1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1995
Afternoon Sitting (Part 2)
Volume 20, Number 20
[ Page 15055 ]
The House resumed at 6:38 p.m.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Hon. P. Ramsey: In Section A, I call Committee of Supply to consider the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. In the House, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 21.
TOBACCO SALES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 21; B. Copping in the chair.
On section 1 (continued).
L. Fox: We were having rather a wide range of debate on this section, and I felt that it was appropriate to have some discussion about a definition that has been missed or perhaps should be in this section which I would call a "reseller." Under this legislation we see a situation where I, being over 19 years of age, could go in to a tobacco outlet with somebody 16 years of age at my side. I can purchase cigarettes legally, and it's not illegal for me to then sell them to my friend who is under-age -- right there on the premises. I can even go further in reading this legislation and suggest that I may even be a proprietor of an incorporated company that has a licence to sell. I could take the $6 or $7 out of my pocket, buy the cigarettes from the corporation, and there's nothing in this legislation which makes it illegal for me to turn around and sell that to a customer of the business but not of mine personally. I could sell it legally to that child who is under 19 years of age. That, to me, is a major flaw. In second reading I pointed out that this legislation is going to encourage entrepreneurship by those who would be less-than-credible individuals. They could legitimately and legally carry on that activity without falling under the auspices of this legislation, and that is a major flaw.
The other issue in this legislation that I believe is a major flaw is that the penalty is only on the individual or the corporation which has the permit to sell tobacco. There is no onus on the under-age individual who is purchasing tobacco. While this might be well intended, in my view it cannot and will not work because of those two flaws. All it's going to end up providing is some well-paying jobs for a few individuals, but they really do not have the tools contained within this legislation for enforcement.
I would like to hear the minister's response.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member makes some interesting points. Indeed, he is accurate. There is no prohibition in this legislation on what he calls resale. If a 19-year-old wishes to buy tobacco and sell it to his or her 12-year-old brother or sister, I don't think that this legislation would catch him. Nor have we made, as we have in this province in the case of alcohol products, possession of tobacco an offence under a certain age. That would be another way of approaching the same issue. It would simply say that not only is sale to a person under a particular age illegal but also that possession would be illegal, and that would capture a wide range of stuff.
[6:45]
Frankly, hon. member, we considered a wide range of more stringent measures here. We have approached what we believe is one of the sources of a substantial quantity of tobacco product sold to those who are under-age. It is a small number of merchants who choose to violate existing regulations, and they have no compunction about selling to those who are under-age. The intent of the legislation is to deal with that. It does not deal with the issue the member spoke about; there are many other issues that it does not deal with.
In second reading we heard the member for Richmond East propose that what was needed in this province was not this particular way of restricting sales to under-age persons but an entire expropriation of the right to sell tobacco products from the 30,000-some vendors that are currently licensed in the province, and placiement of that authority solely within the liquor distribution branch of the government of British Columbia. There are a number of ways of approaching this issue. The approach we have taken is the one that was proposed and recommended by the all-party standing committee of this Legislature. That was to approach tobacco reduction through licensing of vendors and through the imposition of penalties on those vendors -- a small number of them, but a significant number -- who choose to continue to make profits from the sale of tobacco to those who are underage, and to remove that incentive from them and impose penalties if they choose to continue that process.
I find it a little strange that the member opposite proposes a wide range of additional measures. I believe that the member opposite was a member of that all-party standing committee, and the consensus brought forward by that committee is what this government is seeking to enact in legislation.
L. Fox: The minister is correct. I was a member of that all-party standing committee and in fact enjoyed my participation in that committee. One of the main concerns about any regulation around the sale of tobacco was building up an enforcement force or a separate body. Without going back and reading Hansard, my recollection was that we did not support a separate structure for the enforcement of it. We suggested that we use the existing officers within the Ministry of Health to enforce it. This carries us beyond those points, and we're now setting up a more structured administrative and enforcement structure than what was envisioned, in my view.
If I'm wrong, perhaps the minister would clarify that, but I really believe that if we're going to bring legislation forward, then it's going to have to be workable. Would the minister not agree that under this legislation it would be possible for an employee of a drugstore -- any tobacco store, whoever sells tobacco products -- to literally act as an intermediary in the process, because the business that held the licence would not be selling directly to an under-age individual? An employee could make the purchase and sell to an under-age person, and there's nothing in this act that would prevent that from happening.
That's the major concern, because essentially, I think what we're doing here.... One of my concerns that I've spoken on for over two years is that we should not be creating a situation where we're going to create a very large bootlegging-type problem and put cash in less-than-honourable individuals' pockets through our regulatory process. I'm very, very concerned that this bill, well intentioned as it is.... Perhaps it
[ Page 15056 ]
flows along with the recommendations of the select standing committee almost two years ago, but upon reflection and upon seeing it in print, I see a very major flaw, and therefore there's a very large concern, in my view.
Hon. P. Ramsey: We really are sort of debating principles rather than individual sections here, but I'll indulge it one more time if the member opposite will then pass a few sections until we get to sections that actually reflect some of his concerns.
Look, let's point out a couple of things here. If somebody repeatedly and explicitly sells tobacco and takes a profit off of it without obtaining a vendor's licence under the Tobacco Tax Act, he or she has committed an offence and can be prosecuted. There is a separate piece of legislation that this legislation refers to called the Tobacco Tax Act. That is the act that licences vendors of tobacco and tobacco products. It is an offence in this province to sell tobacco without having a licence to do so. If somebody chooses to do that, they will be in violation of that act.
Further, what I find a little strange about the debate we've had so far is that, on one hand, this member says we ought to ban resale and create yet another offence; we ought, perhaps, to look at banning possession of tobacco by those who are under-age. I would ask the member how on earth one would enforce such provisions without the creation of a vast bureaucracy and regulatory framework of precisely the form that he is now objecting to. On the one hand he says: "Let's create offence after offence after offence. Let's criminalize those who possess tobacco and are under the age of 19. Let's make resale in a school yard an offence" -- even if it's one cigarette, I suppose -- "and send the tobacco cops in to bust that youngster's chops." On the other hand he says that what we need is less regulation and less bureaucracy. I get very diverse reads of what this member is actually proposing.
Finally, let me address the principles of the regulation scheme we have undertaken in this act. The all-party select standing committee that addressed this issue said to establish a licensing scheme for tobacco and, further, penalties for those who violate regulations in selling tobacco.
We have two options in implementing those recommendations. One is to create an entirely separate structure of licensing and enforcement and suspensions and the whole range. Second -- this is the option we chose -- we could piggyback this enforcement scheme on the existing licensing of tobacco vendors under the Tobacco Tax Act. We chose that option because it does not create a separate licensing scheme; it does not impose double registration and licensing on vendors; it has one administrative scheme for suspending licences rather than two; and it creates the efficiencies that the member opposite is talking about.
Further, enforcement of this is not going to be done by a vast new bureaucracy; it will be done by existing employees of the Ministry of Health, who will impose this regulation as they do many others in the field of health -- from restaurant inspection to swimming pool inspection. There are a variety of regulations that are enforced where violations are the subject of ticketing and conviction by employees of the Ministry of Health.
The regulatory scheme adopted here is the most streamlined we could find -- the least creative of additional cost and bureaucracy. Therefore I submit that we ought to pass through some of these sections that I think we all agree with and get into the nuts and bolts of how this regulatory scheme actually takes place. Where there are issues of substance, and how that is being done, we can profitably debate.
The Chair: The member continues. Member, we are dealing with section 1, which deals with definitions.
L. Fox: That's correct, hon. Chair. I think if you look at Hansard, you'll see that I pointed out that there's a need for a definition around reseller. That's the point I'm trying to make.
To reflect just a moment on the minister's response, I don't think you are getting a double-barrelled or two-directional meaning from me. In fact, your point is exactly what I'm trying to say -- that when we pass legislation, it should be more than a political statement. It should indeed have an opportunity to achieve the objectives that were meant when it was put forward.
By not having that definition, I firmly believe that this is going to go no further than the legislation we saw a year ago. By the minister's own admittance during the second reading stage, that legislation hasn't worked. I'm suggesting that this legislation.... A year from now we're going to point back, and we're going to have a paid administrator and an office that flows from this legislation, so there is going to be an administrative cost. Yet the objectives.... Because we do not have in this legislation, firstly, in the definitions section, a definition of reseller, and secondly, some process later on for dealing with how that individual would be treated, that is a major flaw.
I won't belabour this point too much longer, but the minister suggests that this legislation, which looks after the illegal sale of tobacco.... Well, I want to tell you that I have never heard of an individual who has sold a carton of cigarettes to another individual being charged under some criminal code for an illegal activity. Maybe someone has been, but I've never seen it. If there's any case law out there that shows we have the court time to deal with those kinds of circumstances, on a one-package or one-carton situation, I'd be pleased to have the minister inform me of that. But I believe that's not the case.
I guess my number one objection is not that I want to see more bureaucracy, more legalities or whatever the case may be. I do want to see, if we can't do it.... If we know we can't somehow regulate smoking under the age of 19 to be stopped, then why do we spend our time debating a political statement rather than a piece of legislation that has a chance to work?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Once again, we seem to be in the realm of principles. The basic principle of this act is that the recommendations of the all-party standing committee make sense and that they should become part of the law of this province. This bill is the means by which they become part of the regulatory scheme for the sale of tobacco products and for creating offences and punishments for those violate those laws.
D. Mitchell: We will make progress on this section, I assure the minister, but I have to tell you that I'm disappointed that in this House this evening, the minister is the only member of the government present in this committee....
[ Page 15057 ]
M. Lord: Tut-tut!
D. Mitchell: Oh, two members -- one minister and one member -- are here for an important bill. Hon. Chair, you don't qualify, because you are impartial.
This is an important bill, and last night we had an interesting debate on second reading of this bill. The minister will remember it, and I think the minister did well in the debate.
M. Lord: We can't comment on people's presence or absence in the House.
D. Mitchell: That's true, and I'm not going to comment on the absence of all the government members who aren't here tonight.
The Chair: Member....
Hon. P. Ramsey: Point of order.
The Chair: The Minister of Health.
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's not sufficient to avoid the point of order by calling attention to his violation of a point of order, hon. Chair.
The Chair: Absolutely. Would the member please discipline himself.
D. Mitchell: I'll make my comments first, and then I'll leave and go discipline myself. Hon. Chair, I assure you that that discipline will not be in the form of going to have a smoke, because I'm not a smoker.
Last night during second reading debate on this bill, we heard a number of different points of view from members of the opposition, including members of the all-party standing committee that the minister keeps wanting to refer to and keeps suggesting that this bill was based upon. I don't think the minister can hide behind a process, even if it is an all-party committee, if members of that committee -- and I was not one -- in the debate in second reading continue to disagree with each other and indeed with the minister on the bill that's being brought forward, and on whether it is representative of the all-party standing committee process. I have heard the member for Prince George-Omineca, who was a member of that committee, come forward with some very commonsensical criticisms of the bill. He was a member of the committee the minister keeps referring to.
Last night during second reading debate on the bill -- and I think this is relevant to the definitions section, hon. Chair -- the Liberal critic, the member for Richmond East, suggested that she had different points of view than those expressed in the bill as well, and indeed she was a member of the committee and had input into the committee. In fact, the Liberal critic, the member for Richmond East, commented that she was in favour -- as the minister has correctly portrayed, I think -- of the notion that instead of this bill, which seeks to regulate the sale of tobacco products, we should have all tobacco products sold in government-controlled liquor stores.
I've got to wonder, when that member's leader talks about the privatization of all Crown corporations, which probably would include all liquor distribution branch outlets. That's a totally different concept than what the minister has put into this bill. When we have the Liberal critic, who was a member of the committee that the minister refers to, talking about selling tobacco only through government-monopoly liquor distribution outlets -- which her leader seeks to privatize -- now that would be a new regime altogether. And it would be interesting to have the Leader of the Opposition...
The Chair: Member....
D. Mitchell: ...come in to defend that policy.
The Chair: Member, order. Member, I'm really having problems understanding what your discussion has to do with the definitions section. Could you please clarify that.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Chair, the member for Prince George-Omineca talked about the need for a definition of "reseller." The point that I'm getting to is, indeed, just that. I for one and, I would hazard a guess, you, hon. Chair, and other members of this assembly, upon going to a corner store to buy a carton of milk or whatever, have come across teenagers who asked us to purchase a package of cigarettes on their behalf. I have, and I've constantly refused to do that. Those are the resellers that I think would fall into the category that the member for Prince George-Omineca was referring to. They are not contained in the definitions section. But I wonder if the minister could comment on whether or not he or his ministry staff have done any studies to take a look at this bill and whether or not it's simply going to contribute to a growing underground economy in tobacco products in the province.
[7:00]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Chair, I must confess that, like you, I'm having some difficulty relating some of these general comments to section 1, "Definitions."
I do respect the interest of all members in controlling the use of tobacco products. Let me again state that there are probably as many approaches to this as there are advocacy groups. I and other members have received any number of suggestions from non-smokers' rights organizations and others for ways in which legislation could be imposed, up to and including, I guess, prohibition of sales of all tobacco products and making it absolutely illegal to purchase or use this product in the country. We have a huge range....
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member for Prince George-Omineca says that it won't work. I submit that one of the major objections to the idea of a ban on resale, particularly by an individual, is that you usually don't try to enact stuff that is patently unenforceable and would bring the law into disrepute.
The provisions of this act are enforceable against those who have sought and obtained the right to be vendors of tobacco under the Tobacco Tax Act. There are a defined set of corporations and individuals acting in this way under a privilege granted to them by the laws by the province. It is a privilege that can be curtailed if it is abused by the contravention of regulations pursuant to this act. That, I believe, is a scheme that is enforceable, that reflects the need to have laws
[ Page 15058 ]
that are respected, that reflects the right of those legal vendors to sell tobacco under the licence they are given and that recognizes that the great majority of vendors do not wish to violate the act. At the same time, it says very clearly to those who want to sell to under-age people and who want to violate other regulations that there are financial penalties and perhaps personal penalties for doing so.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
D. Mitchell: I have a question on section 2. I find it interesting in terms of its drafting. I wonder about the enforceability of this. I'm concerned about the word "promote" in section 2. It says: "A person must not sell, offer for sale, distribute, advertise or promote the use of tobacco to a person who has not attained the age specified by regulation...." "Advertise" and "promote" are two interesting words in here. I wonder: does the minister believe that the passage of Bill 21 will grant to the provincial government the ability to prevent advertising or promotion, through all forms of media, in the province?
I raise this as a crucial question which I also referred to during my second reading comments last evening. One of the most insidious forms of promoting the use of tobacco products, particularly amongst young people and particularly amongst young girls, who are targeted by tobacco advertisers and promoters of tobacco products, is through the media. It's through magazines, newspapers, television, the movies, and what have you. How can Bill 21 actually be enforced? How can the minister do this? I know that previous governments, going back a quarter of a century or more, have tried to do this and have had great difficulty. So I'm interested in any legal opinions that the minister has obtained that will prove the enforceability of this clause. I would like to think it was so.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think I should refer the member opposite to some of the existing provisions of the Tobacco Sales Act, particularly section 4, which has to do with the ability of the Crown to make regulations. It says: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations and orders including those (a) respecting the labelling, packaging, selling, distributing, offering, exposing, promoting and advertising of tobacco in the province...." The act contains the ability to do this.
As the member opposite also knows -- I think he listened to second reading last night -- one of the successes of this country in controlling the use of tobacco products has been its leadership in curtailing advertising of those products. It has been a singular success of this country, and at the recent Child Health 2000 conference, anti-tobacco activists praised this country for its leadership in doing so. In many instances, in the case of advertising and promoting, federal regulations do the work that provincial regulations might also perform. We've seen no need to create duplicate regulations in some cases.
Let's be clear about what is or is not allowed. You can't post an advertisement in a store for tobacco products -- you just can't. The packets are there, and currently the federal government is considering whether plain packaging ought to be part of the rules. If so, it clearly should be a federal initiative and should stretch across boundaries. So I submit that the section to which the member refers is enforceable. It clearly intersects with other provisions of the act. I could refer to the long list of other matters that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can make regulations about. Therefore it refers to powers within the realm of the province, and it provides for the enforcing of those regulations.
D. Mitchell: Just one follow-up question then. The minister is indicating to me -- and this is my interpretation of what he said -- that this section is largely of symbolic value and that it may mesh with federal regulations. Maybe some symbolic value is important. But what about enforcing it when an American magazine is distributed and sold in British Columbia with an ad for Virginia Slims saying, "You've come a long way, baby," or something to that effect? Or if we have American television programs or other forms of media that are consumed in the province, how can the minister say that this section is enforceable and that a person must not advertise or promote the use of tobacco to a person who is a minor? How can this be of more than symbolic value? How can we stop the flood or the deluge of information that is geared and targeted particularly to young people, especially in the age of the Internet? How can we do it?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Obviously, as a province and as a country, we have the ability and responsibility to legislate and regulate within our borders. If the member has a suggestion on how we regulate tobacco advertising in the United States, I'd be pleased to hear his suggestion.
J. Tyabji: As a follow-up to the questions of the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, I hope the minister will understand the nature of this question. Given that this province is obviously constrained to regulate and legislate within its own boundaries, to what extent has the minister had discussions with people who publish within British Columbia or with national publications which have different kinds of issues for the provinces? To what extent have there been discussions about the revenue that would be generated? The reason I talk about this is that I know that there's an ongoing debate -- and this is a different angle of the debate -- by small businesses and domestic businesses. They end up at a serious disadvantage, because they don't have access to the same sources of revenue as their competitors from other jurisdictions, and then they end up behind.
I should say that I'm obviously in favor of legislating against the advertising. But, for example, the minister put on the floor that if anyone has any ideas about how to get the American states, or some of these other jurisdictions, to pass similar legislation, to bring that forward. I would assume that anyone who has a vested interest in being on an even playing field with those other publications would also have a vested interest in lobbying to make sure that the laws are similar.
To what extent has there been any dialogue with those people who will be affected by this, to maybe be sure that everyone has the same common interest of preventing advertising of smoking but that we also have a common interest of not putting our own businesses at a competitive disadvantage to those in other jurisdictions? I don't know if there have been any discussions, but I know that we're going to get letters from domestic publishers when this debate is concluded, saying exactly what I just said. It happens in the wine industry and the beer industry all the time, where they feel like they're at a disadvantage compared to other jurisdictions.
[ Page 15059 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I and my fellow provincial Health ministers regularly discuss among ourselves with the federal government a means of controlling tobacco use and a means of seeking to lower tobacco use among residents of our provinces. I must say, though, that this is a fascinating conversation, but I am having some difficulty relating it to the objective of section 2.
V. Anderson: In section 2 there are.... I ask the minister why he has left the age to regulations, rather than writing in the bill that persons 18 and under would be covered by the bill and you'd not be able to sell to people 18 and under. Why is this left open? Is there an idea? If you turn to the regulation in section 4(d.3) of the Tobacco Sales Act to follow up on this, as I read it, it's "specifying the age for the purposes of section 2(2)." So there's nowhere in this amendment that it's specifically.... It's left open as to age. Is there a reason for that, or was that an oversight? It was my understanding that it was age 18 and under that this should apply to. It should have been in the bill rather than a regulation, unless there is some reason that they're going to change the age. Or what in that...? My understanding is that it would be in the bill.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The age of legal purchase has always been in regulation, and this bill simply maintains that arrangement. I should also inform the member that the age of legal purchase of tobacco products is 19, not 18.
V. Anderson: I said 18 and under; I realize that it's 19. That's simply by regulation and not in the bill, so I'm asking why.
Also, it's been suggested that this change has also taken out the requirement, or the ability, to ask for ID. Is that still very much a part of this?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think a comparison of the proposed new section 2(2) of the Tobacco Sales Act will reflect the intent to actually strengthen the onus on the retailer to ensure that the person he or she is selling to has attained the age of 19. The current section 2(2) says that vendors have to take measures to ensure that "purchasers have attained this specified age, including requiring purchasers to produce valid photo identification that establishes age if it is reasonable to question whether the specified age has been attained." The restated section 2(2) places the onus squarely on the vendor to ensure that the person has attained legal age for purchasing tobacco products. It eliminates the ambiguity about whether it is reasonable or not to question and places the onus squarely on the vendor.
[7:15]
D. Mitchell: Just before we leave section 2, I want to go back to the concepts of "promoting" and "advertising" and how the minister would define those terms. The minister has now told the committee that British Columbia cannot control the American advertising industry. Too bad -- I wish we could. It might be a good thing if we could, but we clearly can't stem the tide.
What happens when the tobacco manufacturers from outside the province -- and most of them are, let's face it -- advertise within the province indirectly? I'm talking about events such as Benson and Hedges sponsoring the Symphony of Fire on English Bay every summer, or Rothmans sponsoring sporting events. Whether it be tobacco manufacturers sponsoring tennis tournaments or automobile racing, it's indirectly a promotion of tobacco products, I would argue. It's generally geared toward young, active people engaged in sporting events, etc. Will section 2 be geared toward eliminating that kind of advertising or promotion of tobacco products?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I share the member opposite's concern about some of the tactics that have been adopted by the international tobacco industry. As the member probably knows, this is a matter under active consideration at the federal level by the federal Minister of Health to see what additional restrictions can be put on the use of advertising and logos by tobacco manufacturers. As the member knows, the way in which tobacco manufacturers have skirted existing provisions is by saying that they are not advertising specific brands but are simply doing identification of and corporate sponsorship of events. I probably share the view of the member opposite that this defence is a touch flimsy. It makes little difference when one sees the colours and goes to buy the packet of tobacco that has those colours on it. It is a difficult one. Again, whether it's a car racing in the Indianapolis 500 that has a tobacco logo on it or a banner strung around the bottom of a ski slope, it does have that subliminal affect.
In this country the most appropriate initial way of approaching that is on the national scene, which is why we have allowed the federal government to enact its regulations on advertising. We have not sought to infringe too much on that. I can see circumstances where we would; we have the authority and ability to enact regulations. The focus of this act and its provisions is on under-age purchasers. I would suggest that if a vendor decided that they wanted to do a Symphony of Fire for those under age 19, it might well be something that could prompt a regulation on the provincial level.
D. Mitchell: I think I am beginning to understand this section a little bit more as the minister defines it. We can't deal with the thorny issue of corporate sponsorship; it's probably beyond our purview to deal with that in this bill or indeed in this Legislature. We here in British Columbia can't control American advertisers and tobacco manufacturers from outside our boundaries. What this section does is say that those who do advertise or promote the use of tobacco to minors in our province....
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: Well, what I really want to ask is: what can we do? It says that people shall not do this, but what are the penalties that the minister might be considering under regulation? I know that this is probably anticipating future policy, but I want to know. I think it's important to the principle of this section to understand what kind of penalties are being considered for a person who violates section 2.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Violation of section 2 is an offence. I refer the member to the penalties for an offence under section 5 of the act.
J. Tyabji: I just want to go back to the question I'd asked about earlier. Let's use the example of magazines and advertising. Maybe if I give the minister a very specific example.... If we had a Vancouver-based tobacco company, whether it's
[ Page 15060 ]
Imperial Tobacco Ltd. or some other tobacco company, and they know they cannot advertise in a B.C.-based magazine -- because obviously that falls within the regulations and legislation of the province and the federal government -- but they have a chunk of advertising.... So they go south of the border to a magazine similar to Cascadia, where there is widespread distribution and readership in the province but the magazine is actually published south of the border. To what extent would the government have the ability to deal with that as a problem under this section? Further, because the revenue originated in British Columbia, would the government have any jurisdiction over that as being a violation of the intent of this section?
Hon. P. Ramsey: This act focuses on controlling the activity of vendors, not manufacturers. I don't think the provisions of this particular act would have much influence on the sort of international trade the member contemplates.
L. Fox: I have just one quick question. Perhaps the reason I'm a bit confused is the wording in this section. It says that a person "must not sell," yet the minister openly suggests and has repeatedly told us that the only action they have is to revoke the licence of the vendor. I guess I'm a bit confused, because it suggests a person, not an entity or a business. It suggests that the action is against the person, when it isn't; it's against the vendor or the licensee, as I understand it. Would the minister like to clarify that for me?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Under the Interpretation Act, "person" does capture both corporations and individuals. We are looking here at penalties against persons or corporations who have obtained a vendor's licence to sell tobacco under the Tobacco Tax Act, and at the revocation of those privileges for a longer period of time if they violate regulations under this act.
L. Fox: The reason I want to clarify that is just to find out whether there is an action that could be taken against the individual who is manning the till at that point in time. This section is not very clear, and if you go to later sections to try to get that clarification, it's still not clear -- at least in my view. Perhaps the minister could put on the record that the individual in this case -- the employee, or perhaps even the owner-operator -- would not be personally responsible, and that only the vendor or the licence holder would be responsible.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm taking my best shot at trying to untangle this. I think I would ask that we set this section aside until later, and I'll see if I can try, yet again, to untangle this web for the hon. member. I do want to try to clarify the questions he has raised. If that's acceptable to the committee, we could come back to this later in the sitting.
The Chair: Section 2 is set aside.
On section 3, section 3.1.
V. Anderson: In section 3, 3.1 is about the enforcement officers. Could the minister give us some indication of how many enforcement officers he is talking about? And what is he estimating the cost will be of these officers and the process in which they are engaged? What are we undertaking here when we're looking at officers? Who will the officers be? How do the officers get appointed? How many are we looking at, and what will be the overall cost?
Hon. P. Ramsey: There are about 250 environmental health officers employed in this province in health units that enforce a variety of health regulations. Enforcement of these regulations will be added to their duties. We do not contemplate adding staff to enforce these regulations.
V. Anderson: So this is going to be added to their duties. Presumably they're already fully employed, so what are you going to take away from their duties when you add this to their duties? If they're already fully employed, what's there...? And what particular additional training are you going to be giving the people for this particular function?
Hon. P. Ramsey: These employees are well trained in the enforcement of provincial regulations. I point out to the hon. member that many of their responsibilities already take them into locations that are licensed to sell tobacco -- food stores, restaurants, bars and a variety of places that they already have the responsibility for overseeing regulations about. We contemplate no additional training costs.
To date, the officers have been doing a variety of compliance inspections of outlets of tobacco vendors around the province. They've completed several thousand already and will continue to do so to the end of March, in the first year of the previous amendments -- which were, in part, education with the tobacco vendors. Close to 3,000 inspections of tobacco vendors around the province were done. We expect that this work by health officials will be ongoing. They have the authority to enforce the Tobacco Sales Act and to gather evidence that will be required in court. They will carry this out as part of their normal duties.
V. Anderson: One of the things it talks about is that they can gather evidence. The main requirement here is that a vendor not sell a cigarette to a person who is under-age. Can you suggest what kind of evidence they're going to collect that can demonstrate...? I understand that part of the present difficulty is that unless that young person is willing to testify that they're under-age and bought that cigarette, they haven't been able to follow up on the complaint. What kind of evidence different from that is this officer going to be able to collect, other than taking pictures, and a sound video if you like, of the actual sale? What is the kind of evidence this officer is looking for, under this particular act, that they can take with them to court which will be different from what they have at the present time?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Clearly, a conviction in court requires a certain level of formality in gathering evidence. Affidavits will do quite nicely, either by those who purchased product and were under-age or by somebody who witnessed a violation of the regulations under this act.
L. Fox: I have just a few questions. I don't want to question the minister in terms of what he states -- that the existing manpower or employment base of individuals will be sufficient to carry out the requirements of this legislation. But I think the minister will know, and certainly agree, that presently the officers are extremely taxed at certain times of the year in some parts of the province because of the issues around the other approvals they have to go through. Oftentimes they're trying to comply and satisfy a construction industry, particularly, or individuals who are looking for swift approval of sewers and so on, because we have a limited
[ Page 15061 ]
construction period in those regions of the province. I think it's fair to say that at some times during the year, the existing manpower is going to have difficulty meeting any more requirements in terms of time. I'm quite sure that we will see requests for manpower somewhere down the road because of the added responsibility. I think that's inevitable, and I think the member for...
[7:30]
Interjection.
L. Fox: ...Vancouver-Langara.... I apologize for that, hon. member; after four years I should almost start to remember that.
He makes a good point that there will indeed be added costs somewhere down the road. But I guess my concern here is whether we're going to be reactive in this enforcement or proactive. Are we going to go out looking for individuals who are not complying with the legislation, or are we going to react to complaints and concerns that are brought forward by some segments of the public?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I would suggest that speculation on the size of staff in the future is just that: speculation. I would also suggest, as I said earlier, that the great majority of those licensed to sell tobacco in the province wish to abide by the regulations and want help in saying no to under-age purchasers. There will be a small minority of offenders who are the hot spots that must be dealt with.
The member asked whether it would be proactive or reactive. It will be proactive -- almost acting as educators -- in inspecting premises and making sure that appropriate signage is in place and that vendors know what the regulations are and what their responsibilities are under the act. It will be reactive in responding to complaints about specific violations of the act, be it selling to under-age purchasers, selling kiddie packs or selling individual cigarettes.
L. Fox: Just one final question: could the minister perhaps tell me how many employees we presently have -- designated individuals -- who would fall under this particular clause, and how many tobacco outlets there are in British Columbia today, so I can get some idea of the workload for those individuals over the course of the next short while?
Hon. P. Ramsey: As I said, there are about 250 environmental health officers in health units around the province and in municipal health departments. They also have the ability to designate additional personnel as enforcement officers, who can carry out these roles as part of their duties. In the Capital Health Board region here in Victoria, I understand they have designated a couple of people who have a broad responsibility in health education to do some of that work with vendors as far as educating them about signage and the law, and appropriate procedures, are concerned. Our estimate was that there are about 30,000 licensed vendors in the province. As we actually start looking around, we find that the number may be fewer, and a substantial number of those may have lapsed and are no longer actively selling tobacco.
V. Anderson: I pick up on the enforcement, and the minister mentioned education. What kind of educational program will be undertaken as part of this extension (1) to the vendors, so that they're very aware of it; (2) basically to the community, so they're aware that they can help to monitor and be in touch with the vendors; and (3) to the young people, so that they're very aware and become more aware? Because, though I didn't speak to the issue last night, the education behind this is more important than the enforcement in the long run. We're talking about enforcement here, so I'm asking about what kind of educational process -- for the young people, the community and the vendors -- will be backing this up and will be the supportive environment in which these officers will be working.
Hon. P. Ramsey: To date we have been working directly with tobacco retailers and vendors. Some 60,000 health warning signs and 20,000 information packets have been distributed, both by direct mail and through health and health unit departments. To date, one-half of the tobacco retailers have been directly contacted about the tobacco regulations, appropriate signage and their obligations under this act. A media campaign was also used to inform retailers when the Tobacco Sales Act came into force, and we expect to undertake similar measures as we move to these next stages.
I think the member is asking a variety of other questions about how you educate the broad public about the dangers of tobacco use. Quite frankly, that is a matter more for estimates debate and general debate on health than for the provisions of this legislation.
V. Anderson: I do agree with the minister in one sense, and I thank him for his reply about the broad question of health. But also the broad question of young people being aware of this and of the additional.... I mean, what was put out a year ago and what comes out now, particularly since the minister has acknowledged himself, as others have, that the process to date hasn't been very effective.... So the education to date hasn't been that effective either for the vendors or for the young people, who are still going to buy cigarettes. So it seems to me that if we are re-emphasizing the need.... There is a need for a positive input in this legislation to reach the young people through the schools or community centres or wherever they meet, to make them aware that they're not playing fair with the vendors when they go and ask for these cigarettes. They have a responsibility, and I think it's the responsibility as well as the fear that need to be a part of the process of supporting the officers who go out into the field.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't disagree; I'm not sure it has much to do with the specific legislative provisions that we're debating. I'd correct the member on two things. First, compliance and measures to ascertain the amount of compliance with existing regulations have varied. I'd quote a couple of studies. One was done independently by the University College of the Cariboo. A class there undertook to measure compliance in Kamloops. They used an under-age person and sent them in to buy cigarettes to see how many vendors sold and how many didn't: 81 percent complied with the legislation and seemed aware of it; 19 percent did not. There were similar figures from a survey of the New Westminster health department: some 76 percent were in full compliance; some were not.
[ Page 15062 ]
As far as making young people aware of these regulations is concerned, clearly education packages through "Learning for Living" and other curriculums of the schools talk about the dangers of tobacco use and regulations for its acquisition. I would suggest, from my conversations with young people, that they're well aware of what the rules are around the purchase of tobacco products. I would also suggest to the member that the fact that every retailer must post a sign that says that 19 is the legal age for purchase makes it fairly obvious what the rules are.
L. Fox: I don't disagree with the minister's last statement; I think the youth are well aware of what the age is. What bothers me, however, is that I see an increase in the number of them that are still accessing cigarettes and still smoking, even though we've had that published age and that sticker on the tills for the last year. I guess I'm not hopeful, no matter how knowledgable they are about the regulations and this legislation, that we're going to see a reduction in that.
I want to ask a question around section 3.1(4). It says: "A person must not...hinder, obstruct or otherwise interfere with an enforcement officer who is acting under this Act or the regulations...." I guess the only concern I have with respect to that might be around timing. For instance, if an enforcement officer decides to come in, let's say, at a really busy time in a respective establishment, and you have a limited number of employees there, and you're not only watching your customers but you're watching individuals who I guess need to be watched on these premises, and so on.... I guess I'm concerned that.... We all know that occasionally we can have individuals who are brand-new on the job and just really want to show that they have some authority. In the minister's consideration, would it be reasonable for that vendor to ask that individual to come back at a more appropriate time? Or would that indeed be classified as hindering or an obstruction to this individual doing his job?
I think we have to recognize that there are times -- especially in small businesses -- where employees may not have the opportunity to just stop what they're doing and all of a sudden listen to a lecture on how a particular posting or signage should be placed. I'm concerned that with this legislation, in the way that it's written, that could be seen as an obstruction of or interference with an individual doing his or her duties.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The environmental health officers who are charged with doing swimming pool inspections, restaurant inspections and a variety of other inspections are well aware of the stresses and strains of small business operations. I have received relatively few complaints about their performance of their duties in enforcement of those regulations. I suppose, at the extreme, if somebody said "come back tomorrow" ten days in a row, one could constitute it as hindering, but I've yet to see.... I think there's some sort of the normal courtesy in enforcing regulations that Ministry of Health personnel and others do indeed exhibit.
L. Fox: The minister would then agree that it would be reasonable that a businessman or a vendor should not only be reasonable in his or her approach but also that the request for the officer to come back at another time that's more appropriate would be a reasonable request to make, if in fact the particular business was extremely busy at the time. I'm not looking for excuses through you, hon. Chair, to the minister. I'm not looking for individual businesses to have a way out here, but I am looking for some reasonable dialogue to take place between the two around what might be more convenient for both the officer and the business, in terms of the business people having the time available to pay close attention to what the enforcement officers are attempting to instruct as well as having the opportunity to consume it all.
[7:45]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I recognize the importance of those who enforce government regulations dealing courteously with their customers, the taxpaying public, and I think that environmental health officers do that well. But let's look at the actual regulations these officers would be inspecting for. Most of what they are seeking to ascertain can be done by visual inspection, with little or no interaction with owners or employees. Are the signs in place? Is there the appropriate signage for sellers of product and for those who are purchasing? Are there open packs of cigarettes available in a public place? Are kiddie packs on display? Are vending machines available in an area that is accessible to those under the age of 19? All those are done by visual inspection.
Virtually the only regulation that they are enforcing that requires extensive interaction is in the case of complaints, where they are looking at sales to somebody under the age of 19 or at actual enforcement of a complaint, where they find open packets of cigarettes, kiddie packs or other violations of the regulations. In those cases, I think it is appropriate to act and indeed to impose upon the vendor a touch.
Section 3, section 3.1 approved.
On section 3, section 3.2.
L. Fox: I have just one very brief question. Essentially, this section is pretty self-explanatory. I guess that if you accept the other issues within the bill, by and large you accept the process for dealing with the return of seized items. The only question I have in this area revolves around the issue of vending machines, if it was perceived by an enforcement officer that a vending machine was not being supervised correctly by the establishment that had the vending machine in it. Those vending machines are often owned by another party within the premises, and they are there on a commission basis with the establishment. I recognize that under the previous legislation vending machines are supposed to be accessible only in licensed premises, but I have seen -- and perhaps this is something that would be resolved under this legislation -- machines in the doorways of those existing licensed premises. They are not inside the door of the licensed premise, so it would often be quite easy for an under-age individual not to be immediately observed and to take cigarettes out of them.
I guess why I'm asking the question is that the individual owning this vending machine isn't the owner of the premises that it's in. If it is seized, then it's through no action of his own. What kind of process would we have in order for the third party to get the equipment back? I read through this act trying to put that into some kind of perspective, and I had difficulty doing it. The minister might want to explain.
Hon. P. Ramsey: It's a fascinating hypothetical case. I must say, without meaning to be glib, that it ain't our problem.
[ Page 15063 ]
And the reason why it isn't is as follows. I spoke earlier about how we sought to harmonize enforcement of provincial law with federal law. We have left to the federal legislation enforcement of the prohibition against vending machines being available in areas accessible to those under the legal age for purchase. It is not something that our environmental health officers will be "seizing" or dealing with. If they saw a vending machine in an incorrect place, they would inform Health Canada that this has occurred. My understanding is that Health Canada would then seek not to seize but simply to lay a charge, and Health Canada would be the enforcers of those regulations.
Perhaps part of the difficulty the member saw here was that as part of our harmonization effort we left that particular issue to Health Canada. As I understand it, they are not interested in actually seizing the machine; they are interested in laying a charge and prosecuting those who violate that regulation.
Section 3, section 3.2 approved.
On section 3, section 3.3.
V. Anderson: The minister will be designating an administrator to undertake the process. I'm presuming this is a new appointment. Could the minister indicate the terms of reference for full-time appointment and what kind of staff this person will have as part of this process? It's fairly new, and a lot is going to be involved in it. He has indicated that the field officers are already in place, but there will be all the contact, the office work and all the rest that goes with it. Could he indicate what kind of office and administrative staff he's intending to have for this position?
Hon. P. Ramsey: We'll be asking an existing employee to assume these responsibilities. I have just been asking staff what thought the ministry executive has given to which position should have these duties. There is currently a position of director of radiation protection, which is another set of regulations that we have under the act, and that individual will have these duties of administrator under the Tobacco Sales Act added to his duties.
L. Fox: I see an interesting management difficulty here, and one has to question how everthing is going to flow in terms of.... You have an administrator who sets goals and objectives under the legislation -- some kind of criteria -- in terms of how he or she may want to have some 30,000 vendors inspected. In another area you have your health boards, which also have some priorities and issues they want dealt with. I have this fear that somehow there's going to be a bit of a tug of war between the two administrative branches of this initiative around what kind of distribution there's going to be in the employee's workday. How much effort in the employee's week is going to be spent trying to enforce the intent of this legislation versus how much is going to be spent on the job that they are presently in? How is this all going to flow together with this administrator and the existing administration of those employees? How is that going to intertwine? How are they going to manage their respective goals and objectives? What process is going to be there in order to dialogue and come to grips with these kinds of issues?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Actually, the division of labour is not greatly different from what we have now in many areas of Ministry of Health operations and the inspection and enforcement of regulations. We do indeed have essential people at the ministry who have broad administrative responsibilities.
But the actual carrying out of day-to-day inspections is done by employees of municipal health departments and by ministry employees who work in health units around the province. The local inspectors or local enforcement officers will be employees of regional health boards. They'll be contracted. Part of the contract between regional health boards and the ministry will be for enforcement of provincial regulations. They will carry out their duties. If convictions are obtained in court, those convictions are sent directly to the administrator, and he or she takes appropriate action from there.
L. Fox: Okay. Well, I understand, then, the.... Maybe I interpreted more into the administrator's role than I had envisioned. I thought the administrator would be an overall administrator of this whole initiative, as well as just an individual who accepted the findings of an investigation and decided what action would be appropriate. It was my understanding, in interpretation of this legislation, that the administrator would also administer the overall initiatives taken under this legislation, not just be the individual who would indeed decide what prosecution or action should be taken against the licensee. If I'm wrong in that, perhaps the minister should explain that to me.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The enforcement of the regulations under the Tobacco Sales Act is not greatly different from other regulations that the Ministry of Health enforces. The enforcement officers write a ticket for a violation of one of the regulations; it is for a sum. If the vendor pays the fine, he or she is guilty. If they decline to pay the fine and refuse, they are guilty. If they seek to contest it in court, then the environmental health officer or enforcement officer will prepare the case and present it in court.
That is done as part of enforcement of policy and regulations. It's not done under the direction of the administrator; it's done at a local level. It's done for a variety of regulations now. It will be done for the Tobacco Sales Act as well.
L. Fox: I want to get this straight, because I think the minister just told me something totally the opposite of what he told me a few moments ago, in that the administrator would receive the charges -- at least that's what I understood him to say -- and then not administer the regulations. Now the minister is suggesting that the administrator is going to administer the regulations and that the appropriate court action will be taken by the health officer and the regional board or whatever the case may be. In any case, the administrator is in fact going to administer the regulations -- the overall regulations.
Then, there is going to be perhaps some dialogue or a contract with the respective regional health board around how much time would be allotted to this specific service of that employee, who's under the employ of the regional health board. I guess I'm trying to understand here how the priorities are going to be set around that employee's time. If an employee has pressure on his or her time.... Getting back to the seasonal concerns that I run into in my constituency, individuals are sometimes waiting for weeks for sewerage approval. They're waiting to get on with it and build their
[ Page 15064 ]
home, because they only have a certain amount of time to do it. Is there enough flexibility, will there be enough dialogue and will there be enough understanding between this administrator and the regional health board around those kinds of issues? How would they resolve it? If the administrator says that in this particular region, not enough time is spent on the issue of the sale of tobacco to minors, and more time is needed because of the number of complaints or whatever the case may be, how do those kinds of management questions get resolved? That's the concern I have, and I'm still not sure that the minister has resolved it -- at least, not in my mind.
I understand how the existing process works and how the priorities will be set by the regional health board in terms of the utilization of its staff. If you have an administrator outside of the system utilizing the same workforce in different regions of the province -- 20 regions, as I understand it -- then how will these kinds of priorities be set?
[8:00]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me try again. The administrator, under section 3.3, has broad programmatic and policy responsibilities, not unlike somebody who's responsible for doing work around sewage disposal regulations. The issuance of permits is done for sewage disposal facilities at the local level; it is not directed by the central administrator. The administrator here has responsibility for the broad policy objectives of enforcing the Tobacco Sales Act. He or she also has, by law, a copy of every conviction that has been obtained against a vendor of these products for any contravention of these regulations. He has the responsibility for ensuring that appropriate suspensions or fines or other penalties are enforced; he or she does not direct the day-to-day operations of the enforcement officers who are charged with inspecting premises and enforcing the provisions of this act.
I must say that in most areas of the province, tobacco use, particularly among the young, is seen as a high priority by those who work in public health units and in the field of environmental health. It's surely seen as a high priority by many who are concerned about improving the health of British Columbians. I would expect that this would have a fairly high priority in most areas of the province. The priority given may well vary, depending on the experience that the regional board or community council has with the enforcement of these regulations, but I would submit that concern about the use of tobacco products by youth is widespread in British Columbia.
V. Anderson: Like my colleague, I'm having a little difficulty understanding the breadth of it. On one hand, I hear that the administrator is really just dealing with the regulations; on the other hand, he will receive from the judge any convictions; and on the other hand, he will review the certificates regarding the businesses -- and I presume will also have to be working with the Finance ministry regarding the licences. So these are the areas that are all the responsibility of the administrator: being in touch with the field staff to make sure they're all operating under the same set of regulations or rules, or being in touch with the regional health boards to make sure they're all operating with the same sets of regulations and rules; working with the judges on the convictions; and working with the licence and the registration, and back to the businesses, to make sure that the regulations are followed through. Just as an illustration, who will be responsible for verifying that a business that has had its licence to sell cigarettes removed...? Does that mean that they also take their cigarettes off the shelf for that period of time? Do they put them away altogether for the period of time they're under suspension? That supervision has to be followed up, and I expect it's the administrator's responsibility to make sure that that supervision is also followed up as well.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I would submit again that we're straying far from the section under immediate debate, and we might want to move on through here till we get to sections that might directly address the issue raised by the member.
If a vendor's licence to sell tobacco is lifted, those who are responsible for the Tobacco Tax Act ensure.... Well, it is an offence to have tobacco on the premises, and that can be verified by a variety of people enforcing the provisions of the Tobacco Tax Act. It is indeed their responsibility to make sure that the products aren't sold.
I would suggest to the chamber that we move through a couple of these sections and deal with specifics that they encompass, and that we will get to some of the issues that this member is addressing.
Section 3, section 3.3 approved.
On section 3, section 3.4.
V. Anderson: Just briefly, if an inspector goes in and has reason to lay a claim, do all of these claims go to a judge in a court for a conviction each time? Is that what I'm understanding by this? Each time a person is deemed to be guilty of an offence, that offence must go to court. Which court -- and what indication do we have from the court loads as to how long it would take to go through the courts? The court process for most people is months and years. Have you any indication what the actual waiting time involved would be? I presume that the vendor is free to go on selling until that court has actually made a decision, and only after the decision would there be any action taken against them. But until the judge has made a decision, they'll continue to be able to sell.
Hon. P. Ramsey: This act is like other acts; you're not convicted until you're convicted.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
Section 3, section 3.4 approved.
On section 3, section 3.5.
L. Fox: I wanted to get a bit of clarification in this section around the accumulated convictions. Section 3.5(2) shows that if there's a series of two, three or four or more convictions, there's a substantial suspension. Subsection (5) says: "For the purposes of calculating a suspension described in subsection (2), the dates on which the convictions occurred shall be considered and no consideration shall be given to the date the offences occurred." I'm trying to get clear in my mind what the statute of limitations is in terms of ongoing convictions. If you have one conviction, for instance, every two years, does that constitute the buildup we see under section 3.5(2)? Does it become an aggregate number? Or is there a certain time frame? Is it two convictions successively within a certain time frame, or after...?
[ Page 15065 ]
I think back to the points I got when I drove. On my birthday every year, those points dropped off and didn't become.... I guess I'm trying to get around this issue in my mind. Maybe the minister can clarify that for me.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think your analogy is a good one. It's a 60-month period; it's a rolling five-year period. As each month goes on, a month at the start of that five-year period drops off. You're quite right: once those sins of the past are further than five years in the past, they no longer count.
L. Fox: I would suspect, then, that if I have two convictions over a period of five years, I'm looking at facing a three-month suspension. I have some problems with whether or not that's reasonable. I would suggest that if I've only erred twice over a five-year period of time, that's probably not a bad record in terms of lots of establishments where you have, particularly, a problem.... I'm thinking more now of the 7-Elevens and those kinds of confectionaries where you have a revolving staff. It's very, very difficult to keep consistent staff in those, because everybody's looking to advance themselves from that particular type of job. I really have some concerns that, in fact, that's going to become rather onerous. However, I guess I'll leave it at that.
Hon. P. Ramsey: We could debate whether it's onerous or not. The enforcement officers do have discretion. I don't think they're prepared to issue a summary conviction simply because a sign wasn't in place on one day. But I think these provisions are needed to make sure that these provisions are taken seriously and that there are real penalties for violation of them.
V. Anderson: Just one clarification, in passing. When a case is taken to court, is it assumed that if the person is found guilty, they're paying the court costs, and if they're not found guilty, they're not responsible for the court costs -- the government accepts the cost of the court in that case?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The provisions of this act are enforced like any criminal matter: the costs of prosecution are borne by the state, and the costs of defence are borne by the defendant.
Section 3, sections 3.5 and 3.6 approved.
On section 3, section 3.7.
V. Anderson: In each of these cases, is it understood that reasons for this will be supplied with the certificate -- that when a certificate is given or withheld, there will be written reasons that will be available for that? Is that one of the implications here: you won't just get the notice but you'll also get the reasons for it?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The reasons are in the convictions.
V. Anderson: Would the minister explain a little bit about section 3.7(5)? It says:
"Subject to this section, a review under this section is governed by rules, practices and procedures adopted by the administrator" -- as we follow through here, the administrator seems to have both the first and the final say -- "and, in the conduct of such a review, the administrator is not bound by the legal or technical rules of evidence and may act on evidence by affidavit...."
There's a lot of power in this particular section -- subsection (5) -- and I think there should be some explanation of what the essence of this section is. Because it takes a little while reading it to try and find out what happens.
[8:15]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Subsection (5) allows an administrator to adopt any appropriate practices and procedures in conducting the review to make sure that the grounds for issuing a certificate are in fact in place. He or she may rely on evidence by affidavit or a written statement or report of an officer. Some of the rules of the Evidence Act that you'd expect in a court need not be adhered to. I think this is common for administrative matters. Clearly, all the expectations of administrative fairness apply to reviews conducted under this section.
Section 3, section 3.7 approved.
On section 3, section 3.8.
L. Fox: Actually, sections 3.7 and 3.8.... I guess one wouldn't have problems with the authority given to the administrator under section 3.7 if we had, I think, a more realistic appeal process under section 3.8. I'm concerned here that, given that you could look at, for instance, a three-month suspension for two convictions, the costs and the time frame to appeal a decision by the administrator are extremely onerous on a small business. As the minister will know, right now to get before the Supreme Court is a lengthy process, given the workload that's presently there. Not only that, but it's a very costly process. I'm concerned that the only avenue for appeal that the small business person has is an extremely expensive one. In essence, I would suggest that you may as well say.... For many small businesses, they would wait it out, rather than enter into an appeal process, because of the costs. Has the minister given any consideration to another form of appeal that would not be so onerous on a small business individual?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The first venue which somebody who is charged or who commits an offence under this act has is, of course, to deal with the original charges and to contest those in court. I would suggest, hon. member, that that's the prime area where I would expect a particular vendor or dealer would seek to contest it. He or she would be well aware of the number of convictions that he or she has incurred in the previous 60 months and would know very well whether another conviction would result in suspension of the licence for a shorter or longer period of time. That would be the initial avenue for appeal.
I must say that right now we're back into the "create more bureaucracy versus create less bureaucracy" argument. There are other ways: establishing an administrative appeal tribunal. Clearly, establishing that would be cumbersome; it would require a considerable amount of regulation and apparatus. That is the alternative to the courts. We chose to put the courts in as the avenue of appeal.
Section 3, section 3.8 approved.
Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved.
On section 2.
[ Page 15066 ]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for allowing me the chance to set this aside and consult further with staff. The difficulty I was having was that on reviewing the full section 2 of the Tobacco Sales Act, it was not clear to me on the surface that it prohibited us from seeking a conviction of an individual who was selling tobacco without a licence. Indeed, at the end of my review of it I would submit that we do have the ability under section 2 to choose to ticket an individual who is offering products for sale.
The difficulty here is that there are actually two acts that apply. One is the Tobacco Tax Act, which says that if you're going to sell tobacco products, you have to have a vendor's licence. It's an offence under that act to sell tobacco without that licence, as I understand it. There is a possibility that this act could also be used if a person commits an offence by selling tobacco to an under-age person, whether or not that seller has a vendor's licence. It is our expectation that we would be using this act and the definition of a "person" to refer to vendors who have a licence under the Tobacco Tax Act.
We are, quite frankly, consulting now to see if there are specific circumstances where we might use this act or these sections to say that the selling of tobacco by an individual constitutes an offence.
L. Fox: I'm not sure I understood all that. I'm not a lawyer, but first of all, this legislation does not contain within it a definition of "person." I have the original act that this amends; I'm looking at it. I'm not confident that the minister may use an action clause contained within a piece of legislation to prosecute someone when there isn't a penalty to enact for an individual who is not a licensee identified in that legislation. I am told, and we have been told all the way through this legislation, that the only action this legislation has with respect to sentencing -- indeed, we spent some time on it -- is the removal of the licence that enables a business to sell tobacco products. Perhaps the minister would clarify that for me.
Hon. P. Ramsey: At risk of revisiting sections that we have already passed, I would refer the member to section 5, which sets out penalties for offences to regulations made under sections 2 or 3.1(4). It provides very clearly for fines of up to $500 or "imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or to both the fine and imprisonment" for a first offence, and fines up to $1,000 or "imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months" for subsequent offences. These are, as I understand it, a continuation of existing provisions of the Tobacco Sales Act. The additions in this act include the ability to suspend licences. It was the view and the advice of the members of the select standing committee and others that withdrawal or suspension of the right to sell products constituted a far more significant penalty than a particular fine.
L. Fox: This puts new light on section 5. Not getting section 2 dealt with prior to dealing with section 5, I did not understand that section 5 would be for an employee of a respective company. If the minister is telling me now that it is an employee or any individual who sells cigarettes -- even if it's me personally who sells cigarettes to an under-age minor -- then perhaps there's a reason to revisit section 5, because now we have some clarification of what section 2 meant. If we are being told that this is an action that can be taken against an employee, that an employee of a company could be fined up to $500 or face imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, then I guess there's some comfort in terms of the fact that a company is going to be protected from an employee that is not following the laws when they have been instructed to do that. There's some comfort with respect to that; I guess I'll just leave it at that.
Hon. P. Ramsey: We are revisiting a lot of ground here, some of which was debated last year when this act was brought in.
Let me just say this. The act contains the provision to convict an individual. This would be used, I submit, in cases where an individual was clearly acting contrary to the instructions of their corporation and violating the act. That's when we would wish to convict an individual, hon. member. I hope that deals with that.
As far as section 2 goes, let me again state that I think it is theoretically possible that this section in total might be used to seek conviction of an individual dealing in the sale or distribution of product, rather than a vendor.... I think it is extremely unlikely. The practical difficulties of enforcement -- proving the offence and Crown counsel believing in the likelihood of conviction -- simply get immense. I find it theoretically possible, but not very probable.
V. Anderson: I would just make one comment. When you point out the implication of section 2, which happens to go with section 5, that's a special concern for employees. If somebody comes in for work for a day or something, making sure they're aware of the significance of this and its implications is, I think we can say, the responsibility of the employer; but it also puts onus on us to protect some employees who come on part-time, don't get the proper introduction and could step over the line very easily without the.... It's just a responsibility of making sure they're aware of this.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't wish to prolong the debate on this section. I say only that the regulations require that a sign be posted, visible to the seller, that states very clearly what the regulations are for selling to those under the age of legal purchase of product.
[8:30]
L. Fox: Perhaps it might be worthy to also have a very visible reminder for those employees of what penalty could be inflicted on them as individuals should they contravene the intent of the act. It would be right there, in front, readily legible to the particular employee, so they're well aware that if they sell a package of cigarettes -- even though the corporation has done due diligence in terms of educating and making them aware of this legislation and the impact on the business -- they personally face the possibilities of this action under section 5.
It might be a worthy objective, I guess, to try to have that kind of very small notice about the sale of cigarettes visible somewhere.
Section 2 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
[ Page 15067 ]
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
Bill 21, Tobacco Sales Amendment Act, 1995, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I call second reading of Bill 31.
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading)
Hon. D. Marzari: It is my pleasure to put forward Bill 31 for second reading. This proposed legislation contains some housekeeping provisions designed to meet some specific needs in the communities of Abbotsford and Dawson Creek, in the city of Vancouver and in the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District.
For Abbotsford, the legislation validates the letters patent incorporating the new municipality created by the amalgamation of the district of Abbotsford and the district of Matsqui as a city. Under section 20 of the Municipal Act, the new municipality would normally be defined as a district. In this instance, our government wanted to recognize the special circumstances of the amalgamation by giving city status to the newly incorporated municipality.
For Dawson Creek, the legislation will ensure that residents will continue to enjoy a reliable supply of natural gas. It accomplishes this by enabling the city to renew a natural gas franchise agreement without the assent of the electors, as has been done for a period of years. This gas service has been in place for 42 years, and there do not appear to be any alternative suppliers. If the existing service was interrupted or put at risk through a failed referendum, residents could be left without a fuel source that they have come to rely on. In this case, the question was not which supplier should provide the service, but rather whether the community would continue to be supplied with service at all.
Two of the provisions address issues of concern to the city of Vancouver. The first relates directly to the success of the Arbutus neighbourhood plan. The plan calls for a major park, which the city intends to finance through the community amenity contributions from the owners of large comprehensive development properties. The owners have agreed to provide these contributions to help develop the park, and other owners of property to be developed will pay a development cost levy to fund the day care and the street upgrading. All owners of property to be developed will contribute, but the city needs a legal framework to charge either the community amenity contribution or the development cost charge -- the city cannot charge both. In practice, this means that the city requires the clear authority to not impose a development cost levy on those properties that have agreed to provide community amenity contributions. Without this authority, the park plan would be in jeopardy.
The second provision requested by the city of Vancouver amends the Vancouver Charter to enable the city to implement an extra heritage density transfer system. Under this system, Vancouver would have explicit authority to grant density bonuses that could be transferred to other sites in specific zones as compensation for the designation of a heritage property. Vancouver has expressed concern that the present system does little to encourage developers to accept density that could be transferred to them from a designated heritage property, because they must still apply for rezoning on the site that is to receive the extra density. Under the proposed system, the extra density could be sold or transferred to the owner of a site in a zone that is predesignated as being able to accept the extra density from a heritage property. With the amendment, extra density from designated properties will become a marketable commodity that should assist in making the preservation of heritage properties more economically attractive.
Bill 31 also amends the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act in a way that will preserve service levels for solid waste disposal and recycling programs without increasing the tax burden. The amendment will enable the district to charge a levy to all generators of solid waste within its area or within a municipality that has contracted with the district for solid waste disposal. The levy, combined with the reduction in tipping fees at the district's facilities, is intended to provide an incentive for all waste haulers to use the district's facilities. The new levy will not represent an increase in the current fees, and consequently should not represent an increase in garbage collection fees for the consumer. What the levy will provide is flexibility, so the district can design a more competitive pricing structure, which will keep the facilities working to capacity and thereby avoid cutbacks in service and cost increases for taxpayers.
Finally, Bill 31 contains provisions to ensure that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the election provisions of the Municipal Act and the Vancouver Charter are not inconsistent with respect to election materials. These amendments have been requested by the municipalities involved in every single case. They respond to very specific community needs.
I'm happy to move that Bill 31 be read for the second time now.
A. Warnke: The official opposition critic, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, has had a good detailed look at Bill 31 and saw no objections. Since he has no desire to be on television, he says let's pass it.
Deputy Speaker: I suspect this may be an augury of things to come.
L. Fox: I, too, have looked over this bill and in terms of the principle of the bill find it very difficult to find a lot to debate. There is, however, one issue that comes forward in my mind. Each year over the course of the last four years that I've been in the House, we've seen numerous pieces of legislation -- at least one piece every year -- which have allowed one community or another throughout northern British Columbia to sign franchise agreements with the respective gas companies. We saw one last year, and Fort St. James, Fraser Lake,and so on.
It seems to me that we need some kind of long-term process or mechanism for allowing this kind of thing to take place and happen. It would be preferable, in my view, if we had legislation come forward that gave municipalities the ongoing authority to enter into agreements such as these franchise agreements, because it only makes good sense. It's in the electorate's best interests and would prevent a lot of
[ Page 15068 ]
drafting from year to year by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs people in order to accommodate individual municipalities.
With respect to the other issues contained in this bill, I look forward to the committee stage of the bill to address the specifics of those clauses.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the minister, whose comments will close second reading debate.
Hon. D. Marzari: In concluding the second reading debate, I will simply say to the member that perhaps we can discuss your recommendation during the committee stage. The same thought has occurred to me. I'm sure it's out of an abundance of caution that, in fact, we bring forward these MEVAs on a year-to-year basis, so that we don't transgress on the taxpayers' ability to go to referendum on servicing contracts. However, these contracts are so obvious -- because there's no real choice as to how a community is going to receive natural gas in these particular cases -- that it would probably streamline the system if we concocted language that would exempt particular franchise agreements for particular communities, with taxpayer consent. I believe that last clause is the pertinent one here.
With that, I move the close of second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 31, Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
[8:45]
Hon. D. Marzari: I call committee stage on Bill 19.
HOME OWNER GRANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
The House in committee on Bill 19; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 approved.
Hon. D. Marzari: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 2.1, by adding the following:
2.1 Sections 2(2)(a), 3.1(3)(a) and 3.2(3)(a) are amended by striking out "age 65," and substituting "age 65 or older,".]
This amendment, along with the amendments to sections 3 and 14 also standing in my name, is required in order to clarify the eligibility of persons over the age of 65 for the additional homeowner grant. It's a minor change, and it's required to remove any possible doubt that the words of the act make persons who are age 65 or older eligible for the grant.
Section 2.1 approved.
On section 3.
Hon. D. Marzari: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 3, in the proposed section 3(3)(a), by striking out "age 65," and substituting "age 65 or older,".]
This amendment is required for the same reasons I described in moving the previous amendment.
Amendment approved.
Section 3 as amended approved.
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
A. Warnke: I guess section 4 also begs the same kind of question. Under the reference to the federal act in section 5, could the minister describe very briefly what seems to be an anomaly here as it affects veterans. She may refer to section 4 as well -- just a quick rationale on the purpose of sections 4 and 5.
Hon. D. Marzari: In section 5, it's simply a change in the name of a federal act. It was previously the War Veterans' Allowance Act, and now it's the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act. In section 4 it's the same thing: a change in the federal legislation.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
F. Gingell: I'm sorry I wasn't here for the start of this. I was suddenly advised earlier that the Finance estimates are up tomorrow, so I was busy working on that.
Section 6, as I understand it, deals with the issue of expanding the homeowner grant to a new series of eligible recipients. I wonder if the minister -- if she hasn't already -- could just briefly explain who the extra people are that have been included.
Hon. D. Marzari: The act is basically amended to include housing cooperatives and housing societies in the provisions of the homeowner grant. A housing cooperative is being defined as a building owned by a housing cooperative association and used to provide residential accommodation in both strata-titled and non-strata-titled buildings. Housing society buildings are buildings owned by a society and used "to provide residential accommodations for persons who hold from the society rights to occupy the accommodation that were acquired for at least the applicable amount prescribed under section 14...." So housing societies where seniors buy in and basically hold almost a cooperative title in that society are now eligible for the homeowner grant.
F. Gingell: Would it be fair to describe this as the first move toward allowing people who do not own the property to be eligible for the homeowner grant?
Hon. D. Marzari: This draws the line in a slightly different place than it is presently drawn, to allow homeowners who happen to own shares in a society or in a co-op society to
[ Page 15069 ]
qualify. These units are very close to traditional fee simple ownership. Residents certainly have pride of ownership in every sense of the word. Consequently, although we wouldn't say that these are traditional fee simple forms of tenure, they do reflect a growing number of new ownership tenures. This brings our homeowner grant in line with what is now happening in the marketplace and inside cooperative associations.
F. Gingell: You would liken the circumstances of the property owners that are now brought in to those people who own residential units through strata corporations and strata titles.
Hon. D. Marzari: Yes, strata owners now qualify for homeowner grants. Surprisingly, a cooperative association that may have strata within it does not qualify, although the strata units that it might own do receive homeowner grants.
F. Gingell: Have any of these organizations that own the properties been the recipient of government grants for low-cost housing and those types of arrangements?
Hon. D. Marzari: Yes. Under CMHC provisions for cooperative housing, many of these units -- most of these units -- have received a preferential break on a mortgage, perhaps anywhere up to 30 years ago.
F. Gingell: There is a growing number of seniors' housing projects that are owned through organizations like Abbeyfield, where small numbers -- somewhere normally between eight and 12 seniors -- are housed in a community home. Each has his or her own unit, but it's all part of a communal living arrangement. In normal circumstances, those properties are owned and operated by charitable organizations. Has there been any consideration to include this type of organization?
Hon. D. Marzari: In response to the member's question, the provisions here would only relate to those societies where the individuals have paid a considerable amount -- and that amount will be determined by regulation -- towards their sense of ownership in that society. So nursing home arrangements, no; but societies where there is a kind of individual involvement in payment towards the society for ownership or a share in that society, yes. The act would go that far. It's obvious to me, and it must be to the House, that as new forms of tenure emerge, we must use the act flexibly. This act gives us the opportunity to take a look at opening up the definitions of tenure as new forms emerge every day.
D. Jarvis: I'd like to ask the minister if this is applicable in the same situation with a shared interest -- which, as you know, has been in the news lately -- as a means of getting around the Condominium Act, which you have since changed. Does the homeowner's grant still apply to them?
Hon. D. Marzari: There have been amendments made to the Condominium Act that will basically make the arrangement that the member is referring to much less attractive to developers, so I don't think we'll be seeing that form of tenure coming on the market.
D. Jarvis: I appreciate that the changes have been made, but there are existing ones out there now that were formed prior to the changes coming through your ministry several weeks ago. Those shared interests in an apartment block that they've strata-titled in a roundabout way, do they not apply? Do they not qualify for the homeowner's grant?
Hon. D. Marzari: I am informed by staff that this act does not make provision for them, because they are not strata-titled.
Sections 6 and 7 approved.
On section 8.
F. Gingell: Section 8, as I understand it, gives an extension of time for individuals who will now qualify for the homeowner grant. Will this extension allow them to go back and claim homeowner grants for previous years when they were not entitled? Perhaps the minister could also advise which taxation year it is that will be the first one eligible.
Hon. D. Marzari: There will be no retroactivity except in the calendar year that municipal governments operate by. So that goes back to January 1995.
Sections 8 to 13 inclusive approved.
On section 14.
Hon. D. Marzari: I move the amendment to section 14 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.
[SECTION 14, by adding the following subsection:
(3) All grants made under section 2(2)(a), 3(3)(a), 3.1(3)(a), or 3.2(3)(a) of the Home Owner Grant Act before 1995 to a person who was or attained age 65 or older in the applicable year are confirmed and validated as grants under the Home Owner Grant Act]
Again, the amendment is required to remove any doubt that persons who were older than 65 and who have received the additional homeowner grant in the past are still eligible for that grant.
On the amendment.
F. Gingell: Does this act deal in any way with allowing individuals who are over the age of 65 to apply for tax deferment on their property taxes?
[9:00]
Hon. D. Marzari: No, this act doesn't relate to the tax deferment program. But obviously, the act that does permit that -- that program -- is ongoing, and seniors are eligible to apply for that.
F. Gingell: I appreciate that we are not strictly within the terms of this act. But has the ability to...? I hope that the committee will forgive me for asking this question, but are those people over 65 who are members of a housing cooperative or a housing society presently able to apply for a tax deferment on their portion of the property taxes that apply to the total property?
Hon. D. Marzari: I don't have an answer for that question right now, since the deferment program is not under the
[ Page 15070 ]
jurisdiction of Municipal Affairs, but I will let the member know what the situation is there, and if....
I informed the member before that seniors were not eligible for homeowner grants if in fact they deferred their taxes. I have just been informed by staff that in fact they are eligible for homeowner grants, because the taxes, of course, are simply being deferred and will be paid at a future date.
Amendment approved.
Section 14 as amended approved.
Section 15 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. D. Marzari: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
Bill 19, Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1995, reported complete with amendments.
Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be considered?
Hon. D. Marzari: By leave, I move the bill be read a third time now.
Leave granted.
Bill 19, Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1995, read a third time and passed.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading, continued debate, of Bill 16.
CLASS PROCEEDINGS ACT
(second reading continued)
J. Dalton: Even at this relatively late hour, I'm sure we can proceed and make some inroads on the implications of this class action bill. The hon. Attorney General this morning was rather brief in his submission on second reading, and in essence all he told the House was that this will open up the justice system, provide access through class action process and that "people were consulted widely." I will be making some comments about the consultation process. It seems that every time I'm on my feet speaking on a bill, the one theme that is very consistent is that there has been a lack of consultation, and this bill is certainly an example of that. I will start on that particular topic: the failure of this government, once again, to adequately consult, or even consult at all, the people affected -- in particular, the Law Society and the bar of British Columbia. After all, they're the people that are going to have to live with this bill.
I have in my hand the consultation document, as it is kindly called, which was prepared by the Ministry of Attorney General in May 1994. It was circulated, but there are some comments I'll be reading in a moment that would indicate that the circulation process was not as extensive as it should have been. However, there is material in the consultation document that is useful, and some of it has found its way into the bill that we're dealing with at this moment.
The British Columbia civil litigation section of the Canadian Bar Association has commented at length to the Attorney General on a submission that they made to the consultation document. By the way, the consultation document called for submissions by sometime in the summer of 1994, so there wasn't a lot of time for this document to make the rounds. I'm glad to see that the Attorney General is here to hear some of these comments. The Canadian Bar Association responded in September 1994. I'm going to read some of the information from this document into the record, because I think it's helpful for the House and, I hope, for the Attorney General to hear what the Canadian Bar Association had to say about this.
By the way, we should not be left with the impression that this bill is necessarily wrong. This is a process bill, and I don't think anybody would quarrel with the fact that class-action legislation in some form, or at least an amendment to the rules of court, was long in order in order to allow people who would normally be shut out -- either through costs or other processes -- to gain access to the civil process. But I'm not so sure; I'm not entirely convinced that this bill is going to hit the target. We'll have to see. It may very well be that at the committee stage we're going to have to introduce some amendments to try and tidy up the things that are missing.
Now, let's see what the B.C. section of the Canadian Bar Association had to say about the consultation document. Page 1 of the submission of the Canadian Bar Association -- and it's a 27-page submission: "We were surprised to learn that the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia has not been consulted concerning this proposed legislation; it apparently had no hand in the drafting of the consultation document, nor has it been asked to review it." So that's this government's definition of consultation. Once again it's the same old theme. It's too bad that nobody over there is listening, because I don't know how many times you have to tell them. If you're going to do something of significance in the way of legislation, if nothing else, it would be at least polite to let the thing make the rounds of the province and give people time to reflect upon it. That has not happened.
I have another comment, from page 2 of this same document: "...we think the judiciary should also have the opportunity to review and comment in detail upon the possible changes to the Rules of Court that might be required...." I don't know whether that has happened. Perhaps the Attorney General will have an opportunity on that topic, either in his wrap-up comments or when we get to committee stage.
Let's go on. There are other problems with the consultation. I have talked to several lawyers about the bill. When it hit the floor on first reading, I immediately made sure that several people in the B.C. section of the Canadian Bar Association had copies, and some of them already had access to them. I must say that they were almost unanimously surprised that this bill had been tabled, because they didn't know it was coming down the pipeline. They knew eventually something would be coming, but the people did not know that this particular Bill 16 was going to be tabled when it was. And that's a bit of a slam in the face of these people, because they're the ones who have to live with it, and they are the people who have had the opportunity to present submissions to the Attorney General. The consultation process has collapsed once again.
[ Page 15071 ]
The paper goes on to deal at length with the experience in other jurisdictions -- Ontario in particular, and some of the U.S. states that have class-action legislation or provisions in their rules of court. Let's see what the Canadian Bar Association has to say. On page 3 it says: "...the fact that these are worthy goals" -- and of course, the worthy goals are the access provisions and the fact that through this legislation people will collectively be able to gain more effective and less costly access to the courts -- "should not blind us to the very real problems that have been associated with class actions in other jurisdictions...." Then they go on to quote the words of Justice Medina in the U.S. Court of Appeals. He has some interesting comments about the American class-action experience:
"Class actions have sprouted and multiplied like the leaves of the green bay tree...Thus class actions have been brought 'on behalf of all subscribers of business telephones in New York County, all MasterCharge credit card holders...all consumers of gasoline in a given state or states, all homeowners in the United States, and even all people in the United States'."
These are not my words. I'm not suggesting that that's the road we're going down -- heaven forbid. But I think we all have to be aware that there are pitfalls out there when you put in a very significant change in the process in the rules of the court, or court procedure. There may be things hidden away in this document and this bill that we have to be concerned about.
Let's look at Ontario -- the cousins of the NDP government here, but not cousins for very long. What is today -- Tuesday? Two more days and those cousins are finished. Although I suppose we should be looking at the borders of this province. Come Friday morning, there should be an avalanche of N-Dippers proceeding west from Ontario, because the trough will be empty there, and the trough here will be getting deeper and bigger. We'll need more carpenters to cobble that one together.
The Ontario experience.... They've had 11 certifications or applications to be certified under their act since 1992, and five of those 11 applications have been certified. We don't know whether that's a good experience or a bad experience -- I'm just making reference to that very fact.
There is a comment on page 4 of the Canadian Bar Association paper on the Ontario experience: "...one finds little in the way of principled consistency in the first four certification motions to be heard in Ontario...." As I say, they've had 11 in total since that bill was.... There may be more than the 11 since this paper was authored, but that was the experience up to September of last year. So again I make reference to the House with my comments about the inconsistent court decisions in Ontario dealing with the process.
Let's just look at two or three things in the act itself that either differ from the Ontario statute or are maybe patterned after it. Again, we have to keep these things in mind, because what has happened in other Canadian jurisdictions in particular obviously is of importance to us as to how we may be implementing this process in British Columbia.
[9:15]
The question of numerosity is raised on page 6 in the Canadian Bar Association paper. This, of course, is dealing with the number of people who would be permitted to submit an application in order to be certified as a class-action process. In our bill, it's two or more. By contrast, in some American jurisdictions, the class must be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. There's not going to be any consistency there, though I must question.... Perhaps the Attorney General can keep this in mind when we get to committee stage. I think we have to find out why two or more was the agreed figure here, because two people doesn't seem to me to make much sense as a class action, potentially. I would think we have to be examining the possibility of, not necessarily a multitude, but certainly a number of people. Two or more doesn't seem to fit into that theme.
The document goes on to talk about commonality, and there are other things as well. Most of this, by the way, has found its way in some way, shape or form into the bill that the Attorney General has presented, and so at least I will give him credit for one thing. Some of the things that the Canadian Bar Association has commented upon, whether due to accident or otherwise, have in fact found their way into the bill, and that's good.
The question, though, of costs in section 37 is one that I would like to flag now, because it's rather interesting when you compare what we've done in British Columbia to what Ontario has done. On page 19 of the document -- and this is taken from the Attorney General's consultation document that they're referring to -- the Canadian Bar Association comments that the proposed legislation.... I don't think that's quite an accurate statement. What was contained in this AG document, of course, wasn't the proposed legislation, necessarily; it was a document that was intended to make the rounds so people could be thinking about what the legislation might contain.
"The proposed legislation states...that 'costs shall not be awarded to any party in a class action at any stage of the proceedings...except where there has been vexatious, frivolous or abusive conduct on the part of any party'." That, in fact, is our section 37. Ontario's Law Reform Commission, by the way -- which, unlike ours, was invited to really get involved in the process -- made a recommendation that there be a no-cost rule. That recommendation was rejected by the drafters of the Ontario act. Again, I would like to flag for the consideration of the minister, when we get to this in committee stage, the question of why the recommendation of the drafters of the Ontario act is different from what we've implemented here. I think the other question I would like to note at this time is: why is it, then, that in a case such as a class action, which we're contemplating through this act, we're not allowing costs in the normal course of events, when, of course, costs normally follow the event, as they say? That is, the costs go to the successful party in a civil litigation matter.
One other quote from the document: "Costs may well deter the bringing of actions lacking in intrinsic merit, and that policy goal is one that supports the traditional rule of costs following the event." So I have to wonder, again, why costs do not follow the event in the B.C. act. There may be a contradictory aspect of this bill; we're trying to open up the process and provide access, as the Attorney General commented in his brief comments this morning, to the civil process, yet we are saying to potential litigants: "Well, good luck. You may win your case, but you're not going to be awarded court costs as a normal result of being successful." We shouldn't be perceived as shutting the door if in fact we could rethink that particular aspect.
Those are some observations about the content of the bill itself. Again, I would just remind this government once again
[ Page 15072 ]
that the consultation process has certainly fallen short. This bill is going to be an interesting one as we deal with it in second reading and as we go through committee stage. It's an important process, one that's long overdue, and I'm just hoping that this government has thought it through adequately so that when and if we put it into law, it will prove to do what I'm sure the Attorney General and his colleagues hope it will do, which is to truly provide access for people who have been aggrieved. Of course, we can think of the breast implant cases and others of that nature that have certainly caused some concern, and rightly so, and controversy within the litigation process in this province. With those remarks, I look forward to hearing from colleagues who also have some things to say about this bill, and in committee stage we can address the other issues.
L. Stephens: I have a few brief comments on second reading of Bill 16, the Class Action Proceedings Act. I believe that this is an important piece of legislation for individuals to be able to join together in a common cause to seek justice and compensation. I think the intent of this legislation is to level the playing field, in terms of groups of people sharing the same resources. This should mean that one lawsuit will be cheaper and more efficient than individual claims.
Where this legislation is going to be most appropriate is in the appalling cases of the silicone breast implants. There are too many of these cases in documentation -- cases of women who have endured agony and serious health problems related to these implants. I have received correspondence from individuals about these kinds of issues, and in principle I think this is a desirable piece of legislation. During committee stage there will be some specific questions about specific sections of the bill that our critic has identified, and they will be scrutinized further. But I would like to say that in principle, and for the reasons I have outlined, this bill will serve a large number of our citizens well.
M. de Jong: In second reading on this piece of legislation let me begin by saying that I don't see this as a particularly partisan piece of legislation. The government and the Attorney General have moved to address an issue that has been of longstanding concern to British Columbians. That relates to the cost of litigation, which is high in any case -- too high, I think -- and we have heard that from certain members in the House on many occasions in the past. In any event, it becomes particularly distressing when one sees high cost and duplicated actions, and though there have been provisions in our rules for some time that allow for a joining of actions, it has generally been regarded that those provisions are inadequate insofar as certain causes of actions are concerned.
As we embark upon the debate and study the bill in committee stage, I will be endeavouring to remind the Attorney General, and he may be aware of it, that we think of the applications of an act of this sort not just in those cases where there may be hundreds or thousands of litigants; but, as one of the previous speakers mentioned, the legislation contemplates much smaller groups -- as low as two, as the Attorney General points out. Much of the value of this bill may be in assisting those smaller groups in reducing the cost and the delays that result when it is necessary to litigate separate actions. It can be as common as a motor vehicle accident where there are similar facts and perhaps an admission of liability. In those instances, this act may also have some application and serve litigants well in terms of reducing the duplication and delays that plague our court system.
When we get to the committee stage, I will also endeavour to point out and query the Attorney General on one aspect of the bill. I'm not sure I find it troubling, but I find it noteworthy, because I think the legislation marks a significant shift insofar as the role of the court is concerned. Ours is a system that for better or worse is founded on the adversarial principle of litigants coming before a passive judge, presenting their evidence and awaiting judgment. There are sections in this bill that change that, where the court has now been charged or left with the responsibility, or encouraged to play or left with the option of playing, a far more interventionist role insofar as gathering evidence and directing notices are concerned.
One of the sections that this is apparent in is section 21, where the court is granted the authority to demand or order that certain notices be provided to certain individuals by the parties involved in the litigation. A section like that can most certainly operate to the prejudice of the parties. It struck me as I went through the legislation that the court was being empowered in this instance to intervene and, in a certain sense, perform a role that has more traditionally been assigned to the litigants themselves. It's done under the guise of protecting the interests of parties. But the question I will have for the Attorney General is: is that an appropriate role for the courts under our adversarial system? Is that something we want the courts to embark upon now, to become involved in the conduct of litigation, rather than simply ruling on the evidence presented to them?
I have some concerns -- and the Attorney General will hear about them, I expect, from other members as well -- regarding the decision.... I recognize that it is a very deliberate decision that has been made with respect to the question of costs. I know that the Attorney General will have an argument to make about why that decision was taken, to provide him with some notice. My concern extends beyond the pure principle of abandoning the traditional rules with respect to costs, to how this act will operate where it's conceivable that individual litigants will be joining and then later abandoning the class, and how the notion of assignment of costs -- because it's allowed for under certain circumstances, and the court again is provided with very broad discretionary powers -- will play itself out where parties are conceivably joining and then abandoning the action when their interests change during the course of the case. The rules with respect to costs have been worked out over a long period of time, and in this particular case we are abandoning them. The Attorney General, as I've said, I'm sure will have an argument to make about that, but it's something that I think is legitimately worthy of scrutiny at this stage and at committee stage as well.
As for the procedures that are going to be put in place, there will be some questions at committee stage about representative plaintiffs, the role they will play, and the expectation that the legislation places on a representative plaintiff to present what is, in effect, a plan of action -- and the expectation that the legislation includes that representative plaintiffs must not be in a conflict with other members of the class. I think I know what the Attorney General is getting at, but I think the argument can be made that whenever you have a representative plaintiff and when you get to settlement, you're always going to have the potential for conflict. That conflict can arise purely on the basis of the ability of one litigant to pursue litigation versus another litigant's inability to finance that litigation. That will undoubtedly influence them insofar as
[ Page 15073 ]
entertaining offers to settle and their ability to prosecute the action are concerned. I'll be interested to know from the Attorney General how he feels this legislation will facilitate the playing out of that scenario, where I think an argument can be made that in just about every single case during the course and conduct of the litigation, the inevitable conflict of interest is going to arise amongst certain members of the group -- amongst themselves -- and those members of the class and the representative plaintiffs.
[9:30]
Those are some of the areas that we will be querying the Attorney General on, though as I said at the outset, the principle of providing for class actions in this province is one that I think is worthy of support and will have the support of this member and this side of the House. As I say, I hope the Attorney General will -- and I'm sure he will -- remain mindful of the fact that this is legislation designed to help not just those large groups but also those smaller groups, for whom it provides some relief in terms of costs of litigation.
A. Warnke: I just want to make a few points. Actually, in terms of the specific sections and what not, I'll pursue those at committee stage. But since we're talking about the bill in principle and in general, I just want to reflect on some issues and bring them to the attention of the Attorney General, and I hope to get a brief response. These are just brief questions, but they are nonetheless related to this.
One is that in the American experience, there has been a problem in terms of ensuring the calibre of a class lawyer and that sort of thing, and I'm wondering if the Attorney General has some philosophical view or has thought that one through and has some response to that.
The second is that there is also a view expecting, I suppose, the courts to take a more proactive role in managing class actions. I would like to know how Attorney General sees the proactive role of the courts.
The third is in terms of this whole question of opting in and opting out. Actually, it relates somewhat to one of the latter points the member for Matsqui raised. It's about the relationship between the individuals who are parties to the litigation involved in class action, as opposed to those who are not involved. This raises a question about the effects of judgments in class actions.
I put them in the context of questions. They are sort of general or philosophical in nature, and I'm wondering if some consideration has been given to those kinds of questions, especially based on the American experience. On that, I'll just follow the good wisdom that has been put forward by my colleagues, and I also await the response of the final wrap-up of the minister.
D. Mitchell: I'd like to say a few words on this bill as well. It has been interesting hearing from the lawyer-dominated Liberal caucus this evening on this action -- that's with apologies to the member for Langley, of course. My only suggestion might be that the lawyers in the Liberal caucus should get together, and without charging any kinds of bills to each other, they could probably have all said the same thing once, and it would have been just as easy.
I would like to add a few non-lawyerly comments to the debate on Bill 16, the Class Proceedings Act. I think this legislation has been a long time coming in British Columbia. It really has been a long time coming, and the Attorney General knows that. The United States has had similar class action suit legislation laws for many years. Quebec passed its law in 1979 and Ontario in 1992, after a very lengthy process of review. I think there is some credit that goes to the hon. Attorney General, for British Columbia will now have such legislation as well.
In addition to allowing citizens to join forces to fight worthy battles such as those against manufacturers of breast implants and manufacturers of other faulty products like the radiant heating panels, an issue that we dealt with in British Columbia earlier this year, I wonder if this legislation would actually provide British Columbians with an opportunity for a class-action suit against the Canadian Standards Association on that front. Maybe that's a question I could direct toward the Minister of Consumer Services at some point. I note that it's significant that the province can now also be pursued by class proceedings. School boards, for instance, can be pursued; a local government or even Crown corporation can be pursued.
I note that one Crown corporation, ICBC, is not in favour of this legislation, and the Attorney General might want to comment on this when he closes comment. It might be interesting to find out why and to find out what specific objections ICBC has to this legislation, and whether their opposition is geared toward the impact this legislation could potentially have on ICBC premiums for automobile drivers in the province. I would be interested to know, and if the Attorney General has any information on this, I would appreciate receiving it.
When the Ontario legislation was passed, it is interesting to note that it was passed unanimously by all parties represented in the Ontario House. The question I'd like to ask the Attorney General is why this bill is being introduced on its own in British Columbia without the kind of companion legislation that was introduced in Ontario? When the Ontario legislation was first introduced in the fall of 1991, as the Class Proceedings Act, it was accompanied by an act to amend the Law Society Act of that province. This bill was significant, because it provided funding to parties for class-action suits, something that apparently we in British Columbia have decided not to pursue. I would be interested to find out from the hon. Attorney General as to why similar companion legislation, as was passed in Ontario, has not been pursued by this government. The Ontario Law Reform Commission released what I think many people believe is the most thorough and comprehensive review of this matter ever conducted in Canada.
To accompany that, we had the struggle with the costs of this kind of litigation -- and there are costs. When we get to committee stage, I'm sure one of the issues we'll want to canvass with the hon. Attorney General is how costs for class-action suits are going to be borne in British Columbia by people who come forward jointly. In Ontario, they had a specific procedure, which was the establishment of a class-proceeding fund. The Law Foundation of Ontario endowed that fund in the amount of half a million dollars, and it was designed to provide financial assistance to representative plaintiffs in class proceedings. It provided those plaintiffs with financial assistance for disbursements, such as a requirement for expert witnesses -- or to class members. It also significantly indemnified representative plaintiffs, who were
[ Page 15074 ]
assisted by the fund in the event that proceedings were unsuccessful and the court ordered the representative plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs.
I think that the Ontario model is a progressive means by which the traditional financial barriers to this type of litigation can be lowered to permit representative plaintiffs to come forward on behalf of a class of injured persons who might not otherwise have that remedy. The Law Foundation of Ontario came forward with that kind of generous assistance, and I wonder if the Attorney General can tell us whether a similar model was ever considered in British Columbia and whether or not the Law Society of British Columbia was ever consulted with respect to that. It would be interesting to find out from the Attorney General whether or not the concerns that have been brought to the attention of the government and his ministry by the Law Society of British Columbia, the Canadian Bar Association and others have been addressed, and whether or not the Law Society had a position on that kind of a class-proceeding fund.
I have a few additional points on this. I note that the commencement date for this bill is August 1, 1995. I wonder if the Attorney General might offer some specific reasons why that date has been chosen and whether or not provision has been made in this year's budget -- perhaps in the budget of the Attorney General or anywhere else in government -- to handle the additional costs likely to be incurred by the province as a result of this legislation. Again, it's a cost consideration I would be interested in hearing from the Attorney General on.
Over the years there have been many requests by affected parties to have the ability to sue the province. We know about current interest by citizens who are going after manufacturers of the products I mentioned earlier. It would be interesting to know some of the other concerns the Attorney General referred to in his comments in the House and in the press release that he issued when he referred to legal actions involving consumer goods, civil rights, securities, competition laws and the environment. Perhaps it would be interesting to get into some specific examples, so that we might learn from other jurisdictions about these areas. If it's possible to get specific, that would be of interest.
The one final point that I'd like to register with the Attorney General on second reading stage of this bill deals with the issue of the process of certification. I note that a tremendous amount of discretion is provided to the court, under section 4 of the bill, to decide whether or not a class-action suit will be proceeding. Whether or not we will proceed with a class-action suit is really determined by the court, and the certification process is left completely up to the court. Yet in the bill....
If we take a close look at the bill, it doesn't really provide any guidelines. If you look at section 4, they're very general, very broad. It would be interesting to know from other jurisdictions -- from Ontario, for instance -- whether or not any guidelines were developed for officers of the court in terms of the kinds of certifications which would be either approved or disapproved. The court is going to have tremendous authority here. The judiciary perhaps should; it's an independent body -- independent from this Legislature, that's for certain. It would be interesting to know from the Attorney General, when it comes to the process of certification, whether or not any specific guidelines, being developed by his ministry or that we can be referred to from other jurisdictions, are contemplated to provide some direction to officers of our court -- to the officers of the bench, in particular -- in deciding whether or not a class-action suit will proceed.
With those few comments, hon. Speaker, I'd like to commend the hon. Attorney General for bringing forward this bill, and I look forward to his comments a little later on in the debate when he closes debate on second reading.
G. Wilson: I'm pleased to rise on Bill 16 in second reading, especially after, I think, the excellent comments from my colleague from West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who I think has....
An Hon. Member: I don't know about that.
G. Wilson: The member opposite says he doesn't know about that. He should. If he'd read the bill, he'd understand exactly why I say that.
Having started off on a somewhat acrimonious note from the members opposite, I was about to congratulate him for introducing this bill. I do think, though, that there are, in principle, a number of issues that need to be explored.
I must say that I've listened with interest to the debate so far, and I find it a little bit perplexing that the member for West Vancouver-Capilano would say that there's been a lack of consultation on this question. I honestly can't believe there could be any more consultation on this question. Clearly, if one reads through this very lengthy and very detailed Ontario Law Reform Commission -- perhaps the most exhaustive -- document, one sees not only that there has been consultation within this jurisdiction but that globally there has been consultation, and that people who have been involved in trying to come together to put in place useful class-action legislation have in fact been involved for some time in trying to make sure that what is here is going to work.
The points where I think we are going to have some differences of opinion -- and there are some differences of opinion -- are on the question of class certification and the process of how class certification is to come about. I understand that what is in section 4 is, in fact, modelled in large measure after the Ontario Law Reform Commission recommendations. However, there are likely to be some problems here. I flag that because of the whole question of the numerosity requirements, in terms of two or more, and how that may be problematic in providing latitude to the court in making that determination.
[9:45]
I say that because there are different measures in this act in terms of who may be subjected to this class-action suit. I echo the comment made by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who talked about ICBC and school boards all now being potentially subjected to this kind of class-action litigation. There may be a problem, even though there are some provisions in here to make sure that frivolous or vexatious complaints don't proceed. There may be, as a result of this vehicle, a potential for a flood of these kinds of things -- at least in the initial years of the implementation of this act -- that we may want to try and deal with. I suggest that there has to be some measure in this particular section to look at that, to address that and to make sure it doesn't muddy what otherwise should be pretty clear and pure waters on this bill.
[ Page 15075 ]
Having said that, we move then to the matter of section 7. Again, I just mention this in terms of matters...not as a bar to certification. Some of the areas that I think we want to look at.... It deals with the whole matter of subclasses: who can be members of subclasses, how those are going to be determined and the extent to which there is going to be the selection of one plaintiff. How do you actually bring that together, then provide a subclass status that may be tried by parallel process and somehow provide an opportunity for those subclasses to be heard, without having their rights somehow compromised by the proceeding taking place? And what kind of appeal process...? There are some complexities there that we need to flesh out more as we get into committee stage prior to third reading.
I'm aware that the Minister of Women's Equality would like to get into this debate. I'm going to try very hard to get my remarks concluded quickly, to afford her that before adjournment tonight.
Section 16 is with respect to the whole proposition of opting in and opting out. This is something where there is some difficult language that we might want to look at. I think there have to be provisions for people to be able to opt in and opt out. The intention is not to somehow prohibit them from taking independent action on these matters. However, the advice we're given from those that are our lawyers.... I'm not a lawyer, and I'm proud to say so. Those that are in the field are saying that there may be some complexity in the language here in terms of a provision for somebody who may opt in and then opt out when they see the chances of success or reward, or they don't like the selection of the individual who's going to be the typical person selected. There may be a time frame that we might want to look at in terms of those provisions. I would just flag that as a possibility.
Interestingly enough, the matter that was raised.... I have to say that it was raised by the member for Matsqui. I always have to chuckle a little bit when I hear lawyers talking about a problem of this kind being a question of costs. You know, if it weren't for the legal fees, the costs might be considerably lower.
Having said that, I find it interesting to note that if you read the chairman's reservations that were filed independently of the Ontario Law Reform Commission on this, and you start to look at the whole question of costs, fees and disbursements, it would seem to me that we have to make it as open and as available as possible for people to pursue this class action. I refer specifically to section 37(1), which is the matter with respect to a "party to a class proceeding or to any party to an appeal arising from a class proceeding." Then it says that the application may only have those awards of costs provided at the behest of the court. What we have to recognize is that there must be stronger provisions for awards to the individual plaintiffs in that action. I know that this has been something that's been heavily canvassed with the Attorney General; we intend to canvass it more thoroughly when we get into committee stage. It's the position of the Alliance that the plaintiff in a court action should have the award of costs much more readily available, and it should be provided on an individual basis as well, through each representative of the plaintiff being provided with those awards of costs.
Interjections.
G. Wilson: I must say, this is the most lively I've heard the Liberal caucus all day. It must be close to quitting time. They must be thinking of retiring to their nearest watering hole.
But let me say, with respect to the provisions of the minority report, in terms of the Ontario Law Reform Commission chairman's reservations.... The last item that I would raise for some concern is the matter of the undistributed residue of aggregate awards and how that's going to proceed. This government, I think, has taken an interesting action with respect to the provision that that may be essentially awarded to a different party rather than going back to the defendant. I think that's an interesting departure from other legislation. It's not one that I fully disagree with. On the other hand, I think it's something we have to consider with great care, because the kind of authority provided the court in this legislation in that regard is going to be an area where there will be considerable dispute. I raise that because it does not coincide with jurisdictions outside British Columbia.
The last thing I would mention -- and I congratulate the minister on this -- is the provision for out-of-province people to come forward and sign onto class action. I think that is something that provides for streamlining of the legal process nationwide, and again, the innovation of this bill speaks highly of those who worked with the Attorney General to draft its language.
In principle, of course, we think this is definitely the way to go. Clearly it's something that's long overdue in the province. As a matter of course, we certainly approve of most of what is in here. The areas where we have concern I've outlined to the minister. With respect to the provision of costs, I think that we will try to perhaps change the mind of the Attorney General on at least one section of this bill. We would endeavour to bring forward some amendments to that effect.
With that having been said, the members of the Progressive Democratic Alliance clearly support this bill, and I congratulate the Attorney General for bringing it forward.
Hon. P. Priddy: I rise to support Bill 16 and also to support the work of the Attorney General and the Attorney General ministry in bringing this bill forward. I want to speak about the impact of this bill, which is not only on fairness and equality in the justice system -- which is what this change is about -- but also on women and families and women's health issues in this province. This is an example that stands beside many other examples of this government's commitment to women's health issues in British Columbia. It stands beside the women's health bureau established in the Ministry of Health. It stands beside the new B.C.'s Women's Hospital. It stands beside extended mammography screening in British Columbia. It stands beside new dollars for breast cancer research in this province. It stands beside the new program at the B.C. Women's Hospital to provide support to women who have had breast implant surgery.
We know that 54,000 women in Canada will die of breast cancer this year, and that 17,000 more women in Canada will be newly diagnosed with breast cancer this year. We also know that breast cancer is not only a women's issue but a family issue. It affects whole families. I would expect that there is no one here in this House whose life has not been touched somehow by someone who has been a victim of breast cancer -- a mother, a grandmother, a sister, a daughter or a friend.
This bill increases access to justice for all British Columbians, and it will also address the issue of the power
[ Page 15076 ]
imbalance that has existed for individual consumers who have been overlooked by the justice system. This bill will allow women who have been injured by silicone gel implants as a result of breast surgery resulting from breast cancer to benefit from class-proceedings legislation.
I was most interested to hear the comments of the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, who said that he didn't think there had been very much consultation about this bill. The consultation that he read from was, I think, almost a year old and, it seemed to me, was made up extensively of quotes from the bar association. Perhaps the consultation that the member might have done is with women and their families in this province who have been victims and are suffering from the effects of silicone gel implants. Those are the people as well who have made their voices known and who have affected this legislation.
While I understand that there were extensive quotes from lawyers, let me offer one other, from a lawyer who is very active in this province and who says that this is a very good advancement for women in this province. Perhaps the member for West Vancouver-Capilano should have extended his view of who should be consulted around this class-proceedings legislation.
This bill has the potential to affect 5,000 B.C. women, as well as their families, who have had breast surgery as a result of cancer and have had silicone gel implants and are now suffering very serious health problems from the leakage of that silicone gel into their bodies. They suffer from arthritis, from autoimmune disease, from neurological disorders, from seizures and from a number of other health issues that are actually interfering in how they live their lives.
They also suffer as a result of having to fight for any kind of recognition of the fact that they indeed did have a real health problem, and for a very long time their voices went unheard. They suffer from not having had any access to a class-proceeding action through the justice system. This legislation remedies that, while it provides an avenue to many citizens in British Columbia who may join together in class-action suits against a variety of institutions. It means to these families that they have an avenue for legal recourse and that on the serious health issues that have torn their families apart, their voices have been heard. They have been acknowledged, and the system has said there must be legal recourse in place for class-action proceedings to go forward. Those are the voices I hear when I see this piece of legislation, and I'm very proud of this government's commitment to bringing Bill 16 forward and to the health issues this government has addressed and continues to address for women and their families in British Columbia.
[10:00]
B. Jones: I am so pleased to rise in my place tonight and speak on a piece of legislation that is very important to British Columbians, but more importantly to congratulate the opposition on this piece of legislation that I describe as Robin Hood legislation or as David-versus-Goliath legislation. The opposition parties have endorsed it unanimously. I don't know how many parties we have over there -- five, six or seven; I mean, they keep switching -- but there has been a recognition of Bill 16 as a piece of legislation that very clearly warrants the commendation of this government and the appreciation of all those British Columbians who are going to benefit.
This bill is about access to justice that has been denied to many citizens for many reasons over many years. It is a bill that offers new hope to British Columbians, to consumers, to victims and to those who have been left out in the cold by the justice system and have been overlooked by that system. They have been denied their day in court because of the lack of this kind of legislation. I have never really understood why groups in the United States for many years have been able to band together to combine on issues of consumer rights, civil rights, security, the environment and on a whole host of other issues. They have been able to unite to redress injury or grievance in a civil action under circumstances that have been caused by the same or similar circumstances; but that could never happen here in British Columbia. I've never understood that. As the previous speaker mentioned, class actions have produced settlement proposals over breast implants in the United States. I expect that a result of proclamation of this particular act will be British Columbia's first class-action lawsuit that will see a redress of a longstanding grievance in this province -- a redress on which we have been far preceded by the United States. There are many others, and the previous speaker focused on that issue. But it is far broader than we may even appreciate at this point.
We spoke tonight on a very small piece of tobacco legislation. In the United States there is class-action legislation proceeding against the tobacco industry, claiming misrepresentation of the detrimental health effects of tobacco-smoking. That's an important piece of legislation in the United States, and with Bill 16, that kind of legislation is possible in this country. The Bausch and Lomb corporation, which you might be familiar with, has recently sold for something like $10 short-term lenses that they also sold as long-term lenses for $200. There is a class-action suit being brought against that corporation.
Although in British Columbia the current rules of the courts allow for expansion of proceedings to include co-plaintiffs, co-defendants and third parties, it's never been designed to deal with the kind of situation that we're talking about here tonight, and that is to deal with parties so numerous that they may not even be identified or may never be called to give evidence in a court of law. So Bill 16 represents a redressing of a fundamental and historical weakness in the jurisprudence of this province, allowing a group of people with similar interests to act together as a group. The alternative, of course, is for these people to act as individuals in applying to the justice system for redress of their grievances.
The bill is an important breakthrough in the administration of justice. It is a change in something that has been a most difficult situation for groups in this country -- difficult, if not impossible, to redress.
Let me give you an example. Probably the most notorious case took place in 1982. That was after ten years of litigation as a result of a case called Naken v. General Motors, in which the owners of 1971 and '72 Firenza automobiles were denied the opportunity to sue that corporation for allegedly false claims in terms of the operation of that motor vehicle.
The law is rife with examples of denial of justice in terms of opportunities for people to redress grievances as a group. Let me give you another example, closer to home. On October 15, 1986, Chief Justice McEachern of the Supreme Court decided that 900 investors in Victoria Mortgage Corp. Ltd.
[ Page 15077 ]
could not proceed as a class. Although these were all investors in the class 6 debentures of a particular corporation, they could not proceed as a class against the corporation's auditors, directors and shareholders.
After Bill 16, this particular group of individuals would be allowed an opportunity to have their day in court to redress their grievances. Bill 16 is simply a procedural mechanism that allows a class to prosecute as a group. It does not guarantee that that will happen, and it will not happen unless the court is convinced that such a procedure is the best course of protection for this group of individuals. Future victims of defective goods in this province, of large-scale pollution, of whatever scams or misleading advertising, will not have to stand alone.
Members opposite may want to take advantage of this kind of legislation, as they have of the freedom-of-information legislation, to challenge the activities of any body -- be it government, be it a corporation, be it whatever -- to redress grievances where individuals have suffered, perhaps in a very small way individually, but in a very great way collectively.
I did not see any great argument by members opposite against this legislation, but I thought one of the arguments might be that this would be a burden to the court system. Quite the contrary is true. Rather than adding a burden to the courts, what we have is legislation that has the potential to streamline court cases. Imagine the situation in 1979, when a 106-car CPR train derailed in Mississauga, Ontario. There was a fire and explosions, and the train was carrying dangerous cargo; 250,000 people had to be evacuated. Residents had to find alternative shelter, businesses were closed, there was damage in a variety of situations and there were lost wages. It took over ten years, and 389 separate lawsuits involving 105 different law firms, to bring about a settlement that under Bill 16 could have been handled more cheaply, efficiently and satisfactorily -- both for the claimants and for the defendant -- with one case, one judge and one court. The alternative to this particular bill is multiple plaintiffs continuing to sue on their own individual abilities, overburdening the already overburdened court system in a situation where litigants may choose either to proceed or not proceed with this situation.
There is an advantage to defendants, in that a company facing a class action has a much better understanding of the extent of its liability. When not sued by a class, a company that has marketed a faulty product, for example, has no idea how many individual potential plaintiffs might bring forward a suit.
As I said at the outset, this bill is about access to justice. I think others have mentioned the example of Rogers Cable. This is a good example. Individuals were affected by a decision of Rogers Cable but had no opportunity to come up with a lawyer to pursue this case, because the individual effect was small. What lawyer would take on a case in which there was such a very small effect? With Bill 16, a large number of people who have been hurt only a little could bring claim as a class for the combined effect of the hurt. The bill would allow one complainant to hire a lawyer on behalf of all Rogers Cable subscribers.
I think the members opposite mentioned the question of lawyers' fees. Fortunately the court built into the legislation has the opportunity to review the ability of lawyers to charge reasonable or unreasonable fees as a result. The bill before us is a David-versus-Goliath bill. It provides the opportunity for individuals to challenge corporations, public bodies and governments to bring about redress for grievances that are often very small in the individual case but very large in terms of a group.
This is legislation that I think we should commend the Attorney General for bringing forward. It's legislation that has been lacking in this province and in most provinces in this country. Quebec has been the leader in having legislation of this kind. I don't know how effective it has been. Ontario was prior to us. In this country it has been lacking for a very long time. I take heart from the words of the members opposite that despite certain niggly reservations, they are going to support this legislation. It is legislation worth supporting; it's legislation that is going to benefit all British Columbians.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I would like to express my thanks to all members of the House who have spoken on the bill and, I think, in general terms have supported the principle of moving to class-action legislation in this province -- as members know, the third province in the country to afford its citizens this right. Members all know.... There have been references to the fact that had this legislation been available, the women affected by silicone breast implants would have been able to avail themselves of this way of dealing with their issue. Fortunately, with the way we have done the legislation, they will be able to avail themselves of the legislation. Similarly, an indirect answer as to why August 1...for proclamation.... If people choose, that will enable those who are affected by the radiant heat panels to be protected by the time periods involved. So that class of persons would also be able to take advantage of this legislation, given the commencement date.
[10:15]
There hasn't actually been much discussion -- and I'm not critical when I say this -- about the principle, because I think everybody agrees with the principle. What we've had is a variety of comments about particular issues, and I've made notes of those issues.
I say, first of all, that the comment from the official critic about consultation.... I must say that I smiled when he spoke, because I don't know of very many pieces of legislation -- certainly that I've been involved with in this place over the years -- that have had as much consultation as this bill. The discussions have been exhaustive and exhausting since the discussion paper was produced and distributed last year. We have had a wide variety of comments about most of the difficult issues in the legislation. We drew very heavily from the Ontario Law Reform Commission, which is clearly the best work that has been done on the issue, as the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi indicated. We've drawn from the experience that Ontario has now had, since their bill was proclaimed at the beginning of '93. We have drawn from different experiences in the province of Quebec, and we've looked to the American jurisdictions as well. And in the discussions that took place with a wide cross-section of people in British Columbia who became interested in this bill over the last year, we have been very open about where we're drawing our resources from. We have been very open about the difficulties, so open in fact that the material distributed to members and to the press included all the material about the problems and questions that haven't been resolved and the reference to ICBC not being happy. Well, everything is out there. We made no effort to deal with this bill in a more traditional way.
[ Page 15078 ]
The reason for that is that this bill belongs to everybody. This bill doesn't belong to one political party, and it doesn't belong to one group in society. It belongs to everybody, and it is very much a procedural bill. In simple terms, all we are doing here is finding a way to enable the access that individuals have to the court to be an access that individuals combining together can have to the court. Whenever you combine together, you obviously raise issues about certification, costs and all the issues properly identified by members of the opposition as being issues worthy of debate. You bring all those issues up; they arise, and they need to be resolved.
We have resolved them in a way that we think draws on the experience of other jurisdictions. We've resolved them in a way that responds to the commentary from lawyers in particular, but from many other people in British Columbia who have some experience with the legislation. I don't profess to argue that this is perfect or that it cannot be improved by a particular change. This is not the kind of bill I would be dogmatic about in terms of what it should look like in its final form. What is important is that it works for groups of citizens who wish to combine to initiate civil actions.
For the most part, the issues that were raised are better dealt with in committee stage. Several members raised questions of costs, and there are a couple of sections that we can deal with in committee. I think that will be a more effective way of seeing whether we have it right in that respect. On issues about the power of the court, I noted the anxiety. I didn't hear it expressed as a criticism that the court was getting too much power, but I noted the anxiety about whether this was something we wanted to do. I didn't hear from members as to another mechanism that could replace that additional authority to the court. If members have ideas that have some merit and have been tested elsewhere, ideas that are better than this, I would be very glad to hear them. But I certainly didn't hear them tonight, and I don't think we've heard them at any other time.
The issues of opting in and opting out we can deal with during the committee on that section. I mentioned August 1. The certification issue is relatively straightforward, but we can deal with that in the committee stage. I think the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast mentioned a flood of applications. I don't believe there will be very many class-action suits launched in British Columbia. If the Ontario experience counts for anything, since their bill was proclaimed, which was two and a half years ago, in the first two years -- 1993 and 1994 -- there were 11 applications for class-action certifications; six were refused and five were granted. So in two years, there were five class-action proceedings in the province of Ontario.
There were questions about costs to government. In each and every one of the Ontario cases, they were private sector issues. They were not suits against government. In terms of administrative costs to the system, are there funds in the AG's budget for this? We think that very little will result from it in the early going -- perhaps in this fiscal year -- but that in the long term there will be savings to the system because of the combination, and then the reduction of the number of cases and reducing them into one manageable system.
There were a number of other good questions and comments. I think the most effective way for us to deal with all of those is in the committee stage. There was one question the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi asked that I don't know the answer to off the top of my head. I went back to my office to see if I could find the material on the question of the legal profession's companion bill, and I don't have that. I have a partial memory of the issue. Rather than going through part of it, I would like to save that for the committee stage, and we'll find some way through one of the sections to deal with that in more detail.
With that, I thank all members for their comments, and move second reading.
Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]
Bill 16, Class Proceedings Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 23, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1995, and resumption of Committee of Supply A for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.
Deputy Speaker: I'll give members an opportunity to depart the chamber to attend committee and other duties.
EDUCATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
The House in committee on Bill 23; D. Lovick in the chair.
On section 1.
L. Stephens: In section 1, on the Independent School Act.... I wonder if the minister could clarify some of this section. Boards having to ensure that information and records are available.... I understand this has been requested. Could the minister clarify this section, please?
[10:30]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: This amendment was requested by the College of Teachers of B.C., such that they would have full information in their files pertaining to any possible need for disciplinary action -- any investigation with respect to possible reports of professional misconduct.
L. Stephens: Could the minister comment, perhaps, if this is requested in relation to grievance procedures under contracts?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, these would not be grievances with respect to contracts.
L. Stephens: Perhaps under the Freedom of Information Act.... Does this have any bearing on this particular section -- whether or not release of personal records may be in question?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: At the present time, under section 6.1, reports are already issued from independent school authorities to the College of Teachers. This amendment just asks for fuller reporting.
L. Stephens: Could the minister comment on whether or not information provided must be in a particular format.
[ Page 15079 ]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, there is not a preordained format.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
L. Stephens: Could the minister elaborate on and clarify the section that deals with distance education, particularly as it relates to telecommunications media and other electronic media of communication, and whether this in fact allows for expansion of local area networks between schools. Also, does it impact on the technology announcement that the minister made a couple of weeks ago?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: This does not pertain to either of the points made by the member opposite, but rather it simply enables and recognizes the increasing power and affordability of education and telecommunications technology. Our regional correspondence schools are simply becoming distance education centres, and we are recognizing that explicitly.
L. Stephens: On the home school students registered with distance education schools: is this a part of this particular section as well?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: This deals with the delivery of the curricula, and it recognizes that in the future we are going to be seeing more of that delivered via distance ed as opposed to the standard correspondence method.
G. Wilson: Section 2(c) provides a whole series of definitions, and of course part of the structure of this Bill 23 is the notion of the breaking down of the provincial block funds and the establishment of these first and final allocations.
In terms of the preliminary allocation, it talks about an allocation of the board under section 6, section 125(1), which is the February 1 date. Above that, it talks about final provincial funds allocation, which is the allocation under section 124(3).
Could the minister tell us why, in this definition of these funds -- I think it's the appropriate place to deal with it here -- those dates were established, and whether or not the January 31 date, which is the final allocation of funds, in fact can claw back moneys that may be initially provided for in the February 1 date? Is there a provision where the minister can claw back moneys? Is that the intention of the two dates?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm going to speak for a moment to the broader issue, which is that as the system works at the present time, boards receive information typically by February 1, based on estimates, and then on the basis of those estimates, formulate a budget. That budget carries through the next school year, and by September 30 of the following school year, I believe, the final budget is submitted.
They are then trying to make sense of a budget that relates to some estimates that were made almost 18 months earlier. That gives boards problems and in turn gives the system problems.
What we're doing is establishing a system whereby we make our best guesses to start the process. The ministry, looking at district projections, makes its best estimate as to what the enrolment will be and what the mix of students will be, and the board goes ahead and creates an initial budget based on those estimates.
When September 30 comes around, the districts report to us. They make the count of actual numbers and actual mix, and by the end of the year or thereabouts -- January -- they report out to the ministry their actual numbers. Their final allocation has always been based on their final numbers, but they never had an opportunity to revise their budget.
Doing it this way, we will get their final numbers; we will then give them their final allocation, and the allocation may be higher if there is greater enrolment or a more expensive mix of special needs students. Conceivably, their final numbers could indicate a lower funding requirement. Either way, that becomes their final allocation. They then amend their budget to become that final budget, and it is the final budget that has to be reported by September 30 following.
It is something that simplifies matters for the system and allows them to have budgets and actual expenses that more closely match each other. Still they won't be perfect, but they will more closely match each other. All told, it is something that the system has been looking for and that the BCSTA has approved as part of the new funding mechanism.
G. Wilson: Just to be clear, under these definitions, it would suggest that that final allocation is the estimated amount of funds made by the minister, if I'm correct. The final provincial funds are the actual amount of dollars that is provided. Is that the distinction? As I read 125(2) and 124(3) to understand how that works, it would seem to me that that's the distinction. The discretion on those final actual dollars rests solely with the minister on that question. Am I right on that?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The preliminary allocation is based on the February 1 -- or before February 1 -- announcement for the following school year. That's the preliminary number based on estimates, that's all. The final allocation is made after the actual numbers and actual mix have been reported.
G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister might.... I'm not trying to prolong this debate, certainly not at this hour of the night, but I do want to be absolutely clear on the distinction that's made between final allocation and final provincial funds -- those two distinctions -- and the distinction between preliminary allocation and preliminary provincial funds.
It seems to me that one is an entry in a preliminary budget, and the other is actual hard, cold cash. If that's the distinction, I understand what the minister is trying to do, but I need to know that that's what he's saying.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think we are on the same wavelength. The preliminary allocation is the number that we advised the boards of, based on ministry projections of enrolment and what Treasury Board has determined the per-student average amount is. The preliminary provincial fund is the grand total: the $3.5 billion figure in the provincial budget. Then we get the actual numbers reported to us at about the end of the year, from the September 30 count, and that becomes the final allocation to a specific board. The final provincial funds become the final number that eventually gets entered here in Victoria as the total.
[ Page 15080 ]
[10:45]
L. Fox: As hesitant as I am to enter into discussion at 10:45 in the evening, I would like to ask the minister to give me some rationale for 2(b), which changes what we've typically known as a designation for correspondence schools. We are now seeing a new definition: distance education school. Perhaps one of the reasons may very well be the electronic busing initiative, but perhaps there are other reasons out there for the need to change this particular definition. If the minister would enlighten us.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I gave an answer that covered part of this; I think you might have been away from your desk at that time. It is simply an explicit recognition of the changing role of those regional centres. In the past it was strictly a correspondence matter, and the curriculum was delivered by correspondence, and the material worked on by the student was received by correspondence. We are now explicitly recognizing that the nature of that is in flux. It is changing to become more distance education with electronic delivery from centres to students, be they studying at home or for whatever reason studying in care -- wherever.
It is a change that I would put broadly in terms of a housekeeping amendment. It's just bringing the terminology into the present day, that's all.
Sections 2 and 3 approved.
On section 4.
G. Wilson: I'm not sure that we have any difficulty with this, as long as we understand exactly what the implications of it are. I wonder if the minister might want to elaborate a little on what is provided in this bill under the section 16 amendment.
It suggests here that the board has made a report to the college. The first paragraph, the preamble, is clear enough, but then under 4(3)(b) it says: ". . . send a copy of the records referred to in paragraph (a) to the member or the person." Does that suggest that this can be precipitous action without due notice? At the moment, it seems to me that there has to be provisional notice, and I just wonder why that's worded the way it is. The way it reads right now, it would look as though somewhat precipitous action could occur. I don't think that would be permitted under the Teaching Profession Act. I just wonder if the minister could explain the difference.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: This is the section for the public school system, and it parallels section 1 of this act, which deals with the independent schools. The intention is simply to obtain a complete report. Rather than have a partial report come to the College of Teachers and then have the College of Teachers request further background as to the nature of what precipitated this report on a teacher, for example, this just advises the appropriate board that they should promptly, and without being prompted by the College of Teachers, provide a full report. And, respecting freedom of information, the same material that will be sent to the College of Teachers will also be made available to the teacher. And that's all this section deals with.
L. Fox: It seems to me, in reading this section over a number of times, that it specifically deals with a person holding a letter of permission to teach. It's my understanding that within the public system we no longer have any letters of permission to teach, so perhaps the minister could clarify that point before we go forward.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The section, hon. member, deals both with a teacher who is a member of the college as well as with a person holding a letter of permission to teach. We still technically have persons who do have letters of permission. They are not members of the college, but they do have a letter of permission to teach. This stipulates that reports pertaining both to a teacher and to a person holding a letter of permission.... In both instances this information should be provided to the College of Teachers.
Sections 4 and 5 approved.
On section 6.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I move the amendment to section 6 that is in the possession of the Clerk.
By way of explanation, this amendment would replace the general targeting authority set out in section 125(6)(c) with a specific targeting authority exclusive to educational resource materials. Funds for the purchase of educational resource materials such as textbooks, videotapes and software have always been targeted, and such a limited targeting power is consistent with the new funding formula and the historical allocation of funds to school boards for learning resources.
L. Stephens: I would like the Chair to give me some direction here. I have a couple of amendments as well to section 6. Do we deal with this one first?
The Chair: Hon. member, it depends on where they appear in section 6. Perhaps you could provide copies.
L. Stephens: There they are.
Could the minister perhaps speak to this particular amendment here, and specifically to 125(6)(c) of the original and how different the original section was in relation to the minister's proposed amendment? He did say that it was resource materials as opposed to "a minimum amount or percentage of that component that must be and the maximum amount...for any other specified services, programs, costs or expenses specified by the minister." Could the minister tell us why he has brought forward the amendment?
The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, hon. member, I'll say that we'll deal with the amendment from the minister first, and then we can deal with your amendments.
On a point of order, the member for Okanagan East.
J. Tyabji: I wasn't clear on whether the member for Langley had actually moved her amendments or if they've been tabled and they'll be moved later.
The Chair: No, the amendments have not been moved yet. We're dealing with the minister's amendment.
G. Wilson: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
[ Page 15081 ]
G. Wilson: Just so that this might speed up the deliberations, I'd like the House to please welcome my daughter and son, Christina and Mathew, who are patiently waiting to drive me home.
The Chair: Just for clarification, the Chair would rule that the amendment on the floor is the amendment proposed by the minister. We would have to deal with that one first, and then we could entertain the amendments proposed by the member for Langley.
The minister's amendment is that section 6 is amended by deleting the proposed section 125(6)(c) and substituting the following: "(c) an amount of that component that must be budgeted, spent and accounted for by the board for educational resource materials specified by the minister."
On the amendment.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The purpose of the amendment, as I stated when I moved the amendment, was to replace what the system took to be a general statement that could be interpreted as an intent to bring in a number of additional targeted areas when I have no such intent. I clarified that by replacing the section with a reference specific to educational resource materials. Those spending authorities have been targeted in the past. It is consistent with the new funding formula and consistent with the historical allocation of funds to boards.
L. Stephens: I will suggest to the minister that simply amending this particular section is not going to do what the minister has intended. He should have continued on and deleted (6), (7) and (8) of this particular section. I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper that does just that: deletes section 125(6), (7) and (8).
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I have to seek the instruction of the Chair as to whether we are now on the member's amendment or on my amendment.
The Chair: The rules state that an amendment to leave out words in order to insert other words takes precedence over an amendment that merely leaves out words. I would rule that the minister's amendment is the one that we have to deal with first, and we can then deal with the amendment that may be proposed by the member for Langley. We do have an amendment on the floor, which is the amendment from the minister.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
[11:00]
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I thank hon. members for their cooperation this evening. I know it has been a long evening. I would also like to advise the House that we will be sitting tomorrow.
Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:01 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 6:40 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)
On vote 55: minister's office, $432,000 (continued).
D. Symons: I mentioned the possibility of decal theft earlier. I wasn't aware of it taking place, but as I read about it in the paper I thought it would be possible, once a few layers were built up, to peel them off. I notice that there is an $18 administrative fee to have your decal replaced if it has been stolen. I'm wondering whether it's more expensive to replace ones that have been stolen off your car than it is to simply get the decals when you are getting the licence the first time. It seems excessive for just replacing them and making a note in the computer that there is new number on the decal. That $18 seems excessive compared to what you pay for the plates to begin with.
Hon. J. Pement: The annual fee is $40; a replacement is $18.
D. Symons: I think the annual fee is for the registration of the vehicle for the year, and the replacement of a decal is somewhat different from the actual registration. But I will take that as your answer.
I wonder if the minister might be able to give me -- possibly at another time, as the figures may not be here -- the percentage of the total income that's spent on administration of ICBC and how that might have changed over, say, the last five years -- whether it's remained fairly constant, whether you've become more efficient at the administrative end or whether, because of the growth of the organization, it has become more expensive. And while we're at it: what percentage the gross revenue of ICBC is spent on operating the claim centre? Maybe you can give me a dollar figure for the claim centre operation as well.
Hon. J. Pement: The administrative costs and the costs to the brokers together are at 11 percent. It has reduced from 13 percent in 1990 to 11 percent in 1994. As to the claim centre cost, we'll get back to you with that information.
D. Symons: Something that I became aware of a year ago was the fact that ICBC claim centres offered a pilot project to allow car dealers to ask whether vehicles had more than
[ Page 15082 ]
$2,000 worth of damage. How has that pilot project worked? I feel that it should be almost mandatory that the dealers check that out.
[6:45]
Hon. J. Pement: First of all, the previous question. We did find the number with regard to the claim centre; the percentage is 8.1 percent for 1994. As to the pilot project with the car dealers, only two car dealers to date are in that project, therefore there's not too much information at this point.
D. Symons: That's interesting. Only two have applied or shown any interest in participating in it? Or is it that only two have been taken in and you're going to expand to more? Has there been some sort of promotion of it? I think it would be in the best interests of car dealers as well, particularly when they're selling used cars, to know that the vehicle they're buying has been in an accident. It would be to their advantage not to get stuck with a lemon that they won't be able to sell or might sell to somebody else unwittingly. I wonder whether that service might not be extended beyond dealers to the public, as well, so that through ICBC they could discover the history of a car that they're considering buying.
Hon. J. Pement: Actually, the pilot project was offered to six. Two dealers picked up on it, just so you know how the offer was. It was to test the workload -- that's where the information lies. At the end of a pilot project, of course, there is still the option to make a decision to expand or not to expand.
D. Symons: I'll just go back. You gave me the 8 percent figure for the operation of the claim centres. I asked for a dollar figure as well. If you don't have that, I would like it at some future date.
I am concerned. Getting back to asking about ICBC and people being able to access information on a vehicle as to the claims that might have gone in on it, tied in with that is the idea that ICBC records those things -- it's required. But ICBC also sells cars that have been write-offs. It often has been the case in the past that some of these write-offs end up back on the streets again, getting renewed.
Recently there was quite an effort to tighten this up. Just so that rebuilds wouldn't come back on the market, they would be designated that way. Has there been any move toward selling or auctioning -- as you do your write-offs -- only to dealers who are in the auto-wrecking business and verify that they will not end up passing the vehicles on to some backyard rebuilder who will come back to ICBC, try to get that vehicle reinsured and sell it when it shouldn't be sold?
Hon. J. Pement: Going back to the claim centres cost, the figure for 1994 is $177 million. I'm rounding these off again. For 1993, it was $174 million. Those are the numbers that the member requested.
With regard to the question on salvaged vehicles, ICBC does not sell only to one type of dealer. They are sold across the board. However, I remind the member that we now have VIN numbers with the identification. When that VIN number comes up, if it's a vehicle that was to be demolished, a number will come up with a D at the end of it, and that will indicate that the vehicle should not show up as a repaired car or truck.
D. Symons: I'm not sure when that policy might have been tightened up, because I know a year or two back there were cases where vehicles managed to slip through. Back in October the minister indicated there would be audits on the inspection facilities where people inspect them and verify that this car is now roadworthy, and they have to do that before they can get the insurance for it. But apparently there were cases where cars were managing to go through that system -- getting a verification from somebody that had the authority to do it, but apparently wasn't doing an adequate job or was on the take or something. Along with that, the Autoplan agencies weren't checking up to see that there was a rebuilt or wreck designation for the car. These things were left off the registration form. Has all that been tightened up so that those sorts of holes or cracks in the system cannot occur anymore?
Hon. J. Pement: I believe it was about a year ago that we put the identification on the VIN numbers. We have D for those vehicles that are to be demolished and R for a rebuilt vehicle. Inspections are still required -- that is part of the overall program -- but the VIN numbers are definitely an asset. As to loopholes and such, one would hope that they plugged them all, but one also recognizes that loopholes can happen.
D. Symons: I would like to revisit the question I asked a moment ago about selling only to designated dismantlers. You say that you sell them to anybody who gives you the best offer on a write-off. You might be playing into the hands of people who are dishonestly rebuilding these vehicles. You could be playing into the hands of people who are stealing cars, taking the effects off, abandoning them, buying the car back and reassembling it after. Apparently such activities go on. If you sell to dismantlers, you might not get the same price that you might get from somebody who is planning to rebuild it and do something that they're not allowed to do, but at least you know where it's going. You would be selling to people who are in the business of dismantling the car and seeing that it doesn't get manufactured into an unsafe vehicle on the roadway.
Hon. J. Pement: It should be clarified that salvage is sold to licensed wreckers or rebuilders.
D. Symons: That's a very good verification.
I gather that ICBC did an experiment earlier this year. They had a bicycle patrol at the Scott Road station, where there has been a fair number of thefts, with damage to vehicles. I'm wondering how that experiment is working and whether you might think of expanding something of that sort into other park-and-ride facilities in an effort to reduce the auto thefts that occur in those areas.
Hon. J. Pement: We do resource that patrol. It's a six-month pilot project. We do not have the data to make that decision at this point.
D. Symons: Somebody suggested to me that there seemed to be a considerable number of write-offs from ICBC toward the end of its fiscal year. They wondered if you had a budget set aside for this. They looked at the calendar and
[ Page 15083 ]
could tell when the write-offs seemed to go up. I'm wondering if there is any correlation between ICBC's fiscal year and the percentage of cars that are written off at that time of the year.
Hon. J. Pement: The fiscal year-end for ICBC is December. November and December have some of the highest accident rates in the province. Therefore the numbers look different from other months.
D. Symons: We are getting toward the end of this session, just to give you an idea of how we're going along here. Another item that has been raised -- and I'm curious as to how this has moved along recently -- is that when an award is made in an accident claim, it isn't taxable as income. It's almost like a windfall to the person. ICBC has come to the conclusion that when a person's income and all the rest are taken into account as part of the claim and a judgment is made on an accident, perhaps the person should receive from ICBC the post-tax income rather than the pre-tax income. How is that argument coming along?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, these are items that ICBC looks at with regard to overall issues, and they require the approval of the board as well as the government. So far no decisions have been made.
D. Symons: I think I asked this one before, and I don't know if I have the answer. It deals with the emergency response on the highways. The particular case I just turned up involved volunteer firefighters in non-urban communities, who are called upon in highway accidents. As far as liability goes, they are vulnerable. They respond because they are interested in serving their fellow man; they go out and do this. I feel that ICBC should pick up the incidental costs as far as these kinds of responses are concerned. Also, there's the problem of liability. Since it's an auto accident they are responding to and they are what we could call good Samaritans, I wonder if they fall into the category of being covered. Are they covered at all by ICBC when assisting at an accident site? Perhaps some other government agency could pick this up. Could the minister respond?
Hon. J. Pement: In cases where a fire department goes outside its boundaries and their services are needed in an emergency within the boundaries, I gather that there is a possibility of liability in that sort of situation. Other than that, we're not aware of a liability situation.
D. Symons: I had two or three questions on the Autoplan 12, and I think the majority of them have been answered. I was just trying to make sure I don't double up on the member for Chilliwack, who is canvassing that. In the event of a default.... The Toronto-Dominion Bank is picking up the operating and bookkeeping on payments. But after they've missed two payments, ICBC pays off the remainder of the insurance for that year; it's basically covered. The member was asking how they get the decals back. But actually it's carried with the hope that at some future time through debt collection of some sort or catching them next time around when they try to insure their car, they're going to pick that up.
[7:00]
But apparently there was a payment plan system in operation with ICBC years ago, and they ended up going in the hole in the operation of that. I'm wondering in what ways you've managed to adjust the way it works in order to make sure that the things which led to it failing before aren't going to be there this time.
Hon. J. Pement: We've already canvassed this issue with the member for Chilliwack, and I expressed to him that the technology that sets this program up is quite different than in the past. It allows for better administrative structures and also a flexible interest rate.
D. Symons: I guess the one concern here is not so much individuals, but fleets which can also end up being insured by the Autoplan 12. If you had a large fleet of trucks -- we discussed this earlier in regard to B.C. Rail -- perhaps your trucking company would go belly-up and have payments that they're not able to make. It seems that ICBC, then, is picking up the remainder of the year from a firm that may not be having them, but there could be hundreds of thousands of dollars involved with a large trucking fleet. If ICBC is, in a sense, going to be picking that up, it means that the missing money is going to be picked up by all the premium payers for a few years.
Hon. J. Pement: There are fleet plans designed for those types of firms. It is likely more advantageous for the firms to use them. There may be some that we'll take a look at on an individual basis, but Autoplan 12 is really more for the individual insurer.
D. Symons: I have just a last couple of questions here dealing with specific insurance for motorcyclists. I know that traditionally they feel that they've been very hard done by, in the sense that premiums were extremely high. It was more expensive to insure a not-top-of-the-line Harley-Davidson than it was to insure a Mercedes-Benz. I am wondering if, in looking at accident rates and claim rates and so forth, ICBC has discovered that motorcycle rates have been higher than was required for such a class of vehicles, and whether there is any downward movement on the premiums for motorcycle insurance.
Hon. J. Pement: The insurance premiums are driven by the history of accidents.
The Chair: I recognize the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano.
J. Dalton: West Vancouver-Capilano, but that's all right. It's close enough. I live in North Vancouver, so I'm happy. Of course, ICBC lives in North Vancouver, so that's fine.
I have a few ICBC items I want to canvass. The first one deals with a proposed amendment to the Law and Equity Act. The Trial Lawyers' Association wrote recently to Mr. McCourt on this subject, so I'm sure that somebody over there has seen this letter. If not, I'd be more than happy to provide a copy if somebody has a photocopy machine.
The issue, as I'm sure the minister will be aware, is dealing with plaintiffs' compensation. By the way, I should
[ Page 15084 ]
just add a word that I'm not here as an advocate for the Trial Lawyers' Association. They can quite capably handle their own issues. I think there's an interesting question raised by this letter and the discussion in it. We're dealing with some possible amendments to the Law and Equity Act, dealing with plaintiffs' compensation for personal injury. The particular issue is the so-called net-of-tax award that may be contemplated.
The lawyers point out that there are already some caps on plaintiff compensation, such as the cap on general damages. That came out of a trilogy of Supreme Court of Canada cases many years ago now. Elimination of prejudgment interest is another so-called cap. They list some others, but we don't need to get into the detail. The president of the Trial Lawyers' Association goes on to discuss the net-of-tax implications that will "further erode the recourse available to victims of negligence." I don't need to go through the rest of the letter, because it was sent to the president of ICBC, who I'm sure will be responding in time.
Has the Insurance Corporation looked at this issue in detail, and can we be advised as to the state of negotiations, so to speak, on the topic?
Hon. J. Pement: Certainly ICBC has examined the issue. It requires board and government to be in agreement. No decision has been made.
J. Dalton: I gather from that response, which was quite brief, that there are ongoing examinations of this topic. For example, a year ago at this time, I raised the issue of no-fault insurance. I didn't get a lot of information at that time. Is the issue of no-fault insurance also being contemplated and discussed? Or is that on the back burner as well?
Hon. J. Pement: Yes, I recall the member bringing the issue up last year. ICBC certainly has done some studies of other jurisdictions. No decisions have been made.
J. Dalton: I guess we're going to move along at a quicker pace than some people had imagined. I have one or two other items.
Interjection.
J. Dalton: I know my colleague has all sorts of other pothole issues he has to deal with at some point.
There was another matter I raised last year, and I'm not going to get into the specifics of the item that I dealt with then. It was dealing with an autobody shop, and there were two court cases which that particular outfit was dealing with.
An Hon. Member: Number 1 Collision?
J. Dalton: It was Number 1 Collision, and that's no secret. However, I have a letter dated April 10 of this year addressed to Silver Coach Autobody in Vancouver, and quite frankly I don't like the tone of this letter, and I'm sure the recipient doesn't like the tone of this letter, either. This was written by the manager of the claims operation of the Greater Vancouver west claims centre. The letter, in essence, says there has been a great deal of difficulty over the years between ICBC and this autobody shop because they don't comply with the regulations: "Failure to abide by agreements.... You disregard the terms and conditions of the CL14." That was one of the things the minister may recall that we dealt with last year with Number 1 Collision. "The continual disagreements we experience simply increase costs to our customers." And they go on in that tone.
"The corporation is no longer willing to tolerate this unsatisfactory, unprofessional relationship and its consequences on service to its customers, and it sees no prospect for improved relations. Under these circumstances, the corporation has no alternative but to put you on notice that six months from the date of this letter, it will cease doing business with Silver Coach Autobody Ltd."
Well, obviously the recipient of this letter wasn't pleased to hear this news. I'm just wondering: is the minister concerned about this approach that ICBC -- at least this gentleman, on their behalf -- is taking? I can understand that the Insurance Corporation, as we discussed last year, has to be concerned about escalating autobody costs, but from my perspective, this is not the way to handle it. ICBC is saying in this letter that this autobody shop is out of business. If they want to carry on business, they'll have to do it without the obvious advantage of customers coming with ICBC-sponsored claims to be processed accordingly. I think back again to the problems that we dealt with last year with Number 1 Collision. Those are still ongoing. Who knows how long those are going to take?
Perhaps the minister would comment on the tone of the letter as I see it. I read into it directly, quite frankly, that ICBC wants this outfit closed, and I think that's what the letter in effect has done.
Hon. J. Pement: I have to remind the member that ICBC works very closely with different shops, tries to develop a relationship, works toward certain standards and wants to be assured of certain standards so that there is good service to the customer. I can't comment on an issue, particularly if I don't have the history of it. However, the letter was written to the particular business, and I think it outlines some of the concerns that the member read out. I would suggest that it's a case of taking a look at the type of service. It's difficult to comment on what kind of service the customer got -- I wasn't there.
J. Dalton: As a follow-up, what efforts does ICBC take in the way of arbitration or mediation to resolve some of these disputes? I can understand that with a large corporation there are numerous claims and there are numerous autobody shops in the province. But when I see a letter with ICBC letterhead going out to an autobody business that is probably struggling to keep ahead of things, like any other small business in this province, it reflects an attitude to me. Maybe it's only the attitude of the manager of Greater Vancouver West operations. I don't know. But it's an ICBC letter, and it actually has the West Esplanade address on it, too.
It just makes me unhappy, I can tell you. I know there are probably a lot of autobody shops out there that are somewhat unhappy. I think ICBC is perhaps guilty of taking a rather heavy-handed approach to some of these. I would like to know from the minister why more serious attempts aren't taken to resolve these issues other than sending a letter like this, which says, in essence, that you're no longer involved with us, so good luck.
Hon. J. Pement: I think it's fairly obvious that there had been some dealings with this company prior to the letter being
[ Page 15085 ]
written. There were a number of meetings. There are teams of people within ICBC that work with the shops that are having difficulties. That process was in place prior to any letter being written.
J. Dalton: I won't pursue that one, because other cases of this nature are before the courts or will otherwise be resolved over time.
There's one other item I would like to ask the minister about, and it deals, I guess, with some true estimates questions. Can the minister advise the committee of the cost of operating all the claim centres in the province? Could I also have the number of adjusters who are employed by ICBC?
Interjection.
J. Dalton: I hear some people saying that may have been canvassed, but in this broom closet there is no television and no audio. There is nothing other than Hansard, which hasn't yet come out, so I'm asking those questions.
Hon. J. Pement: We can get back to the member with regard to the number of adjusters. We don't have that information on hand. As to the claim centres, in 1994 the cost was $177 million, and in 1993 it was $174 million.
[7:15]
R. Neufeld: I don't have very many questions -- just a few for ICBC. First, it is difficult for a second owner to license equipment -- Bobcats, loaders, graders or farm tractors -- that has never been registered. ICBC seems to have something in place that.... I don't know whether it's totally efficient or it's just there to aggravate people or there's nothing else that can be done, but it seems to be a difficult process. It surprises me. I didn't have the problem in my constituency until last year. Since then I've had quite a number of people trying to license a farm tractor that might be 15 years old to drive it up and down the highway -- specifically Bobcats purchased from a company that sells equipment. ICBC would not license the bobcat until they thoroughly researched the piece of equipment to find out whether or not it had been stolen. I guess if you were purchasing it from an individual, that may be very well and good for the purchaser. But when you're a purchaser in business and you're trying to get your business done, and you go to a large, reputable dealer and buy a Bobcat, you think you should be able to license it. Maybe the minister could explain the process that you have to go through to do that.
Hon. J. Pement: I recognize the problem that he has brought forward, because previously I also had people talk to me about it. Basically the issue is proof of ownership, in some cases it's not that difficult. There are statements to show where the original owner bought it from etc. In some cases that type of information was not there, and a further search was required, therefore some complications could arise.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate the minister agreeing with me that it is a problem. Proof of ownership with ICBC is going back almost to the original purchaser. Right?
I'll give you another example of a person who went to Alberta and purchased a tank trailer that had been manufactured by Westank-Willock. The person in Alberta who owned the trailer was the original purchaser and the only owner. He gave a bill of sale in Alberta, where you only register them once, you only put one plate on it. You don't have to go through the rigmarole every year. He bought it in Alberta, had the bill of sale, came to British Columbia and was stuck to get it licensed.
There must be a way we can process some of this stuff; it's not as though it's happening every day. In fact, when I talked to ICBC, they said for all they knew it was stolen out of the U.S. and the sales tax hadn't been paid. Well, the gentlemen was taking it in to pay the sales tax and to license it because he wanted to use it in British Columbia. But they had 105 different reasons why they shouldn't license it right away. Can something be done to change that policy, or is ICBC just stuck in that track and that's exactly the way they are going to continue to make life difficult for these people?
Hon. J. Pement: We don't have the specifics of the case that the member points out. If you have the opportunity to bring the case in, at least we could take a look at it in terms of what went wrong with the process. Basically there's the issue of protection of the purchaser within this sort of context as well, when it comes to the licensing side of it. I think there's also a liability issue with regard to stolen equipment, if the equipment really had been stolen. I would certainly like the opportunity to do a review and see if there are ways we can strengthen that particular situation.
R. Neufeld: I agree that there is a certain amount of safety there for someone who is buying something to make sure it isn't stolen, especially if it's a private individual. But if you are buying it in British Columbia from a British Columbia firm that sells that kind of equipment -- a loader or a grader or a bobcat or something to that effect -- and you get a bill of sale from Finning Tractor, you ought to be able to license it. I can't imagine that Finning Tractor or any of those companies deals in stolen articles or vehicles or equipment. I'm sure it happens once in a while -- there's no doubt about it -- but it's certainly not a normal function that these people sell stolen equipment. So it would be a process that doesn't come up very often; it's not as though it's an everyday occurrence.
I'm certainly not trying to lead into that, but I am saying that probably, to be honest, when people try to do those things, it puts a better face on the corporation if they're a little more responsive to some of these issues, rather than standing back and saying: "No, we have to go back to the original owner of a tractor that's 30 years old before we're going to let you license it." It certainly doesn't do anything for ICBC to tell the farmer in Fort St. John that that's what he has to do. Most farmers in my constituency farm in Alberta and in B.C., and they're a little ticked with the rates to start with. So it just adds to it.
Secondly, does ICBC send any vehicles to Alberta for repair out of British Columbia? Specifically, Dawson Creek is close to the border, and Fort St. John is very close to the border. Does ICBC send any vehicles across the border?
Hon. J. Pement: This is a possibility. I caution the member when I say it, because I have experienced this situation in the northern part of the northwest, looking at repairs. There's no repair shop, for instance, in Atlin. The nearest autobody centre would be in Terrace, which is a significant distance to
[ Page 15086 ]
the south, whereas there's Whitehorse to the north in the Yukon. I know there were attempts to have work done in the Yukon. However, it was a case of the shops recognizing the estimates there -- the hours of work and the costs involved in doing it within the agreement that ICBC has with the shops in B.C.
R. Neufeld: I understand that in my area there are vehicles that are sent out to Alberta for collision repairs, when they are insured privately, because (1) the shop rate is usually a little bit cheaper; (2) there's no sales tax; and (3) there's no tax on the labour. On a large dollar amount -- specifically a truck -- it's quite a saving to send it even to Edmonton to have it repaired and brought back.
The issue about them possibly going from Atlin to Whitehorse leads me to my next question. Would ICBC remit...? Because I don't know how.... What I'm trying to get at is the tax and the tax on labour. Does ICBC, as a good corporation, then remit to the province of British Columbia those two items? What happens to the vehicles such as the large truck that was sent to Alberta, where ICBC is not involved? Does the government have some way of getting that money back once the vehicle comes back into British Columbia?
Hon. J. Pement: I think we'll have to get back to you with a specific, concise answer to your question, because we don't have that information here at this point.
R. Neufeld: The number of vehicles that are sent to Whitehorse -- whether it's a large amount or a small amount -- or to Alberta wouldn't take place just in my constituency. There are quite a few places very close to the border all the way down that could be in the same position -- the ones closer to Calgary. It may be cheaper to haul them to Alberta and repair them than it is to do it in British Columbia.
My last question is for a constituent of mine who has some antique vehicles and a personalized plate. Actually, the friend of mine is me. [Laughter.] This is really self-serving in a way, I guess, but because of my position I want to be very careful. Specifically, I have a 1955 Ford. A 1955 Ford with a personalized plate is very much in demand the same as a 1957 Chev or a 1936 Ford would be, if you follow the antique vehicles. My 1955 Ford is not fit for the road yet. It's not finished, and the job I'm in now has certainly slowed up the progress on it.
What I had done for a number of years was purchase the insurance for the shortest term that I could and as cheaply as I could. It expired, and I would do that every year. Obviously that's fairly expensive, because you don't purchase it cheaply. I don't want to buy insurance and cancel it, because then I'd have to take the plate in. I've often asked if I could just pay the $50 or $55 fee every year for the personalized plate.
Is there some way that you can do that through ICBC so you can retain that plate? ICBC still receives the money that they would normally get out of the plate; ICBC is out nothing. It makes it much easier for me, because right now I have the plate on a 1993 van, and I'd rather not have it on there.
Hon. J. Pement: I recognize the problem the member has. The policy is that when you don't use the vehicle, the plates go back, and that's why you are therefore required to keep it current. Actually, this issue is through the motor vehicle branch and ICBC. Perhaps you would allow me to take it back and look at it fully with regard to the policy and where we can go with it.
R. Neufeld: Just to correct the minister. I can go in and buy insurance for three months and let it expire, and the plate stays on the vehicle. With a personalized plate, you have one year's grace before it reverts back. So you can buy it for three months, and it still stays on the vehicle. It's the same as what I'm asking -- and I'm sure there are other people in the same position as me. Allowing the person to pay the $55 fee for the plate is absolutely no different than what happens now, other than I don't have to purchase the insurance. Or you could have the plate on a different vehicle. That's the problem. If the minister would look into that for me, that would be great. I think that's all I have.
[7:30]
L. Hanson: My colleague from Prince George-Omineca has asked me to canvass this issue with the minister. I guess ICBC purchases most of its supplies, as such, through the Purchasing Commission. The evidence that I have here says that this particular commodity is purchased through the Purchasing Commission and that ICBC is paying what this individual says is a premium price for it. Of course, he can supply it at a much lower figure, etc., etc. All I'm really asking for in this situation is to provide the minister with the information so that ICBC can look into the issue to see if there are, in fact, some dollar savings there -- as much as 35 percent to 40 percent of the cost of the item. I'll package that information together and give it to her if the minister agrees, and if she would forward it to ICBC, I'm sure that would answer my colleague's concerns.
Hon. J. Pement: Certainly I'll have it forwarded to ICBC for an answer.
D. Symons: In the interim, I just ran across a couple of questions dealing with Autoplan 12 that I'd like to canvass for a moment. I gather that at a meeting held before the announcement went out, when they were meeting with agents and other people involved in the sale of auto insurance, a question was asked about whether ICBC had a business plan to do with Autoplan 12, and the answer given was no. I'm surprised they are going ahead if they haven't worked out a whole business plan as to how this Autoplan 12 program is going to work.
I'll just tie in the other two questions I have, and the minister can answer them all together. What is the reasoning for not going into credit checks on individuals who are taking it out? Although you do have a lever in the sense that they've got to renew some time in the future, it still would seem prudent to do a credit check on individuals before they use your credit system.
I've just had another question passed to me. You said that Autoplan 12 is going to take effect in the fall. I wonder if you have a specific target date for that. I have somebody who has a particular interest in when that date would begin.
The last one is: can people get around this? After two months of defaults, ICBC pays the Toronto-Dominion Bank, and it's basically covered for the rest of the year. I don't think anyone is scraping the decals off their car because they
[ Page 15087 ]
defaulted. What would happen if, after eight or nine months, the owner of that car simply transferred ownership? Now somebody else owns the car, and they go in and want to take out insurance. I have my son-in-law, with a different name, different address and so forth, take over ownership of the car, and I'm still really the principal driver of that vehicle. Can I get my insurance paid for by ICBC by only paying for one instalment and then get away with it for the rest of the year?
R. Neufeld: Are you trying to chisel ICBC?
D. Symons: I'm just looking at the angles that people might work and wondering if ICBC has this all covered to make sure that people won't use these.
Hon. J. Pement: Autoplan certainly did have a business plan. There's no way that we're going to put out a complete, comprehensive program like this without a business plan. As to credit checks, if you have a bad standing with ICBC, you're not going to get on. That's basically it: if you have some outstanding debts, you're not going to get on.
D. Symons: But that's only an ICBC credit check.
Hon. J. Pement: True enough, but I think the concept is to assist those people in getting to work, etc. The concept of having these plans is to assist people towards economic viability.
On the startup date, I think we're trying to get into a pilot in August.
In the case of transfer of ownership, the debt will go with the transfer if it's a wife or a son or someone within the household who is not at arm's length.
The Chair: Any further discussion? Are you ready to have the vote put? Hon. members, shall vote 55 pass? No, okay.
D. Symons: I think we've completed ICBC. We do have quite a few other items in vote 55 to canvass, so if the minister is prepared to change....
The Chair: Proceed with the next one.
D. Symons: I have a few more ICBC ones, but I think they're....
The Chair: Hon. member, I think it would be sensible to keep proceeding with your questions. There is someone here who can respond: the minister is here.
D. Symons: The first ones involve some numbers. What figures are going to be budgeted for the '95-96 year for the whole operation of the Motor Carrier Commission, for AirCare and for the commercial transport part of the motor vehicle branch?
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Hon. J. Pement: For AirCare, operating costs are $911,000; and for the Motor Carrier Commission, $690,000. We'll have to get back to you with those other figures.
D. Symons: I wrote in February of this year to the motor vehicle branch asking for those figures for the year '94-95, and I got the figure $1,564,534 for the Motor Carrier Commission. You've given me $690,000, which, I think, is a figure that might occur in the estimates book. I'm just wondering what things might have been included in there? Let's see. If we add commercial transport into the figures you gave me, we get something. Maybe that's where the difference is. Would his motor carrier have included the commercial transport as well? That would give you a figure somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1.8 million, which would be a $300,000 increase over last year. If that's the case, it seems excessive.
Hon. J. Pement: The figure that he pointed out, the $1.9 million, is the motor vehicle branch motor carrier department. The $690,000 I gave was for the Motor Carrier Commission.
D. Symons: I wonder if the minister might be able to give me the current fees for a transfer of title for a motor vehicle.
Hon. J. Pement: We have quite a list that we have to go through, if the member would give us time.
D. Symons: I wouldn't mind, if anything that I asked involves searching, if you give it to me at a later date. I'd appreciate that.
I'd like to move now to the announcements that the minister made regarding new traffic safety initiatives. I guess there are quite a few that we can find to discuss. I would commend the minister for the introduction of photoradar. I think it is a move in the right direction to curb speeders who have an effect upon the accident rates and deaths on our highways. But I note that an article in the Vancouver Sun on March 16 indicated that this won't be in operation until next year. I'm wondering why what seems to be a good procedure is going to be delayed that long.
[7:45]
Hon. J. Pement: These initiatives are in a bill before the House. We will have the opportunity to discuss those initiatives at that time, and I would refer the member to those sets of discussions.
D. Symons: Then I may be in an awkward spot asking questions. You might rather have me ask them of you when we get to the various sections in the bill. I wouldn't mind doing that. If you prefer that I don't canvass them now, I can leave this section out. Would that suit you best? Fine, we'll use it in that forum then.
I'm wondering why in the initiatives -- maybe I can discuss something that isn't in the bill, if that's permissible -- there wasn't a ban brought in on radar detectors. I gather that with laser guns, radar detectors won't identify the laser beam that is used for speed detection. But why not ban radar detectors? Their only purpose is to defeat the law.
Hon. J. Pement: In most cases, the technology is actually outstripping the equipment in terms of the function of that equipment. We put together a safety package that was priority-driven in terms of dealing with outstanding accident stats, etc.
D. Symons: It's been a while since I went through the bill, so this may be in there also. Included with the radar cameras, are there red light intersection cameras?
[ Page 15088 ]
Hon. J. Pement: I believe this is best suited for discussion during our debate on the bill.
D. Symons: The unpaid fines, of course, is a matter for another bill as well, so I think we can leave that one. This is marvellous. We're going to have a lot of time on the bill, I might suggest to the minister. We'll save time tonight, but we'll add it on another night, so I'm not sure whether we're going to be ahead or not. I thought this might be a more informal forum to discuss these questions and that it might save various amendments from coming in that we could settle here rather than there.
Is it possible for a person who has had his driver's licence suspended to apply for another driver's licence, but instead of calling himself Doug Symons, he calls himself Douglas R. Symons, or something of that sort, maybe using his son's address as his address? Would it be possible that a person with a suspended licence could end up getting another driver's licence issued in his name by fudging a little on the way his name is registered, although it is still actually his name?
The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, I'm wondering just how close we're getting to hypothetical situations in the exploration of this avenue of questioning. Hypothetical questions are not within the rules of the examination of the minister's estimates.
Hon. J. Pement: In applying for a driver's licence, the primary identification that is asked for is a birth certificate. Other pieces of ID may be asked for as well, but primarily a birth certificate. That should alleviate your concern.
D. Symons: Then I would assume that the wording on the licence would match the wording on whatever they're using for identification first time around, and it should show up the second time if they tried to use a slightly different version.
I would like to get into something that I think the government has neglected to do. I know that a year or two back the minister brought in some information and initiatives to do with bicycle helmets and safety, but we have not yet brought in any legislation relating to a requirement to wear a bicycle helmet. Being a bicyclist myself, and sometimes wearing my helmet and other times, unfortunately, negligent and not having it with me. I really think there is a safety issue involved. We had the death of a young person just recently who -- misadventure here -- was going down an overpass on the highway and probably could have been saved if she'd had a helmet on. If it was mandatory, I think she might have had a helmet on.
Head injuries kill, I'm told, three out of four people who die from cycling accidents. Three out of four are killed because of head injuries rather than from being squished between cars or something of that sort. If that number is the case, I suspect that half of those might have lived had they had a helmet on.
Hon. J. Pement: Definitely it's an issue that has been discussed. We have been working with cycling groups with regard to the whole issue of helmet legislation, etc. We have been focusing on the education to try and increase compliance at this point.
D. Symons: I guess the easiest way of having increased compliance is indeed to have legislation. The minister says not true, but I know that was the case with seatbelts. Seatbelts were in the car long before legislation was there. It took a few years after the legislation was there to make sure that people were wearing them. We have a very good rate on it now, and it's a case of working both together, I guess -- education and the legislation to enforce that education.
Just another item. Dealing with tickets and so forth, municipalities were somewhat concerned a while ago, and a few of them decided they would start issuing their own traffic tickets for violations within their community. They apparently thought that through the regulations in the Motor Vehicle Act they would be allowed to have bylaws affecting their community and therefore could issue the tickets and collect the fines. I think there was some pressure from the Minister of Finance that they not do that. Is it now possible through the Motor Vehicle Act that communities could issue traffic fines for offences within their community and have that money go into the community and not necessarily into general revenue, as it currently does with most traffic fines?
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to the financial implications of the question, it is really a question for the Minister of Finance.
D. Symons: I wondered if the Motor Vehicle Act, which is under this minister, is worded in such a way that it would be possible that municipalities would be able to write bylaws that would allow them to collect those fines. Maybe I'll leave that with the minister, and they might check on the wording of the Motor Vehicle Act to see if that's a possibility.
One thing that also hits me right at home in good old Richmond is the fact that we had a large number of people obtain drivers' licences through fraudulent methods in Richmond. When I was observing my children getting their drivers' licences during the written test, I noticed that it was quite possible for people to be standing over the person who is writing the written part of the test and giving him the answers. I could have done it with my daughter in English, but certainly there were other children there with adults accompanying them, who were speaking other languages. It would seem that that activity was going on at the time. You wouldn't have any idea when a person was speaking whether they were giving an answer or giving them an interpretation.
What have you done to close the loopholes in the whole testing procedure? It seems to me that we're giving out drivers' licences too freely. I'm not speaking only of new Canadians; I'm speaking also of Canadian people who are here and go through a minor testing procedure -- 15 minutes on the road and a written test that doesn't really test their ability to handle situations on the road. So after a 20-minute drive around the block, those people come back and they have a valid driver's licence. Is there any move to tighten up so that people don't get them fraudulently and make the whole system more rigorous so that we can be pretty sure that those who have a licence have the skills required to be driving the streets unattended in today's traffic?
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to written tests, people are not supposed to be standing over people taking the exams. I would question that.
[ Page 15089 ]
With regard to translators for foreign languages, we now have tests set up in those languages so that they no longer require translators. That's one way we've actually tightened up that particular situation. We have changed some of the questions on the exam and looked at more multiple choice so that they have to choose from a greater number of answers to show their knowledge base.
With regard to the practical exam, it's my understanding that the examiner is looking at about 40 points in terms of types of skills and certain abilities during that 20-minute route that they go on. Within it, they have all sorts of different scenarios set up so that the person has to go through that process. Actually, interestingly enough, although people have said on occasion that the exam is too easy, 35 percent fail.
L. Hanson: AirCare. You suggested we include them all in one. In the AirCare stations a lot of automobiles are being revved up, idled and so on. What are the regulations as to the disposal of the emissions from those cars as they're going through that process?
Hon. J. Pement: Actually, I did a tour of the Burnaby-Willingdon station, and they do have ventilation systems. They have fans as well, as the member pointed out, to move the exhaust out of the building.
[8:00]
L. Hanson: I would assume that there is some requirement for testing stations to handle the emissions in a way least detrimental to the atmosphere as possible.
Hon. J. Pement: Just to remind the member, WCB also comes in and does tests with regard to the amount of emissions that may be in that particular building.
L. Hanson: The reason I asked the question is that apparently there is some concern about the testing station in Abbotsford, that in that case the emissions are not being handled as you would expect them to be. I suspect that with this question you may instruct your staff to have a look at that situation, which would be appreciated.
Hon. J. Pement: As the member pointed out, I'll certainly ask staff to take look at it.
D. Symons: I was asking a few minutes ago about automobile driver testing, the tightening of the system of testing and the possibility of having stronger tests so that we would have more certainty that people haven't just learned the route and are able to sway the person after a very short and not very comprehensive test. Because of the truck incident on the Horseshoe Bay road, which goes down to the ferry terminal, I am more concerned about commercial vehicle testing, both of the vehicles and the drivers of those vehicles. I gather that there is a certification program that can be set up for driving schools which sets standards for drivers of commercial vehicles. I don't know whether those standards are required of driving schools. Is the only requirement that they pass the test? The individual who was driving this particular truck at the time of the accident apparently had the mental capacity of a very young child. I'm wondering what changes have been made, then, in commercial vehicle driver testing to make sure that the drivers are fully qualified before they're on the road driving large vehicles.
Hon. J. Pement: There are definitely certified courses for these drivers to go through. They have to have a particular classification of licence. In the unfortunate situation you pointed out, that particular driver was found to be negligent.
D. Symons: I think it was somewhat more than found to be negligent. I think it was found that he should never have had the driver's licence in the first place.
Hon. J. Pement: Not true.
D. Symons: Not true? Then the reports in the press that I am working from were blown out of proportion, I would assume.
Interjection.
D. Symons: The Chair indicates that he's surprised that the press would blow something out of proportion. He doesn't believe everything he reads, obviously. Neither do I -- even articles written by that member.
An Hon. Member: Touche!
D. Symons: He knows what I'm referring to.
Let's go back to vehicles. I had some concerns expressed to me by a person in Coquitlam who has had a running argument, I suppose, with the motor carrier branch about competitors who were constantly overloading their trucks. They were driving their trucks without the proper plates and going outside the particular community they were in. He has even given photographs of overloads, improperly secured loads, etc., to the RCMP. He mailed them to the proper department in Victoria. And the problem went on and on.
I was searching for the letter I thought I had here. It indicated that eventually there was a response -- a year after the first letter I received on this and the first letter she had sent to the department -- indicating that, my gosh, there turned out to be a fair amount of truth in many of the things that had been said. But the amazing thing is that it's still going on. What are you doing to see that the vehicles on the road, other than when they appear at a weigh station, are properly load-secured and that there is not an overload situation, where things are hanging and about to drop off?
Hon. J. Pement: Anytime a complaint is received by the department, we send inspectors out either to verify the complaint or to at least inspect the particular offender, a trucker, if that's the case. Again, when the inspector goes out and if the load is secure, then they are not charged. If the load is not secure, then they are charged accordingly. There are roadside inspections where portable scales go out, and the RCMP are very good at some enforcement, as well.
D. Symons: I did find the letter, but it's rather lengthy to read the various portions that indicate the problems she's gone through over an extended period of time to get the ministry to pay attention to her problems. Almost every one starts with: "I can assure you that...." You read four months later and then six months later that they're still assuring her, and the issue was still going on, until eventually somebody noticed it. They've actually got a mobile weigh scale out in that area now, so we're confirming what she said.
[ Page 15090 ]
I guess another disturbing part was the part of the local police, whom she had also put in complaints to. On the first occasion, the police did ticket the people. But after continual complaints from her, they said that basically this was a fight between two companies. They ignored the fact that the vehicles were still overloaded and not properly plated for the hauling they were doing and for the district they were doing it in because it was one firm pointing out the faults of a competitor. I think that's an issue that goes on in some other areas in the province, as well. Where a competitor is the complainer, the complaint seems to be given less weight than somebody else's. That doesn't seem right to me. It might be in my best interests if I am the one who is losing business. But if they are taking my business through using illegal practices, it seems the ministry and the individuals responsible for enforcing regulations would enforce them promptly.
Hon. J. Pement: Whatever the complaint is, the case is that we go and inspect the particular truck in question, no matter who the complainant is.
D. Symons: I think I did ask many of these questions before, so I won't repeat them under ICBC.
I'm wondering if the ministry is moving in the direction of certifying the technicians who do repairs in collision shops and so forth so that we can be certain that there will be a standard there and that individuals will know when they take their car in that this person has been trained to a certain standard and likely to produce a certain standard of product. Right now, we can have repairs done by anybody who cares to hang out a shingle and say: "Hey, I'm an auto mechanic." Is there going to be some sort of certification process a person would have to go through to prove their competency to advertise themselves as a mechanic for cars?
Hon. J. Pement: Maybe you could be more clear about what types of inspections you're talking about. Were you talking about AirCare, autobody or...?
D. Symons: I was referring to both autobody and mechanical repairs. Is there going to be some certification? People hang tickets out saying they are certified by Ford or some other organization, but I don't know if there's any real requirement that people be certified or if the government has a certification process. If they do, I'm unaware of it. When those people hang these little signs that say they have a certified mechanic there, who certified the mechanic? Does the government have a method of certifying them, so we know they've reached certain standards?
Hon. J. Pement: To be a certified mechanic, one has to take one's TQ, trades qualification. That's a provincial qualification.
D. Symons: I mentioned this before, when we were talking about selling automobiles that had been salvaged or sold as write-offs and then end up back on the streets later on. One of the companies involved in it is Curb Auto, and I think this has been passed on to the minister.
This particular letter is addressed to Mr. McCourt, who was here earlier. I had it under motor vehicle rather than under ICBC, but it involves both. Apparently this auto -- and we have the particular description here -- was bought on July 9, 1992, by Curb Auto from ICBC for salvage for $4,000. On July 22 of that year, they sold it to another firm that provided a certificate of mechanical condition necessary to re-register the vehicle.
The same day a lady took it in to an insurance agent, and although that agent had all the necessary supporting documents to register the vehicle, the agent neglected to enter "rebuilt" into the vehicle status field on the ICBC form. And from that point on, that vehicle went through various hands without any record that it had been a rebuilt vehicle. Basically the system seemed to fall apart.
The person who eventually ended up buying the car and finding out the number of inherent problems in the car was basically left with a vehicle that was not in good mechanical condition and should never have been on the road in the first place. As a matter of fact, it should never have been rebuilt in the first place. So these were the conditions I was referring to earlier under ICBC, but they involve a coordination between ICBC and the motor vehicle branch, because they're both involved in becoming registered through the motor vehicle branch. How are these loopholes being fixed so that this kind of thing won't happen? It again goes back to the ICBC sale and the vehicle getting re-registered.
Hon. J. Pement: We basically canvassed this before with ICBC. The VIN numbers should now help with those types of situations. That was prior to that program being put in with the D and R that are now tagged right onto the VIN number in the systems.
D. Schreck: I would particularly like to thank the opposition critic for allowing me to interrupt the flow on topics that he's on so that I can briefly touch on three matters of importance to my constituency before I become tied up with duties that will prohibit my participation for the rest of the evening.
Those three matters are in regard to the Lions Gate Bridge, and I would like to thank the minister for her participation and patience in an extremely lengthy and painful planning process for all of us. It is my impression that notwithstanding the difficulty in getting various reports, such as environmental assessment reports, and other information before all the stakeholders in this complicated decision, the most difficult problem we have to face is the fundamental difference of what should be done between the city of Vancouver and the North Shore. Whatever is done, I think the final decision has to be one on which the city of Vancouver and the North Shore can agree. I've given my word to the opposition members of the North Shore -- from North Vancouver-Seymour and West Vancouver-Capilano -- that if they can convince one former Vancouver mayor of the correctness of the North Shore position, I'll do my best do convince another former Vancouver mayor.
[8:15]
I think those of us on the North Shore pretty well agree that the most economical and efficient route is to replace the existing bridge with a structure that will last another 50 or more years and sustain safer traffic than what I drove across with Monday morning on my way here. But we on the North Shore have some considerable difficulty on whether we should spend an additional $100 million on tunnelling through the park, and that is a major, controversial issue which is largely in the hands of the city of North Vancouver.
[ Page 15091 ]
From my point of view, it's that demand from the city of North Vancouver to impose an additional $100 million cost which is very complicating for all of us.
I have publicly said before that I very much respect the position and leadership taken by the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, who last year in these estimates articulated how the obvious decision is to use that right-of-way, and I agree with my friend and colleague. I think that by making this a non-partisan issue we will recognize 50 years of history. That 50 years of history on this problem is one of Vancouver versus the North Shore, not one of artificial political labels on a problem that we don't need. I hope we can approach this thing so as to resolve that problem on a regional planning basis. If both of us influence our respective former mayors of Vancouver, we might help benefit the North Shore.
The second issue which I'd like to comment on briefly is the Westview interchange. I would like to very much compliment and thank the minister for her enormous support in bringing about a project which, to the best of my knowledge, has been in the planning stage for over 30 years on the North Shore. I took out advertisements in the North Shore News asking people to write letters to the minister, to the Minister of Employment and Investment and to the Premier demanding that that intersection be built. I have to say that, when I did that, I did not know whether I was going to get our project to the top of the queue. I would like to thank the minister for recognizing the importance of our project, because it really is an incredible bottleneck for people going to Whistler and for people going to the ferries. For the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, a quarter of his constituency has to pass through that interchange twice a day, and it's a major nuisance.
I learned the day after the election, when I went to the lumberyard and people approached me at the lumberyard saying "we're glad you got elected, when are you going to get the Westview interchange built?" that, whether I liked it or not, that was my priority. I took that on as my priority, and it came to be -- as a result of the support from the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I want to thank you.
I also want to invite the minister on Tuesday, July 11 at 10 a.m., together with the member for North Vancouver-Seymour and the member for West Vancouver-Capilano and, hopefully, all of the mayors and councillors on the North Shore to the official opening of the public information centre for the Westview interchange. Hopefully we can make this a community event to celebrate what is in the best interests of our entire community. I hope the minister will be able to make that event.
Finally, it's interesting how projects which may involve a cost of one-hundredth of the ones I mentioned earlier can be a much higher priority to some people. There's a particular project in my constituency that has been bitter and divisive, and of which there has been no easy way out. That has been the Lloyd Avenue entrance and exit to the Upper Levels Highway. Thanks to the district highways manager in your ministry, the Ward Consulting Group was commissioned to do an engineering study on the safety of that entrance and egress to the Upper Levels Highway. They concluded that there is no way within reasonable cost to make that entrance and egress safe. It would cost in excess of $1 million to begin to make it safe, and even then it would not meet current highway standards.
As a result of that, that unsafe entrance and exit to the Upper Levels Highway was closed. That has produced some considerable divisiveness within the neighbourhood. At some point we have to recognize the safety of the travelling public on the Upper Levels Highway. It may be, and I appreciate it is... I support the concerns of the majority of neighbours who wanted to close it off in order to protect their neighbourhood. As long as it remained purely an issue of protecting the neighbourhood, my view was, notwithstanding personal opinions, that it should be an issue in the hands of the district of North Vancouver. But when we started discussing the safety of the travelling public on the provincial highway, it could not be a matter in the hands of the district of North Vancouver. It had to be a matter that was decided upon by the ministry, because the Crown would ultimately be responsible for any liability to which we were exposed.
I want to compliment the minister for supporting the decision of the district highways manager to implement the Ward engineering report, which clearly showed that that entrance and exit to the Upper Levels Highway was unsafe. At some time leadership has to be taken. We cannot pawn all of our decisions off on the local level of government when public safety is at risk.
I want to thank the minister for backing what I believe is two-thirds of the element of the neighbourhood that was affected, but more importantly the 100 percent of the travelling public that passed that unsafe intersection and had it closed. So, in respect to the difficult planning decision ahead of us on the Lions Gate Bridge, the outstanding accomplishment of 30 years of struggle to get the Westview interchange and the local matter of closing the Lloyd Avenue entrance and exit to the Upper Levels Highway, I want to say that from this member's point of view the minister has done an outstanding job. I really want to compliment and thank her.
Interjections.
The Chair: The hon. member for Richmond Centre, with further roses, I suppose.
D. Symons: I can just see the glow coming from the minister from those compliments. She was just so overwhelmed by it, she was unable to respond to it.
I guess one fear I have in the comments made by the minister, who seemed to be taking a fair amount of credit for the Westview interchange, is that black-top politics are still in effect if the minister did it because this particular member asked rather than because it was a project that needed doing. I was under the impression that it was the latter, that this was a project whose time had come long ago and that this minister, in her wisdom, recognized that and went ahead and did it.
Is that a rose or a thorn? I'm not quite sure. Nevertheless, let us hope it was the latter, as I said, and not the former.
If we can get back to motor vehicles for a moment, I guess I have some concern that the motor vehicle branch and the Motor Carrier Commission as it exists seem to be a holdover from days gone by where many other jurisdictions in North America did not regulate the trucking and commercial vehicle industries to the same extent that British Columbia does now. The move seems to be more toward deregulation of the trucking industry. I'm wondering if the ministry is moving in that direction -- toward more liberal views on it but always keep-
[ Page 15092 ]
ing the safety of the public and the vehicles that are on the road as a primary concern. As far as regulating the number of vehicles and who can and can't haul in certain areas, will there be a change in that policy in the near future?
Hon. J. Pement: Certainly there have been discussions between provinces with regard to regulations, harmonization, that type of dialogue. We also have entered into internal trade agreements between the provinces in which trucking regulations are discussed. Certainly we will be working towards reviewing the regulations within that context.
[J. Beattie in the chair.]
D. Symons: Harmonization. You mean that British Columbia will fall in line, to an extent anyway, with the type of vehicle regulations and so forth that are in other jurisdictions in Canada. I gather that one way around it now is that the trucking industry has asked for interprovincial plates. They can get them much easier than simply getting a carrier plate for British Columbia itself. It seems ridiculous that they can get interprovincial ones to haul primarily in British Columbia with much more ease than they can get to haul in British Columbia....
This question came up earlier when we were discussing insurance. The problem of getting plates was raised, I believe, by the member for Peace River North, who suggested that when the B.C. Rail trucking arm needs more plates, it manages to get them fairly quickly, whereas any other person has to go through quite a procedure to get carrier plates, to the extent that they have to apply for the plates. When I first heard this I didn't believe it to be true, but apparently the Motor Carrier Commission canvasses all the other carriers in the area. It asks them if it should give this person a plate and whether there is enough business to warrant issuing more plates for that particular area. If they object, and it's surprising how many times the potential competition will object, they go through a hearing process where there's an argument back and forth over whether or not these plates should be issued. This seems to be a bit of an archaic thing left over from days gone by, I would think, where these things were given out as favours to political friends. We in British Columbia should be well past that in the 1990s.
Hon. J. Pement: First, BCR doesn't have new plates. They go back to 1983. They work within the licensing they had in 1983. As for the issue of canvassing other parts of the industry with regard to applicants applying for a particular area, it's not a case of canvassing whether the Motor Carrier Commission should give a particular plate. It's a case of canvassing any outstanding concerns. It is the decision of the commission whether to give a plate or not. There's a process of appeal if an applicant has been turned down.
As to the issue of regulation, as I mentioned, a council of ministers did agree to look at harmonization. It isn't a case of falling into line. One does not fall into line; one does the regulations according to the particular province. There is an internal trade agreement that we have agreed to, and all provinces said that they would review their regulations under that agreement.
D. Symons: I attended two appeal hearings at the Motor Carrier Commission, and it certainly seemed from the procedures that there was an adversarial situation between the person applying for a plate and the other people who had plates in that jurisdiction. The latter were there objecting to that plate being issued. That seemed to be the whole setup for going through the appeal procedure. The same thing was occurring in order to get to the appeal procedure, because the appeal hears no new evidence. The whole system of applying for plates seems to be such that you pit the person who's asking for a plate against those who already have plates in that area. I think the system has had its day.
Moving on to something new that does relate to plates, I want to ask about Kimber Cabs Ltd. I won't go through all the problems we've discussed in the House and elsewhere over the Kimber Cabs issuance of plates and my thoughts on the appeal process in that one now that that appeal process has been changed. But can I look at a more recent update on this, because we're having some real problems in the city of Richmond. There have been fistfights at various cab locations around the community -- at hotels and so forth -- between the Kimber Cabs people, who are picking up able people rather than the disabled that they were initially asking for the plates for, and the competing cab company, Richmond Cabs.
[8:30]
Initially, when Kimber asked for a licence, they were getting a city plate first, and they were definitely N-plates that were restricted to picking up people with disabilities. Now the city is looking at the possibility that it can still impose upon Kimber.... Even though the motor carrier branch has given them a regular plate that gives them authority to operate everywhere in picking up able or disabled, the city of Richmond says: "We issued them an N-plate, and we in Richmond wish to make sure that they adhere to the conditions of the plate that we issued to Kimber Cabs in Richmond -- that they must be carrying only disabled people."
I'm wondering what the position is and how the Motor Carrier Commission is going to handle this, because there's going to be a problem between the issuance of those appeal plates that were given out last summer and the fact that Richmond says: "We've only issued them N-plates for carrying disabled." Does Richmond have the authority, through the Motor Carrier Commission, to regulate the carrier within the community of Richmond to hold them to only carrying disabled?
Hon. J. Pement: I would have to approach the Motor Carrier Commission with regard to that issue. I have to advise the member that I cannot become involved in any particular instance with regard to application.
D. Symons: I was not asking the minister to become involved at all, other than an interpretation of whether the issuance of the plate that they got from the Motor Carrier Commission will -- within the boundaries of Richmond -- take precedence over the plates that Richmond has issued. That was the concern. I don't suppose we'll come up with that answer today, but I would appreciate it if the minister could look into that.
If we can move on to AirCare, the AirCare contract runs for seven years from the 1992 startup. Has government put out a guarantee as to the number of vehicles it will go through, or a dollar figure that they'll get on return, or a return on the investment? How is that contract worded?
[ Page 15093 ]
Hon. J. Pement: We do guarantee a number of vehicles.
D. Symons: Is the contract designed so that Ebco-Hamilton will recover their investment that they've put in building the whole AirCare buildings and infrastructure there, plus a modest return on their investment over the seven-year period of this contract? Will they be recouping all of that expense after seven years?
Hon. J. Pement: As far as the business of Ebco-Hamilton goes, I find it difficult to respond to the question in the sense of their overall business -- what their profit margins and their overall expenses are, etc. Therefore I really can't respond.
D. Symons: Well, I would suppose that when the ministry set in contract that they would specify you'd get a certain number of vehicles.... Maybe I'll get to it later on here; if not, I'll bring it in now.
When the startup happened, they actually had quite a few problems, cars were failing right and left, and there was no consistency between one station and another, indeed between one lane in the testing station and the lane beside it. It took them months to bring about some consistency in the operation of AirCare, yet the ministry had to pick up the tab because they hadn't put the right number of cars through.
In the specification you would have to guarantee them a certain number of cars. There must be something in there that is a rate of return for Ebco-Hamilton. That must have been discussed at the time you were determining how many cars would be in this contract.
Hon. J. Pement: We didn't discuss rate of return.
D. Symons: Currently, then, of the $15 fee, Ebco-Hamilton receives $14.54. That figure has changed over the years; they're now getting more. Formerly they received $12.75. Where does the remainder, in this case a very small amount, go? Does it go to the government? Does it go to general revenue? What's going to happen when their expenses change and the $15 fee they're currently charging ends up being more, because it has changed a few times already? What happens at that point? Does the fee go up?
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to the fee, the province gets 46 cents, which actually stays in general revenue, and $1.05 goes to GST. We are in disagreement with the federal government with regard to this service being charged GST.
D. Symons: The next question is: how much of a subsidy has been paid Ebco-Hamilton for each of its operating years? I guess we start in 1992, up to the current time. They've been given subsidies, in the sense of guaranteeing them a number of cars. If that number hasn't been delivered, I believe the government pays them to make up the difference for the cars that didn't appear at their door.
Hon. J. Pement: There are no subsidies to AirCare.
D. Symons: I asked the question based on a Vancouver Province article of May 8, 1995, which said the AirCare subsidy hit $6 million. They put down the figure that the company received: "The government agreed to pay Ebco-Hamilton" -- roughly $4 million last June -- "...as an 'equitable adjustment' to make up the money it lost when Gabelmann temporarily exempted vehicles built after 1986 from testing during the startup of AirCare." The company received an additional close to $2 million last August 31 "after arguing that municipal zoning problems had delayed the opening of two testing stations." Are those figures incorrect?
Hon. J. Pement: This is not a subsidy. As the member read out, it is an equitable adjustment within the renegotiated agreement developed with Ebco-Hamilton. Really, the initial startup cost was under an agreement that had been initiated by the previous government, and we had to deal with some outstanding issues with regard to ensuring that the AirCare program continued, but there were definitely with no subsidies.
D. Symons: I took the subsidy from a headline in a newspaper article. I guess I have a concern about that first year, because the reason the Attorney General changed the ruling -- AirCare was under his jurisdiction at that time -- about the post-1986 cars not having to be tested was the fact that AirCare was having a great deal of trouble operating in those first few months. Basically there were a great number of failures and startup problems, and the government shouldn't be picking up the fact that they weren't able to deliver right off the start when AirCare began.
Hon. J. Pement: I'll explain again that we had a contract we had to deal with that was done by the previous government and that required the province to meet certain commitments. To discontinue that contract would have cost the taxpayer more. Therefore we renegotiated the contract, and we made that Ebco adjustment with the clear understanding that it was the one and only time.
D. Symons: I'm not sure if it was the Minister of Transportation and Highways or the Minister of Environment who recently announced -- I think it was this minister -- the testing of commercial vehicles. Basically, it's going to be voluntary for a period of time, which concerns me, because we're omitting a fairly large segment of vehicles out there that are putting pollution into the air. I mentioned B.C. Transit buses a moment ago, and I'm wondering why the government does not test their own buses. They're insisting that private car owners must have their vehicles tested. You have an ideal situation to test the B.C. Transit buses because you have transit service centres. Those buses all go through a service centre, so it would be very easy for them to set up an AirCare testing program right within the service centre to make sure that each bus that's out on the roadway matches the same conditions you're going to apply to all other vehicles on the road.
Hon. J. Pement: This is a policy issue for the Ministry of Environment. The responsibility of this ministry is to administer the AirCare program.
D. Symons: Doesn't administering the program mean setting the vehicles that have to go through it? Is that all done by the Ministry of Environment? You're just an...
Hon. J. Pement: Administrator.
D. Symons: ...administrator. Thank you, that's the word I was looking for and couldn't find.
[ Page 15094 ]
Does the minister know, then, whether the transit system has any emission-testing equipment in the transit service centres? This question is related to the other one, and I realize that it's not your jurisdiction.
Hon. J. Pement: No, I can't give that answer. Transit is under Employment and Investment.
[8:45]
D. Symons: It seems that only 2 percent of 1990-and-newer vehicles fail AirCare and therefore need some servicing to get up to a pass, whereas 75 percent of the pollution appears to be caused by 40 percent of the vehicles that are older than eight years -- AirCare's own figures. It would seem, then, that testing cars older than 1990 would certainly be more feasible than the inconvenience you're causing the people who have a car that's extremely likely to pass. I don't think there's very much return on your investment in the way of pollution savings for testing the newer cars, which are all under warranty anyway. Therefore we might think that what we're doing by testing all the newer ones is simply producing the number you referred to that you have in a contract with AirCare, rather than really having as much concern about the environment as you do about making sure they have the requisite number of vehicles going through their stations.
Hon. J. Pement: Definitely 2 percent of new cars fail the test; the member is right. In this case these cars can emit seven to ten times their emission limits when malfunctioning. That's the reason that they are in this situation. It's equivalent to 8,500 tonnes of toxic emissions in the Fraser Valley. Therefore I don't agree that it's insignificant.
D. Symons: I think if we look at the 40 percent of the older cars that fail AirCare, we'll find that the amount of pollution they are putting out could be 100 or more times what a newer vehicle might be putting out. Even though the newer one might fail the AirCare, the standards are so much higher for cars that are post-1990, compared to cars that are pre-1980, or even 1985, which includes the vehicle I drive. The standards for pollution in those days were considerably different than now.
Take my car, for example, which miraculously passed AirCare the first time I took it there. I quite expected it wouldn't pass, and then I would have to put out a certain dollar figure in repairs that may or may not clear up the problem to make it pass, but that I would get a conditional pass and be allowed to continue driving my car for one more year, putting out all the pollutants that you say you're testing these 2 percent of the newer cars for. It seems that the focus is on the wrong end of the polluting cars.
Hon. J. Pement: It's interesting, you know, what assumptions we have. A study has just come in from California with regard to vehicle age, pollution leaks, etc. It's interesting, and I may read this to the member: "A team of researchers measured emissions from 60,000 motor vehicles in California, concluding that a large portion of newer models polluted more than older cars. The difference was maintenance. Poorly maintained new cars produced more pollutants than well-maintained older ones."
It's been an issue that I actually have talked about many times, even on radio programs. The issue is maintenance with regard to cars passing this test in AirCare and being clean-air cars. Even a newer vehicle can be pretty messy with regard to its emissions, if maintenance is not kept up.
D. Symons: I won't belabour the point. I do have some differences with what the minister has been saying, but we'll move on.
I'm wondering if the minister has in her mind a failure rate that's acceptable for newer cars; I guess it might be zero. If we don't produce the number of cars going through AirCare that you have in the agreement and to prevent the government having to make payments, is it possible that you would tighten the requirements for AirCare to produce enough failures in order to produce the cars that will go through AirCare? If we don't reach the number we need, are you going to adjust the standards to reach that number?
Hon. J. Pement: Definitely the program is set to try and ensure that the standards are raised as we progress through the program. The whole concept of the program is to get as much of a clean situation out of the cars so that we don't have the pollutants in the air to the degree that we do now.
As to setting those standards, that's done through the Ministry of Environment.
D. Symons: It's fortunate that the Ministry of Environment estimates are still to come. We'll have chance to go at them and inquire on these.
Can you give me the rate of failure for cars that are ten years old and older -- the pre-1985 vehicles? You might have to look that up, so I'll leave that question with you and move on to the next one. Are vintage-and collector-plate cars exempt from AirCare testing?
Hon. J. Pement: Antique cars and vintage cars are not exempt. We will get the other information that the member asked for.
D. Symons: Apparently a vehicle can pass all the emission tests and still fail AirCare if the dash light indicator, which says it is time for routine engine maintenance, is on. Even though the indicator on the dash might indicate that maintenance is needed, and AirCare has basically said that it is meeting the standards, apparently there have been cases where cars have been failed for that reason. The person who saw a printout that said it had met all the objectives was quite annoyed when he was told that his dash indicator light was on, indicating that he needed.... If there is a fault in that line or the indicator indicates but AirCare says it passed all the emission standards, why shouldn't it pass?
Hon. J. Pement: I'm not aware of that specific issue. I would have go back and check.
D. Symons: Again, you might want to send it to the Minister of Environment.
If this government is sincere about its emissions policy, I'm wondering why it is phasing out the fuel tax incentives that used to be in place for the conversion of vehicles to propane or natural gas. These fuels have a history of burning cleaner than gasoline. There used to be a fuel tax incentive so that if people converted their cars, they would reap the bene-
[ Page 15095 ]
fits of that fuel tax difference over a period of years. That would basically pay for the conversion. I thought it was a retrograde step when the government grandfathered those particular tax incentives.
Hon. J. Pement: This is a policy of the Minister of Finance.
D. Symons: Just a very few more questions. In a news release of April 11, 1995, saying "AirCare Is Working," there was talk about trucks and buses being included. To me this doesn't really spell out a firm program for the testing of trucks and buses. Can you outline the timetable for testing these larger vehicles? Is it a firm timetable requiring tests or simply an optional program?
Hon. J. Pement: This will be a new program. We will be looking at portable equipment to test these vehicles. We've given it a two-year period. Basically, what we've done is made it a voluntary program. We have worked closely with the B.C. trucking industry with regard to this program. They are onboard with it and want it to be successful. We need to collect data and set up a database to work with this technology. That is why it is voluntary.
D. Symons: My remaining question there would more appropriately go to the Minister of Environment. I'm ready to go back to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. I have completed the motor vehicle aspect of this.
The Chair: The member for Peace River North would like to enter the question highway?
R. Neufeld: Just a few quick questions on motor vehicles. Interestingly enough, the member asked about antique vehicles. What standards are put on those vehicles? Are they the standards of today's world or when they were manufactured?
Hon. J. Pement: It goes back to the date of manufacture.
R. Neufeld: A vehicle in 1936.... I don't know what emission standards would have been in place in 1936 or 1927 or whatever. I would assume you just go back as far as there are standards. I see someone nodding yes. That's sufficient for me. Obviously, I guess, they're not going to be too worried about antique vehicles.
I fully support the safety inspection program for commercial vehicles; in fact, in my previous business career I participated in it a lot. I think it was a good program -- something that was needed. I do have a few problems with some aspects of it, and I did at the time -- with owners of vehicles being able to become licensed facilities to do their own inspections and their own decaling. I guess it's a good thing to have, because there are all kinds of larger firms that have their own shops and do their own work, and they have the certified mechanics to do the work. I don't have a problem with that. I wonder what steps there are for checking up on or auditing those people when they decal a vehicle. Is a spot check done every once in a while? How do we go about checking up to make sure that the decals placed on either trailers or trucks are actually valid and that the vehicles are in good shape?
Hon. J. Pement: We do spot audits. However, there are other checks and balances within the system when we do roadside inspections or when the vehicles go across the scales. If they do not pass in those situations, we can go in and do a special audit on the company, as well. Therefore it's basically spot audits to begin with and then working into the other processes. If there's a reason that we feel we should go in and do an inspection or an audit of that company, we will do a special audit.
R. Neufeld: From the inception of the program, have any companies ever had their rights to inspect their own vehicles removed?
Hon. J. Pement: We would really have to go back and check our records to get that information for the member.
R. Neufeld: I certainly wouldn't want the ministry to have to go through a bunch of work that would be needless. But it would be interesting for me because of my background and my knowledge about some of the things that have gone on. I don't have to know the names, but if there ever were.... If someone is doing their own inspections and their vehicles are checked at a weigh scale or with the portable scales or the police or whatever, and they fail, is there a policy that you use? Let's say a person has three chances, or two chances, or one chance. If they fail, is there an immediate audit because there is an obvious problem? Is there anything in the policy? Or is the policy.... Maybe I'm misinformed; maybe there's no policy. Maybe it's just more of a hit-and-miss program.
[9:00]
Hon. J. Pement: Just so you have a feel for the number of audits that we do in a year, in this last year 5,484 audits were done. Some of those would just be the random audit where you go in and check through the particular company. Some of those may be special audits because of certain situations that the inspectors felt should be checked through -- perhaps a vehicle had failed a roadside test and had recently got a sticker, for example. So on the whole, the process is that if there is an outstanding issue, motor vehicles will go in right away.
R. Neufeld: Are there any discussions underway about safety inspections for cars and pickups -- non-commercial vehicles? I've read articles where they're talking about it and not talking about it, and I would just like to know whether there is something planned.
Hon. J. Pement: Certainly this issue has been brought to me before. We did some reports on it, and I would be happy to ensure that the member gets a copy. The bottom line of the reports was that mechanical failure in overall accident rates is approximately 2.5 percent.
R. Neufeld: Could the minister give me the accident rate in mechanical failure for large commercial vehicles?
Hon. J. Pement: We'd have to get back to the member with that specific area.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that. I know what the minister is saying, and maybe there has to be a year that you pick to start doing inspections on some vehicles. I've witnessed a number of them on the road that I think are pretty unsafe, and I see
[ Page 15096 ]
them driving around with tail-lights taped up and all kinds of things like that, and I think to myself: "Boy, if that was some poor trucker heading down the road trying to make a living, he'd be shut down, parked on the side of the road and looking for parts fairly quickly." I think there's a need for it for some of the older vehicles, to be perfectly honest; I don't think you'd have to put everything through the system.
Weigh scales and the manning of weigh scales. Is there a program in place for moving these people around the province on a regular basis? I'm thinking specifically about smaller communities where they get to know one another in the trucking industry, and if the weigh scale operator is just fresh out of school on the first job and gets a little bit torquey with the ticket book, there gets to be some fair problems. I'm speaking specifically about a community I represent, Fort Nelson. Is there a program in place where we move these people around on a regular basis, something like how policemen are moved? Or is it their choice to move out of a community or into another one?
Hon. J. Pement: No, we do not move this personnel around the province. We recruit on the basis of qualifications, etc.
R. Neufeld: Presumably a person could move to a community as a weigh scale master and stay there for the rest of their life if they chose to do so.
Hon. J. Pement: Yes, they could stay in the community if they were doing the job well.
R. Neufeld: How do you determine that the person is doing their job well?
Hon. J. Pement: As in any work-related situation, one does appraisals and evaluations of employees.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that. That's a fairly short answer to a broader question. I'm talking specifically about how you deal.... How does the public, the people who cross the weigh scale all the time, the truckers...? I'm not going to say that all of them are lily-white, because there are problems.
To be specific, we've had some problems in Fort Nelson for the last couple of years, and I'll be fairly blunt about the place where it's at. I'm not saying that person should be moved immediately, but there must be some way that the public, who get ticketed all the time.... Some of these tickets actually get thrown out of court because they're not properly done or whatever. The truckers can't deal with it. In some cases it's quite a nuisance; it's unfair. In some cases the person who is giving out the tickets is fair. I can't say that it's always that way. When you continually hear reports coming from one particular weigh scale....
I'll give you an example. Trucks that travel from Edmonton to Whitehorse arrive at the Fort Nelson scale after crossing three other scales in British Columbia -- if they're open, one in Fort St. John, one in Dawson Creek and one in Pouce Coupe. No problems there. They can arrive at the weigh scale in Fort Nelson and get ticketed for overweight or whatever -- I guess just because it's time to make out a ticket. It's not in the wintertime; this can happen in the dead of summer. I've had it happen to my vehicles. They cross all these other weigh scales.
I can tell you of another example in Fort Nelson. When you drive into Fort Nelson to the industrial site, all the bulk plants are along there. That's where all the card locks are for the fuel. The sign to report to the weigh scale is before you get to that turnoff. The trucks that are going through will turn off, pull in to fuel up and then go down to the weigh scale, which is just down at the other end of the industrial park. They'll pick up a ticket for that, because they didn't drive down to the weigh scale, weigh in, drive back, fuel up, go back down, weigh in again and go through. Sometimes it gets ridiculous. How do they deal with it?
Hon. J. Pement: Certainly you've raised some concerns that we can go back and have a look at it. If there are more specific areas that you want us to be aware of with regard to this particular scale, please let us know, and we'll add it to the list you just outlined.
R. Neufeld: Dealing with weigh scales again, it can happen any place. What agreements do you have with the RCMP on weigh scales? Are they able to go into any weigh scale across the province, open it up and start weighing trucks -- those kinds of things? This is something that has happened in areas of the province when the weigh scale is closed. I guess it amazes me that the police don't have other things to do, but they'll come along, whip the weigh scale open, sit in there for four or five hours and weigh trucks through. Is that common? Is it accepted? Do you have an agreement with them to do that?
Hon. J. Pement: I don't think it's a common situation. In this particular case, it could be a situation that has been agreed upon with a community initiative. I would have to go back and have a look at what particular scale the member is talking about and the time.
R. Neufeld: I'll wait until the minister gets back and says it's the same weigh scale -- it happens quite often.
The other question I have is on speed limits that are set. I know the Liberal critic asked questions around speed limits. I'm talking specifically about the Alaska Highway; it's been pretty well totally reconstructed between Fort St. John and Fort Nelson. In fact, it's almost superhighway standard, not heavily trafficked. Is there any way that the speed limit can be increased on that part of the road? What process would people have to go through to get it increased from 90 to 100 kilometres? It's not uncommon if you drive out of British Columbia into Alberta to hit 100 kilometres right away, and sometimes the road isn't in as good a shape as the Alaska Highway is. It's not uncommon to have 100 kilometres on a two-lane highway.
Hon. J. Pement: We'll have the district take a look at it with regard to the speed zoning.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that, because it really is.... All you have to do is drive it once, and you'll find that you wonder why you're tagging along at 90 kilometres on that stretch of road, which is 250 miles long.
The other question I have is from a person in Fort St. John who does water-well-drilling. It's not just him but also individuals who grade the highway and tow pickups behind them -- service vehicles in many cases. Especially in the oil
[ Page 15097 ]
and gas industry, they may be going out of town for 60 or 80 miles, and they'll tow their pickup out, leave the piece of equipment on the side of the road and then have a vehicle to come back to town in. If they break down or something just happens to them, at least they have a vehicle. Apparently they've used the standard tow bar for years, and now the motor vehicle branch is saying: "You can't do that anymore. We want some kind of a braking system on the vehicle you're towing." That becomes very difficult to do -- in fact, almost impossible -- in those situations. Can the minister explain whether there has been a high rate of accidents of graders towing service trucks or even of trucks that drill wells there? People in my constituency -- and there are lots of them who do it -- are not aware of a high rate of accidents that would prompt this kind of change.
Hon. J. Pement: The reason for the change is to do with the configuration and the safety issue. I would have to go back and get any information with regard to stats, but the issue was with regard to safety.
[9:15]
R. Neufeld: I'd appreciate that. The person who brought it to my attention was told that it was over safety. Obviously if it's over safety, we've been doing something for I don't know how long: towing service vehicles behind a grader. Now we're asking the person to put in air over hydraulic systems and to use tow dollies. You know, some things just don't make sense anymore. I would really like to know if there is a high rate of accidents and where they're happening, because they're not happening in Peace River North or Peace River South -- guaranteed. They must be happening in some other part of the province, and for what reason, I'm not sure. Most graders don't travel any faster than about 15 miles an hour, even when they've got their blade up and they're just travelling. The rest of the time when they're working, they're only doing about two miles an hour. So I can't imagine where the safety factor really is so great that we would want to try and change some of the ways that it has been done in the past. I'll wait for that information to find out how many accidents have taken place or the reasoning behind the changes or, hopefully, some way that we can work around and get this problem solved for these people in the north.
The Motor Carrier Commission and some of the problems around the Motor Carrier Commission.... They tell me that on average they usually have 600 applications sitting on the table to deal with. Even to give someone who already has authority an extra licence, it can take six to eight months of applications and paperwork. It absolutely boggles my mind that we have to do those kinds of things. Yet when we're talking interprovincial, they seem to go through fairly quickly. I'm talking about people who operate within British Columbia, within our licence districts, who are having all kinds of difficulty within British Columbia in getting a licence. But it seems as though if you want to get an authority to go across the border, it comes through quicker. That could be just someone's perception, I'm not sure. But it's been brought to my attention by a number of people.
I think that for someone who has operating authority to take six to eight months to get a licence -- licensing another vehicle to put it on the road -- is ridiculous, to be perfectly frank. Especially in the north, when we deal with the cyclical nature of the oil and gas industry, people don't know eight months ahead of time whether they're going to need an extra truck for the winter. That's a fact. They can get a permit, but the permit process in the interim is not that easy, either.
Has the ministry looked into deregulating the trucking industry, getting rid of operating authorities, getting rid of that thorn in the back and just letting the marketplace take over?
Hon. J. Pement: As I mentioned to another member with regard to the intertrade agreement, within that agreement is the issue of all provinces looking at the regulations with regard to trucking. Certainly we will be doing that with regard to overall regulations in the province.
R. Neufeld: I'm sorry, a member was talking in my ear. Are you saying that you're looking at the possibility of deregulating the trucking industry and getting rid of the process that we're using now?
Hon. J. Pement: I said that through the intertrade agreement, it has been agreed upon by all the provinces to look at their regulations and at ways of harmonization, etc. So the whole issue will be reviewed.
R. Neufeld: Alberta is deregulated and has been for a while. What other provinces are you talking about under these agreements? Are we talking about the RTAC agreements on your configurations of axles and weights and those kinds of things? Is that the part that you're trying to tell me?
Hon. J. Pement: Other provinces that have some regulations in are Saskatchewan and Manitoba, as well. We're looking at commercial regulations.
R. Neufeld: Probably there's a certain amount of trade trucking -- in fact, there's a lot of it, I guess -- that goes on across country. I'm talking specifically about a lot of the business that happens in my constituency, which is the oil and gas industry that headquarters mostly out of Calgary and Edmonton. We have very natural ties to Alberta with the oil and gas industry. I'm not sure what Saskatchewan has in place. I don't think they have very many regulations either. Are there meetings being held now? Are they held at the ministers' level? Are they held at the bureaucracy level? Where are they in the process?
Hon. J. Pement: Each province is required to do its own review. I believe it's by '96 or '97 that these reviews have to be done, with regard to the commercial rigs.
R. Neufeld: Just a couple more questions. As for the request for proposals for collection of delinquent accounts, I had written a letter to the minister. I just want to put on the record again that I was a little disappointed that we certainly eliminated any small debt collection agency from ever participating in this program. The valuation criteria, for instance, state that -- and these are mandatory requirements -- the proponent must currently be handling three or more clients, who each assign to them on a first-run basis over 8,000 accounts per annum. And a proponent must currently have branch offices in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.
[ Page 15098 ]
Now, that just eliminated about 99.9 percent of the collection agencies in British Columbia, specifically all the small ones. I understand that you have to be able to go across Canada, but even small agencies have working agreements with other collection agencies in more provinces than those that are mentioned here. I would think it would be a lot better if you could spread that work around a whole bunch of small agencies, rather than just two or three huge, humongous agencies. Could the minister explain some of the rationale as to why they would have such tough requirements to be able to bid?
Hon. J. Pement: I certainly understand the member's concern. However, with the initial workload that we have, we looked at companies that were able to take on that workload immediately and that have the technology that's available. It doesn't preclude looking at a different grouping of companies in the future. At this point, what we're trying to do is get these outstanding issues dealt with, and we felt that the criteria that we built in terms of the technology that was needed was the route to go.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate the response. I'm sure that there are some smaller agencies that have the technology in their offices that could meet those requirements quite easily -- and I know the requirements that are listed in here. It's the volume that you've requested. Also, it's good to hear that you are willing to look at the program and at the outset find out how it's working and what kind of a collection ratio you have. Maybe in the ensuing years you will look closely at trying to give some of the business to the smaller agencies. So I can at least bring that back to my constituents.
Before I get away from operating authorities -- and I wasn't aware of it -- were tow trucks ever required to have operating authority previously? I understand from some constituents now that it is going to be mandatory. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Pement: I'll have to get back to you with that question about the Motor Carrier Commission.
R. Neufeld: One more, then, with motor vehicle.... Actually, I have no more questions. I'll ask them under the Ministry of Highways.
J. van Dongen: I have four questions of local concern, and they are sort of all over your ministry, so I hope I can deal with them one at a time. Two of them -- interestingly enough -- are similar to issues raised by the member from Peace River. The first one involves a farm equipment manufacturing firm in my riding and possibly some of the other farm equipment dealers who transport equipment. The person with the primary concern is Ernie Loewen of Loewen Welding and Manufacturing. That firm started from scratch 25 years ago, and I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that it builds some of the best farm equipment in the world. They sell that equipment not only all over British Columbia but in other provinces and in the States, as far away as Connecticut.
Most of this equipment takes the form of either manure-spreaders or feeding equipment, most of which is equipment that is towed. I guess there are two areas of concern with Mr. Loewen. I haven't talked to him for quite a while, so I apologize on the details. As I recall, one area of concern is that in towing that equipment locally behind his trucks, he has been pulled over on many occasions in the last 20 years and been ticketed under some section of some act for towing equipment. He has always challenged the tickets without being penalized or having a fine enforced against him.
I know that some time ago, through his MLA at the time, he did get into a meeting with, I think, Keith Jackman of your ministry, and some attempts were made to reconcile this situation. Ernie Loewen feels that a small amendment to some act would deal with the problem, but they've never been successful at getting that to happen. I'm just wondering if the minister could undertake to help us look at this situation to see if we can't resolve it. There's no point in him going to court the number of times he has when he has successfully challenged it on some sort of technicality. It seems to me that a simple amendment would be appropriate. Can the minister lend us some support on that and possibly comment on it?
Hon. J. Pement: I don't know the specifics of the issue that the member is referring to, but if it's an ongoing issue, I'll be quite happy to meet with the person who is dealing with this situation to see what we can do with regard to alleviating it.
J. van Dongen: I appreciate that offer from the minister, and I will certainly undertake to get you something in writing and also set up a meeting.
The other aspect that I might just mention is that he cannot tow that equipment on certain classes of highways. He cannot, for example, tow a piece of equipment into Richmond, where we have ALR land; he cannot legally tow equipment across the 91 or the Alex Fraser, or through the tunnel. Also, he mentioned that if he has to go up to the interior, he cannot go on the Coquihalla but he can go on the canyon, which in fact.... He's towing at 60 miles an hour, and he argues that from a public safety point of view, he's better off if that truck and equipment are on the Coquihalla, in the slow lane, than in the canyon. So I'll leave it at that; we'll get you the details.
[9:30]
The second area is a local issue. I don't know if the minister is aware of it. I'll raise it and maybe the minister can first of all confirm that her staff are aware of the issue in Matsqui village, which is a little village just west of Highway 11 and south of the Mission Bridge. In recent months they have complained bitterly to local authorities -- I have a letter from them -- about the amount of commuter traffic coming through the village, which possibly should be routed over the highway system and around the village. First, I wonder if the minister is aware of that situation.
Hon. J. Pement: I'm not aware of that specific issue. I do know that municipalities have these concerns with regard to volume of traffic, and are looking for alternative routes and such. I'm sure my staff would be quite happy to meet with the community; I don't know if that has happened as yet. But I really encourage municipalities to meet on an ongoing basis with our district manager, and even on occasion with the regional manager, with some of these concerns. If Highways has plans that way, or if municipalities are looking at particular issues, this will be the opportunity for us to start some discussions. I would really encourage the municipality, or we can also encourage our district manager to contact them with regard to the issue.
[ Page 15099 ]
I just want to let the member know that with regard to the Alex Fraser Bridge, there are times when the wide-load vehicles can go over. I would suggest that that person again contact our district manager in that regard, and if there are any difficulties, let me know.
J. van Dongen: I'm aware of the permit situation for wide loads on Highway 91. I think that involves the fertilizer-spreading operation there. The Loewen Welding and Manufacturing Ltd. situation is not a case of a wide load; it comes within the eight-and-a-half-foot specs. It's simply a towing situation. But we'll follow up on that.
I appreciate your comments on the Matsqui village situation. I would think that possibly the best route is that we get support from the local council and their staff, and then proceed from there.
My last two questions involve the Motor Carrier Commission. I guess it was, Fraser Valley bus line that had, as I understand it, a licence issued by the Motor Carrier Commission. It involved two aspects of their operation and commitment. One was a charter bus service they were licensed to run, and one was some kind of commuter bus service that they were committed to providing as part of their licence. They discontinued the one aspect and lost their licence, etc. Citizens in Abbotsford want to get some kind of commuter bus service back in place. At the time that the licence was pulled by the Motor Carrier Commission, I wondered if the commission shouldn't be taking more of a proactive role in trying to identify a different configuration of routes or buses. I thought they might go to smaller buses and reconfigure routes to Chilliwack and Maple Ridge -- some way to get commuter bus service back into Abbotsford.
I do get calls. I know the ridership wasn't high, but if there's no bus at all, then you certainly can't encourage people to get off the roads and into buses. I don't know if the minister has any influence on this, but I'm wondering if the Motor Carrier Commission could be encouraged to establish more flexible approaches to the problem.
Hon. J. Pement: The commission, on any given particular issue, has jurisdiction to make those decisions, and I don't become involved in those decisions. However, I do know that the commissioner was concerned about the service and had really worked with the community to see if there were other options, etc., in order to get other companies in. I know that the commissioner has indeed expressed concern with regard to the viability of the company to provide that service. I understand the concern. We certainly can relay to the commission that there are further problems with this particular area.
J. van Dongen: I would appreciate it if the minister would do that. As I said, I recognize the decision that the commission made. I think any time you are trying to enforce something by contract or by law that's not in large part supported by economics, there's going to be a problem, as there was here. But we need to try and revisit it and take another look at possibilities there.
My last question relates to an application made about eight or nine months ago by a constituent who lives in Abbotsford for a particular licence to carry a livestock truck and trailer. This was a very specialized application, and they had the support of the industry for it. I just want to mention their experience and then ask you a question. Again, in that case, the application took eight or nine months to process.
It was interesting that on the second visit to the office in Burnaby, as I recall, the person they were dealing with over the counter was confident that they should and would get the licence. If she had been authorized to issue the licence, there is no doubt she would have issued it. Yet it took another six months after that to process the application. During that time there was one occasion when the file was lost, there was another occasion where the office had understood that the application had been withdrawn and there were an incredible number of phone calls between the applicants and the office on something that was supported by all the rest of the livestock trucking industry in the Fraser Valley, yet it took eight months. I could probably be here all night asking questions about this. Has the minister, in recent years, considered -- and if not, would the minister consider -- doing some sort of independent audit of the management and operations of the Motor Carrier Commission? It strikes me that it certainly is necessary.
Hon. J. Pement: The motor carrier department, which is under motor vehicles, does the actual paperwork, and we have reviews of the department with regard to the paperwork side of it. The Motor Carrier Commission then takes the application and goes through the decision-making process. It comes down to the whole issue of what the previous member was talking about with regard to the issue of regulation within the province and between provinces. We will, through those trade agreements, be looking at the whole issue of regulation in the province.
J. van Dongen: One supplementary question. Yes, I'm aware of the motor carrier department and the Motor Carrier Commission, because I was looking in the BC Guide. Two comments. One is that it reminds me of a discussion we were just having in the other House with respect to the Ministry of Health, where you have a group of staff that in effect has two bosses. The whole business of work process and accountability, etc., I think, is particularly worthy of examination in that situation.
The second comment is that a lot of the concerns that we're talking about relate to licensing issues that are internal to British Columbia. I would really urge the minister to examine that section of her ministry, because I think there are some potential savings in terms of costs there and also some potential improvement there in terms of what I would call service to the ultimate customer. I will leave it at that. I don't need a response from the minister, hon. Chair.
R. Chisholm: I have a few questions this evening from the constituency area, and as I mentioned earlier, I would like to talk a little bit about PEP, too.
The first question I'd like to pose for the minister....
Interjection.
R. Chisholm: I realize you don't have PEP, but you have obligations to PEP through your ministry, and that's what I would like to refer to.
I'd like to talk about alternative forms of transportation, and I am going to start with the constituency situations first.
[ Page 15100 ]
The first thing I would like to do is applaud the minister for her involvement in initiating the rapid rail system for commuters to and from the Fraser Valley on the north side of the river. I think this is commendable as long as we can keep it within a decent price range and the costs are met. But there are a couple of problems with it. I'm wondering -- I asked to have this put in back in 1991-92 -- why it didn't go all the way out to Chilliwack, considering the amount of growth that is happening there now. We have doubled in size in the last three or four years, and I'm wondering why that has not been extended. Are there future plans for extending that out to Chilliwack?
The other portion of it was that as we see daily, the rush hour is extending from Vancouver all the way out the valley. A couple of years ago, it would be bumper to bumper as far as Abbotsford. It's now starting to head toward Chilliwack with this bumper to bumper in the early morning rush hour. I think it would be convenient and cheap if we had a rapid rail system for commuters on Highway 1 in between. I know that concept has been bandied about, and I'm just wondering if the ministry is talking about that. I think it's way overdue. Can we expect this in the near future? Is the ministry discussing this? So there are two parts to the question. Why didn't the north extend out to Chilliwack? Is the ministry at this point in time talking about southside commuter rail?
Hon. J. Pement: I would like to take the applause, but commuter rail and transit really fall under the Ministry of Employment and Investment. Therefore, when his estimates come up, that is the place to direct the question.
R. Chisholm: I would have thought that your ministry was somewhat involved in the planning and that that ministry more or less paid most of the bills and that type of thing.
[9:45]
Along with this -- and where I was leading with that question -- is the bus lines, to get back into what the member for Abbotsford was discussing. As you know, I have been in touch with the minister's office at various times over Fraser Valley Bus and Charter and the situation that developed there. Over a period of time, as you know, Fraser Valley Bus had their licence lifted by the Motor Carrier Commission. A few weeks later, they brought in Brewster, and Brewster -- I'll quote from the latest paper from Chilliwack -- packed their bags and left town. The newspaper says: "Brewster Bus Lines, the Alberta transportation company that picked up the Chilliwack-to-Vancouver route this year, has packed it in and gone home. 'It wasn't that we couldn't make money; it's that we were losing money. We couldn't even cover our expenses,' Hope said."
The problem here is that that leaves that end of the valley without bus service. I'm just wondering where the Motor Carrier Commission is going to go from here, considering the problems they've had up to this point that have transpired over almost a year. Meanwhile, the constituents in Chilliwack, Abbotsford, Matsqui and all the way into Vancouver are losing service. This government has shown an inclination toward commuter services in order to get people off the road to clean up the pollution and all the rest of it.
I'm wondering what the minister can do to help us out at our end of the valley to tell the Motor Carrier Commission to do something about it once and for all. Unfortunately this has been going on for too long, and an awful lot of constituents are paying the price for the bureaucratic meandering that is going on and these private enterprise companies that are taking advantage of situations. We now have an Alberta company that has left here with a B.C. licence, and it is no longer fulfilling the service to Chilliwack or the upper end of the valley. I'd like to hear the minister's views on this and what she can do to assist us in the Fraser Valley.
Hon. J. Pement: From my understanding, the original company had their licence removed because they didn't meet all the conditions of authority for what they had.
The Motor Carrier Commission doesn't bring in a particular industry or company. The company applied thereafter, met the conditions and was given that authority. They have since declined to do the service. I certainly recognize that it's an issue for those communities -- to have that type of service. I really feel that this issue would probably be best brought to the Minister of Employment and Investment with regard to the transit aspect of it.
With regard to the Motor Carrier Commission, if there is a company that is able to do this type of service, I'm sure they can apply accordingly.
R. Chisholm: Unfortunately, the problem here is the Motor Carrier Commission itself. After all, companies have to apply for their licences through the Motor Carrier Commission, which comes under this ministry. While we bandy about, who's going to take responsibility for this issue? The problem is that the constituents in Chilliwack, Abbotsford, Matsqui and so on are paying the price for this.
I do wish that somebody would talk to the Motor Carrier Commission, because these hearings have gone on for a long time with Fraser Valley Bus. They went on for a good eight or nine months, and the fight had gone on for a couple of years. That's a fact.
We just had a replacement allotted to us by the Motor Carrier Commission. They won the contract or whatever. They were only there for approximately three months, and now we're doing without again. The bus lines between Agassiz and Chilliwack were supposed to be fulfilled, too, and those have been left in abeyance again. The bus service in that area is deplorable. I do wish the minister would maybe talk to the commissioner. Hopefully he can see his way clear to look into this situation, because, like I said, it has become deplorable.
The next question I'd like to ask is more about roads and that type of thing. I want to thank the minister a second time for agreeing to install highway barriers along the stretch of highway between the Lickman Road overpass and Old Yale Road West. But I'm wondering when the median will be extended all the way to Prest Road. They're being installed because of the number of deaths that have occurred along that stretch of the Trans-Canada due to the close proximity of the two lanes. Are there plans to take that project out further and are they being funded by B.C. 21?
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to the extension of those barriers, at this point the warrants have not met with the overall need.
R. Chisholm: I'm not too sure I understood the answer to that question. They are extending it out now, due to the
[ Page 15101 ]
number of deaths on a certain area of the Trans-Canada Highway. Are they going to continue that to Prest Road? This project is halfway to completion at this point, so I'm not too sure where that answer is coming from.
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to the extension of the area, we will not be doing it at this time.
R. Chisholm: Last year I asked a question on rush hour, but it's somewhat more congested this year. In Chilliwack during these past four years, we have begun to see a phenomenon that was thought to exist only in major urban centres -- the rush hour. In a town of just over 60,000 people, we are seeing a rush hour. The rush hour is developing because of the overpasses over the Trans-Canada Highway, where there are bottlenecks. The minister stated that it would be ten years before we ever saw an improvement to this situation. The problem is that there are developments going on in Chilliwack, such as Ryder Lake and Promontory, which will see another 60,000 to 70,000 people in the next two or three years. In the meantime, we have a rush hour, which is really irritating the local people. I'll just quote from an editorial on gridlock:
"It is obvious that folks at the Ministry of Highways and Transportation have not tried to travel across the Vedder interchange at rush hour. The ministry, in a recent letter to the district council, has determined that the overpass is just fine -- and will be just that for at least the next ten years. We have to wonder whether any research was done before they came out with this outstanding announcement. That bridge is a bottleneck -- regardless of the time of day. But at rush hour it is particularly ugly.
"The ministry blames the intersection at Vedder and Luckakuck for the daily blockages on the narrow little overpass that was built in 1957. According to the district, more than 34,000 vehicles squeeze their way across the overpass each day. Can the ministry not notice that all those vehicles have to filter from a four-lane road into the two-lane congested bridge? By pushing the government for money to replace this dinosaur -- which gives everybody travelling the Vedder corridor a headache...."
It is not only the Vedder corridor. Young Road is now in the same situation because of the Ryder Lake and the Promontory development. I wonder if the ministry is looking at upgrading this situation so that it won't be ten years before we see a change to the bottleneck that we are seeing now. Right now it is rather dangerous, and it is not very good for the development of the community.
Hon. J. Pement: We are definitely dealing with congestion throughout the lower mainland with regard to traffic counts. I think it would be worthwhile if we set up a meeting with the member and our district manager, because there are plans for the overall system -- some of them in the future, of course, and some of them short term. It would be worthwhile for the member to meet with the district manager.
R. Chisholm: I have met with the district manager and have brought forward suggestions last year in estimates to the ministry on alternatives for getting the traffic off the Trans-Canada or onto the Trans-Canada. We brought up the problem of the overpasses, which has only worsened in the last year. Still the answer comes back: ten years. Unfortunately, if it's ten years, we're looking at a doubling since 1990, and then we're looking at a doubling again in the next five to six years. The road system cannot handle the traffic now, and it's hardly going to be able to handle it in four or five more years. If we do not address this problem, we're really going to have a problem in five years. I hope the minister will look into this. I will go and talk to the manager again, but he can only tell me what has been instructed by your people here. Unfortunately, that is not going to suffice to solve the problems that Chilliwack faces in the upcoming years.
On another area, we've seen a change of truck routes, as you may know, down the Trans-Canada onto Lickman Road. They've been directed across the Trans-Canada into a truck stop that is being developed there. Along with this development, there has been an awful lot of traffic leaving the Trans-Canada, and it has made that intersection on Lickman very dangerous. I'm asking the minister to look into putting in stoplights at that intersection, because it is very congested and it is becoming very, very dangerous with the vast amount of truck traffic that we're seeing coming off the Trans-Canada and stopping there for maintenance and what have you. I would like to ask the minister now if she'd look into that situation and possibly solve it for us. It has been brought up with the regional district and with the city council, and so far we have no answers from the ministry.
Hon. J. Pement: I believe there are stop signs there at this point. Certainly we will review that particular intersection with those concerns in mind.
R. Chisholm: I thank the minister for the answers that I received, and I certainly hope someone talks to the Motor Carrier Commission, because it is becoming very, very much an issue and very contentious in our end of the valley.
The next area I'd like to look into is, as I mentioned before, PEP; your ministry has certain responsibilities toward the preparation for emergency measures. I've put this particular set of questions to a number of ministries, so I'm going to go by the format in the same manner. They relate to the obligations of this ministry under the "Provincial Government Emergency Management: A Strategy for Response." I'll quote from the August 1992 document. This ministry has a responsibility "to coordinate and arrange for transportation, engineering and construction resources." That's on page C-5 of the document -- the "Provincial Government Emergency Management: A Strategy for Response" from out of your ministry.
Then if I could quote from page 9 of another document, the "B.C. Earthquake Response Plan," dated June 1992. It mandates "ministries and agencies to incorporate the assigned responsibilities in their own ministry or incorporate emergency plans. Those plans should include specific procedures to accomplish their stated tasks, and note whether or not the task is to be dependent upon extraordinary powers attainable only under declaration of a state of emergency by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council."
Now, the ministry's response to these obligations seems to be this nice little booklet published by the ministry in 1992, the emergency response plan. You've probably all seen that particular document. I'll get to my questions in a moment, but I'll let the minister and the committee know where I'm going with all of this.
[10:00]
There are major consequences for this province with not only the closure of CFB Chilliwack but also the removal of the Canadian army from the province, the major source of federal
[ Page 15102 ]
assistance due to this province in times of national disaster. With the support and urging of the Premier, I have been trying to uncover what we are left with, when we no longer have the availability of the army's human resources and the bridge-building talents of the engineer corp after 1998.
I want to continue with the obligations of this ministry and how they are going to cope with a major bridge collapse in the event of an earthquake, just to see whether Ottawa isn't leaving us in the lurch here. So let's get back to the little book. It says under immediate action of this ministry: "The maintenance contractor notifies the area manager and the regional communications centre, then proceeds to perform according to the appropriate maintenance standard." Then, under the physical resources material, the district "should have an up-to-date list of ministry materials available included with the response plan."
Now for the questions. All these quotations seem to deal with what happens when the earthquake first hits and how things get reported. My question for the minister is with respect to the emergency rebuilding process in the lower mainland. We cross a lot of water with bridges, and we'll have a monumental problem when they go. How does this ministry intend to deal with rebuilding? Do we have a supply of Bailey bridges, for instance, in the province? Is that, in fact, the route we go?
In past planning there has been reliance on the army for engineering services, and I just wonder exactly what resources we have stockpiled somewhere in this province. How are we going to respond in this situation? After all, Vancouver is a community built around bridges, and if we do have that situation, how is this ministry going to respond? When I read that book, all it says they're going to do is report it. It doesn't say what they're going to do about it after they report it.
Hon. J. Pement: Certainly I'm aware of the issue that the member has raised, and we in the ministry have already been looking at seismic upgrading of bridges in the province. The work being done on the Oak Street Bridge is an example, albeit that people have concerns about the long wait. That is one of the bridges that will be used as a route in emergency situations. Therefore that's the reason for the work that we have been doing. We've done seismic upgrading last year, and we're doing deck repair this year, all with the new specs with regard to earthquakes.
We also have some supplies in terms of what the member was saying with regard to Bailey bridges, etc., throughout the province, which we can bring into operation, given the type of damage that is done. After the California earthquake, we sent our staff down to view the damage that was done in that particular instance in order to be able to identify the types of damage that could occur, what sort of emergency program was put in in those particular jurisdictions and some of the evaluations that go along with that type of occurrence.
We certainly have identified routes to exit the lower mainland. We look at keeping the infrastructure in shape as much as we can. We also have consultants who we know can deal with these sorts of situations, and those consultants are actually on contract with us, should a situation occur. Definitely the concerns that the member raised are very pertinent, and we in the ministry are dealing with the situation and do recognize the importance of this ministry in terms of emergency vehicles and the transportation of people.
R. Chisholm: Maybe the minister could elaborate on what would happen in an earthquake. You're probably going to have landslides, and the Trans-Canada is going to be closed, etc. Is there a plan to respond to that?
The second part of that question relates to whether it is clear to all maintenance contractors that they have obligations to do emergency reporting. What are they to do in a time of disaster? Are they part of this equation? Do we maintain lists of who in this province has equipment and is capable of doing some of the tasks that might be needed at a time of emergency? Maybe the minister could elaborate on some of those points.
Hon. J. Pement: We definitely have lists of equipment. We keep that list up to date. We can identify alternative routes in given areas, and the maintenance contractors, within their contracts, have an obligation to assist in any emergency situation. Therefore in working with the district regional managers and headquarters staff, there is a clear understanding of how to deal with the issue.
The Chair: Shall vote 55 pass?
R. Chisholm: Don't be in too big a rush. I could always ask another ten questions instead of two.
As we know, the waterways in Vancouver are rather great, and we have a large number of bridges. Should the Oak Street Bridge, the Arthur Laing Bridge and the Knight Street Bridge go out at the same time, for instance, would British Columbia rely only on our own local resources or would we need federal assistance? As we know, contractors can't put up bridges in a matter of one or two days. They are not that specialized. It would take months and months and months, whereas an engineering unit with the Canadian Forces could put a bridge across a river in a matter of two or three days.
Hon. J. Pement: If there is an overall disaster, we will ask other jurisdictions to assist us. We have good relationships with other jurisdictions with regard to working together on these sorts of situations. Again, I really feel that the ministry has done some excellent work with regard to looking at disaster situations, particularly earthquake possibilities.
R. Chisholm: I take it from the minister's response, then, that we will have to rely on other sources for assistance in times of need.
I'm reading now from page 4 of your ministry's south coast region earthquake response plan from March 1995 in terms of federal support interface. It states in this document, in "Federal Support Team Interfaces":
"In a catastrophic situation requiring federal assistance, it will be very critical to request what exactly is required from the federal counterparts, depending on the severity of the disaster. This would require information not only on the type and amount of required resources, but also on what is readily available in the province. The emergency response level requires federal support teams be in operation at the BCRC. A federal coordination officer, or FCO, will be arranged for request of resources through the provincial officer of coordination for transportation, emergency support functions of national earthquakes, support plans for air, rail and marine, regulation and coordination of federally regulated resources in major earthquake non-catastrophic situations."
It goes on and on with the amount of assistance you are going to need from DND, Transport Canada, airports, rail, interprovincial carriers, and so on and so forth.
[ Page 15103 ]
It seems to me we know that we will probably need some immediate temporary bridging capacity for a major earthquake, plus we are going to need an awful lot of resources from our federal counterparts, as stated in your own documentation. Why not tell Ottawa this now and tell them not to store it all in Alberta or elsewhere but where it is needed? Let's tell them now that it is needed here in British Columbia and not to operate out of Calgary, which is the present federal plan. Could the minister make a comment on that statement?
Hon. J. Pement: When you read through the documents, you will see that the ministry has worked with the jurisdictions. It certainly has identified particular areas with the federal government that we would like to be assured of having equipment for. I think the ministry has done really well in terms of strategy and planning. We've worked with the federal government in terms of overall planning, and the preparedness is there. Certainly if the federal government wants to kick in some more resources, I wouldn't deny that.
R. Chisholm: I'm not trying to make a judgment call whether the ministry is doing well or not doing well; all I'm trying to make is an assessment of whether we have the ability to react to a given situation. And I honestly do not believe, no matter what your individuals decide.... The fact is that we do not have the equipment or the expertise -- either stationed here or that we own -- to be able to react to a given situation. That has been proven in Los Angeles. It's been proven in Japan. Honestly, I encourage the minister to think about the theme of my remarks in determining whether or not Ottawa shouldn't be playing a more significant role. I have a tendency to think they're opting out, and it's time that this government told them so.
The constitution of Canada requires them to help when we have a problem. They have an obligation, and I do not believe they're going to be able to fulfil that obligation, and I do not believe that we in British Columbia have the resources. Maybe the minister could think about this theme a little more and look into the situation a little more, because I believe we could have the same disaster. It has been proven again. They are now assessing that we will have an earthquake 7.0 or greater on the Richter scale within the next 30 years, and it's time for us to think about these situations. I think Ottawa has an obligation, and I do believe this government and this ministry should be telling Ottawa that.
Hon. J. Pement: I think I was fairly clear that we do have ongoing relationships with the different jurisdictions and certainly would require the federal government to assist when we felt that we needed assistance. I again will say to the member that we have been working towards recognizing possible situations and scenarios and have been doing that work, and I would assure the member that we will continue to do that type of work.
R. Neufeld: I don't know whether we're planning to wrap up tonight or not. There seems to be a discussion in the corner that we may not, so I'll start out with some of the questions I have from my constituency. Before I do that, I'd like to put on the record my thanks to the minister and her staff for the Beatton River crossing. The contract has been let, and unless the earthquake hits Vancouver, we will have the Beatton River crossing finished for traffic by the fall of 1996. I would like to thank the minister for that on behalf of the residents of Peace River North. They are very pleased about it. I just want to get that on record.
Because the Premier is here, I think it's fitting that I should ask this question before he leaves. It has something to do with a ranch at Mile 143 called the 187 Road. I believe this goes back in history quite a long time. I'm trying to find out whether the government has any obligation here to provide a piece of road to these people who have lived there for a long time. It's about six miles of road to the Anderson ranch. Obviously the people bought land from the province at some point in time, because they own some deeded land. They've had to complete the last six miles, including river crossings, on their own. They have traversed over some fairly rough terrain for quite a number of years.
[10:15]
I'm of the opinion that if at some point in time, unless there was a caveat put on a deed, the government sold land to someone, the obligation is there for some type of road. It doesn't have to be a major highway, but some type of road should be put in there. I'm trying to find out what happened in that case. I'm just going to read part of a letter here into the record. It's from Ron and Sandra Anderson from Pink Mountain, B.C., and it has to do with the 187 Road. It says:
"Perhaps you would look back in your records to October 1991, at which time we sent you a copy of a letter that was sent to the Hon. Mike Harcourt, Premier of B.C., along with a number of enclosures. Since there have been no changes in the condition of the road or help received in keeping it up, I see no point in repeating it all over again."
They are obviously a little disheartened that a response hasn't even come back since 1991. It continues:
"Circumstances have changed, though, inasmuch as there are now two new roads approaching one another to the west of us: one from Amoco's Cypress Creek gas field from the north, and Canfor's Blue Grave-Horseshoe from the south. Neither of these roads are of any benefit to us whatsoever, but they will be an encouragement to hunters and other recreationalists, as well as to loggers taking a shortcut to work, to use our road to join with these others. Last year the Amoco road was padlocked at the Cypress bridge so anyone wishing to access that area used our road. Once again, how many years must we maintain this road for oil and gas companies, recreationalists, government ministries, etc., etc., before we get some help?"
I realize that this is not an easy situation. I'm not expecting an answer right away. There is a lot more activity in that area. An awful lot of people use that six miles of road, and there's no help for the people on this ranch to maintain it. I will send the minister a copy of the letter and the pictures I received of the piece of road from the Andersons so that she can help me a little bit, Maybe we can look into it and see what we can do, if there's anything we can do. It's very expensive to build a bridge where they're at -- I know that -- and to do any kind of roadwork.
Obviously, if we sold them the land at some point in time, I think we have an obligation. So I'll just sit down and get a response from the minister on that.
Hon. J. Pement: You talked about maintenance. Do you mean rehabilitation or ongoing maintenance of the road? If you send me the information, I will certainly take a look at it.
R. Neufeld: Actually, they built the six miles of road themselves. What they're asking for is a little help with the
[ Page 15104 ]
little bit of road that they've got there to get it into shape. They can't keep up anymore, and there are other people using it, including government ministry trucks -- Ministry of Environment. Those kinds of people with their four-wheel drives are using it. I don't think they can legally stop anyone from using it now. It's probably in place, and they just have to accept it, but nobody wants to help with maintaining that six miles of road and some type of a bridge across the creek.
My second question to the minister has to do with Desan-Yoyo road again. I'm going to be fairly brief; last year we discussed it at length. At that time the minister told me that she had discussions going on with different ministries about resource roads and about some resource road legislation. In fact, she had some discussion papers out last year, and I asked if I could have a copy of some of the discussion papers so I could read up on it and at the time she said she hadn't distributed it. That was a year ago. I wonder if I could get some information now -- obviously it's a year old, so it can't be secret anymore -- and maybe have some input into what we can do with some of the resource road problems that we're experiencing in Peace River North.
Hon. J. Pement: Certainly I'll endeavour to get that discussion paper to the member for his consideration. I would appreciate some comments back.
R. Neufeld: If you send me the discussion paper, I can guarantee you'll get some comments back. To be perfectly frank, I'd like to work on it with the ministry to see if we can alleviate a problem that exists. It just works out better for all of us. That way I don't stand up every year asking the minister questions about it. Maybe we can get on with it. I'm sure it doesn't happen just in Fort Nelson.
The other question I have has to do with rehabilitation and just a little bit of information from the minister on bridge work. Does the Ministry of Transportation and Highways have a program in British Columbia that does certain kinds of bridge work on an ongoing basis, in a regular maintenance-type way? I'm speaking specifically about the painting of the bridge across the Peace River. Is there a program that every 20 or 30 years we paint that bridge? For all the bridges in the province of British Columbia, is there some type of program, or do we do it on an ad hoc basis when we have money or we don't have money?
Hon. J. Pement: Certainly the bridges in each region are evaluated during the year, and through the budgetary process we then work to prioritize which bridges we're going to work on in that budget year. It's an ongoing type of programming; it's not ad hoc in any sense.
R. Neufeld: Obviously it's no secret that the bridge costs substantially more to paint and complete than what was first expected. I understand that.
The Chair: There will be a ten-minute recess, or a slight recess, while we go to the main chamber for a vote.
The committee recessed from 10:23 p.m. to 10:31 p.m.
D. Symons: Just going back to the member for Peace River North, he asked a question regarding tow trucks. This will actually fall under insurance, and I'll just put it on record so you can get an answer back to me.
There is apparently a problem with tow trucks with regard to the type of insurance they have to have. Most tow trucks have what is called a "garage" policy, which covers them as a worker for repairing cars within a certain distance. If they travel outside the area that they are operating in, they then have to get something else called "cargo" insurance, which allows them to work out of province and in other areas. The problem they find with having cargo insurance is that ICBC doesn't sell it, so they can't purchase all the insurance they need, and they seem to need two sets of insurance. They wonder if ICBC could look at coordinating it so that indeed one insurance policy would cover them in both instances. If the minister could just look into that and get back to me, I'd appreciate it.
I'll get to something that I would like a response on. It deals with the downsizing of the Island Highway. I missed this line between two other questions I was asking. One of the reasons given for the downsizing of the Island Highway was that $75 million is held in reserve to cushion future cost pressures. That was one of the savings that they were seeking to cover that. I wonder if you might tell me if this is an additional $75 million to make up for $75 million that was there before and had been used up. Had your previous reserve been used up, and are you topping it up with this $75 million? Or are you suddenly deciding that you need a reserve fund there that you didn't have before?
Hon. J. Pement: No, it's not top-up; it's from within the budget, and it's reserve that has been identified.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
D. Symons: I just have one further question on that. It is the reserve that has been identified now, but it wasn't identified prior to this recent announcement on reconfiguration of the highway, saying that you needed a reserve. The amount of $75 million seems a substantial sum to have overlooked.
Hon. J. Pement: This is a management reserve. We have contingency reserves, and this is a management reserve considering the design factor that we still have to deal with.
D. Symons: I'm reading from a news release of May 29, 1995, headed: "Recommendations Implemented to Achieve Cost-Effective Highway Maintenance." Toward the end it says: "As a result of the tripartite committee recommendations, the ministry will: maintain the existing 28 contract areas and continue the rule that a contractor cannot hold more than three maintenance contacts in total;" -- I'm not quite sure how that fits back to the title here to achieve cost-effective highway maintenance -- "modify the work reporting requirements in the contract to provide the ministry with specific information about costs;" -- there could be some savings there -- "ensure new contractors allow employees to attain successorship from the previous contractor;" -- I'm not quite sure what that has to do with cost savings -- and "require contracts to provide for the ministry to hold back funds on completion date to ensure employees can be compensated for grievance decisions."
[ Page 15105 ]
I rather suspect that in a labour situation, there is some justice being done here. Again, I'm not sure what that has to do with cost-effective highway maintenance. Perhaps the minister might tell me what the points that I raised, which seemed to be reached by this committee, have to do with the title here: recommendations on cost-effective highway maintenance.
Hon. J. Pement: In terms of successorship, what we will have is a labour force that is skilled and able to work well in the contract conditions. Therefore we were looking at a skilled labour force and also the fact that in the discussions we were talking about training that labour force. This was one aspect to it.
With the three contracts that one particular maintenance group can hold, again that's a competitive situation that we're talking about. On the whole, the tripartite talks, which this press release is from, have certainly identified ways to make the contracting services more effective and better services. We're looking at five-year contracts as well, and I think we're going to be able to contain our costs overall and provide a good and effective service.
J. Tyabji: As the minister is well aware, there has been a debate heating up in the central Okanagan with respect to the future plans for that area. The mobility study was received in the fall as one step in a several-stage process of developing a long-term strategy for that area. I know this minister has been in discussion with some members of her own party from the Kootenays for an extension of the Coquihalla. The Okanagan Plateau is one area that's been proposed for a route that would take a possible southern extension of the Coquihalla over the lake and into the Kootenays.
Given that this is such an important issue -- and I know there's a corridor study underway by this ministry in conjunction with the regional district, the city of Kelowna and some of the other local government representatives -- what does this minister see happening in this fiscal year in terms of concrete action in that area? How much has been budgeted during this fiscal year for those projects, and will there be any capital budget during this fiscal year for the central Okanagan for some sort of long-term strategy on transportation?
Hon. J. Pement: I certainly recognize the pressures on the system that you outlined. With regard to overall planning, what we're looking at is corridor studies, as you expressed. We are working with the regional district and municipalities with regard to future planning. I have yet to finalize the capital budget through the Treasury Board process, and when that is complete, we will be able to express what actual projects we're looking at.
However, right at this point, with regard to the corridors in those areas, we need to do the work with the communities on the different options there.
The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. member, I wonder if we could have some order in the chamber, please. This is meant to be a deliberative chamber, not a gossip chamber. If you want to talk, there's a place to do that.
J. Tyabji: I recognize that there's some debate going on about adjournment times, and I guess a few of us weren't aware that the estimates were planned for closure at 10 p.m. -- by at least one party, anyway. So it's caught a few of us by surprise, because we thought it would go on longer.
Having said that, is there a plan to expand the existing bridge to four lanes? Is that one of the things that's being considered, and if so, what would be the process to determine that?
Hon. J. Pement: Through some of the engineering studies done, etc., it is certainly an option. But again, we have to do the public consultation with regard to that option.
J. Tyabji: I'd like to be on record as saying that I strongly oppose an expansion of the existing bridge, and I'm also on record as saying that I do not support a twinning of the existing bridge. The transportation corridor right now is focused on that part of town, and it's very difficult to move traffic through. With that in mind, though, I would hope that the corridor study will lead to a synchronization of the lights and a closure of some of the intersections that currently cross Highway 97. Some of those intersections are not necessary for an easy flow of traffic.
I'm also on record as advocating a southern crossing, and I saw in the mobility study that that was one of the options mentioned. It was not explored, and it was not discussed. I recognize that city council is in favour of expanding the existing bridge. Will the public process that the minister envisions coming into place before a decision is made include a town hall meeting or a question-and-answer with the general public, rather than just a discussion with locally elected representatives?
Hon. J. Pement: Yes, the process that Highways uses in terms of these different situations is to explore all the options and to have public consultations and meetings with regard to what the communities are concerned about, and also to give us input and ideas with regard to certain options.
J. Tyabji: Is it likely that there will be any money in this fiscal year for a capital project in the Okanagan? If not, what is the time frame that this minister sees?
This is the fourth year in a row that I've stood up and said this in the Legislature. It seems like we end up with one study after another, and my predecessor was in the same dilemma, where there were a lot of studies done. I think the people of Kelowna would love to have a public meeting sponsored by the minister or the minister's staff so that they could tell the minister what they think, rather than having a lot of Vancouver consulting companies coming in and drafting reports.
So if the answer is that there's no money in this fiscal year for the central Okanagan for capital, rather than studies, then the second question would be: would the minister commit to having a public meeting on this issue as a follow-up to the study that was released last fall? She or her senior staff could hear directly from the people of the central Okanagan what they think about what's been going on. And I can assure the minister that I think it would be a very constructive meeting. Nobody is interested in calling names, but people are quite desperate to have direct access to someone who's in a position to make some decisions, rather than feeling like they're always receiving information thirdhand.
Hon. J. Pement: I have to say that my capital plan is before Treasury Board, and once that process is through, I can see what funding allocations I have to work with.
With regard to the options that we will be looking at, there will be a public process, and people will have the oppor-
[ Page 15106 ]
tunity to express their views at that time. I've visited the area and met with community associations and councils. I certainly know some of the frustrations there.
J. Tyabji: The last question is: is there a project for Kelowna on the minister's wish list before Treasury Board? I think I know the answer to that. Notwithstanding the answer to that question....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: Well, it might be, but I'm trying to stay on my feet a minimum. I would like to, in advance of a decision about a capital option, invite the minister to Kelowna for a public meeting that would suit her schedule. I'd be prepared to help organize that in conjunction with the locally elected representatives. In advance of a decision being made, unless something is already on the wish list for Treasury Board, could we please have some direct input into that wish list?
[10:45]
Hon. J. Pement: I don't have wish lists at all, member. What we do is work with the regions on their overall planning processes. We try to prioritize the projects that they are looking at. Those projects are developed in concert with communities, councils and regional districts with outstanding concerns. We work very diligently to try to alleviate some of the concerns within any given region. Certainly I've had the opportunity to come through the area, and I do know some of those problems. Should I manage to get through in the next little while, I'll certainly meet with the community.
R. Neufeld: I'm going to cut my question short and put out the statement that I think that when deals are made, 10 o'clock is when it should be finished. When you try to wrap up a ministry at 10 o'clock at night, everybody has their last-minute questions that they want to bring up. People who have been waiting all day end up not asking their questions, and I don't think it's fair. It's not a good process. The only sword that we have as opposition is that I can just continue asking questions until I make you so angry that you recess until tomorrow or something. And I could do that, if I felt that way. But I don't, because it's ridiculous. I think that what we have to get down to -- and the member from Lonsdale should be listening -- is that we have 10 o'clock as a time. If we want to go until 11, then set it up at the start of the day so that we know. Let's do that and live up to those agreements.
Anyhow, in regard to the question I had earlier about rehabilitation in the constituencies and the painting of the bridge, which ended up being a lot more money than we expected, what happens to the road rehabilitation program is that it goes down to just about zilch. For instance, last year $3.5 million was allocated to Peace River North. I think finishing off the bridge was about $2.2 million of that. There was about $300,000 to fix up a slide. And after you put in a couple of intersections in downtown Fort St. John, you don't have any money left over for any roads.
That's why I'm asking: is there a program in place that specifically says that the Taylor Bridge or whatever bridge has to be painted at a certain time, and is there some budget above the regular rehabilitation program to take care of those needs for those bridges? Now we have a deteriorating road system in Fort St. John, and it just happened to coordinate with a very busy number of years in the oil and gas industry, which really pounded the roads all to hell, to put it bluntly. Now we're going to try to catch up.
I appreciate that about $4.6 million, if my memory serves me correctly, is going to be spent this year. But it's going to take a lot more than that to catch up to what we lost, because we didn't budget over and above regular rehabilitation for the Taylor Bridge.
I'm going to go on to 16-wide manufactured homes. Has it changed in the last while? Is the pilot project on? The minister nods yes. Just as a matter of interest, I had written a number of letters to the minister about 16-wide manufactured homes. There's a 50-mile radius of Dawson Creek, and the other day I wanted to clock it, and I did. In discussions with the minister, the fears of the ministry were that you couldn't go any further than 50 kilometres from Dawson Creek, because it wouldn't be safe to go down the Peace Hill. Well, 50 kilometres from Dawson Creek puts you right on the bridge at the bottom of the hill. That's just a few miles from town. Is there some way that you could extend that for the extra eight miles -- or 10 kilometres, or whatever it is -- for those people in Fort St. John? You actually come down at probably the worst part of the highway between Fort St. John and Dawson Creek. The other side is nice and wide; in fact, most of it is two-laned. It would service the people in Fort St. John quite well if you changed that radius just a little.
Hon. J. Pement: The issue has been pointed out to me before, and we'll certainly look at the flexibility that is needed with regard to trailers on the bridge.
With regard to the rehab budget, we have talked about this up the North Peace, in particular to looking at the grid road system and getting some gravel on that system. I recognize that that's long overdue. We've started on that program, which I think will help alleviate some of that wear and tear that the member has pointed out.
With regard to the painting of the Taylor Bridge, again, we have our rehab projects, and then when we have exceptional projects such as the Taylor Bridge, we will put that extra money into the rehab budget to recognize those outstanding projects.
R. Neufeld: I thank you. I think there's $1.7 million for the Milligan Creek Road, which is in dire need of an awful lot of work. Some smaller bridges may require just a small amount of money, but when you're talking about $5.5 million to paint one bridge, it certainly eats into any rehabilitation programs for highways.
My last question, which I spoke briefly to the minister about earlier in the hallway this past week, concerns the movement of heavy loads from Edmonton to Fort Nelson for the OSB plant. I have researched a little on the issue of bridges. I don't know why.... Maybe I should go back, for the record. Parts of the OSB plant are being built in Edmonton. Two dryers, which weigh 150 tonnes each, will be cut in half and will weight approximately 70 to 80 tonnes for each load. You can move them from Edmonton, Alberta, to the British Columbia border, and that's where you stop.
In late August, Slocan has to move those loads from Edmonton to Hay River with no problem, a distance of about 600 or 700 miles on the highway, load them at Hay River on the barges, go across Great Slave Lake and into the Mackenzie
[ Page 15107 ]
River system, go down the Mackenzie River system until you meet the Liard, go down the Liard River system and from there to Nelson Forks into the Nelson River system and back into Fort Nelson. Below the Fort Nelson airport is where those loads are planned to be unloaded.
In late August, the Fort Nelson River, if it's dry -- in fact, even if it's wet, it's going to be a trickle; I don't even think they're going to be able to navigate it, to be perfectly frank.... In fact, the last time it was done was in the mid-seventies. It's taking a terrible chance on that plant not being able to operate until the next spring, which would be June, when the river is high. That's almost a year, and we could jeopardize those 300 jobs and that investment of some $120 million in Fort Nelson simply because we're refusing to move loads from the border to Fort Nelson by highway, which is a distance of about 320 miles. I don't know how many miles it is the other way around -- a number of thousands of miles. The cost is anywhere from $500,000 to $800,000 more to move it around. We still have to move it on the highway system. In fact, you have to cross the Muskwa River and the Muskwa bridge to get back up to the plant.
I find it amazing that when you talk to the Alberta people, they say there are 21 bridges between Edmonton and the B.C. border, and they say that anything you can tow down the highway, you can pull across their bridges if you put enough wheels under it.
In British Columbia, there are 13 bridges, and the loads are just under 18 feet wide. That's obviously wide, but there are only four of them. It's not abnormal in the north to see that kind of load on a road. It certainly should be accommodated. I would really like to find out from the ministry the exact reasons for not allowing those people to move those loads north. I think we're jeopardizing this just a little too much for the convenience of saying that they should truck it all the way around. The company is already moving all the equipment that is being built in Germany through the port of Seattle or Portland, taking it through the U.S. all the way up through Alberta, and then they're coming up the Alaska Highway with the other loads because of all the problems they're receiving with Highways to try and get it from Vancouver north.
There are obviously a lot of glitches here that this company is having to go through to try and get this plant built. Like I say, I think it's a $120 million investment; it's 300 jobs. We could jeopardize for one full year the finishing of the construction of that plant. I don't know what that would do to Slocan Forest Products. Could the minister please comment on this?
Hon. J. Pement: In our discussions, I said I would take a look at the issue. The member was going to get back to me with more specifics regarding the issue. Again, if there are ways we can deal with it, we will, recognizing that if there is any possible damage that could happen in moving that type of equipment over bridges, we would have to evaluate that. I would like to look at it. Certainly we will have some time to deal with it before August.
Vote 55 approved.
Vote 56: ministry operations, $673,011,000 -- approved.
D. Schreck: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 10:57 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]