear what your opinion of that case is and where we're heading with aboriginal justice.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In respect of the first issue, it's before the courts, and I'm just not going to make any comment one way or another. I have a very strict policy -- which I intend to maintain throughout my term in this job -- of not talking publicly about matters that are before the courts.
The member may want to be more specific in terms of his second question.
[ Page 10893 ]
The Chair: I also remind the members that we are governed by sub judice rules in committee as well.
R. Chisholm: In reference to that particular case, I understand your point of view, and I'll respect that.
Just for your own information, you might want to have somebody from your ministry at a meeting I've arranged with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the chiefs of the Sto:lo nation and a few of their representatives, on the 29th and 30th from 2:30 to 3:30 p.m. You might want to have somebody there, so you'll hear the issue as the Sto:lo nation sees it. They are rather upset with the justice system. Maybe this is a time you might want to get involved at this level.
The Chair: I guess advertising is allowed in committee.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We'll take that as a paid commercial and leave it at that. I can say that the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, in his capacity as chief prosecutor in British Columbia, has met with the family of the victim, I understand, and that the matter proceeds in a normal way, with a great deal of care and attention to people who are impacted by these events.
R. Chisholm: I appreciate that, but they're talking about aboriginal justice at that point in time. Maybe a ministry representative could be at that meeting to hear their point of view when they address the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.
The second question I have is about the Chilliwack courthouse -- again. I'd like to talk about whether the courthouse's status is to be Provincial Court or Supreme Court as in the past. The reason I ask this, hon. minister, is that I asked that question back in 1992. I can stand here and quote Hansard to you from 1992, 1993 and 1994, where you told me that the courthouse would be replaced, the land had been procured and all the rest of it. I have now received a letter that you sent to the mayor of Chilliwack stating that it has been put off. Just where is Chilliwack on this priority list? I can tell you where it is geographically. It's up the valley between Hope and Abbotsford. But where is it on your courthouse priority list? Number one? Number 30? After all, it was promised back in 1992; it was promised in 1993; it was promised in 1994. I'll quote it to you if you wish.
[10:30]
Obviously, it has been put off to the side again for another year. People are being interviewed in the hallways of the courthouse. They have nowhere to detain people, and the justice system is falling apart. On top of that, we're now discussing whether it will be Supreme Court or Provincial Court. This issue is beyond belief. It's time that they have some answers so they know where they stand, and I wish the hon. minister would clarify a few of these points for my riding.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't think I can add very much to what I said earlier in these estimates about the Chilliwack situation. There are a lot of courthouse and other capital construction projects on the ministry list of issues we want to proceed with. We have been unable to do so because we have agreed with the opposition with respect to keeping our borrowing down and not going on a spending spree in tough times, when people aren't prepared to pay more in taxes. The total ministry capital budget for this year is $70 million, and that means we can't do the whole list. The Chilliwack courthouse replacement is on the list, and it will be up for consideration -- along with a lot of other projects -- as we develop capital plans in future fiscal years.
Whether there should be Supreme Court facilities in Chilliwack, or in Matsqui, as your colleague would prefer, is an issue that requires some further thinking and perhaps some agreement between the two opposition members about what they would like to have happen, which would help me a lot in terms of decision-making. But frankly, the decision-making is not going to based on political considerations but rather on the appropriate facilities and communities for long-term court and other justice system planning.
I don't know whether I can say anything more. I can't provide any new information, other than to say that Chilliwack is on the list, and it remains an issue that I would like proceed with -- if I can persuade the opposition to allow us to borrow more money.
R. Chisholm: Hon. minister, on April 14, 1992, you stated in Hansard: "Just while I'm on my feet, I am going to go back to the courthouse question from the member for Chilliwack and just indicate to the member that 1994, in fact, is the target date for completion of the new courthouse in Chilliwack." That's this year. This year it has been announced that the Prince George and Coquitlam courthouses are being built, yet in 1992 we have you saying that Chilliwack's is number one and will be built. That's just one quote. I can go back to the Minister of Government Services when the land was procured, and I can quote that to you, too.
If there isn't any political situation here, then how come Prince George and Coquitlam got their courthouses built? How come it was promised that it would be built in Chilliwack in 1994, and now you can't even tell me where it is on the priorities list? As far as Chilliwack is concerned, it has been cancelled.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member's own quote would indicate that 1994 was the target year for the beginning of construction of the Chilliwack replacement.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's right, it was the target. But there are a lot of other facilities that have had their target years delayed and put over to later years. It's just a reality of trying to deal with tough capital budgets. The government has a problem across the board, particularly in respect of school construction, so a lot of capital projects that had planning targets have had those target years delayed. It's not just Chilliwack where that has happened.
In respect of where it sits in a priorities list, we don't have a precise one, two, three, four, five kind of priorities list; it changes year to year. What might be a top-ranking priority this year may drop next year because of some other urgent need that comes along. So these questions get decided on a year-to-year basis. In both cases, Coquitlam and Prince George were issues that were long overdue, and from any objective analysis they had higher priority in terms of needing to be replaced.
There were situations in Port Coquitlam where the court was literally being interrupted by the noise of the rats scurrying around the building -- and I'm talking about four-legged ones.... There were situations where officers of the court were increasingly unwilling to work in that building; and anyone who's spent time there was aware of that. So that was very clearly a higher priority than many of the others on the list. There was a longstanding commitment of at least four governments to get on with the project in Prince George that long predated the Chilliwack
[ Page 10894 ]
commitment. So we have to make these kinds of tough decisions.
I can assure the member that decisions are not made for political reasons; they are made on the basis of getting the best dollar and the best court planning we can get.
R. Chisholm: Like I said before, they're doing their interviewing in the hallways, and they're detaining people in the hallways and foyers. Maybe you can send out some tents and barbed wire, and we can make a compound to hold these people. In the meantime it is quite inadequate, and that's the point. We've got to have some sort of facility to accommodate the court system in that end of the valley, and it's obviously not forthcoming. Now you're telling me that this priorities list will be shifted left, right and centre.
I don't have anything else, other than that promises were made and promises were broken. I would hope that you would look into this situation and the disaster we have on our hands in Chilliwack.
J. Dalton: I have some questions on the family maintenance enforcement program, as we shift around. I know all members on this side hear a lot of complaints about the family maintenance program. Certainly, since I was named the critic last November, I've had a volume of complaints about it. I can appreciate that this area is a sensitive one. It is, unfortunately, one that attracts many customers, if I can put it that way.
I had the occasion to visit the Burnaby office of Themis Program Management, which, as the Attorney General knows, has been the manager of this family maintenance program since February. The caseload at that time was 23,000 clients. That's a lot of files to manage. Just the other day, a report in the Times-Colonist said that there are 20,500 cases. Perhaps the first thing I will ask the Attorney General is: has the caseload dropped, or are these figures a little out of whack? It says 20,500 in the Times-Colonist of May 16.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, the caseload numbers have not dropped. Perhaps that figure didn't include out-of-province cases. In fact, the numbers have increased in each year. I think I've given these numbers before, but in '90-91 there were 13,500, in '91-92 there were 17,750, in '92-93 there were 21,000, and in '93-94 there were 22,500. The 20,500 figure may well be a figure that excludes out-of-province.
J. Dalton: I can appreciate that. Obviously, we're not so concerned here with the numbers. It's certainly a system that is crying out for proper management. I'm not suggesting that the management isn't proper, but I am saying that a lot of MLAs in the opposition are getting complaints -- from both sides, I might say. The vast majority of clients are women. That's an unfortunate social reality, but I've had occasion to talk to men as well as women who have complained.
It's interesting that when you get into these topics it's like anything else dealing with justice. All you need to do is open up the newspaper.... We don't rely on the newspaper to source our information, but the newspaper is a bellwether of public concern and interest.
The Vancouver Province of May 15 gives one example where a woman is complaining. I'll just give some factual background. She was separated in May 1992 and registered on the program. Family maintenance didn't get around to placing a lien on the husband's home until February 1993. They finally intercepted his wages in April 1993.
I just cite that as an example. There are problems like that. I appreciate that these things are going to happen because of the volume. I'm not suggesting that each and every case has delays of that nature, but they are not unusual. As I said, I had the occasion to visit Themis Program Management. I must say I was impressed with the operation and layout, and the people seem to be dedicated and well-organized. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the system is without need of improvement. That's the first point I wanted to get on the record.
The article in the Times-Colonist also points out that as far as the people registered with family maintenance are concerned, the program recovers 66 cents for every dollar owing. Do I take that to mean that the balance of 34 cents is going to administration costs, and therefore the recipients are perhaps not getting the full value of their money?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The 66 cents represents what actually was paid of the amount that ought to have been paid. So 34 cents has, for one reason or another, remained unpaid. That's accounted for by this year's expectation that 9 percent of the people never pay, and another 59 percent partly pay. That's where the 34 cents comes in.
In terms of the first point, I know that the member just made the point and didn't necessarily expect me to respond, but I would like to respond. There are always going to be complaints with any program that anybody operates. If you buy a new vehicle, you're going to have something go wrong with it. Something will go wrong with everything we do in our society.
It's remarkable that in '93-94 we received 290 written complaints in British Columbia; Ontario gets 300 complaints a week. In last year's estimates, I think I said that every MLAs has had experience with the FMEP, and in the first year or two of our term in government, a lot of MLAs had a lot of complaints. I think it's true -- and the canvassing I've done of MLAs' offices indicates it is -- that the number of complaints to MLAs' offices has gone down dramatically in the last while. There will always be some complaints; there's no question about that. But when you compare how we now operate in British Columbia with the rest of the country, this is by far the most effective program, in an area that's very difficult to deal with. Governments in this province have known that for the last 15 years, and attempts to get a proper program have been worked on in a very vigorous and rigorous way. I remember sitting in this House and criticizing Grace McCarthy and other Ministers of Social Services, in particular, who were unable to get on with effectively developing a program. When we talked to the staff who were trying to develop the programs, the reasons were obvious: this is a very difficult program to develop.
[10:45]
I think that we have the best in the country now, although it's not perfect. Efforts are being made to make it better, and we're going to keep doing that. Some legislative improvements can assist in that as well. We're going to keep working at it.
J. Dalton: As I said before, I can appreciate that given the volume of business in that operation, naturally there will be people who won't be satisfied. Like anything else that has to do with justice, there are going to be some unhappy customers. They're not necessarily always the losers; sometimes they are those who, in one way or another, detect that the system itself isn't necessarily serving society as well as it might. That's more of a generic comment than a specific one.
I would be interested in the Attorney General's view as to whether British Columbia is getting the requisite cooperation from other provinces. A lot of these cases are
[ Page 10895 ]
out-of-province. There is definitely an ongoing need to ensure that other provinces -- and I suppose even states south of the border, although that's a jurisdictional problem -- cooperate as far as collecting. Any comments the Attorney General can offer the committee in that regard would be helpful.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I've forgotten the date now, but last year sometime the Premiers signed a protocol in respect of this issue, pledging interprovincial cooperation. I'm told that that cooperation is very much a fact now. There is full cooperation among provinces in respect of the enforcement of maintenance payments.
J. Dalton: I appreciate that, and I certainly encourage the government, and in particular the Attorney General, to carry on with that, because that's obviously vital to preserve the integrity of such a program. I certainly am glad to hear that when you compare British Columbia to the other provinces, we are seemingly ahead of the game. Let's hope we stay ahead of the game.
The Attorney General and I have had some discussions, both through correspondence and on the telephone, about what I have personally observed, and I think I'm not alone. I perceive what some might call a gender bias in some court proceedings. Maybe it's the nature of the beast. Of course, there are so many women registered in the program. I think it's in the 90-percent-plus range. It may be 97 percent; I'm not sure. I have personally attended court on occasion on fact-finding missions to witness the process firsthand. The Attorney General is aware of one case that I attended in North Vancouver, and I still am not convinced that the response I got was completely accurate. I've also discussed this issue with Roy Dungey, the director of family maintenance. The point I am making now is that I have observed, and have had complaints from other people, that the process in court is sometimes a little heavy-handed.
I can recognize that there are, as they euphemistically call them, deadbeat dads out there, and there are even a few deadbeat moms, I suppose, who fall behind in their payments or abscond or whatever. In fact, this same Times-Colonist article of last week indicates that about one father a month goes to jail. Roy Dungey reported that information. I personally know of two fathers who go to jail fairly regularly, and they're both decent people. They are both people who have become victimized, in a way, by perhaps a misguided approach to trying to solve a very serious problem. Of course, the problem is to make sure that people who can pay do pay.
In the particular case I observed in North Vancouver -- and I stand to be corrected, but I believe I am right -- there were two employees from the Burnaby office attending court that day who had no particular business in that courtroom. As far as I'm concerned, and according to others who have reported similar incidents to me, they were there to ensure that the father in question was sent off to jail, which he was in this case. Maybe that's necessary. But having talked to this gentleman and having gone over his track record and the proceedings, I don't think that is really the way to preserve the integrity of the family maintenance program.
As the Attorney General knows, there are provisions for committal in the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act. They allow for other things: a period of up to 30 days each time the debtor fails to pay, and you can accumulate that and produce a total not exceeding 90 days. In the case I was attending in North Vancouver, this gentleman went off to jail for probably about the fourth time over the last few years. He ended up in New Haven, which is an appropriate place for someone who's not dangerous.
The point I would like the Attorney General to comment on is this: is it necessarily appropriate that we get so heavy-handed? Do we have to bring the heavy hand of the law down on the admittedly few people who are making an honest effort to address their problems and their family's problems -- problems of access and of trying to stay employed when their wages are being garnisheed? In the other case, the gentleman I talked to is a dentist, actually, and it's very difficult for a dentist to run his practice when he's in and out of jail. It's not really the way to satisfy patient confidentiality and confidence. So could we perhaps not revisit this absconding-debtor-type attitude that is evidenced in the Family Maintenance Act, and maybe come up with some other ways...? For example, avoiding the courts altogether, I think, would be most preferable -- or mediation and other things that we've talked about. But that may be a little beyond the particular point that I'm making.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not going to talk about particular cases, but I am going to say two things. One is that it's very, very rare that people end up in jail as a result of failure to pay. There's a very simple solution to all of this, and one that all members should encourage their constituents to follow: people should pay their obligations to look after their children; and look after payments that the court has ordered, or payments that they have agreed to make. If they would do that, there wouldn't be any problem at all.
J. Dalton: A point well taken. Obviously, if people could pay all their obligations, we wouldn't need courts, we wouldn't need lawyers, we wouldn't need tax accountants -- and we could probably do away with politicians too, and we'd all be happier. However, there is a reality.
Interjection.
J. Dalton: Again, I'm not completely convinced that the things that I've personally observed and heard about are necessary. I think they're a little heavy-handed.
I do remind the Attorney General that I personally attended a case where two people, as far as I'm concerned, had no business being in that courtroom. In fact, I overheard a conversation that they had with the lawyer of record for family maintenance, once the proceedings were finished, and they said: "We've got to get back to the Burnaby office." Well, that begs the question: why were they in a North Vancouver courtroom, when they are working out of a Burnaby office? I don't need the Attorney General to reply to that; this is something that I'm going to continue to watchdog, because I think it may be evidence of a rather disturbing trend or one that we certainly want to avoid.
I have this material in my file, and I'd be happy to share it with the Attorney General after the estimates are finished. We won't belabour the point here. But one of the judges in the proceedings involving this gentleman that I'm talking of made the comment last year in court that one of the major difficulties behind all of this mess, which goes back many years, is that the father in question is having difficulties enforcing access -- which is a court order. When you throw a wrench into the works, involving the emotional upset, and the father's entitled to access and has been denied it, and that's not been properly enforced.... Well, I think the Attorney General can well understand why a father may from time to time fall behind in his maintenance payments. I
[ Page 10896 ]
can assure you I know this father well enough to know that he's not the sort who's going to abandon his children financially, but he's in a very difficult state. He's separated from his family; he has an access order; the judge says that that order should be enforced; when it isn't properly enforced, then everything gets messed up.
Then the bottom line is that somebody is sent off to New Haven now and then, and I submit that I don't think that's the approach that should be taken. There are some, sure, that I think should go to jail; maybe we should never let them out of jail.
There's another factor: sending someone to jail isn't going to get the maintenance payment up to date. It has quite the opposite effect. Sending someone to jail gets them upset; they get ticked off at the system, and probably the next thing they're going to do when they get out of jail is either declare bankruptcy or flee the province. They're going to do almost anything to avoid that system which sent them to jail in the first place.
So I do invite the Attorney General to perhaps re-examine the process whereby the debtor, which is usually the father, is getting into these rather unfortunate situations. But as I say, I'd be more than happy to share some of my thoughts with the Attorney General on that matter outside of these estimates, so I won't pursue that one.
I have just one other thing that I want to ask about in particular that is a little more polite and won't take long, and then I believe some of my colleagues want to get back in. My question deals with the provincial emergency program. As the Attorney General and all members know, just the other day we had a preparedness exercise for the earthquake that's going to hit the lower mainland one day. It could be tomorrow or 50 years from now -- who knows?
The particular point is that as the Attorney General knows, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale and I attended at the Victoria office on the day that operation took place. I am interested to know what specific coordination there is between the Victoria operations and the communities, which of course are going to be affected directly when the big one hits. It might not be an earthquake; maybe the first disaster will be a forest fire or a hurricane. I remember -- back in the sixties, I guess it was -- when Hurricane Frieda hit Vancouver. That was certainly a disaster of some magnitude that I don't think anyone had thought about.
Some of the municipalities, the Attorney General will also know, did not participate in that exercise during the first week of May, and I think that's unfortunate. You can't force them to participate, but it seems to me that we're at cross-purposes if some of the lower mainland municipalities are not willing to come forward and participate in a very important exercise, because they're going to be victimized just like every other municipality. So again, my question to the Attorney General involves the coordination and cooperation between Victoria and the lower mainland municipalities in an exercise of this sort.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The exercise at the beginning of May was in fact designed to help sort out the kinds of problems, among others, that the member talks about. I think we learned from the exercise that there are some issues that need further discussion. I think the exercise helped to raise awareness among local government officials and the public. There was great cooperation from the media in trying to make the exercise real. I think that it served a useful purpose in advancing the cause of making sure that everybody is prepared and can work together. The exercise in May also had the role, obviously, of integrating the federal response with our own and with the local response. We'll just keep working at trying to make progress in respect of getting everybody prepared. It's a long and difficult challenge, but I think we're making good progress and will continue to do so.
[A. Warnke in the chair.]
J. Dalton: Hon. Chair, it's nice to see you in the chair. As with some previous Chairs, we don't get to see you too much, perhaps; now we see you in the chair, that's fine.
[11:00]
I'll just make one other observation about emergency preparation. Again, I know we can't mandate to the municipalities that they must participate or formulate plans. I'm hoping, of course, that the Attorney General, his ministry and Victoria in general will continue to encourage municipalities to do so, because this is becoming more of an important topic, as people realize when they witness San Francisco and Los Angeles -- two areas that are fairly close by where earthquakes have hit recently. I think that too often we allow ourselves to slide into the false feeling that it won't happen, or if it does that it will happen when we're out of town or whatever. Of course, that isn't the case.
I'm very pleased to say that at least the ministry is working on these programs, but I would certainly encourage the government to further prod the municipalities -- and, of course, not just the lower mainland. I think every municipality and region of British Columbia should be encouraged to have emergency and disaster programs in place and, more importantly, to coordinate their efforts. I'm happy to say that on the North Shore we have an excellent game plan in mind, but I'm not so sure that the municipalities across the inlet or in neighbouring regions have a similar cooperative plan in place. That could have a very adverse effect. If one municipality is highly organized, the disorganized municipality next to it would be looking to be bailed out of a very difficult situation.
So I again encourage the minister to carry on with these initiatives and to mandate to the municipalities as much as possible, because it's at the local level -- as the Attorney General can appreciate -- that these programs make sense. That local level gets right into the schools, for example, and into other community identities of that nature.
I don't believe that invites a comment, unless of course the Attorney General wishes, and I believe my colleague from Matsqui has some more questions.
M. de Jong: My question relates to the Crown Counsel Act, and I want to emphasize that my questioning in this field is not designed to relate to any specific case or any specific matter that might be under investigation. Quite candidly, the observation that I have made as the Attorney General and I have discussed these matters in other circumstances is that he and I have a fundamentally different view of how the legislation is designed or intended to work. In trying to justify the nature of my questions in this form, I should also say that I approach it on the basis that the Attorney General's ministry has a department within its confines that is funded, and that funding is reflected in these estimates. So I bring my questioning within that purview.
My question centres around my observation of how the Attorney General views the process that has been created for investigations of a politically sensitive nature: that it must at all times be initiated by the ADAG, and once that process is initiated there is no room for further involvement by the Attorney General himself or the Deputy Attorney General; that there is a threshold that is reached, and the matter is
[ Page 10897 ]
then referred to the ADAG; and even beyond that, that any sort of investigation must be initiated by the ADAG.
I must confess that that is not necessarily my reading of the act. Without referring to any specific section, I was left with the impression when the act was pronounced that this mechanism would allow the Attorney General of British Columbia to step away from the decision-making process as to whether a prosecution should proceed. It's generally acknowledged that there is wisdom in doing that. An Attorney General is placed in an extremely difficult circumstance when, for example, he or she is obliged to make a decision concerning the prosecution of a colleague. I understand the logic for the act, and I understand the raison d'etre, if you will, for trying to distance the Attorney General from decisions of that nature.
One of the difficulties I have, however, is that once that decision has been made, once that process has kicked in, the investigation occurs, and there is a recommendation either to prosecute or to not prosecute. When one accepts that that decision is taken separately and without interference by or reference to the Attorney General himself, the act seems to contemplate -- and one could conceive of it being proper -- some manner of involvement of the Attorney General's office. The decision to prosecute or to proceed must, in my view, be taken separately. I don't know if I'm being fair in suggesting that the Attorney General and I seem to have different concepts of how the process follows, but I'd appreciate hearing his comments on that.
G. Wilson: I rise to request leave for an introduction.
Leave granted.
G. Wilson: I rise with great pleasure today to welcome to this Legislative Assembly 17 students from the Assumption school in Powell River, who are here with their teacher Mark Watson to witness democracy at work. Accompanying these students also are parents Drew Kilback, Jackie Silvester and Bridget Bigold. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion with the member in this forum rather than in the charged and inappropriate forum of question period, where information exchange is not the order of the day but scoring political points of various kinds is.
First of all, I need to say that I appreciate that the member does understand the notions that underpin the legislation, which, just for the record, came out of the recommendations made by Mr. Owen in the late 1980s, following the Bill Reid issues. It was adopted by the House in '91 after a good debate, which I remember listening to with care. The government of the day and the official opposition of the day debated and supported this approach to dealing with politically sensitive charges, and not just those concerning colleagues in the House but concerning other individuals and situations in our society where there could be some suggestion of political interference if the Attorney General were not protected by an arrangement. I'll just take a minute on this, because I think it's a really important issue, and the public has not grasped how this works very well.
The choices we had were the old system, where there was constantly the ability to suggest that prosecutorial decisions were or could have been made by a political decision-making process that clearly did not serve the justice system well at all, through to a completely independent system characterized by many as DPP, where you have a director of public prosecutions who is independent from government and does not have any reporting requirements to the cabinet. You lose the accountability that we value so highly in our system if you move to that kind of model. I know there are some in the legal community who advocate it. I noticed a recent article by some individuals in the Vancouver media recommending that we move to a director-of-public-prosecutions system.
Having had a couple of years to work with this in a variety of circumstances, I think we have the best of all worlds with this particular approach. We maintain the accountability of the criminal justice branch to the Legislature, demonstrated very clearly by the fact that with me today is the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, who can advise me in respect of issues that come up about that branch of government. That's important and should be maintained. At the same time, built into the act are the clear protections, security and confidence it should give the public that the cabinet minister responsible isn't going to interfere and give any directions in respect of prosecuting or not prosecuting -- or these charges or those charges, or whatever. To do so is a violation of the Crown Counsel Act, unless the Attorney General puts it in writing. In these special prosecutor situations, the same provision applies for the Deputy Attorney General. That provides a very real safeguard for the public so that the public can know with certainty that there is no political interference. If I were to give a direction and not put it in writing, that's cause for my instant resignation, and it would be proffered if I.... Any Attorney General would have to. You can't violate the Crown Counsel Act and keep this job, and that's really clear.
To try to home in on the point the member was describing, in these cases the deputy minister or the Attorney General can, in writing, direct the criminal justice branch -- the ADAG -- to take a different course of action. I have never given that kind of direction, as the member knows. There has never been a gazetted direction. My position is that if these are highly charged political matters, as some have been in recent years, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to give direction.
My response to the member in question period and my response in the hallway to members simply uses, as a starting point, the fact that I wouldn't give direction in a politically charged prosecution. I wouldn't do it; it's inappropriate. If for some reason an Attorney General needed to be able to do it, the protection is there, and there may be a circumstance where that could occur. I haven't yet encountered one, or even come close to encountering one, but there may be an occasion where an Attorney General may feel that he or she has to give direction. Then the opportunity is there, but it's a safeguard; it is not a routine procedure. I view the legislation simply as a safeguard.
M. de Jong: If there is a difference -- and the Attorney General may have identified it -- it is reaching that balance between political accountability and non-interference in a process where there must be an element of depoliticization. Part of the frustration that one experiences is that, for better or worse, it's the Attorney General who is placed in a position where, on behalf of the ministry, he or she can be asked questions in a very public forum.
The Attorney General already answered one of the questions I was going to ask, and that is: could he conceive of a circumstance in which he would issue a directive? My other question on that point is: could he conceive of a circumstance in which the Attorney General would initiate the appointment of the special prosecutor?
[ Page 10898 ]
I'll say this quite frankly, though I agree implicitly with the intent of the legislation. I have begun to observe that legislation of this sort -- and legislation that created the conflict-of-interest commissioner, not to muddy the waters -- is affording the political masters, those whom we have an opportunity to question and presumably hold accountable, an opportunity to essentially hide behind that legislation or in a very dramatic way to abdicate the authority that one would normally associate with the office. I mean this -- certainly at this point -- with no disrespect. But that represents part of the frustration.
[11:15]
The Attorney General is entirely correct when he suggests that many of these matters need to be depoliticized. But we may have gone too far, in the sense that the political masters are now essentially afforded an opportunity to stand up and say: "I can't and don't need to answer or deal with that, because it's been sent elsewhere." It could be sent elsewhere pursuant to a legislative framework that I know was created with the best of intentions. But I'm alerting the Attorney General to a phenomenon that I have seen arise out of this legislative framework.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's clear that that's so; there is an ability on the part of the Attorney General of the day to deflect issues to a public servant. However, it's a public servant vested with extraordinary powers and responsibilities in respect of the law of the province. That's a decision this Legislature took with some comfort three years ago, and my sense is that that comfort still exists.
You have to think about the way it would be if it was the other way around and the Attorney General of the day was standing up here and defending a particularly charged decision in respect of a colleague. I was fairly young, but I still have very vivid memories of Bob Bonner and Bob Sommers. Bob Bonner was probably sitting in about this spot when one of his colleagues was in trouble. There were other incidents over the years where there were suggestions; sometimes the suggestions weren't valid, sometimes they were, or sometimes they were grey.
There were a number of situations over the years where the opposite situation would exist, and that's worse. In any detailed or casual analysis of situations where an Attorney General could be standing up and defending whether someone was or wasn't charged, or charged or not charged appropriately, when that person is a colleague, a political crony or whatever else, it would just be untenable, and I don't think the system could stand that anymore. What we've tried to do is find the best balance.
The second section of the act also provides a direct requirement of the ADAG -- and I'm going to read it because it's important -- "to liaise with the media and affected members of the public on all matters respecting approval and conduct of prosecutions of offences or related appeals." When the time is appropriate for that discussion with the public and the media, the Assistant Deputy Attorney General does have those kinds of discussions.
We take that a step further with members of the House, as the member, who is newer than most, may not be as familiar with as others. On the occasions when it's appropriate, either at the initiative of our office or the initiative of members, we have confidential discussions with members of the House about particular situations, so that members who have an interest in an issue that can't be talked about publicly can know what the background is. That is an opportunity that we have always made available, and I think it is an important thing to do. That existed to a certain extent in previous years, too, depending on the incumbent and the critic of the day. Sometimes relationships weren't good, and sometimes they were and it worked. It's worked well in the last couple of years, and I want us to continue with that kind of relationship.
To get to the member's point again, it means that in particular situations where a special prosecutor is involved the direct question period stuff doesn't work in the traditional way. Unless I direct it in writing, as Attorney General, I am not accountable for the decision in the narrow sense of the decision that's made. I'm accountable for the officers and the branch; I'm accountable for lots of things, but not about that particular charge decision. That's the way it should be and has to be, because the alternatives are untenable.
M. de Jong: I appreciate, at the very least, the Attorney General's candour in explaining his approach and interpretation of the legislation. I'm certain he will, if not approve, be aware of and sympathetic to the attempt that I will make to ensure that the scale doesn't tip overly in favour of the direction that I have described and observed it going. This is not the place to be debating the appropriateness of any particular piece of legislation, so I don't intend to do that.
I will simply suggest to the Attorney General, again with the greatest respect and truly without reference to any particular case and as a general comment only, that the degree of independence -- which I'm certain exists in practice and which, the Attorney General points out, is attempted to be created by the legislative framework -- is lost on many members of the public, when one accepts that the independent officer is found in the Attorney General's ministry. The Attorney General is alive to the fact that differing models were considered. And he correctly points out that the Legislature of the day opted for a model that we see enshrined in the Crown Counsel Act.
The difficulty that seems to be arising in its basest form is: "This is a decision of my ministry that I'm not involved with." I accept that for the Attorney General in cases past, that has been the procedure followed. But it is an approach, an answer and a protocol that is lost.... It certainly creates suspicion. The Attorney General correctly indicates that any communication he has or any direction he purports to give must be chronicled in writing, and he correctly points out that this has not taken place. But I must tell the Attorney General that it is frustrating and, in the case of many members of the public, difficult to conceive of decisions emanating from within the ministry -- notwithstanding the internal designation of the ministry official as being independent -- for which the minister himself is not accountable, for the reason the Attorney General gives: in many instances they are advisable. That is the dichotomy this legislation creates. I point it out to the Attorney General today so that he understands the difficulty I have with the approach the legislation takes.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's important for me to say that I understand what the member is saying. I share the view that many members of the public do not understand how this works, and their lack of understanding leads to conclusions which are incorrect. That's a real problem. What bothers me greatly on occasion -- too often recently -- is when people do know better. Some people who work in the media, especially the electronic media, tend to play political games with this in a way that does not serve the interests of British Columbians and the justice system at all. I find that really distressing.
[ Page 10899 ]
One of the things we obviously have to do is find a way of making sure that people in the media better understand how this works. Some members of the media do. In fact, a number of reporters who have spent some years here, and who were here during the late eighties through until now, have a very good understanding of the legislation, its purposes and how it works, and they convey an accurate impression in their stories. But too many do not, particularly some of those on the opinion side. That's really unfortunate, because the justice system is badly served by that, and as a result, people are badly served.
Let me say one more thing. The member says that it's frustrating that the Attorney General isn't accountable. If there is a special prosecutor, I am accountable. I'm not accountable for that decision unless I do something in writing, but I am accountable for the system that produces it. I'm accountable in a general way for how it works, and I accept that. But I am not accountable for the decision that may or may not be made. I appreciate how politics works, but I think there have been some questions asked in the Legislature in the last few weeks that have been inappropriate, frankly. The assumption is that somehow I am or could be responsible for the decision, the implication being that I should therefore direct in writing to involve myself in the decision. Well, can you imagine if I did that? Question period from here to the end of the session would be full of it -- and properly so.
So I think all members have a responsibility to help in trying to persuade the public that this system is as good as can be designed at the present time. I don't know of a better solution to the balance between accountability and independence -- the separation. I know this estimates time isn't for debating legislation. But if the member has suggestions, I would be very happy to hear from him -- not necessarily in this context, but outside of here. If he feels there are improvements to this act that would meet both of those tests and needs, I'd be very happy to have the member sit down with the Assistant Deputy Attorney General and actually have that conversation.
Nothing is ever writ in stone and nothing is ever perfect. But it's my view that this is as good as we can get, and that what we need to do now is try to educate members of the public about how it actually does work.
M. de Jong: I don't think my final comment on this will warrant or require a reply. The Attorney General indicates that a line has been drawn that he is content with. I'm not so certain that I am content with the line being way over here. I might like to see it readjusted, though certainly not over to where it was prior to when this legislation was enacted. I'm not entirely comfortable with where the line has been drawn now on the issues we've been discussing, and I'm certain that in the subsequent discussions we have, both in and outside this place, the Attorney General will be cognizant that that is where my difficulty lies.
[11:30]
J. Dalton: I have one more item I want to deal with briefly, and then -- who knows? Maybe it will be lunchtime.
The Attorney General is aware of the excellent initiative and program that was conducted on the North Shore last November under the title of "Together Against Violence." The first thing I would like to know from the Attorney General is -- and if his answer is no, I'll be happy to get him a copy -- did he receive a copy of the February '94 summary of Together Against Violence -- the one that I have here in my hand?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No doubt the ministry has a copy. I'm not familiar with that report. Does that come out of the conference that the member and I attended on the North Shore?
J. Dalton: Yes. This is the summary which is the follow-up to the conference. As the Attorney General says, I'm sure it must be in the ministry somewhere. I draw that to the committee's attention because it's an excellent and very detailed summary of the month-long initiatives conducted in North and West Vancouver. I'm not standing here just because I happen to be the MLA for the two communities in question; I'm standing here because I think it's this sort of initiative that can bring justice right to our communities and homes, and allow all of us, in whatever way, to participate.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
I have recently met with the people who spearheaded this campaign, and they are going to make this an ongoing endeavour. So I would like to ask the Attorney General whether we can expect funding to take place similar to the funding that was provided last year? It wasn't just Attorney General funding, but it did come out of that ministry, among others. These people have in mind that they are going to be asking the community to provide whatever funding may be needed. But I would hope that the Attorney General -- somewhere in his admittedly beleaguered budget, given that my colleague from Chilliwack wasn't able to get his courthouse for the umpteenth year -- could find a few dollars to spend on initiatives such as Together Against Violence, which is money very well spent.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: At this point I am unable to give a specific answer to the member's question. I will undertake to do so, either by way of discussion or by way of a letter following the estimates, because I'm just not up to date on that particular issue.
J. Dalton: I can appreciate that, and I think that's the appropriate way to approach these. Certainly we can pursue this further. But, again, I do encourage the Attorney General, if he has a spare moment -- and I'm sure that he has very few of those -- to look through this document and see the excellent summary that was put together, as well as some of the recommendations and the procedural things that they went through. I'm also informed by the organizers of this Together Against Violence month that this thing is, in effect, being franchised to other communities. A lot of people -- I believe even out of British Columbia -- have heard about the initiatives on the North Shore. If we can market this thing, it might be a money raiser. Who knows? Perhaps that's something that we will look into.
I believe that's all the questions I have for the Attorney General.
Vote 16 approved.
Vote 17: ministry operations, $731,044,818 -- approved.
Vote 18: statutory services, $15,000,000 -- approved.
Vote 19: judiciary, $33,241,202 -- approved.
Vote 20: emergency assistance, $993,557 -- approved.
[ Page 10900 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: With the agreement of members of the House, I'd like to call committee stage of Bill 5.
FAMILY RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
The House in committee on Bill 5; D. Lovick in the chair.
On section 1.
M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I'll be guided by your direction on this matter. My question is to the Attorney General. The bill purports to slightly amend the definition of a spouse as set out in the legislation. I note that legislation tabled in Ontario yesterday dramatically alters the definition of a spouse to include same-sex relationships. Again, I am guided by you, hon. Chair, but my question would be: has the Attorney General considered or is he considering introducing a similar amendment? I've only described it in a very general way.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I won't quarrel about it, but I suspect that the matter isn't really in order under this section. Nonetheless, this bill does not include changes of the kind that Ontario is now considering. I can say, just for the member's information, that a thorough review of all of the issues around that question is now going on in the ministry.
Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.
The Chair: A caution, if I may, members. I note that section 8 is very large. I would suggest that we break this into the logical chunks, as printed in the bill. Therefore we will deal first with section 55.1 under section 8, then section 55.2, and so forth, as separate items, if that's agreeable.
On section 8, section 55.1.
M. de Jong: The definition of "beneficiary" which appears in this particular section is very generic, and I think it arises out of the common law. However, having said that, is the Attorney General satisfied that it is sufficiently broad to capture individuals, and more particularly spouses of individuals, under the various quasi-pension plans or retirement annuity plans that exist? Have his staff and the drafters of the legislation given him their assurance that that is the case?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, we believe the definition is sufficiently broad.
M. de Jong: The section includes "disability pension" under the definitions section. There is a broader issue. As I went through the act, I wasn't sure where it would be more appropriate for me to ask the question. But I will ask it now and perhaps preclude any further need to discuss the matter. It's with regard to the relationship that exists between this legislation and its attempt to codify what has formerly been the judicial application of the Rutherford formula, generally, or some amendment to that formula. Can the Attorney General indicate what, if any, impact this section and the subsequent sections that relate to this issue will have on the relationship that exists between pension law under the Family Relations Act, once this amendment is enacted into law, and the federal pension law? I recognize that at the moment, British Columbia represents something of an anomaly among provincial jurisdictions in terms of spouses' abilities to contract out of the federal pension framework.
[11:45]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure I'm answering the member's questions. Clearly the Rutherford formula is the one that gets enacted or enshrined by way of this. If the member has further questions, or if I haven't answered that question, what I would actually prefer to do is wait until we can get at this this afternoon. I will have staff members here who can give better answers to these technical questions than I can give off the top of my head.
With that, I would move the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
The Speaker: By agreement, the summaries from both Committees A and B will be postponed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I didn't listen to the motion, but I gather there was resolution in the other committee, so we have two summaries to do. By way of agreement between the House Leaders, I think we can determine a time when each of those summaries can be presented to the House.
Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:49 a.m.
[ Page 10901 ]
The House in Committee of Supply A; B. Jones in the chair.
The committee met at 10:16 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)
On vote 55: minister's office, $420,000 (continued).
J. Weisgerber: I have two areas I would like to canvass this morning. First, I'd like some additional information on the asphalt recycling projects -- the resurfacing that's done with the hot-in-place asphalt machines. In answers to questions earlier in these estimates, the minister suggested that last year we did 500 lane-kilometres and that we will be doing the same this year. I've since been advised by people who watch these debates with great interest that indeed only 17 kilometres of resurfacing have yet been let or had tenders called. We're at May 18 or thereabouts. Could the minister give me an indication of the time frames in which she expects the remaining 480 lane-kilometres to be called to tender? In what regions of the province will those tenders be called? The timing of those activities in the various regions can perhaps be brought together, recognizing, as I'm sure the minister will, that this work goes much more efficiently during hot weather. As we've found out in the past, doing this kind of work at low temperatures is much more expensive because of the cost of heating the surface and the road material. Could the minister give us a detailed outline of what her plans are respecting this important activity?
Hon. J. Pement: We are in the process of putting out tenders for these projects. As to a full breakdown of regions, etc., I would have to get back to the member with that information; I do not have it at hand.
J. Weisgerber: If the minister will give me an undertaking to provide that information and the dates as soon as possible, I will move to the next topic.
I would like to get some information about the certificate of insurance that the ministry currently requires for equipment working for the ministry. My understanding is that all suppliers of equipment or services are required to provide to the ministry proof of liability insurance, as outlined on the reverse of this certificate of insurance. It has been brought to my attention that the extent of the insurance coverage required appears to be totally appropriate for someone bidding on a major piece of roadwork such as a contractor building a bridge or a piece of the Island Highway.
It has also been pointed out to me that this same condition applies to someone with a loader, a backhoe or a grader -- an individual piece of equipment -- wanting to work on a casual or a part-time basis for the ministry. They are required to provide proof of insurance coverage meeting the requirements outlined on the back of the certificate of insurance. Indeed, in the letter that I saw to one of my constituents, it was suggested that it would take ten days to two weeks to get a rider with this kind of coverage naming the Ministry of Transportation and Highways as an additional insured; and that for anyone hoping to get work with that ministry, it would be a good idea for them to apply ahead of time, purchase this coverage and have it available.
While the kinds of coverage outlined on the back of this may well be appropriate for a major contractor, they seem totally inappropriate for someone wishing only to provide a service in terms of equipment or material to a site. If the minister wants to comment, I will be happy to listen. Failing that, I have a rather comprehensive critique of three or four of the clauses on that certificate that I would be happy to bring to the minister's attention. Perhaps I should take my place and get an initial response, at least, from the minister.
Hon. J. Pement: Considering the specifics you may be looking for, I would appreciate hearing about your areas of concern before getting back to you with a more detailed response.
J. Weisgerber: With regard to clause 1, the latter part says that the additional named insured is "added as an additional named insured in respect of liability arising from the work or operations of the insured and the additional named insured" -- which is the Ministry of Transportation and Highways -- "in connection with contracts, entered into between the insured and the additional named insured" -- being the ministry.
An interpretation of that by someone who I think has good knowledge suggests that this in fact names the Minister of Transportation and Highways as a full named insured for all liability arising from their work or operations. In other words, someone on site could find themselves liable for the actions of the ministry in which they may have taken no part other than to be on site as one of the contractors. It seems like a rather serious overkill. The coverage requested here appears to go far beyond what one would normally require of a contractor.
Clause 2, the "Extension of Coverage" says: "...all liability arising out of completed operations, blanket written contractual, contingent employer's liability, non-owned automobile liability and liability assumed by the contractor in connection with and applicable to the contract." This seems to fall into that area of requiring far more coverage than would be reasonably expected.
Clause 4 goes on to say: "...work to be performed by the ministry or the contractor shall not be excluded from insurance coverage, where such type of work or operation is to be performed by either party...." That doesn't seem reasonable; indeed it seems unreasonable to ask a small contractor to provide insurance coverage to this extent.
There are other examples. It goes on to say, according to my interpretation, that a contractor is committed to carrying 12 months' operation coverage after the contracted work has been completed. Again, this is an entirely reasonable request for a major contractor, but an unreasonable request for someone who provides a backhoe for two or three afternoons of casual work for the ministry.
I'm wondering whether or not the ministry would be prepared to reassess this document with the idea of developing a more appropriate list of required coverages for small contractors. I believe what's happening today is that insurance agents are either not examining the reverse side of the certificate of insurance request or they're simply ignoring it and providing the ministry with proof of liability insurance coverage, which doesn't go nearly as far as the conditions on the back would require. I believe we have the ministry asking contractors to provide one thing and contractors providing something less, and I think there's the
[ Page 10902 ]
potential for a great deal of grief should a serious accident occur and people started suing each other.
I'd very much like the ministry to examine this issue in some detail. I'm not sure that it's reasonable for us in this particular exchange to get those kinds of commitments, but I certainly would like to have a commitment to examine the whole certificate of insurance and the coverage requirements that are spelled out in it.
Hon. J. Pement: Certainly we'll take these concerns under advisement, and we'll get back to the member with regard to the issue he's presented. Basically we are trying for some reasonable list, as you were saying, that there be a commonsense and reasonable approach so we have proper coverage under the circumstances you're outlining.
J. Weisgerber: What I will do in winding up is hope that we can get a response reasonably quickly and, more importantly, get some advice out to contractors -- if indeed a number of them are as concerned as the group that approached me about this situation. If the minister, in winding up, could give me some sense of timing, I wouldn't be waiting with anticipation at my mailbox every day but would just log it for some date down the road.
Hon. J. Pement: We need to get the information out as quickly as possible. If you could get the full details of the information that has been given to you, we will try for a time frame of two to three weeks.
R. Neufeld: I have a number of questions. The first one goes back to yesterday; I wanted to wait until I had read the Blues to get the minister's response.
This has to do with the May 12 news release from B.C. 21 on highway projects in Peace River North totalling more than $3.5 million. These are rehabilitation programs being announced in a B.C. 21 news release. I asked the minister why it would come from B.C. 21 rather than the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, because I understand from the minister that it has nothing to do with the Transportation Financing Authority, as far as money goes. The $3.5 million spending that's going to take place in Peace River North is coming straight out of the ministry's budget. The minister's response was: "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, employment, regional development and local hire."
I didn't go any further because I first wanted to read what the minister said, and I'm quite surprised. I gather from this that the Ministry of Highways does not believe in local hire. Would that be correct? If it has to come out as a B.C. 21 news release, and the reason is regional development, local hire and equity in employment, do those criteria fall only under B.C. 21? Do those criteria not fall under the Ministry of Transportation and Highways?
Hon. J. Pement: If you look at the news release, it was issued under the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. It also has the B.C. 21 logo, with regard to the government's full approach. It's within Highways and within B.C. 21 that we are developing the criteria.
R. Neufeld: Does the Highways ministry believe in equity in employment, regional development and local hire?
Hon. J. Pement: I would say that we are compatible with the B.C. 21 program.
R. Neufeld: I want to go to an announcement the minister made in Peace River North. You'll have to help me here a bit. You announced construction of a bridge across, I believe, the Nass River. Would I be correct that it's going to replace the present single-lane bridge? I can't remember which community it goes to, but maybe you could help me with that.
Hon. J. Pement: The bridge that you're requesting information on goes to Canyon City, up in the Nass area. The existing bridge is a footbridge.
R. Neufeld: You're replacing a footbridge with a bridge for vehicles. Okay, fine.
I want to go to motor carriers for a bit, and deal with the wear and tear on our highways from the eight-axle configurations. I notice this a lot in my constituency -- and when I travel the province, because I drive it regularly a couple times a year. Our highway system is experiencing rapid deterioration on a number of hills, especially on the upgrades where the power is applied to pull the heavy weights. I also notice Alberta is experiencing the same highways problem from the weight of eight-axle loads.
Is the ministry monitoring this wear and tear, and exactly what's going to happen? What expense is it going to be to allow those eight-axle configurations in the province?
Hon. J. Pement: There are analyses of the damage done by the weights of vehicles on the highway system. Information has shown that there is a correlation. There is also an international study underway which looks at the strength of pavement in relation to weight, etc.
R. Neufeld: I want to go into that further, because I know that trying to regulate everything across Canada so everybody can play by the same rules is a national concern. We don't do that yet; each province still has its own quirks.
I'll use the Kiskatinaw Hill as an example. If you go north you can see the ruts in the pavement because almost everything going north is loaded heavily -- they're from the power applied by the truck pulling the tractor. It's quite a track. It's a hazard to the public, especially when it rains and vehicles float over some of these ruts. I don't mean that they're really deep, but they're quite indented. In fact, they are really noticeable in Alberta.
I am not in favour of going to eight-axle configurations; even seven-axle configurations seem too much, because our highways weren't built for that. It's really showing up, and I think, as some people say, that we have to do it because it's going to cost the consumer more if we don't. For instance, the price of gasoline in my constituency didn't change a bit when we went to eight-axle configuration from seven or five. In fact, it probably went up. So the end payer is usually the consumer. The taxpayer at the bottom of the pile is the person who picks up the whole bill and rebuilds the whole highway. I just want to make sure that we are monitoring that closely, because some parts of the province are worse than Kiskatinaw Hill or Peace Hill.
Also, coming out of the Peace River going north, right at the top of the Peace Hill, there's a gradual turn to the right. There's a passing lane and a road leading off to the left, just after you get around the corner. So you have to stop in the passing lane for traffic coming down the hill if you're going to make a left-hand turn. If people who live down that road can see someone behind them, they carry on to the top of the hill, turn around on the highway somewhere and come down again, or else they stop in that lane. There aren't a lot
[ Page 10903 ]
of people living on that road, but I think something has to be done there. At one point there wasn't as much traffic as there is today. Now we have an awful lot more traffic, and we have the situation where someone will stop there someday and someone will be coming up the passing lane to pass a truck, not be able to see that car or pickup and run into the back of it.
I've asked the local Highways office for some kind of response, and they said it's too difficult to change the alignment there. I hope we could look seriously at that situation. I don't know how many places there are in British Columbia where you stop in a passing lane on a hill to make a left-hand turn when there's a right-hand corner on the highway. It seems to be a very dangerous situation. I wonder if you could have your people look into that.
Hon. J. Pement: We'll certainly take it into consideration. We do sight lines with regard to the visibility aspects of turns and turnoffs. In making a decision to add to the alignment of a highway, volumes of traffic and traffic safety issues are looked at. Certainly we'll take a look at this.
R. Neufeld: One thing further. I know what you mean by sight lines. I've gone uphill quite a number of times trying to catch a number of trucks in a line. I've caught one truck in line going up, and come up behind it, turned out to pass and it's right there, right away -- there is no sight line. There is a sight line as long as nobody else is on the highway, not when you're in the left-hand lane but in the right-hand lane going up the highway.... But when there is truck traffic, not so much with a vehicle like a car or a pickup, there certainly is a problem with sight lines, and I think this should be looked into.
I would like to go on to certificates and motor carrier licence authority. I know that on the Island Highway we went to great lengths to make sure that we kept only B.C. contractors working, that we kept Alberta contractors out of the province.
In my constituency, which is very close to the border, we experience a lot of competition with Alberta and with the Alberta trucking industry. Last year we saw a tremendous increase in oil and gas activity in the constituency of Peace River North. The difficulty there with operators who hold motor carrier licences but not enough certificates to look after the amount of work they may incur is the length of time it takes to get additional permits.
The oil patch is much different than what may be the norm in Victoria or Vancouver. I've worked in the oil industry all my life. I know that in many projects no one knows until just a few days ahead of time.... Then they want it all done. You work seven days a week and as many hours a day as you can. Time is of the essence, not only for that reason but because of the weather. Further out from Fort St. John, where you get into the muskeg areas, or the Fort Nelson area, we have only a certain period of time -- three months -- for a lot of the work. There's a small window of opportunity to get that work done.
We have companies in Fort St. John, trucking companies specifically, that may not have been very busy for the last while. They hold operating authority but want extra permits, and you can't go early and apply for a permit. You can't go two or three months ahead of time because of the criteria the ministry uses to award permits. What we have is people going when things get really busy, and they're sometimes not able to get a permit for up to three months, and then the work is all over. One person applied in November for some extra plates and was not awarded them until February. We're at the end of the season; by March it's usually all finished up. It depends on spring break, but by mid-March or the end of March it's all done. Not only that, they've secured other operators by that time. In most cases, those are Alberta companies, because they're not quite as stringent, and we are not quite as stringent on Alberta companies that are coming into British Columbia to do the work.
Last winter we had a typical example of an awful lot of Alberta contractors coming into British Columbia to do work in the oil patch, while some of the companies that have always been located in British Columbia sat idle. I wonder if there's a way we can work with the Motor Carrier Commission to award certificates a bit quicker than a number of months.
[10:45]
I appreciate that it's not just as simple as walking in one day and asking for it. I appreciate that, but I still think there has to be some kind of leeway given to allow people who reside in Peace River North to obtain the work. Not only that, it's the people. We have people living in Fort St. John who do seasonal work, and they don't get the work because the companies located there don't get the work. We bring trucks in from Edmonton and Grande Prairie, and we have local people standing by but not getting work. Is there a way we can work on the Motor Carrier Commission a bit for that specific area of the province? Maybe it happens in other areas, but I know it certainly does in my area.
Hon. J. Pement: It depends on the specific case and, in the time involved, whether there were appeals or any other sort of process as part of that application. The process as a whole, however, seems a little long. As you have pointed out, it's a matter of months for a permit. It also depends on whether the permit is one that can be dealt with by a designated authority or if additional authority is needed as well. It would be best if we could get some of the specifics, and perhaps there is a way to work through this to ensure that there is a shorter time frame involved.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that, and I know that if they change their authority, it is of course going to take longer. Some of the complaints I received were because they had a certain number of plates over the years but let them lapse because they didn't need them, and all of a sudden the work came back. They may unknowingly keep 100 plates and just keep paying for them, which is not the thing to do either; they'll probably never let it happen again. As government, we have to react to those industries a lot quicker than we do if we want to keep them in British Columbia and keep them operating. Previous to the change we had in the Motor Carrier Commission, Dawson Creek handled an awful lot more of the requests and were a little quicker, to be perfectly honest, than they are today. I think they're more reluctant to step out on a limb a bit to allow some permits, simply because the procedure has been changed. I'm not belittling anybody about the procedural change, but I would rather give a bit more responsibility to those people who work out of the Dawson Creek office enabling them to make some determinations about more certificates or whatever, because they're aware of the situation and of what has transpired in the past.
For instance, in the new instructions for handling permits, one of the first items asks: "Have licensed carriers been contacted? If no, do not proceed with this request." Well, the winter work doesn't start until November. Let's say that you request additional certificates in September so that you have them when you can go to work in November, and you contact those licensed carriers in Peace River North and
[ Page 10904 ]
ask: "Can you do all the work that's required right now?" They are certainly going to say yes, and it's very likely they can do it. But they won't be able to handle all the work later on in the year, because of the enormous amount that starts coming in all of a sudden. So it really works against those people who are trying to get ready for winter work.
There is another sentence in the permit that says: "There are exceptions, for example, seasonal work, correcting work problems and common sense." I would like to see the exceptions about seasonal work and common sense used a bit more in giving out certificates to local companies so that they can go to work, instead of referring everything down to the commission for them to deal with. I'm sure they have a backlog a mile long, and you have to wait until your number comes up.
There are certain cases of people in Peace River North companies who have missed out on work that was given to Alberta companies. I would like us to place the same priority on using British Columbia people and companies in Peace River North and South as we apply to the Island Highway project. If I could be assured of that, that would be great.
I understand American trucks are exempt from mandatory inspection in British Columbia -- maybe in their own states they aren't. If they cross at Sumas and come through British Columbia on the way to Alaska, there is no mandatory inspection needed for those trucks to come through. In other words, they could come through in very poor mechanical shape. Would that be a possibility?
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to the inspection of vehicles coming across the line into B.C., these vehicles are to have an inspection decal, called a CVSA decal, on their vehicle when they come through. It shows that they have been inspected. If they don't, then they are inspected immediately at the weigh scale. They may be stopped by mobile patrols as well.
R. Neufeld: As I understand it, then, all American trucks that come into and travel through British Columbia have to have a CVSA sticker attached. Is it checked at the border or at the first weigh scale? I've had the experience of trucks reaching the Fort Nelson weigh scale with worn-out brakes, yet they got that far before they were put off the road. If there is an inspection process, obviously something about it is not working.
Hon. J. Pement: The decal is displayed on the window of the vehicle for viewing at the weigh scales, where vehicles are stopped. They will be checked for brakes there as well as through the mobile units. However, I think we're aware that brakes can go out in-between checks after travelling a distance.
R. Neufeld: I can assure the minister, having been in that industry for many years, that if brakes go out of adjustment between, let's say, Sumas and Fort Nelson, there was something wrong with them at Sumas. Also, in the check the driver makes every morning before being allowed to go out, it's up to him or her to check those brakes to make sure they are in adjustment. To have a vehicle with faulty brakes go from the U.S. border to Fort Nelson and be parked there, something has gone wrong in the system; somebody has not checked. I don't think it has anything to do with the few miles that have been travelled, because those mandatory checks have to be made, and you have to check them off in your log book.
The other item I have with regard to safety standards is hours of work. Do we have any influence on hours of work?
Hon. J. Pement: We have hours of work that reflect federal regulations.
R. Neufeld: Do they reflect the exact federal regulations?
Hon. J. Pement: Yes.
R. Neufeld: Maybe I could find out exactly what the hours per day are to a maximum of how many days.
Hon. J. Pement: There are quite a few conditions as to the actual scheduling of driving hours, but basically it's 13 driving hours out of 15 hours on duty in one day, and 60 on-duty hours in seven days.
R. Neufeld: I'm going to leave that, because I have some other information. I'll write to the minister requesting that we look at that again, specifically with regard to my area with its short period to do the work. We experience some difficulty with the hours of work for that window from fall to spring. Those are all the questions I have.
One of the other members talked about inconsistency among weigh scales across the province, and I want to reinforce that. I reinforced that with regard to U.S. trucks that come into British Columbia. There is obviously some inconsistency there. Trucks on the way to Whitehorse that have loaded in Edmonton have been fined at the Fort Nelson weigh scale for being overweight. In the middle of summer, they don't pick up any weight or any more freight, but all of a sudden when they get to Fort Nelson, there's a problem. It has been a problem for quite a while; I don't know why. I've also had my own trucks clear the weigh scale in Fort St. John and not be able to make the weigh scale in Fort Nelson. So there is some inconsistency in the system.
[11:00]
There is also some inconsistency in how we apply the cross-Canada regulations for length and axle configuration. Some people in Fort St. John have purchased different trailers with boosters. At one time they were okay by British Columbia standards, and now they're not. Those people are faced with equipment worth $100,000 sitting in a corner of the yard because they can't use it anymore -- all because of about six inches in length that was changed. In some areas of the province nobody bothers you; in other areas of the province they do. So there is some real inconsistency within the system which I think the ministry has to look at seriously and deal with.
D. Symons: I have some questions on the Motor Carrier Commission as well, and that is coming up later. I'll jump into some that tie in with what the member was just asking.
The minister made reference to mobile units, and I'm just wondering how many mobile units are checking vehicles on the highway.
Hon. J. Pement: Motor Vehicles has 28 of these units.
D. Symons: Are these 28 units in constant use on the highways or are just one or two in operation at any given time?
Hon. J. Pement: They're all in operation full-time.
D. Symons: We made reference to the weigh scale -- particularly coming through the border at Sumas or other border crossings -- and that there must be a decal on American trucks coming into Canada indicating that they have had a safety inspection. Does the weigh scale operator
[ Page 10905 ]
come out of the building? You say it's on the windshields, and maybe they can see it from their building as they're weighing. Also, you made some comments about them checking the vehicle. I'm wondering if the weigh scale operator actually leaves the building and circles the vehicle to see if its brakes are in proper adjustment?
Hon. J. Pement: The operator basically observes by a visual check as the vehicle comes through the area and will, on a spot-check basis, do inspections on brakes, etc.
D. Symons: I think many of the safety features -- brakes being one of the most important on a heavy vehicle -- would hardly be visible as the truck is driving by. Is it the driver or some official from the ministry that checks the brakes at these truck stops? Who is responsible for checking the brakes? I'm reminded of the tragic accident at Horseshoe Bay a few years ago when a vehicle loaded with asphalt went into the line of cars because its brakes failed. At the time, I gather it was the driver who was responsible for checking the brakes at the top of that hill, and there was nobody to see that the driver carried out that responsibility.
Hon. J. Pement: It is the responsibility of drivers to check their brakes, as has been mentioned. With regard to the one check in the area of the ferry, it's a case of watching the driver do that inspection.
D. Symons: I would suggest to the minister that there is an opportunity for that system not to serve its purpose. At times it has obviously failed with tragic consequences. That way of checking should possibly be re-evaluated to make sure that we don't have future accidents of that sort.
Going on to the hours of work, I'm wondering.... There were some figures given -- 60 hours in a seven-day period and so forth. Who checks the logs and how are these checked by the ministry? Is it strictly up to the employer and employee to keep those records? Are the records vetted by anybody else to see that drivers aren't doing more than the required hours, so that they are well rested when driving trucks on the highways?
Hon. J. Pement: Company books are audited through the National Safety Code, and individual truckers are done at weigh scales. If they're stopped by other enforcement officers, the books are also checked at that time.
D. Symons: On the audit that was mentioned, is this done for all companies on an annual basis and is it done by government?
Hon. J. Pement: Motor vehicle inspectors will audit the books, but it is based on a National Safety Code profile. That profile will show a pattern if the companies are not doing something properly with regard to their hours.
D. Symons: I would gather from the answer that there isn't an annual audit of every company. If something looks amiss, then that particular company might be audited, either for hours of work, safety inspections or whatever.
Hon. J. Pement: Every company is audited at some point, but not on an annual basis.
D. Symons: To go on to the operation of the Motor Carrier Commission, I have some concerns with its setup. As I understand it, if somebody makes an application because they want a carrier plate, it would help their application to go around and find some business so that they could say: "I need it because I have this person and that person who will hire me and give me work." At the same time, when that application goes in, the competition in that area is apparently notified that person A is applying so that persons B, C and D, who already have plates in that area, have a chance to object and get involved in the process. If I were person B or C, I would object to the question of validity because it would be in my best interest to have as little competition as possible. The system doesn't seem to be working in a fair and efficient way. We're putting some people in quite a powerful position. They have plates and they can object to competition. I can't imagine that all the grocery stores within a given area would be allowed to decide whether I have the right to open a store in that area. This doesn't seem to be the free and open democratic system which we espouse so much in Canada; it doesn't seem to apply to the Motor Carrier Commission.
Hon. J. Pement: The industry is regulated to ensure a quality service to the public; that's the approach that has been taken over the years. When a company objects, it has to substantiate that objection. It has to show that it is not in surplus capacity, etc.
D. Symons: How the process works is that an application is made and you justify it by the fact that you've rounded up the business that's going to support that application. I would think it hardly likely, if I were the person who agreed to do business with this carrier who has come to me and said, "I'll be the carrier if you'll support me," that I would want to hang around for the length of time it's going to take him to get his licence and his hauling plates. By the time he does that, I will have looked elsewhere. It's often months before these applications finally get to the stage of being approved or not -- particularly in the latter case. If we look at the denials and the orders-in-council on people making appeals, it seems there are a good number that aren't approved. It seems that the person who is applying has a strike against them already. One factor is the time it takes. A second strike is the fact that their competition can object, and it seems in their best interest to do so.
It's a problem. It seems to be a system that is well out of step with the rest of Canada. Why do we maintain a system in British Columbia that seems archaic, when almost every other jurisdiction in Canada either doesn't use this system or has rejected it and gone on to a more open system? Their main concern is highway safety, rather than the manipulation of the market for the benefit of companies that already have their hauling licences.
Hon. J. Pement: We have to look specifically at the diversity of the regions within our province. We have chosen to maintain the system because of the concern that we'd have difficulties getting good service out to the remote areas. The outlying parts of our province necessitate longer hauls and are more expensive for companies.
D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer. However, a number of issues that come to my attention involve people in the lower part of Vancouver Island, the Fraser Valley and Vancouver. It's not a case of servicing outlying areas; it is the case that there are people applying for plates in areas that are close to major metropolitan areas and who seem to be having a good deal of difficulty in getting them. I'm still amazed at the system.
[ Page 10906 ]
Approximately a month ago I attended an appeal hearing in our legislative building. There was one objector. I gather there are supposed to be two objectors before that's taken into consideration. Is it not the case that if two or more object, then it goes to a hearing? Only one turned up at this hearing. The objector said that he didn't want the other person to have a licence. He gave no justification whatsoever during that hearing as to why he felt we shouldn't grant another licence, since there were already enough trucks hauling in that particular area. None of that came into the hearing.
Another applicant brought a person with him who would give him some work and who supported his application. The other fellow said that another one was not needed, and that was the gist of it. After the hearing took place, his appeal was denied.
We really do have an undemocratic system. If we believe in a free market society, then we should allow those who feel that they can start a business, run it effectively and make a living at it, to do so. If they aren't able, they'll go out of business. I don't think anybody would enter into a new trucking venture unless they had a fair degree of certainty they were going to make a success of it. We do not have a lot of frivolous people coming forward to apply for licences. Those who do apply are fairly sure that they've investigated the market. There's one heck of a lot of money tied up in these rigs.
[11:15]
It seems that this commission is not working to serve the public or to serve those who would be hiring. It does indeed serve those who currently have plates and who are stopping others from getting them. I wonder if there is any thought on the part of the ministry to investigate what is happening in the rest of Canada as far as motor carriers go to see whether or not we need to be brought into step with the rest of Canada.
Hon. J. Pement: It's a case of looking at safety and ensuring that we have good service for British Columbia. We're also looking at deregulation in other jurisdictions, which has caused some problems. At this point our industry is fairly healthy, so we are not looking at other jurisdictions.
D. Symons: I gather that some are fairly healthy; that's probably a very true statement. I've heard that some of these plates could go for high prices. People are asking a fairly high price for the use of a plate.
When we have a commission that's giving people the right to work in a certain area, that should not become a commodity that can be bought and sold in the market. And if the minister isn't aware of it, that is happening. This is not something the government should be doing. I know the government probably isn't encouraging it, but the way things are set up now, that's happening in this province. I'm wondering what the ministry is doing about that.
Hon. J. Pement: If a company is selling out, usually the licensing is part of the sale of that company. If a company is trying to do something underhanded, then we would certainly take them to task.
D. Symons: I think it might be a bit of both. When a company is selling out, if the possession of plates gives them an edge in selling and they can charge something extra because they have a hauler's plate, then that seems to be a commodity. They're not buying just the vehicles; they're buying the plates as well.
I believe there are cases where you can basically get the use of a plate. Somebody else has it. You're working for them, in a sense, but you're not really: you're just buying the use of that plate while it's issued to somebody else. Is that underhanded or not? I'm not sure. But the person who has the plate isn't using it.
One of your own caucus members raised this questions during private members' statements in the House. I'll just read a little of this into the record, if I can. He looked around because a person who was applying for carrier plates in his riding asked him for help. He had had a great deal of trouble and stonewalling from the commission. He found out that there were a great number of plates around:
"With their work and my work, we found 15 H-plates, or hauling plates, that were in fact sitting idle. The Motor Carrier Commission based its decision on existing licences that have been issued in the greater Victoria area and on southern Vancouver Island being an adequate share of licences to cover today's economy. That goes against reality, because if I could find 15 H-plates sitting idle -- locked in drawers and sitting on derelict vehicles -- when those same licence holders are maintaining that this should adequately address the marketplace, then there's a bit of a problem with how the Motor Carrier Commission is dealing with its deliberations."
I echo that member's statements because they found 15 plates -- and its probably not the whole story -- yet the very people who are holding those plates are coming forth and objecting to more plates. It's the very case I referred to in the appeal.
Hon. J. Pement: The member for Peace River North brought up the issue that there are times when plates are inactive due to work and seasons and the time frames that some plate holders are dealing with. But the ministry is looking at the whole issue of inactive plates and will be addressing it.
D. Symons: Well, in the context of our discussion, I gather these were not plates that were sitting there because of seasonal adjustments or workloads; these were plates that were definitely not being used. They were not on vehicles and were not operational, nor were they likely to be. I don't think that explanation covers it. It's simply that some people have plates and aren't using them, and they're willing to sell the use of them. Or they are simply using the number of plates in that area as a way of restricting competition by saying, "Hey, there are enough plates in this particular area; we don't need any more," even though having extra plates they're not using may be refuting their point. Somehow the market is being manipulated, and it doesn't seem that the government should be part of that manipulation, which seems to be the case.
Hon. J. Pement: I do not believe the government is part of the manipulation you are referring to. As I said, we are looking at inactive plates and will be addressing that issue.
D. Symons: I wonder if I might ask permission to table a document.
The Chair: Apparently there is no provision for tabling in the committee, but I'm sure it would be easy to make that information available to the minister.
R. Neufeld: Looking into the issue of inactive plates brings to mind what could take place. The blanket policy is all over the province. As I explained earlier, we had
[ Page 10907 ]
companies that relinquished some of their plates because they were inactive. Then when they tried to retrieve them so they could go back to work when it got busy, they weren't able to. Now the ministry says they're looking at people with inactive plates.
I think I said that quite a few companies up north now may get as many plates as they can and keep them in a drawer. They will continue to pay for them in case they need them because of the difficulty of obtaining one. If you're going to look at inactive plates, is part of the criteria going to be not just for the province as a whole but for some regions where there are specific problems with inactive plates for part of the year? I hope that would be part of it. Again, what usually happens is a blanket policy that the whole province has to face. Then the people in my constituency are penalized again for living in the north, close to the Alberta border, and that's not fair.
Hon. J. Pement: I think you've outlined the concern fairly well. We'll certainly take the situation you have outlined into consideration.
R. Neufeld: I have just a quick question about deregulation of the carrier plates or whatever. Could the minister elaborate on it a little more? I think she stated that they were looking at deregulation; I didn't quite understand.
Hon. J. Pement: I stated that we were not looking at it.
D. Symons: I'd like to move on to a slightly different topic, still dealing with motor vehicles, and that is overload. I notice that the ministry recently changed the overload penalties. In a sense, I would like to compliment the ministry; I think what you've brought in is more in line with an appropriate type.... You charge so much for ten kilograms over the basic load, based on the amount of increase, in smaller increments than the old method. So I think this ties it in better.... I note that you've also increased the amount of the penalty, and I guess I have no objection to that, because of the fact that it overloads our highways.
Where do those penalties go? Do they flow back into general revenue and, that way, are they going to come back to help fix up the highways damaged by overloads? Or is general revenue not paying for that now, since it's coming out of the Transportation Financing Authority? We're being double-taxed on it, in a sense, because the overload rates are going into general revenue, not back to Highways.
Hon. J. Pement: These penalties go through general revenue.
D. Symons: In some of the changes in licensing for motor carriers, I notice that the carrier plate is $85 for an applicant. That's going to $100, an 18 percent increase. If a person wishes to make an application for a new motor carrier authority, they presently pay an application fee of $100, and the commission is proposing to increase that to $200. That's a rather steep increase as well, and I'd like your comment on those increases. If they pay an application fee of $100, is that refundable if the application is denied?
Hon. J. Pement: The fees are the prerogative of the Minister of Finance. As to whether it's refundable, I would have to get back to the member on that issue.
D. Symons: I suspect they aren't, but I don't know that. I'd appreciate it if the minister would get back to me on that.
I notice another one:
"A party who wishes to object to an application may continue to do so by way of written response to the motor carrier department. If an application proceeds to a public hearing, an objector is presently required to pay a security deposit in the amount of $50. At the conclusion of the hearing, the commission may retain the $50 for payment to offset the costs of the hearing, or may refund a portion or all of the security deposit, depending on circumstances. No change is proposed for the security deposit for an objector."
I am concerned that it appears that a person making an application for a licence pays $100, or the $200 fee that is proposed, whereas the objector pays a deposit of $50 that might be refundable. It seems to be skewed in favour of the objector rather than the applicant, in the fees as well as in the whole process. This does not seem at all fair to me. I wonder if you might comment on this $50 fee for the objector and the possibility that it can be refunded.
Hon. J. Pement: It's a case of looking at specifics. Whether they keep the amount of money or not would depend on how the objection was done and on whether the objector had a nuisance process. It's really difficult to talk about this without specific cases.
D. Symons: I am also concerned that we have reached the hearing stage, and the objector hasn't given any hard evidence to justify his even being allowed to appear at a hearing. It would seem that if somebody's going to object -- and you talk about nuisance -- you would allow just anybody to come in. That's what is apparently the case, because that was the case in the appeal I heard. The objector really had nothing to say. It was painful listening to him talk, because it boiled down to him not wanting the other guy to have a licence because he'd be competing. That seemed to be all he was saying. There was no justification at all, no figures given and no facts to substantiate that he hadn't a reasonable amount of work himself and therefore we didn't need one more person in the area. None of that came out.
[11:30]
From the answer you've given, it seems they don't vet these people before they come before the hearings. They don't ask what sort of objection they have or ask them to give some sort of evidence to see whether we're going to waste our time having them force a hearing and then face frivolous objections. It puts the applicant through a great deal of unnecessary bureaucratic procedures and cost, because they're losing money when they're appearing at these hearings. They're losing more than they're paying to get their licence, but it's still a loss out of that person's life -- one day gone.
Hon. J. Pement: I can assure the member that the commission takes seriously the work that they do; that there are processes and procedures for people to follow with regard to acquiring the licence; that there are disappointments for particular applicants if they are turned down, as one would expect; and that there are others who will object on different scenarios. If there's a specific case that the member would like to bring forward, we could perhaps find information for him. Again, I have to say that the commission is basically an arm of the ministry, and they have to show that they are unbiased in the process of working through the applications.
D. Symons: One of the persons who was denied a motor carrier plate asked the commission if he could have a copy of the hearings and the background information used for
[ Page 10908 ]
making that decision, and he was denied that. Would this be policy? Or are the people who are denied licences allowed to see what the decision was based on?
Hon. J. Pement: It's my understanding that when the commission does make a ruling, they try to show the reasons for the ruling in a well-explained manner to the applicant. If there are specific questions, perhaps we can look into them.
D. Symons: I think he was after the arguments used by the objectors. Apparently he didn't have access to these. I hope that we won't have to go through freedom of information. I think whatever information the chair has of these hearings should be made available either before or after the fact. It's a real problem, because the objector knows exactly what the applicant is applying for -- he supplied that to the Motor Carrier Commission apparently. But the applicant does not have the information the objector is putting forth in order to be able to use that in rebuttal. I guess the concern I have is that, again, there's an unequal playing field.
Hon. J. Pement: It would depend on the specific case that you are referring to; however, if there is information that is specific to a business -- balance sheets, etc. -- that information may be privileged.
D. Symons: Another aspect of the Motor Carrier Commission is enforcement. It seems that we have people in the province operating trucking lines without plates. On some occasions, these people have been made known to the local police; in some cases, the ministry, the Motor Carrier Commission and the motor vehicle branch have been written to about the fact that so-and-so is operating a trucking firm without plates. One of these cases has gone on for at least a year since the person first notified officials that this was taking place; the trucker is still hauling.
It seems to be the case that on one hand you make people go through all sorts of hoops to get a licence, and on the other hand, if a person decides not to go through those hoops and simply breaks the law hauling without a licence, they're able to get away with it. It seems the easiest way for somebody who wants to get into the trucking business.
Hon. J. Pement: My understanding is that complaints with regard to trucks hauling legally with proper licences and plates are investigated. If the member lets us know which firm or trucker he's referring to, we can take a look at it.
D. Symons: I have a letter to the Premier here dated March 23 of this year regarding a case in the Mason Creek area of a trucker hauling illegally. The writer of this letter notes that she has been notifying people since April 1993. That's almost a full year; it still goes on. She's written letters, she says, and made many phone calls to the motor carrier branch and the Ministry of Transportation. So it is not the case that people aren't aware of it. These trucks are still hauling in that area without having the appropriate authority to do so.
The business of overload is also tied in with that. There are also problems in the reporting of overloads to the local police. The local police told this particular complainant, who happened to be in the trucking business, that he was just trying to get at his competitor, and did nothing about it. The truck was sitting on the street overnight with a load of concrete roofing tiles. The overload was obvious. That was reported there. It has been reported also to the Attorney General, which this person at that time thought was still responsible for the Motor Vehicle Act. I assume it would have ended up on your desk. As a matter of fact, it is addressed to you; this letter is dated April 2. This person has repeatedly made complaints -- granted, there's self-interest in this case. Nevertheless, it's still an overload situation that does not seem to have been addressed, and no charges have been laid.
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to investigating a trucker or a firm that is hauling without a licence, one has to confirm that that is actually happening, and then one can proceed with charges. I think it would be the same with regard to an overload situation. It would depend, in this case, on the police officer checking to ensure that that is the case. Then we can work toward recognizing that we must address the situation. Again, it is a case where we have to see the goods on the ground.
D. Symons: If the content of the letters I have received are to be believed, it seems that the evidence has been more than visible and has basically been ignored by police and by ministry officials. In both cases, it seems that they have been notified, and it continues to go on. It's a case of enforcement and of the will to tell people that when we have certain load limits, we want them enforced. It shouldn't matter whether the person who is complaining about a person driving without hauling plates is a competitor or happens to have hauling plates. Those things should be done. When the police are enforcing, I suppose they don't want to get into a business dispute like that. Nevertheless, it is a breach of a law.
We have these problems, as I mentioned a while back, with the Motor Carrier Commission. On the one hand, it seems to be making it very difficult for people to get in, but on the other hand, it almost encourages people to circumvent the laws. The laws don't seem to be adequately enforced when breaches are brought to the attention of the officials.
I'll leave it at that and skip back to some other general motor vehicle questions that I intended to ask first. One of them involves the restricted-route overload. I'm just curious as to whether the minister is really entrenching a restricted-route policy by repealing the sunset clauses that were there. Apparently the restricted route was going to be phased out, and rather than phasing it out, there now seems to be a move toward substantial restricted route permit fee increases for legally operating with illegal loads. This doesn't seem to be a safety feature on the highways. It puts the pressure on the hauler to accommodate his employer in this way. I think you're sort of making the hauler the meat in the sandwich. Maybe it's not in the best interests of everybody concerned.
Hon. J. Pement: Again, in this area of restricted-route permits we are consulting with stakeholder groups, because any legislation or change in policy will affect the industries involved. The loads are legal under restricted-route permits, which recognize the different areas of the province.
D. Symons: It seems we give fines for overloads, yet we charge people for the right to be overloaded. I somehow find difficulty with two concepts that seem in conflict with each other.
Moving on to fee increases and so forth -- or we might call it another form of taxation -- in January 1991 it was $15 to transfer a vehicle title, while in July 1994 it will be $28. An
[ Page 10909 ]
83 percent increase is a fairly hefty increase over a three-year period.
Hon. J. Pement: Again, fees are in the purview of the Minister of Finance.
D. Symons: The Minister of Finance is certainly going to have a lot of questions, isn't he, when his turn comes up because.... Her turns comes up, I beg your pardon. Maybe it's a pseudo-minister I was referring to.
Anyway, we do have a couple of other questions. Are provisions going to be made on the Island Highway for bike lanes?
Hon. J. Pement: Part of the design does show bicycle lanes. It is also a policy within our ministry that when we upgrade and put in new highways, we look to providing bicycle access.
D. Symons: The very reason I asked the question was because of that policy, but I'm not sure whether I heard that bike lanes are going to be there or that the design for bike lanes is there. There might be a little difference between the actual provision of the bike lane and having it designed in such a way that it might be an add-on at some later date. I wonder if I could be assured that when the highway is open to traffic, it will be made adaptable for bicycle lane safety as well.
Hon. J. Pement: Again, it is in the design. It's more often an extension of pavement to the edge of the shoulder, and it will be part of the actual construction.
D. Symons: Just one last question, and it deals with highway pullouts. I was at Whistler last weekend. Unfortunately, my four-cylinder car is operating on three right now, so when it's a long haul, I do slow down. There are some places where there are passing lanes, but if you're following some of these larger motor homes or commercial vehicles -- or a car like mine that's on its last legs -- there should be more provision of places. I found this going up to Port Hardy a year ago. We either need more passing lanes or a pullout lane requiring that if you have a certain number of cars behind you, you pull in there and let them pass. I think that's something we must look at in this province. There are too many people who are in a hurry to get somewhere and who take dangerous chances if they wait too long behind vehicles ahead of them.
[11:45]
Hon. J. Pement: We have recognized some of that concern. Through particular projects in the SHIP program, we're trying to look at passing lanes.
D. Symons: I have completed my questions to the minister. I thank her for her indulgence in putting up with the length of time that I've asked these many questions.
Vote 55 approved.
Vote 56: ministry operations, $683,587,000 -- approved.
Hon. J. Pement: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]