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)
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 1995
Afternoon Sitting (Part 1)
Volume 21, Number 10
[ Page 15879 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I rise today to welcome to the precinct members of the adoption community, who have set aside their other business to be with us today for reasons that will soon become obvious. These individuals belong to a range of organizations, including the adoption advisory and consultation committee, the TRIAD Society for Truth in Adoption, Parent Finders of B.C., the Special Needs Adoptive Parents' Society, the Adoptive Parents' Association of B.C. and staff from the adoption reunion registry. I welcome them here on a day of celebration. They are also joined by Bernd Walter, Jeremy Berland, Trudy Usher, Kim Thorau, Judy Pollard, Penny Mathews and other staff from the Ministry of Social Services, and Michael Davies of the Attorney General's ministry. I would hope that everybody would give them a joyous welcome.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today a former colleague, and someone who is anxious to return to the precincts. Would the House welcome Art Cowie to the gallery today.
Hon. J. Cashore: Visiting in the gallery today are my wife's aunt Betty Shea from Montreal and Aunt Betty's grandson Jessie Shea-Cowper. Would the House please join me in making them very welcome.
Would the House please welcome my son Ben, who is in the gallery, and my daughter, Cecelia Reekie, who is very caringly and deeply involved in issues with regard to adoption.
B. Copping: I am pleased to introduce a constituent from Port Moody today, Mr. Peter Cook, who is vice-president of Ecozorb Technologies Ltd. He was certainly very helpful to me in giving me his input about the requirements for changes in the adoption legislation.
Hon. G. Clark: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the chamber my mother, Barbara Clark, visiting from Vancouver, and some old friends of the family, Edith and Sinclair Aitken, also from Vancouver. I ask all members of the House to make them warmly welcome.
Hon. D. Miller: In the gallery today are Michael Gardiner and Michelle Kemper, the current and former chair of the Canadian Federation of Students, along with some other reps -- young people who put a lot of time and energy into dealing with the rights of students in British Columbia. I ask the House to make them welcome.
L. Reid: It is my pleasure to welcome today the mayor of Whistler, Mr. Ted Nebbeling. I ask the House to please make him welcome.
The Speaker: Hon. members, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber. I ask hon. members to please keep their seats.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.
Clerk of the House:
Water Protection Act
Arts Council Act
Tourism Act
Class Proceedings Act
Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1995
Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act
Education Statutes Amendment Act, 1995
Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1995
Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 1995
Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1995
Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1995
Offence Amendment Act, 1995
International Registration Plan Statutes Amendment Act, 1995
Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 1995
Forest Amendment Act, 1995
School Sites Acquisition Statutes Amendment Act, 1995
Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Amendment Act, 1995
In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor does assent to these bills.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. J. MacPhail presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Adoption Act.
[2:15]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Today I'm pleased to introduce a new Adoption Act. The existing act is seriously outdated and is out of step with societal values. This new act provides an updated legislative framework for all adoptions in the province. It ensures in every respect that the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration. It protects the interests of all parties to adoption in a balanced way.
The new Adoption Act establishes that basic standards must be met when placing a child for adoption. These standards are designed to ensure that the rights and interests of birth parents, adoptive parents and, most importantly, the child are protected. The act streamlines and strengthens the process for placing a child for adoption and applying for adoption, in order to ensure that the best interests of the child are met.
Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be read a first time now.
Bill 51 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 15880 ]
AN ACT TO INTRODUCE A MINIMUM ETHANOL COMPONENT FOR GASOLINE
R. Chisholm presented a bill intituled An Act to Introduce a Minimum Ethanol Component for Gasoline.
R. Chisholm: In the past five years I have noticed a dramatic increase in the levels of pollution that hover in the air above Chilliwack. I remember a time when I could see Mount Cheam very clearly almost every day of the year; now it's a thrill just to see it one or two days a year. The brown tinge of smog and pollution seems to have covered the north end of the Fraser Valley like an unwanted blanket. Until other convenient, inexpensive, zero-emission methods of transportation are found, the benefits of ethanol as an interim measure for our air pollution problem are immense. Studies show that a 10 percent ethanol-blended gasoline provides a reduction of 25 percent in carbon monoxide, 6 to 10 percent in carbon dioxide, 8.5 percent in volatile organic compounds, 5.7 percent in nitrous oxide and 5.3 percent in urban ozone.
Other benefits of ethanol are that there will be a reduction in filling landfills with newspapers, etc.; wood waste from the forest will be utilized to make ethanol; and renewable resources such as corn, wheat and barley will be used to make ethanol, with increased markets for our farmers. Ethanol does not require vehicle modification, as do propane and natural gas, which are fossil fuels and not renewable. As a net importer of oil, British Columbia could reduce its dependence on imported crude oil. The waste products from ethanol production are an excellent high-protein livestock feed and could be used in fish farming and human foods. Nothing is wasted.
Recently, the federal government's Green Plan allotted $70 million to help to develop the ethanol industry. I challenge the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, as a private member, to join with me in support of this bill. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill M209 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. A. Petter tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Forests for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1994.
USE OF PUBLIC MONEY IN NDP RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN
G. Campbell: The Minister of Finance has directed her cabinet colleagues to dig into their ministry budgets to provide the NDP with a multimillion-dollar political slush fund. When describing the committee that will be spending millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars, the Premier called it an ad hoc political committee. We now know that that committee includes Mr. Brian Gardiner, the boss of the NDP, as a regular visitor and contributor. Can the Premier explain his decision to put a political committee that includes party staff in charge of millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure the Minister of Finance can give some of the details to the Leader of the Opposition. I believe, and this government believes, that the people of British Columbia want to know about investing in our future and a plan for British Columbia that is going to keep British Columbia the number one economy in Canada, bar none. They're going to want to know how we're going to protect medicare and public education from the Liberals, both in Ottawa and here. I think the people of British Columbia are entitled to know how those two things are going to happen.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Campbell: What the people of British Columbia want to know is why this Premier keeps asking unelected, unqualified, partisan political hacks to spend millions and millions of their hard-earned tax dollars. The pattern of deception of this government is now complete. The Premier now has a ring of his partisan political advisers or hacks sitting around a table trying to explain how he can buy back election votes with the hard-earned money of B.C.'s families. Will the Premier today give us his assurance that he will not allow this ad hoc political committee to spend one cent of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars on an NDP political campaign paid for out of taxpayers' funds?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Of course I can give that assurance. I can tell you that when I look at the Leader of the Opposition, names like Jim Moody, George Taylor, Atlas Travel come to my mind. If you really want to know about hacks and about how not to do things, just go talk to the Leader of the Opposition.
ATTENDANCE AT CABINET MEETINGS BY NON-MEMBERS
M. de Jong: Yesterday in this House, the Minister of Finance wouldn't tell us why her letter to acting Deputy Attorney General Quantz, dated June 8, did not disclose Brian Gardiner's presence at the June 6 cabinet committee meeting. She refused to explain why that very key information was withheld from Mr. Quantz. I want to give the Finance minister one more opportunity to volunteer an answer. When did the Finance minister advise the acting Deputy Attorney General that the provincial secretary for the New Democratic Party was present on June 6 for a discussion concerning the Parks report?
Hon. E. Cull: I answered that question last week when the media asked me on Friday morning, and I confirmed that it was June 15.
The Speaker: Does the member have a supplemental question?
M. de Jong: For the past week the Finance minister has hidden behind the excuse that she was acting in accordance with instructions she received from the Attorney General's ministry. Mr. Quantz's ability to render that advice -- meaningful advice -- would have been entirely contingent upon him receiving accurate and full information from the Finance minister. How does the Finance minister account for a nine-day delay in providing that information to Mr. Quantz while she was consulting with the head of the NDP on a report that would implicate the NDP?
[ Page 15881 ]
Hon. E. Cull: I've indicated in this House previously that I have spoken to Mr. Quantz on a number of occasions over the past two weeks, and I can assure the member that his advice to me did not change in any of those discussions.
FINANCING OF NDP ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN
J. Weisgerber: My question is also to the Minister of Finance. We know from Brian Gardiner's memo of May 31 that he and the government planned to use millions of dollars of taxpayers' money for purely -- purely -- partisan purposes. Two days later, after the memo was issued, the Minister of Finance identified $10 million in advertising budgets that could be frozen and used for political purposes. Can the minister tell us what hold, what influence, Brian Gardiner has over the minister that he's, first of all, given the inside scoop on the Parks report and then given $10 million to finance his sleazy little advertising campaign?
Hon. E. Cull: First of all, I want to point out to the member that this year's budget cut all advertising across the government by 15 percent. Secondly, I would caution this member and anyone else from throwing around numbers like $10 million until they've done their homework. I can assure the member that there is nowhere near that amount of money actually frozen.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order!
Hon. E. Cull: Third and most importantly, this member should know, because he has sat in government, that there is no way you can move money from one vote to the other; money can only be spent for the purposes for which it is voted on here in the Legislature.
The Speaker: Supplemental, member.
J. Weisgerber: Indeed, the minister isn't believable; there's no credibility in what she says. We know that the government has identified money that it's going to use for partisan political purposes. The instructions came from Brian Gardiner to the minister, and she jumped like a puppet on a string. Two days, and the minister found $10 million.
The Speaker: Question, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: Can the minister confirm...? Can the minister rationalize the expenditure of taxpayers' money by a committee made up of political officials, caucus staffers and NDP backbenchers? How can the government rationalize the expenditure of $10 million by unelected and unappointed officials?
Hon. E. Cull: First of all, I can inform the member that it was Treasury Board that made the decision during the budget deliberations to freeze 50 percent of the budget. That decision was made as part of the overall budget decisions. I think it is entirely appropriate that our government ensure that the reduced budget we have to spend on advertising and communications this year goes toward the important issues of the Forest Practices Code, the Environmental Assessment Act and letting young people know where they can go for skills upgrading -- not on lower-priority reports and documents that many people, including these members, have questioned the wisdom of spending tax dollars on in the past.
PARKS REPORT ON NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY
W. Hurd: I question the Minister of Finance, who, for the last week, has been skating around questions surrounding the Parks report. Her defence has always been that she was following the instructions of Ernie Quantz. Can the minister answer a simple question: how could Mr. Quantz have been in the position to give an accurate response to the Minister of Finance, when she didn't inform him of Brian Gardiner's presence at the June 6 meeting until June 15? It's like the blind leading the wilfully blind.
Hon. E. Cull: I've said many times in this House that day by day, as we prepared to release that report publicly, until instructed to do otherwise, I followed the advice and information that I had at the time.
The Speaker: Supplemental, member.
W. Hurd: Mr. Parks went on radio yesterday and said: "I made her aware of the potential for a criminal investigation. I said it was very clear that we had discovered some things that might be of a criminal nature." Can the minister answer another simple question: how does she account for this discrepancy between the forensic auditor the Premier hired and her account of the version of events, where he says that he informed her on day one that this was a criminal matter?
[2:30]
Hon. E. Cull: The member may wish to check directly with Mr. Parks himself, as I have done. Mr. Parks did not reference a criminal investigation in his discussions with me on June 5.
100 MILE HOUSE SHOOTING INCIDENT
L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the Attorney General. Last Wednesday, Forest Service timber resource assistant George Ostoforoff was shot at while inspecting trees in the Gustafsen Lake area near 100 Mile House. The area in question is subject to a dispute involving the natives, who have refused to vacate private property that they claim is sacred Indian territory. Can the Attorney General explain why the RCMP have refused to allow Mr. Ostoforoff to press formal charges as he has requested?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I talked to the RCMP about this matter at about 1:50 p.m. this afternoon, and I'm awaiting a further report this afternoon.
The Speaker: The question is taken on notice. The member has a different question?
L. Fox: I have a new question. It's a sad day when a government employee is actually shot at, presumably by mili-
[ Page 15882 ]
tant natives, and the RCMP doesn't lift a finger. Will the Attorney General agree to have this incident thoroughly reviewed and report back to the House as to why no charges are being laid?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: One thing all members should be careful of is assessing blame or making decisions about who did what before the facts are known. I would urge the member to be very careful about that kind of suggestion and allegation. I indicated earlier that the police would report back to me. They are on top of the situation, and if I have information that will be useful to the House, I will provide it in due course.
REPURCHASE OF EXPROPRIATED DELTA FARMLAND
F. Gingell: My question is to the Minister of Finance in her role as Minister of Lands. In 1968-69 the provincial government expropriated 4,000 acres of prime farmland in Delta for purposes no longer contemplated. This government is now committed to keeping that land in agriculture and having it remain under provincial government ownership. The original farmer-owners understandably feel aggrieved. I suggest that there are precedents such as Pickering and Mirabel that give credence to the farmers' demand to be allowed to buy the land back.
Will the minister commit today to a process that includes sitting down with the farmers and obtaining appropriate legal opinions to determine if the farmers' demands have merit before we waste taxpayers' money on a series of expensive court challenges?
Hon. E. Cull: My colleague the Minister of Agriculture plus my staff in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks have been working with the individuals to try to resolve this issue.
ELIMINATION OF MLA PENSIONS
C. Tanner: My question is to the Premier. In 1991 the Premier promised the people of British Columbia that he would do away with politicians' perks. In April of this year, the Liberals made a public commitment to eliminate pensions for MLAs. The Premier, by not eliminating MLAs' pensions immediately, has left the people of British Columbia with only one conclusion: that he is trying to protect his own million-dollar pension and that of the Leader of the Third Party.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Order, please.
C. Tanner: If there is one thing that aggravates the public in British Columbia, it is the fact that MLAs retire from this with fat retirement plans. To the Premier: can he tell the people of British Columbia why he does not immediately eliminate gold-plated MLA pensions?
Hon. M. Harcourt: That, of course, is a matter of future policy. But I have to stand up and object to that vicious attack on the Leader of the Third Party, whose party had many years to get rid of that gold-plated pension that we are now living through. I'm sure that the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands will be able to retire shortly and enjoy his pension from the Yukon.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. members. Please take your seats for a minute. Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.
The hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands rises on a matter?
C. Tanner: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. First of all, let me say yes, I will be retiring soon -- thank God -- from this House. Let me say also that I served....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Hon. members, please permit the member to state his point of order. What is the member's point of order?
C. Tanner: My point of order is this: I served five years in the Yukon, too, and I get no pension. I want the Premier to withdraw that remark.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. Please take your seat. Order, please, hon. members. From time to time members may forget that the standing orders are there for a specific purpose. The member's comments were interesting but were not a matter of a point of order.
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I call the wrap-up, concluding or summary remarks of the Ministry of Forests estimates.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River North.
Just before recognizing the hon. member, we will permit a moment for members who have business elsewhere to leave.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
R. Neufeld: Briefly, to the estimates of the Ministry of Forests.... I attended almost all of the estimates, although it was difficult to participate in both Houses, with responsibilities going on in both Houses. We had representation there when I was away.
We discussed many issues through the minister's estimates -- issues regarding the scientific panel's report on logging in Clayoquot Sound and some of the things that may happen there. We talked about many issues around land use and the problems facing industry, British Columbians and other users of the land base, and what effect it's going to have on the annual allowable cut. Basically, what effect that will have on the economy of British Columbia and on jobs is, I guess, the most important there.
[ Page 15883 ]
We discussed many issues around the Forest Practices Code and the difficulty government is having with the implementation of the code -- the hundreds and hundreds of employees who are going to be required in government in total to finally apply the code in its entirety. I can reassure the minister that we do support the Forest Practices Code as a code, but we think some simplifications can be made in the code to make it a lot more workable for all concerned.
We dealt with the issues around the small business forest enterprise program and the new credit system that's being initiated around the supply for the value-added industries, something that's very important in British Columbia. The value-added industry has put forward a really superb argument on their lack of supply of fibre, to be able to continue on. Hopefully, the new program that the minister is bringing forward will deal with that issue.
Other issues that we dealt with related to the salvage of timber, or dead-and-down -- however you want to call it. We understand there is a policy coming forward from government that's going to look seriously at the salvage issue in British Columbia, and that's a move in the right direction. There's a lot of salvage out there that a lot of entrepreneurs would like to get their hands on. That would also create lots of jobs and some revenue for British Columbia.
The minister and I, representing the Reform Party, may not agree on all the issues and their resolve; that was evident through the estimates. But, basically, the minister and I agree on the importance of the forest industry in British Columbia. There must be a sustainable resource for the benefit of all British Columbians. I'd like to thank the minister and his staff for the very good response to the questions that were put forward and the information that the minister will be getting to us later on.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to rise today to speak in wrap-up of the Forests estimates. I want to echo the sentiments from the member for Peace River North that the staff this year were most helpful. We on the opposition benches submitted a series of written questions to the ministry for the first time this year, seeking to determine some benchmarks for performance in the various branches of the ministry, the number of full-time-equivalents and, more importantly, the way in which the ministry seeks to measure the performance of the various branches and the people who work in those branches. We look forward to receiving back, from the ministry staff, responses to those written questions.
One of the most important issues we dealt with was the whole notion of a target annual allowable harvest in British Columbia and how best to achieve that target level, which many people agree should be in the range, at least initially, of 70 million cubic metres. Certainly, one of the issues that we tried to raise and that we discussed during this set of estimates was the wide disparity of investment between privately managed forest lands in British Columbia and public lands, and what ways or means we could achieve to close the considerable gap.
That led us inevitably into a discussion of tenure reform, and the need to reward good performers with more secure access to cut, because clearly one of the challenges we face in British Columbia is to extract a greater harvest off a diminishing land base. That invites the need for a dramatic new investment, and more importantly, I think it really signals the need for licensees, large and small, and for communities to be involved in some way in managing forest land in the hopes that we can increase that amount of investment.
We talked, as I recall, about the study that's being done by the British Columbia Forest Alliance on the cumulative impact of various government initiatives on the forest land base and what impact they will have on the annual allowable harvest. I can recall encouraging the minister to perhaps have some contingency plan ready to respond to that study from the Forest Alliance and Mr. Munro, who I understand will be releasing that study shortly.
Specific issues we dealt with.... We talked about the ramifications of the Garnet fire in Penticton, the response the ministry had to it and the changes in policy that have flowed from that rather tragic fire. We talked about the Clayoquot scientific panel, as the member for Peace River North has indicated, and the fact that there appears to be somewhat of a hardening of positions with respect to the panel recommendations. One hopes that when the ministry responds finally to the Clayoquot panel, there will be some room to move with respect to those recommendations. There was some concern expressed that full implementation of all the recommendations might result in a decline in the harvest levels that had previously been committed to in Clayoquot Sound.
We did talk about the credit system in general, and certainly the opposition raised the issue that the three value-added associations on the coast and in the interior are somewhat concerned and opposed to the draft document that's out there. There appears to be more discussion needed before we are ready to embrace a full credit system in the lumber remanufacturing sector, and I certainly hope that will occur.
I felt that it was a very useful discussion this year with the minister. I'm always amazed when I participate in the Forests estimates, given the importance of this resource to the province and to so many ridings, that we don't see greater participation not only by members of the opposition but also by members on the government side. I can only assume that they have their questions answered by the minister in a more timely manner and don't feel a need to participate in Forests estimates. Clearly this is a vitally important resource to British Columbians, employing some 300,000 British Columbians directly and indirectly and sustaining the economies of at least 120 communities directly.
[2:45]
I think the estimates debates were important. I have a copy of them here, which I would commend others to read. It's formidable when you look at it like this, but of course, as we know, when Hansard comes out it's considerably thinner and does invite the opportunity to read a summary of the estimates. It's generally a useful exercise. I'm not sure whether it will be the last set of Forests estimates that we participate in under the current mandate of the government, but I thought this year's debate was fruitful, and I look forward to more debates on forest policy in the House.
The Speaker: The hon. minister concludes.
Hon. A. Petter: I too appreciated the opportunity to participate in the Forests estimates debate this year for a number of reasons. First of all, I think it is clear that forestry is not only a key resource -- indeed, I would argue, the key resource -- to the future of this province, but it's also a key
[ Page 15884 ]
part of this government's plan for the future of British Columbia and a key part of our investment strategy to ensure that we have a strong economic future in British Columbia.
I think the estimates were also illuminating, though, because they once again helped to illustrate the clear differences between the government and those who sit on the opposition benches in approach and policy on these issues. In general terms, I think that that difference really falls into this: those on the opposition benches continue to hark back to the past, continue to wish that we could go back to the days of the forest policy of the fifties, sixties and seventies; whereas this government is determined that if we are to ensure that we have a sustainable resource, we must look to the future.
During the course of estimates we were able to review the progress that has been made over the last three and a half years as part of our plan for British Columbia and our investment strategy for that future. That plan embraces changes in the way we manage our forests through the timber supply review and the Forest Practices Code. Both are major initiatives. The timber supply review ensures that we have, at long last, the information base we need to know what the state of the resource is, so we can ensure that our cut level is sustainable, that we make the right investment decisions and that we maximize the resource in the future. The Forest Practices Code ensures good, sound forest management. That code, which came into force only weeks ago, is a major step forward in terms of building public confidence and ensuring good forest management. We were able to review that progress during the course of estimates.
On issues of land use certainty, if we are to move forward, it's essential that we come to some better understanding of the land base and how it is to be allocated. This government, through land use planning -- in particular, through the forest land reserve legislation, which was passed last year, and through the protected area process, which complements that -- has set in place a framework for land use certainty that is already paying tremendous dividends in places like Vancouver Island, the Kootenays, and the Cariboo and Kamloops areas. It is providing the kind of certainty over land use that hasn't existed in recent years, and it will enable future investments in our forest resource, so we can have the security we need with respect to the management of that resource and the benefits it provides. In terms of the investment strategy itself, the forest renewal program is an unprecedented program, providing $400 million a year of investment into our forest resource to ensure that we have a healthy resource and that we maximize the benefits from that resource in terms of jobs and community stability and value-added manufacturing. That, of course, is the ultimate goal: that we ensure that this resource serves not just private interests but the public good in terms of community stability, long-term jobs and a secure economic future.
That was the vision that we reviewed during the course of estimates. That vision forms the heart of this government's plan for the future of British Columbia in respect of natural resource management and forestry.
I regret to say that we also had confirmation of the opposition's continued reluctance to see that vision as leading us forward. I want to signal in particular the official opposition, the Liberal Party, which continues to hark back to the past and argues against these kinds of fundamental changes in forest management that are so essential if we are to move forward. During the course of estimates, we continued to hear carping and criticism around the Forest Practices Code, carping and criticism around sound forest management, and the suggestion that somehow we could simply increase the rate of cut of the forests without attending to long-term sustainability. Those kinds of suggestions were continually made by members, particularly members of the official opposition.
In terms of land use stability it became clear throughout the course of estimates that the Liberal Party in particular continues to maintain its position against the land use planning exercises and the land use plans that this government has developed. Most regrettably of all, it continues to oppose forest land reserve legislation, which will ensure long-term stability for our commercial forest land base. I'm happy to say, based on their voting record last year, that that view with respect to the forest land reserve is not shared by the Reform Party, but the Liberal Party continues to oppose land use stability.
With respect to the investment strategy, the members opposite talked about investment. Again, the members for the Liberal Party continue to take the position that they are opposed to Forest Renewal B.C.; they want to see Forest Renewal B.C. dismantled. In fact, the only suggestion that the critic for the Liberal Party seemed to put forward to encourage investment was to move toward what he calls tenure reform, and I interpret that to mean greater privatization of Crown land. Again, members of the Reform Party support Forest Renewal B.C., and I appreciate that. It's sad that the Liberal Party continues to oppose the fact that we need an investment strategy of this kind to take us forward.
In respect of jobs, the opposition's position, particularly that of the Liberal Party, was even more dismal. I think members of the public should read the transcripts and find out for themselves. The Liberal Party is against setting goals or targets for jobs to ensure that we continue to create jobs in our forest sector. They're against the forest renewal program being used to create value-added jobs. The member was very critical of forest renewal dollars being used for anything other than investments in the land base itself, and they're very skeptical about the credit system. As we move forward to secure these initiatives, I hope that as we approach an election, members of the public will think carefully about the choices they are presented with. The real choice they face, as illustrated by these estimates, is a choice between a government that believes we have to plan for the future and an opposition that believes we must leave that future to others; a government that says we must take responsibility for our forest resource -- as a public resource it must be managed well in the public interest -- and an opposition that would prefer to leave that responsibility to the private sector alone; a government that says we must bring people together, build partnerships and start to build the kind of cooperation we need to have security in the future, and an opposition that is determined to continue to foment conflict, to divide groups one from another and to really proceed back into the past -- into the bad old days of forest policy.
That's regrettable, but I agree with members opposite that the debate was a useful one in confirming and illustrating those sharp differences in view. As people think of the future, I hope they think carefully about the consequences of going
[ Page 15885 ]
back to the old vision represented by the opposition parties, as opposed to moving forward with a new vision that this government has articulated and that we were able to debate in estimates.
Thank you very much, and I'd like to thank the members opposite for their participation.
Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. G. Clark: I am delighted to introduce to the House today some visiting students from Vancouver Formosa Academy Ltd. in my constituency. I understand that their teacher Ms. McLardy is here, and some parents. I would ask all members of the House to make them most welcome.
I call Committee of Supply in Section A for the purposes of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment. In the House I call continued second reading debate on Bill 26.
CRIMINAL RECORDS REVIEW ACT
(second reading continued)
J. Dalton: I am pleased to continue second reading debate on this very important bill, which is entitled the Criminal Records Review Act.
I will have many points to make about this bill. The first thing is that it's a fair comment to say that this is another one of these well-intended pieces of legislation we have seen in this session. I would refer to others that come to mind. Just today the adoption bill was tabled. I think we can all say that's a well-intended bill. Bill 48 -- for want of a better term, the bubble bill -- is certainly well intended; it's a bill on which we will no doubt be having some lengthy discussion. The Victims of Crime Act that we dealt with yesterday is another well-intended piece of legislation. So I would describe Bill 26 in that same general category.
Let's look for a moment at the well-intended nature of the bill. In fact, I will read from the explanatory note at the start of the bill itself: "The purpose of this Bill is to help prevent the physical and sexual abuse of children by requiring individuals to whom the Bill applies to undergo criminal record checks." It goes on in that vein. That indeed is the purpose of the bill, with which no one can quarrel.
Reports of cases of child abuse are unfortunately legion in our society. They are far too numerous to even hope to touch upon in our debate today. But we have to draw the attention of all members and the public to the very fact that there is far too much abuse of that nature in our society. In fact, any abuse of that nature is unacceptable. But it has obviously escalated to a disgraceful point, and we have to address it. What we will then have to examine in that light is whether this bill brought forward by the Attorney General will accomplish that purpose. Of course we then have to look into the detail and the process that the bill sets out.
I would add about these reports and indications of child abuse that, unfortunately, every day new allegations come to light -- allegations going back 30 and 40 years. That's also a very sad commentary on our society, I suppose we could say. Certainly the government over the years -- and, I would say, all of us -- was somewhat asleep at the switch in trying to recognize that that issue was out there. Now we are dealing with it; we're dealing with it in the courts, in our homes, in schools and in churches. We're dealing with it today in this Legislature.
It's of interest that we can all cast our minds back to when the government, in an earlier session of this parliament, brought in a very flagship piece of legislation, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act -- an act, of course, which many people are using for all sorts of advantages or disadvantages, as the case may be. The government itself has been known to use its own act. I think, for example, of the rather interesting fishing expedition where they went through many records of the city of Vancouver recently.
[3:00]
The other side of that equation, however, is the privacy issue, which the same Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act addresses. But I direct the House's attention to the privacy issue, because there have been many complaints -- or concerns, at least -- flagged about Bill 26 as to whether there may be an unwarranted intrusion on privacy. In fact -- and this is certainly well documented and well publicized -- the person who is in charge of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act itself, David Flaherty, has been very publicly critical of some of the possible intrusions of the very bill that we are debating today, Bill 26.
For example, one morning at a very early hour -- I know I was up, because I happened to be watching CBC-Newsworld; perhaps the Attorney General had a chance to see the same coverage -- live, right out in front of the Legislature, David Flaherty and Maureen Maloney were debating this very piece of legislation. I thought it was very interesting that the two of them were up at that early hour to deal with this very important public issue. The point that David Flaherty made, among others, is the potential for the intrusion on privacy. I think that's an important point that we all have to direct our attention to.
I would suggest that it is somewhat unusual for a public official like that, even.... Of course, he is an officer of this Legislature. But Mr. Flaherty made it very clear that it's his mandate that he has to speak up about concerns of privacy intrusion, and he has done so with regard to this bill. Let me comment, as we are thinking of potential criticism or concern that has been raised about the bill, that there are numerous organizations that have commented as well about Bill 26. The B.C. Teachers' Federation has gone on record as saying that they feel that a false sense of security may be built into the bill. By that they mean that if we pass this legislation, everybody may sit back, put up their feet and think: "Well, thank God; we've taken care of child abuse problems."
Of course, that is not the case. Let me quote from a May 27 newspaper article. Alice McQuade, president of the BCTF, remarked: "In our recollection, no one who has ever been charged with sexual abuse ever had a criminal record." That's an interesting observation from the president of the BCTF. I should not leave anyone with the impression -- and I'm sure Ms. McQuade wouldn't want me to do so -- that the BCTF is
[ Page 15886 ]
opposed to protecting children, because obviously that is quite the opposite. I would not suggest that the BCTF is opposed to this bill, but simply that Alice McQuade and the executive of the BCTF have flagged a concern. That's our function here: to make sure that those concerns are on record.
The nurses of this province have raised concerns. The nurses state that employers may use searches to get information that is not related to child care. There may be a possibility of going through a search and extracting information for reasons other than identifying people who will be working with children or are in any way related to child care. That is a valid concern.
CUPE has raised some concerns. The CUPE position is that some workers who are subject to search will be working next to others who are not subject to the same search. The line of reasoning is that some people who may be working with children will be subject to a records search in this bill, while others working literally, physically right next to them -- or at least in that same environment -- and who are not in that same category would not be subject to a search. So from the perception of CUPE, this bill may be inviting a bit of a dichotomy.
The British Columbia Principals' and Vice-Principals' Association has gone on record as having a concern about Bill 26. Looking at their response paper dealing with mandatory criminal record checks, dated February 1995, the principals and vice-principals make the observation that they have an overall concern that the proposed legislation will require a significant expenditure of human and financial resources in ways that may not be effective in achieving the desired outcome. This is a very important observation, one worthy of not just noting at this very moment but also reflecting upon. I'm hoping that we will all have time to reflect upon that and other concerns over time.
Other concerns.... I'm not finished yet with the concerns that have been voiced. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is of the opinion that the offences listed in the act -- of which there are 65 in number -- are too broad. One that comes to mind, for example -- and I'll be drawing this to the attention of the Attorney General at committee stage -- is trespassing at night. Why is the offence of trespassing at night on this list? I'm not suggesting that maybe it should be deleted, but it certainly is, I think, somewhat curious to see that on the list. Why is criminal negligence on the list? These are just two examples. Those are the concerns of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.
The B.C. section of the Canadian Bar Association has made several comments. One statement made by a member of the B.C. section to me was about the overbreadth of this bill. They wonder about the cost of searching and implementing the bill. They wonder about the time to conduct proper searches and record checks. They wonder about the employment issues that are not related to child care -- the very ones that CUPE commented upon and I flagged earlier.
The B.C. section is also concerned -- and rightly they should be, as lawyers -- about the potential liability issues. I predict that there may very well be wrongful dismissal actions that could be birthed by this bill if we're not careful in how we handle it.
So that is just a list of concerns, and we could probably find others. I think this is a very significant statement. Very important organizations in this province and a very important individual -- the head of privacy in this province -- have all raised concerns.
Let us next direct our attention to those who are not caught by this bill. We know that there are 280,000 people who are caught by Bill 26, but what about...? Let me give you just one example, which gives more room for thought. I have a brochure in front of me from a day care operation. I won't identify it; that's not relevant. But it's an organization basically run by parents. Of course, if anyone is concerned about the proper care of children, it has to be the parents. In this operation, I see from their brochure: "We are a parent-participation centre. The parents make up the board of directors." I have to wonder whether the parents on the board of directors would be caught or not caught by this bill. They are not employees, so I guess the answer is that they are not caught by the bill.
The brochure goes on: "Occasionally we organize work parties to maintain our children's environment." What about people who come in on a volunteer basis to help with a work party? Are they not employees also? They are clearly in the vicinity of children and, in many cases, are working directly with children, which is the very purpose of this bill. So I don't know whether we've cast the net far too wide. Perhaps we've cast it too wide in one direction so that we've missed a whole crowd out there on the other side of the equation, and that's a very important concern. Many other volunteers in many hundreds of organizations are also not caught by the bill.
The timing is interesting. From time to time we get correspondence in our jobs, and I received some on the very day the Attorney General introduced this bill -- it was yesterday, in fact, when he gave second reading to the bill. I received a copy of a letter addressed to the Attorney General from Dr. Douglas Bing of Pitt Meadows, who raises some very interesting observations about the bill. He's obviously concerned about it, and in his letter he asks this question: what about child psychologists, camp counsellors, physiotherapists, social workers, ministers, priests, nuns, nannies, babysitters, Sunday school teachers, coaches, ski instructors, Girl Guide leaders, Boy Scout leaders, etc., etc.? All these people volunteer their time to work with children in hospitals, schools, sports, music, dance, the arts -- wow, it's legion! It almost boggles the mind to think of the number of people who directly or indirectly come in contact with children every day. So does this bill accomplish the purpose for which it's intended? That's the open-ended question.
There has been editorial comment on Bill 26, as one might expect. In the Vancouver Sun, May 30, there's a headline: "Criminal Record Bill Checks Too Much." The editorial goes on to point out -- as I've commented on earlier -- that some 280,000 people will come under the act, and it also calls Bill 26 troublesome where it lays out the crimes considered to be relevant. I've drawn the House's attention to that. In fact, they ask about vagrancy, trespassing at night and criminal negligence, and I've identified some of those offences already. Why are those offences on the list? They mention the B.C. Civil Liberties Association's position that the list is too broad. I've also made that comment earlier. The basic conclusion of the Vancouver Sun editorial is to question whether this list of offences and the purpose of the act are truly relevant. Have we really accomplished the job that we are hopefully setting out to do with this bill?
I would like to think that at the end of the day, if we pass this legislation into law, we as legislators have done our job
[ Page 15887 ]
properly -- that is, put into place well-intended public policy and also well-placed legislation which will stand the test of time, the test of the courts, the bureaucratic costs and the other factors that are built into a bill of this magnitude. There are other points as well, and I'm sure other members will be making the same points.
I personally am troubled by this bill, because I don't feel enough time and reflection has been put into it. So I propose the following amendment to the motion that is before the House: that the motion for second reading of Bill 26, the Criminal Records Review Act, be amended by deleting all the words after "that" and substituting therefor the following: "Bill 26 not be read a second time, but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Justice, Constitutional Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations."
Hon. Speaker, there are some bills that are either before this House or may be coming before this House, and there are other bills from previous sessions that I think fit the model that I propose in my amendment to this bill. We need some sober second thought on this legislation.
It comes to mind that we have -- what? -- a dozen standing committees in this House. How many of them ever meet? How many committees ever meet, other than, of course, the Public Accounts Committee? But we know that it is well chaired, so it always meets. The other committees never meet. I went to one organizational meeting -- I think it was the Education committee -- at one time. We had a two-minute meeting, we appointed a Chair, and the committee has never met to this day. Well, I am suggesting not just to put a committee to work but to give it some very concrete work to do. Bill 26 is an excellent example. Put this committee to work on this bill to consider all the implications I have commented upon.
Let me review some of those for the House's attention. I feel we need time to reflect and to hear from the many groups and organizations, such as the ones I've cited in my comments -- all the ones that have flagged concerns. Perhaps -- who knows? -- we could even invite Mr. Flaherty to address that committee and give us his observations. We could perhaps invite Ms. Maloney as well to come to the committee and give us her observations. They were on the television at 6:30 one morning doing so. It's fair that a committee of this Legislature have the same opportunity. Not everyone has the chance to get up at 6:30 in the morning, as I do, and watch Newsworld. Well, maybe they do, but perhaps they're watching something else instead.
Interjection.
J. Dalton: I don't know whether some people around here ever watch the news at all. I think not.
What other factors could this committee be looking for in the bill? We need to examine the financial implications in implementing the bill. No one knows....
It reminds me, in a way, of Mr. Rock's gun control bill. How many times was the question put to Mr. Rock: what is this going to cost us, especially at the provincial level? It's the question that the Attorney General well knows and, I guess, discussed at the January meeting. But I don't know what answers they came up with.
That's an important factor: what are the financial implications? What is it going to cost the BCTF, for example, to search the 40,000 teachers? What is it going to cost CUPE to search all their employees? We have to know these things.
An Hon. Member: Are you for it or against it?
[3:15]
J. Dalton: It is just not enough for some members to think, oh well, let's see; where are those guys coming from?
Interjections.
J. Dalton: Of course, we have no idea where these naysayers, the voices I hear from the wilderness, are coming from, because we'll never hear from them. They are truly a non-factor in a discussion of this nature.
Now, back to what this committee could do. We need to find out the accuracy of the police records. I've had lawyers comment to me, and police as well: "Don't think that the records in Ottawa are letter-perfect, because they are not." When you consider that we're going to be searching 280,000 files potentially, that boggles the mind. If there are glitches in that system, this committee can find that out. Maybe we can work that through before we turn the computer on and the thing blows up out of overwork.
For example, what about name duplications? With 280,000 people, there have to be two John Smiths in the crowd. What about out-of-country records, people who come across the borders with records? What do we do with them? I guess they are free, are they? And we can't touch them. Well, we'd better think of the implications of that.
What about the time it will take to conduct a proper search? What about civil liberty concerns that people have raised? We're not just going to go ahead and start searching without people asking questions about privacy and liberty. I hope people will be asking those questions.
What about the time it may take to double-check? What happens if there is a bit of a glitch in the system, or if a name comes out, or an offence, and the person says: "I wasn't accused, I never pleaded guilty, and I was never convicted of that offence; I never lived at that address" -- whatever the case may be? These are very important aspects. This standing committee can look at these questions.
I commented earlier and want to re-emphasize that we must examine the privacy implications that are built into Bill 26. I hope this government will not be seen to be in a way endorsing invasion of privacy unexpectedly. I'm sure it's not the intention of the Attorney General -- I would never suggest that -- but it may be an implication coming out of this bill. Have we thought of that? Has the Attorney General thought of that? Has cabinet thought of that? Has the back bench thought? I guess not, hon. Speaker.
I'll make one more comment. I referred earlier to Dr. Bing's letter, but there are some other observations that he makes in here. I will just make two or three observations, again for the committee to reflect upon if we choose -- I hope -- to pass this amendment. The letter states: "I think you need to go back to the drawing board and rethink this whole idea." This is a comment directly from Dr. Bing to the Attorney General. "The purpose is well-intentioned" -- remember that
[ Page 15888 ]
-- "but expensive, bureaucratic and a logistic nightmare." He points out the number of searches that will have to be conducted. He goes on: "The cost of a record check is apparently $25 per person, or roughly $7 million to $8 million." I have no idea whether that's an accurate figure, but we'll never know here, debating that in second reading. The committee could find that out. He asks: "Has anyone in your department done a cost-benefit analysis?" There's an interesting question of this government: cost-benefit. It's intriguing. "The act will create a jumble of new rules and paperwork that will drive employers and employees crazy." I suspect he may be right.
There's no question of the excellent intention of the bill, as with many other pieces of legislation brought forward, but let us not be deceived just because it has a good intention, into thinking that it's letter-perfect. There is a lot of process in this bill. How many sections are there? Let's just quickly look at that one. Fifty-nine sections plus two schedules -- one schedule of the 65 offences and the other of the 14 B.C. statutes that are caught by this bill.
If that isn't enough meaningful work for a committee to do, I don't know what is. Given that this would be groundbreaking material for this Justice committee -- which has never met, never done a thing since the October '91 election -- let's put it to work. Let's test it out and see whether it can answer the questions I suspect it can, given time. It can bring this bill back, and maybe this government -- probably not, but if we rushed it, I suppose it could be.... These people haven't got long; the mandate of this government is drifting by the day, as we all know. Let's set it to the committee. I encourage all members to support this amendment. Give us all some time to reflect and think on this very important piece of legislation.
I am certainly looking forward to hearing.... Now is the opportunity for all these people who've been yapping away in the background to get to their feet and hear what -- if anything positive -- they have to contribute to this debate.
On the amendment.
C. Serwa: I'm very pleased to stand and speak on the amendment to Bill 26, the Criminal Records Review Act. I will vehemently oppose the amendment.
In all of the nine years that I have been a sitting member in the Legislature of British Columbia, I have never been confronted with such a senseless, pointless discourse as the member put forward a few minutes ago. I think the kindest thing I could say is that it was stupid, senseless drivel from that member. If that member represents anything of any substance in the Liberal Party, God forbid that any Liberal should ever form a government in British Columbia.
Can you imagine, hon. Speaker, a member of this Legislature standing up and saying that we should look at the cost-benefit analysis? We're talking about children in the province who can be impacted by pedophiles, and that member wants a cost-benefit analysis taken forward on this particular bill. How insane, how insensitive, how small and how stupid!
The Speaker: Order! The hon. member who has the floor is probably one of the most experienced on parliamentary decorum and certainly on our standing orders, and I think he can perhaps find a better choice of words in describing his political adversaries than "stupid." That is a word that perhaps the member would want to reflect on and withdraw.
C. Serwa: I suppose my words do not reflect any political animosity. I would prefer to think they reflect the pain and anguish of parents throughout British Columbia with children who have been victimized.
The Speaker: Thank you. Then would the member consider my remarks and withdraw the word "stupid"? We could then proceed.
C. Serwa: If the member is aggrieved by the directness of my comments, I will withdraw them, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: Thank you very much. Please proceed.
C. Serwa: I've worked on this particular initiative as part of a concern of mine for no short period of time. It started during the former government and carried on long and loud with lobbying of members of the former government, trying to bring about legislation, a child protection act and a registration of convicted pedophiles, for example. The concern initially came through people in the public sector, perhaps in the school system. That work resulted in the former government's last Minister of Education, Stan Hagen, bringing back a bill in 1991, the Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 1991.
One of the purposes of that was to preclude the potential of convicted individuals with child sex offences from teaching in the public school system. It was a bill designed to protect children, but also to give opportunities to those who were convicted of such offences to be able to work in areas other than directly with children, where they could reoffend.
I have done a fair bit of homework on this matter, and the reality is that it appears from the information I've been given that there is no ability through psychiatry or therapeutic-type exercise and discussions to remove this particular type of tendency permanently. When I think of what even one child has to go through in the province or anywhere else in Canada at the hands of some molester, I can't speak ardently enough in support of the bill. As a matter of fact, I would frankly like the bill to do more than it's already doing. I would like it to cover every individual who works in a situation where children are put at risk, and it doesn't matter whether that's in the public sector, the private sector or the volunteer sector.
As far as I'm personally concerned, whatever costs are required for this are not all that significant, but I can assure you that they are very warranted. This doesn't happen occasionally. Time and time again, the reoffences take place, and 30, 40, 50 or more children can be impacted by one offender or one molester of children.
For anyone to stand up and say that we should engage in more time, with some sort of a civil libertarian outlook, believing that more time will enable a perfect piece of legislation.... None of us will ever see that perfect piece of legislation, but the time has long been upon us that a bill like this must come forward.
We talk about the rights of the criminal. The member for West Vancouver-Capilano, the fellow who is supposed to be a critic of the Attorney General, is a very disappointing type of critic. We talk about the rights of criminals, of convicted individuals, and we deny the rights of innocent young children who continue to be victimized by attitudes similar to the one that the member for West Vancouver-Capilano puts out. Frankly, I don't even understand how that member arrived in
[ Page 15889 ]
this House. It was an accident of fate. He certainly didn't earn that situation, not with the comments that were displayed here today.
I vehemently oppose -- and I will take the opportunity when we get through with this amendment to the bill -- any delay in the passage of this bill. I would be very, very pleased to talk in second reading debate and go through the bill, and on most of it I will speak very positively.
[3:30]
For the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, I'd like to read a segment of a poem, a poem that W.A.C. Bennett happened to like. It was called "It Couldn't Be Done," and it was written by Edgar Guest. Perhaps there's a little bit of something in this poem that the member may pay attention to, because I've never heard, in all of the time that that member has spoken, any original thought. He's always quoting what somebody else says, and there are all sorts of critics out there who have difficulty with legislation. I've never heard his position enunciated, nor have I ever heard him enunciate a Liberal Party position on matters of significant importance to the people of British Columbia. This is the last stanza from the poem:
There are thousands to tell you it cannot be done There are thousands to prophesy failure. There are thousands to point out to you one by one The dangers that wait to assail you But just buckle in with a bit of a grin Just take off your coat and go to it; Just start in to sing as you tackle the thing That "cannot be done", and you'll do it.
I think that's something that's really significant in this type of legislation. Certainly, it's not the be-all and end-all. There is nothing perfect in our society; we're imperfect beings. But we can take those steps, albeit tentative steps, in the right direction. This is a stepping-stone type of legislation that will lead us in the right direction and encourage us to be far more responsible, more sensitive and more realistic in our appraisals of the dangers that assail young children in the province.
I think it's a good, positive bill. I think that it must be supported, and any delay just encourages the potential for more children to be hurt in British Columbia. I can't accept that. I doubt that I could find more than a handful of people in the province who would support what that member has proposed in this Legislature.
J. Weisgerber: Yes, I want to rise and speak against the amendment, against the hoist motion. I intend to come back when we get back to the main motion, to second reading, and talk about the bill itself. But I do believe, as my colleague for Okanagan West has indicated, that this is an issue that many of us have been concerned about for some time. I don't want to see this bill put off onto a committee, go beyond this sitting of the Legislature and perhaps get caught up in another event that is going to occur sometime in the next 18 months. So I'm very much opposed to the hoist motion.
The bill is not perfect, and I'll talk about that in some detail. But we've seen other pieces of legislation, some of them amended in third reading, and I'm going to hold out the hope that we may make some modifications to the bill later this session when we get to committee stage. We'll have an opportunity, regardless of where we sit in the Legislature next year, to bring in amendments to the legislation if, indeed, shortcomings are identified. But I believe the primary thrust of the legislation, which is to identify the criminal history and potential criminal behaviour of people working with children, is something that has been delayed too long already. I believe this legislation should move forward in this sitting of the Legislature, and I will limit my comments to that. I intend to come back and talk about what I believe is an important piece of legislation, but my preference is to do it on the main motion, so I'll just speak against the amendment to hoist for now.
G. Wilson: I rise to speak against the hoist motion -- the amendment. I'm going to keep my remarks brief. For the benefit of the member who moved it and those who may be following this debate, I would like to read the explanatory note. It says:
"The purpose of this Bill is to help prevent the physical and sexual abuse of children by requiring individuals to whom the Bill applies to undergo criminal record checks. Criminal record checks will be mandatory for all individuals who work with children or who may have unsupervised access to children in the course of employment and who are employed by the government, are members of the professional associations listed in Schedule 2 of the Bill or receive operating funds from the government. The Bill will also require criminal record checks from unlicensed family child care providers as defined in Part 5 of this Bill."
What on earth could possess anybody to want to hoist that to put in place a cost-benefit analysis? I'm going to keep my remarks limited, because I'd like to hear from the Leader of the Official Opposition what he sees as a cost-benefit analysis of this type of bill. I'd like to hear from the Leader of the Opposition, and let the Leader of the Opposition tell us what the costs and benefits are. Benefits to whom? What are the costs to whom of this kind of bill?
Nothing enrages or incenses me more than to repeatedly have the kind of almost pompous commentary around this issue which has affected the lives of so many British Columbians who are completely defenceless against this kind of abuse. There is nothing more offensive to me than somebody who abuses their trust with young children, somebody who will cross over a line and use their position of authority or their position of trust to sexually abuse young children. They are the scum of the earth. As sick as they may be -- and I believe they are -- nothing warrants any delay in the passage of a bill that is going to protect those young people who may be subject to these predators. Because that's what they are -- predators.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Before this debate ends, I want the Leader of the Official Opposition, who speaks for that party with respect to policy, to come into this House and defend this hoist motion. I want him to defend what in this bill is so offensive that he believes we should take no action for an unprescribed period of time, to allow these predators to continue to have access without the kind of criminal checks that this bill speaks to. The Leader of the Official Opposition, who rarely, if ever, comes into this legislative building to speak to any bill of any substance or consequence, cannot duck this this time. As elected members, I think that all of us want to hear from that leader on this bill,
[ Page 15890 ]
to tell us why we should hoist this motion and leave those young people, who are totally defenceless, unprotected by what would be routine criminal checks to make sure that those pedophiles and predators are kept away from our children.
I've never heard of such a ludicrous motion by the members of the Liberal opposition, and that calls for their leader to come into this House today -- their leader, who is so quick up in question period to grab the one-liners and the nice headlines on television. Let's hear what makes that leader believe that that opposition caucus should hoist a bill of this importance and this magnitude to the children in the province of British Columbia.
A. Warnke: I'm a bit surprised as well, because what the member.... It's obvious that sometimes members do not listen. The fact is that the member for West Vancouver-Capilano put forward not a hoist motion, as the member for Peace River South and the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast claim.If those members would take a look at the amendment, the member for West Vancouver-Capilano made it very clear that there are problems, but not with the principle, the thrust and the direction of this bill. We support it. Every British Columbian supports the direction and the principle of this bill, and the member for West Vancouver-Capilano made that perfectly clear. I have never heard such crap from some members, who would turn right around and try to claim that the member for West Vancouver-Capilano said something that....
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. I have another member on a point of order, I believe.
J. Tyabji: I believe there was some unparliamentary language used in debate. I'd like that withdrawn.
Deputy Speaker: I would just remind members that unparliamentary language, almost by definition, is a reference to another member. That was not a reference to another member, and I would suggest that to ask for a withdrawal of that is probably not really a point of order.
Member, please continue.
A. Warnke: The fact is that if people would listen, the member for West Vancouver-Capilano very clearly stated at the outset that nothing is more repugnant in society than the physical and sexual abuse of children. If, in fact, the member for West Vancouver-Capilano wanted to assert something that those members claim he asserted, he would have indeed introduced a hoist motion. But he did not.
I would remind those members to read the amendment to the motion. The amendment is very clear that Bill 26 not be read a second time, but that the subject matter be referred to a Select Standing Committee on Justice, Constitutional Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations. That does not put a time limit.
What the member for West Vancouver-Capilano clearly outlined were some very serious potential problems that B.C.'s information and privacy commissioner has put forward. He has put forward a warning that a proposed law to screen out people who are a threat to children they work with is too sweeping and may result in false accusations. Furthermore, the commissioner has made it very clear. He says he is not opposed to a systematic program of criminal-record checks for individuals who work with children -- and the member for West Vancouver-Capilano says that as well. But he is concerned that the Criminal Records Review Act introduced in the B.C. Legislature is flawed.
We do not want to hold up.... If we wanted to put a hoist, we could have. We did not. And I wish those members would listen, because that's not what the member for West Vancouver-Capilano put forward. He put it very clearly: there are some problems. There are some problems that even militate against what the member for Okanagan West claims. The legislation, as put forward, does not cover categories of people who sexually abuse children. Where in this legislation does it cover people who deal with children in voluntary associations, or in the churches or in other private industry?
It doesn't cover that, and if these pompous people had really read the legislation, they would say that this legislation must do more. I would say that when these people who get on their high horses claim that they are sticking up for the children who have been sexually abused, and then turn right around and point their finger at West Vancouver-Capilano, that is repugnant in this House. The member for West Vancouver-Capilano made it perfectly clear where he stands and where the Liberal opposition stands. We're standing right behind this kind of legislation that moves in a direction that deals with this subject. Unfortunately, the legislation that has been put forward is not good. It has flaws, and therefore we want to expedite it. We want the best of both worlds. We want to put it before a committee that can deal with some very specific issues. We can deal with it very quickly, we can deal with it expeditiously, and we can move in a direction that does cover the pedophiles and all of the repugnant people who sexually abuse children.
For that reason, I wish to heck some of these members would wake up, listen and stop being so stupid -- if you want to use that word -- in this House! I withdraw the word stupid. But I wish some hon. members would listen, read, maybe pay attention to the commissioner on privacy and information and then turn right around and at least extend minimal support. If nothing else, at least extend some respect to the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, which they have not done so far today.
[3:45]
A. Hagen: In a very non-pompous way, I would just like to comment that the purpose of a debate on legislation is to examine it in detail. There does not seem to be any argument about the principle of this bill, that I heard, in the pompous remarks of the previous speaker. His intention is to support the legislation. I would urge that we get on with having a standing vote on second reading, which would reflect our support for the principle of this bill, and allow the clause-by-clause debate to occur. Any of the issues that members wish to bring forward can be brought forward in a very specific and reasoned way, and we can see this legislation passed. I think that is, in fact, the wish of all parties in this House, except, it appears, the Liberal Party, who have clearly indicated -- whether we call it a hoist or a referral -- that they are not prepared to get on with this legislation.
L. Fox: I hadn't intended to speak on the amendment put forward by the official opposition, but I think it's important.
[ Page 15891 ]
The defence that the last speaker from the opposition used was that this was not a hoist motion, but one has only to look at what we can do under the standing orders of this Legislature to recognize that any motion to refer any piece of legislation to a select standing committee is, in real terms, a hoist motion. So you cannot defend on that basis.
Let me say this: I believe that those who spoke, other than the Liberal opposition, recognize that this legislation is not the be-all and end-all in terms of wiping out opportunities for pedophiles in British Columbia. We all recognize that this is a first step. We also recognize that we have an opportunity, at third reading of this bill, to bring our particular principles and points forward on how we might see this legislation modified to better the climate in British Columbia for our children.
I speak against the amendment. I really believe that what we need are rational discussions around the real problems and the real concerns of parents and others. We are concerned about stopping the misuse and the mistrust and actions against the children of British Columbia by, as one other member suggested, the scum of the earth: those who misuse the trust they have been given to deal with our children in their day-to-day lives.
G. Farrell-Collins: I do agree with a couple of the comments of the past speaker. This is an issue that we should be having a rational discussion on. I don't think there is any person....
An Hon. Member: Doing some damage control there, Gary?
A. Warnke: Why don't you just shut up back there?
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: I know there is not one person in this House....
An Hon. Member: There are two of them sitting to your right.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, that member is more than welcome to engage in the debate at any time he so chooses. I don't think he's spoken once yet this session. If he wants to get up and actually earn his pay, he's more than welcome to do so. But if he chooses to sit down....
An Hon. Member: Why don't you earn your pay? You don't even look after your own constituents.
An Hon. Member: Order, order!
Deputy Speaker: Members, this chamber, as we all know, can only function if we observe the basic courtesies one to another. When a member is speaking, I suggest that we not detract from what she or he may have to say.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll be glad to spend time in that member's constituency and help ensure that he doesn't come back here. But that's a matter for another day.
An Hon. Member: If you really had any intestinal fortitude, you would run in your own riding.
A. Warnke: Order! Throw him out.
G. Farrell-Collins: Some members' contributions to the House, I guess, are more valuable than others. But it's unfortunate. The issue before us is an extremely serious one and one that warrants some rational discussion, as the member for Prince George-Omineca said.
As I was saying, there is not one member in this House who would be opposed to ensuring that children are protected in this province. Serious issues with this bill as to how it's structured and how it would be implemented have come to our attention and the attention of others. We have to ensure that our first priority is to protect the children of this province, but that in so doing we don't impinge unnecessarily and in a disrespectful manner on the reputations of thousands of people who would fall under the purview of this act.
All that we're trying to put forward here is that there are some serious problems with this piece of legislation. No doubt, after this amendment is passed over and we move into second reading, they will be discussed further. Then, more importantly, in committee stage they will be discussed. The opposition uses a variety of methods to draw attention to pieces of legislation and their weaknesses. This is certainly one. We would like to see the government have taken....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The member doesn't understand the difference between a hoist and a referral to a standing committee. I'd be glad to have any of the other 74 members in this House explain it to him if he needs that.
The issue is one that's very serious. It's unfortunate if we try and characterize a concern over the implementation of this bill as somehow not standing up for children and not protecting children. We are all in this House in favour of that. Anyone who states otherwise is not being accurate and is being...
A. Warnke: Malicious.
G. Farrell-Collins: ...malicious, as the member says. I wouldn't want to characterize anyone in this House in that vein. Certainly we all feel this is a very important issue. It's a serious issue. It can be dealt with expeditiously, and I'm sure it will be. It's important on this debate in particular that we lower the tenor of the House, move aside from some of the rhetoric and start talking about the issue before us.
M. Farnworth: I speak against the amendment. This legislation has been discussed and debated considerably over the last number of months, in terms of where the public wants to go. This government has recognized public concerns.
You know, we've heard in the last few minutes about who stands where. When this government brought forward its package of safety on our streets -- safety for our children -- it was done with the serious consideration of addressing the legitimate concerns of parents, teachers and people in all walks of life, who recognized that there are serious gaps in how we address protecting our children from those who like to prey on them. This legislation deals with that. It is, as the member for Prince George-Omineca said, a first step, an important step. But it....
Interjections.
[ Page 15892 ]
Deputy Speaker: The member for Okanagan East on a point of order.
J. Tyabji: There seems to be a difficulty taking place in the Legislature.
It seems to have resolved itself.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. The member for Port Coquitlam continues.
M. Farnworth: It's an issue that I think needs to be dealt with as quickly as we can. The House needs to deal with this legislation; it doesn't need to be delayed any longer. I would ask that the Attorney General, when he rises to speak, speak against this amendment, and that we oppose it, get on with the business of passing this legislation and get on with the business of protecting our children.
This piece of legislation is vitally important to the people of this province. It is part of a package that this government has brought into place -- criminal compensation, victims' rights, criminal-record checks -- to ensure that parents have some level of comfort that those who hold a position of trust over children do not have a history or are not in a position where they can take advantage of children and abuse them. That's what this legislation is doing, and I say let's get on with it. Hon. Attorney General, I would hope that we can do just that.
R. Chisholm: I rise today.... Unfortunately I can't support this amendment. I think we have lost perspective here. The perspective that we should have is of the children of this province. For some strange reason, we are going to argue about words on paper. We can amend them at whatever level of debate; whether it be in committee stage or in second reading, the bill can be amended. If this bill is outstanding one day longer and doesn't go through this Legislature, all 75 members of this Legislature should be ashamed, because they've become the criminals for not taking action and taking care of the problem that exists in our society.
I'm not going to stand up here and talk for very long, but I do hope that some people will think about those words and that we'll get on with debate on the bill and actually put it into law so that the children of this province are finally protected, are not left in the bag because we are going to have these petty arguments.
J. Tyabji: As somebody who lives in the area where Monica Rainey began Citizens Against Child Exploitation, I've had the benefit of probably hearing more of the arguments and more detail about why Citizens Against Child Exploitation was formed and what their mandate is. I've also seen firsthand the level of personal commitment that those people have had.
One of the most memorable days I have had in my term as an MLA was the day the people from CACE had a teddy bear drive; they brought that teddy bear drive to the steps of the Legislature. The teddy bear drive, for those who may not remember, asked all those who had been victims of sexual abuse and those who had been personally affected by sexual predators who had been in positions of trust to, if they had a story, write a letter and send a teddy bear. They also asked them to sign a petition.
They had to rent a semi to bring the teddy bears to the steps of the Legislature. It was probably two weeks or so after we started our first session in the House in 1992. I always date things based on how old my youngest was then; I was nursing her in the buildings, and I remember taking her outside. The teddy bears filled from the bottom step at the centre of the Legislature buildings all the way up to the top. I remember that photo very clearly, because it was a full-colour photo on the front page of the newspapers.
Every single teddy bear had a letter, and those were heartbreaking letters. Those weren't letters that were casually written. These were stories of pain of an unimaginable magnitude and of lives that had been ruined by predators. I remember that day quite clearly. Monica Rainey was sitting in this gallery with a group of volunteers who had come together after spending so many months, and in some cases years, to get to that day. They sat in this gallery during question period and watched the antics and the silliness that take place then, and they were horrified by what we placed as a priority in this Legislature and by the proceedings of the House.
Beyond that, they brought forward a box of letters that had accompanied the teddy bears and asked for them to be tabled in the House. At the end of the day a few hours later, I remember running into Monica Rainey downstairs, because I had been seeking her out to ask her a few questions, and she was almost in tears. She was so distraught, and she said: "Why can't it be done today? Why is there a delay? There are children right now whose lives are being ruined, and every day we delay, more lives are ruined by predators who seek out positions of trust and are excellent at deceiving people. They put on the greatest facade of being such a great person, asking to volunteer for that summer camp and saying not to worry about it, that they don't even need any extra chaperons but will do all the work themselves. They say to just place all these children under their care, and they'll take care of it." All those stories, and she was just frantic.
[4:00]
And you know, the day that this bill was tabled in the Legislature was the day CACE had to close its doors in Kelowna. The reason it had to was that for all the years that it had been there, it had been financed out of the pockets of the volunteers who had come together to try to make this bill a reality. The fact was that their mortgages were fully financed, they had given up income for a cause and the bill had been tabled. It was a small victory for them, and I think it's a much bigger victory. They see it as a first step.
The irony is that they had accomplished what they wanted, and they didn't even have the funds available to keep their office open to continue to police it, to provide amendments and to make sure that this bill, which isn't perfect, is brought closer and closer to what it is intended to do. I can't even imagine what they would think of a further delay, because the one comment that came up was that it had taken three years. It took three years from the day that the teddy bears were out there lined up on the front of the Legislature.
I commend this Attorney General for a couple of things. I commend him, first, for the courage to bring this forward, because we know -- and I've met with the people whose lives have been broken -- where some of those pedophiles are hanging out right now. They are in very influential positions, and they're going to stand up, give out briefs and say: "Watch out for my civil rights." They are going to do all the things
[ Page 15893 ]
that.... I'm not in any way impugning the motives of those who have concerns about the bill, but there are also those who will have motives to speak out against it because of self-interest, and the kind of self-interest that we're trying to expose by this bill will generate that kind of commentary. We have to be very careful in this.
This amendment can achieve only one thing, and in that case, it has done it very effectively. What it has done is that it has delayed the work of the House. What it also did was to push a huge button in people, as we saw. The member for Okanagan West, the leader of the Reform Party, the leader of the Progressive Democratic Alliance and other members who have taken to their feet in debate have said very clearly how incredibly important this legislation has been to the people who worked so hard to get it at least to this stage. I congratulate the Attorney General for taking it further and putting it through second reading. I look forward to committee stage, where we can look at all the details of this bill.
I don't direct my next comment to the member for West Vancouver-Capilano. I have to say that, because I've worked with the member, and I think I have some idea about where he's coming from. I think this amendment was the product of a caucus meeting where they all sat down and said: "What do we do, guys?" Then they said: "Well, I don't know. Let's sit on the fence. We've got a few letters. Let's put out an amendment, because if we send it to a committee, we can at least say we addressed the concerns -- and then we can vote for the bill anyway, so we have sort of covered both bases."
I hope that's the case, because I have a lot of respect for the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, so I hope this wasn't his strategy. If it was, then my comment is directed at him: "Shame on the Liberals. Shame on them for bringing this forward. Shame on them for saying to the people who've spent so much time and money and so much personal pain in bringing this bill to reality that it's not good enough for them." They have done absolutely nothing to advance the cause of this group. I have yet to see one piece of correspondence from that caucus that said they support this kind of legislation.
I remember being in that caucus when those teddy bears went out, and there wasn't a big group of MLAs out there. There weren't a lot of people speaking, and I know, because I did address the rally. I remember saying at the time that one of the problems with our legislation is that we're so concerned with protecting individual rights that we often end up leaving no rights for the victims -- or for the potential victims, as in the case of this bill. What this bill will do is allow us to close the gate slightly. It doesn't even allow us to ferret out those predators who are in positions of trust and have been so good at it that nobody has caught them yet. That means they don't have a criminal record. This will allow us to prevent children from being so vulnerable, and they are so vulnerable right now. It won't prevent them from being abused if there's somebody out there who can get through whatever loopholes are left in this bill, but it is an important first step.
In the eleventh hour of the legislative session, when we have in front us a huge Election Act and the Human Rights Amendment Act, 1995, and today we have the Adoption Act and the Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, 1995 -- we have so many acts that are going to take up so much time -- to introduce an amendment whose only purpose is to delay what may end up being the most important piece of social legislation that this government introduces in its entire mandate is grossly irresponsible and shows contempt for the efforts of the people who worked so hard to bring it forward.
I'm extremely disappointed in the Liberal caucus, and I hope that from this point onward we can have constructive debate on the details of the bill -- agree to it in principle and, as the former Minister of Education pointed out quite effectively, pass second reading, go into committee stage and put whatever reservations we have on record at that point.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm sure members will understand when I say the government will oppose the amendment. I'm not going to make the speech I was tempted to make for fear it may engender more debate. I think we should get on with debate in principle and as soon as possible get on with the debate in committee, so that -- imperfect as it may be -- we can get on with making this legislation the law of the land and not wait a year, which would be the effect of that proposal.
Deputy Speaker: The question is the amendment. All those in favour please say aye.
Some Hon. Members: Aye.
Deputy Speaker: Contrary, say nay.
Some Hon. Members: Nay.
Deputy Speaker: The amendment is defeated.
Some Hon. Members: Division.
Deputy Speaker: A division is called.
J. Weisgerber: I'd ask that we extend the time for a couple of minutes to allow others who may wish to come forward....
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I will confer with the Clerk to determine whether I have been precipitate.
Hon. G. Clark: In conferring with the Clerks, Mr. Speaker.... I appreciate that this is unusual, but it seems to me that the House is the master of its own destiny, and if all members of the House wish to extend the time for, say, five or ten minutes, so that more members can vote on this, I think it would be....
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: As the Government House Leader knows, that would require unanimous consent. Shall consent be granted, then?
Leave not granted.
Deputy Speaker: I hear a nay, and therefore it cannot be done.
[ Page 15894 ]
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please, members. I would advise you that we are voting on a proposed amendment to the bill.
Amendment negatived on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 2 | ||
|
Dalton |
Farrell-Collins | |
|
NAYS -- 50 | ||
|
Petter |
Dosanjh |
Marzari |
|
Cashore |
Zirnhelt |
Charbonneau |
|
O'Neill |
Garden |
Perry |
|
Hagen |
Hammell |
B. Jones |
|
Giesbrecht |
Miller |
Smallwood |
|
Cull |
Harcourt |
Gabelmann |
|
Clark |
MacPhail |
Ramsey |
|
Barlee |
Pullinger |
Sihota |
|
Evans |
Randall |
Farnworth |
|
Conroy |
Doyle |
Janssen |
|
Lord |
Streifel |
Simpson |
|
Sawicki |
Jackson |
Tyabji |
|
Wilson |
Serwa |
Hanson |
|
Weisgerber |
Krog |
Brewin |
|
Copping |
Schreck |
Lali |
|
Hartley |
Boone |
Chisholm |
|
Neufeld |
Fox | |
[4:15]
On the main motion.
J. Weisgerber: I rise to speak to second reading of Bill 26, the Criminal Records Review Act. I think the events of the last half-hour have demonstrated, probably far more clearly than anything I can say, the fundamental support that there is in the Legislature -- and I expect across British Columbia -- for the introduction of this bill. Indeed, it is far more important than any partisan issue may be for us to move forward with this piece of legislation, which, as the member for Okanagan West indicated, has been debated around these buildings for a number of years now. It's taken a long time for it to come forward, and I certainly would hate to see it delayed any longer than necessary. Indeed, there is an obligation on us to bring forward and to support legislation to protect children from abuse by those people who, in many cases, they trust the most -- people in the education or medical system. There is a built-in trust of those individuals, and it is in those areas that this bill seeks to provide some means of identifying people with a history of abuse. For that reason, I am going to support the legislation.
As I indicated in my discussions on the hoist, I have some concerns. For example, I am worried that we haven't included people employed by municipal government. It seems to me that there is a whole area there that is clearly government. That wouldn't be an unreasonable intrusion beyond the provincial jurisdiction -- day care or summer camps, those kinds of activities sponsored by municipalities. I believe it would be in the interests of the municipality, the children and the people working in the system to see this legislation extended there.
As was acknowledged by the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, I think there is a danger that there may be the creation of an unreasonable sense of security. I think we all recognize that in many cases volunteers in other venues also represent a threat. I would very much like to see some process examined whereby organizations, church groups, groups that support children, and I'm almost hesitant to name any.... Groups like the Boy Scouts or the Girl Guides might be able to avail themselves of the process outlined in this legislation, perhaps on a voluntary basis, as a way to test the application of this legislation as it applies to volunteers.
There are also some concerns and points that I thought were well identified by the member for West Vancouver-Capilano with respect to the process of notification when a relevant offence is identified. It seems me that rather than notifying the employer in the first step, it would be more reasonable to notify the person involved, to give that individual the first opportunity to respond to the allegations, in a case of mistaken identity.
At one time in my early employment career I was working for Imperial Oil in Edmonton. The manager called me in and wanted to know about my work history. He had somehow become availed of the information that someone named John Weisgerber, which is my proper name, had been on social assistance. It turned out to be an elderly gentleman, perhaps a relation, who had been on social assistance. It was a bit of an embarrassing situation, given the times and given the circumstances. I recognized in this that my name is relatively unusual. For people with more common names, I think the danger of that is more prevalent. I'd like to see the adjudicator first contact the employee; give them an opportunity to at least make a representation if they are mistakenly identified.
So I will look forward, in committee, to the possibility of there being a procedural change when permission for a search is filed. If that turns something up, then I believe we should simply reverse the steps. These are important changes; these are important issues. They shouldn't detract from the main thrust of the bill.
Finally, in committee stage I will look for some advice on the remedies that the employer has, given section 11 of the bill. Section 11 deals with the effect of finding a risk -- i.e., when someone who is already employed is required, under this act, to consent to a criminal investigation, a criminal check. What happens, then, if indeed people are identified in the system as having been convicted of one of the offences noted, and in the view of the adjudicator, a risk is present? What remedy does the employer then have? Is the employer simply obliged to find other employment...? I would like to see in the bill a clear process for the employer, so that we don't wind up getting caught up in wrongful-dismissal suits if the employer is indeed in a position of hiring people to care for children. I think that that's something.... I note that the Attorney General is making note of that concern, and I will look at trying to expand on that in the amendment.
But, again, there has been a lot of compassionate and passionate debate on this bill. Certainly the passion is perhaps overshadowed in this case by the compassion that members have shown in this issue. We'll look forward to moving ahead with second reading and into committee stage.
G. Farrell-Collins: I think this is a significant piece of legislation. As we discussed earlier, it is certainly not without
[ Page 15895 ]
its flaws, but I think it is appropriate that we move ahead with it and try to see if we can't fix some portions of it in committee stage. Some of those have been identified by the Leader of the Third Party, and some by other members. It certainly is an area that is of great concern to everyone. Something has to be done, and I think this is an attempt to at least get started with it.
I know that all members of the House will be supporting the legislation, despite its flaws, and hoping to offer their advice and improvements in committee stage, to make sure that we don't run into some of the problems that have been identified; that people aren't put in a position where they could falsely have their personal lives and their reputations destroyed; that -- number one, most important -- children in this province will finally be protected from those predators who we all know are out there and take advantage of the most vulnerable people in society; and that parents and relatives of those who in the past have been victimized, and of those who in the future may be victimized despite our hard work, will at least feel a small sense of security in knowing that there is some review being done of the people who come in contact regularly with children in British Columbia.
So we will be offering our suggestions and advice in committee stage to try to improve the bill, to provide safety and security for the young people, and also to ensure that we're doing it in a fair manner that's going to respect all individuals in British Columbia.
R. Chisholm: I rise in support of this bill, and I congratulate the Attorney General on acknowledging the problem by bringing the bill forward. That's what this bill does: it acknowledges that there's a problem out there. We're finally as a society acknowledging it, and we'll get on with it. The Attorney General, again, has acknowledged that there are problems with the bill. But this is a start, and this is somewhere to go from. It's an acknowledgment that the problem exists and that we're going to address it and take care of it. These problems will come out in the committee stage, and we will debate them. The Attorney General has already stated that there are problems. He is sensitive enough to realize it, and I'm sure he will accept amendments and the advice of the House, and adjust the bill. This is a bill for which I don't think there's any political mileage to be gained. This is a problem we have with society, and it's time it was addressed and taken care of.
The Leader of the Third Party brought up problems with the bill, such as the volunteer's sense of security. I saw the Attorney General nod that he realized that problem does exist. The process for notification is one that I picked out very early on. We must be very, very cognizant that we can ruin people's lives if we go about this in the wrong way. We should not have people judged before they are found guilty, and that will happen if it gets out to employers. Maybe the Attorney General can look into that area. Possibly the individual should have the right to justify the actions or lack of actions.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time on second reading of this, because I think we should get the bill debated in the committee stage. We should amend it and make it law so that the children being offended against right now won't be offended against tomorrow or the next day, because the bill will be law. If we wait for another week, there are more children at risk. So without further ado, I hope that we will debate this intelligently, without emotion, and try to do it with some logic, and come out with the best bill for society, especially for the children of our province.
C. Serwa: It's again a pleasure to stand up and speak to the philosophy and principles of Bill 26, the Criminal Records Review Act. As a parent who has, along with Lois, raised six children, it's hard to be dispassionate about a bill like this. Seldom does a day go by that we don't hear of the results of a child who has grown into adulthood and late adulthood and is still victimized by an event they had no control over. This bill will not completely eliminate that, nor will any bill eliminate it, but it will mitigate the potential.
It's an issue that I'm fairly familiar with, having supported and worked in this direction in the former government, starting shortly after my election in 1986. The end result was that our government, under Stan Hagen, brought forward a bill under the Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 1991, which prevented convicted child sex offenders from teaching in British Columbia classrooms. It was brought forward; it was on the order paper in 1991. It died on the order paper because it was found that it wouldn't stand the test of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it was specifically directed towards the teaching profession. The fact was that we weren't able to rewrite or to revive that particular bill. Nevertheless, it was an important first step and a recognition of the tragedy, the trauma, the anguish, the pain and the hurt that exists -- which has existed in the past and exists even today, and perhaps is even more rapid in the hurt that it's causing our young people, especially the children.
[4:30]
Several years ago I wrote a private member's bill not too dissimilar from this. It was called Offenders Registry Act. The purpose of the bill was not dissimilar to the philosophy and principles of the current bill. But it was designed to keep a current registry of convicted sex offenders who were resident within the province. It barred such persons from employment in or appointment to positions of authority, trust or supervision over minors. Similar to this bill, it required preventive background checks. It provided for appeals for mistaken registration, and for sealing of records of those whose most recent offence was ten years or more prior to their release. I will probably bring some of these points out in Committee of the Whole when we look at sections of the current bill.
Fundamentally, this bill is designed to affect one segment of the population -- those who work in the public sector and in some of the organizations that receive public funding. I perceive a shortfall in this particular bill, and there is a concern with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I believe that the bill should prevent convicted sexual offenders from holding positions of authority, supervision or trust over children in a variety of fields, not simply in the public sector but also in the private and volunteer sectors. I think that in the future, amendments will come along so that those sectors will in fact be looked at and covered as well.
I can't speak more complimentarily of the Attorney General for bringing forward this type of legislation. It's not done without risk, and certainly there's a great deal of criticism. But I think that, as legislators, we have to be aware that there will always be criticism, and the not-nowers will always have a strong voice in society. Those concerned with the civil liberties of the offender may speak long and loud on this. But I'm
[ Page 15896 ]
concerned about the rights and freedoms of children and their future in the province and, in fact, in this great nation of Canada. I support the bill completely; I support the philosophy and principles of the bill. I compliment the Attorney General and the government for having the intestinal fortitude to bring this bill out. It's unreasonable to see any delay. Hopefully, if there are weaknesses or perhaps positive suggestions.... I too am well aware of the Attorney General's position on matters like this and his understanding, awareness and ready acceptance of positive amendments that may enhance the quality of this bill.
In closing, I certainly stand very, very proud as a member of the Legislature to support the philosophy and principles contained in this bill.
G. Wilson: As I rise to speak in support of Bill 26, Criminal Records Review Act, I think it is timely that I would first seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
G. Wilson: It's indeed timely, as we debate a bill that hopefully will take a small step toward securing the safety of young people, to introduce from Roberts Creek Elementary School a grades 6 and 7 split class of about 25 students and their teacher Miss Julie Nelson. For the information of members, Roberts Creek Elementary School -- and with the Minister of Education being present today, I'm sure he can take a bow -- has just celebrated its official opening after major renovations. They had a memoirs night in celebration of that official opening. I think that the House should truly make them welcome.
Bill 26, as I said in my commentary on the amendment just defeated, is set out to help prevent the physical and sexual abuse of children by requiring individuals to undergo a criminal record check. It's interesting that in debate in this Legislature we often go through somewhat tedious, lengthy and dispassionate discourse about matters. Here is a matter that I think strikes at the very heart of many, because many individuals know of, or have firsthand knowledge of, the kind of sexual abuse of young people that can take place by people charged with their safety and security and who are in a position of trust. I would say that when that emotion bubbles up to the point of debate, as it did with respect to the amendment -- as well intentioned as I'm sure that amendment was -- clearly for the first time as legislators, we also wear the mantle of parent. We often wear the mantle, and some of us perhaps even scars, of our own past histories or of those histories that we have had knowledge of. My colleague from Okanagan East spoke of the letters that were attached to those teddy bears when Monica Rainey brought them to the steps of the Legislature a few years ago.
I say that this bill -- and it is not perfect -- at least takes a small step toward the proposition that says that before we entrust individuals with the care of young people, we should at the very least undertake to do a check to make sure they do not have a criminal record for past offences. We should at least have some form of way of knowing whether the people who we're about to entrust the care of our absolutely most precious asset, our children, into the hands of....
I say it's an important first step because it is also potentially rife with all kinds of abuse, because at any time a government.... And this is what governments have to do. They have to try to bring in legislation that may impinge upon or remove to a certain degree the individual right or freedom of an individual, a right that an individual may enjoy. Any time we do that, we have to take a great deal of care that we are not, in the interests of protecting one individual, irrevocably taking away or in some way extinguishing the right of another. That's a very, very important balance. I, for one, and members of the Alliance, firmly and absolutely believe in the fundamental right and freedom of the individual from the intervention of the state.
But there are times when the state must intervene. This is such a time, because the position of trust and authority given to individuals who work with children or with whom young children will find their care.... That position of trust is sacred; it is a sacred position of trust. The state has an obligation to those young people, especially when those young people are in the trust of somebody who is funded, licensed or provided some certificate by this government or its agents. It has an obligation to make sure it is entrusting those young people to somebody who does not have a record of past offence.
It is to a certain extent an abridging of certain rights of individuals. As we take away those rights, we have to be cognizant of the fact that we are putting the interests of children first. If there's to be an error in our ways with this bill, it is better to err on the side of the children than to err on the side of the individual who may abuse their trust.
I'm not going to prolong debate on this bill, because I think it is important that we get into committee stage with it. As we've said earlier, we think it's very important that we get it passed. But I do want to say that when we get to committee stage, we're going to explore those positions.
In particular, I draw the attention of the minister to certain sections of the bill. First is the matter of employers and employees, part 3, with respect to applicants for employment. That's something we want to make sure we have the language clear on. Also, in section 12, on new convictions or outstanding charges, there's some language that might be important. The second is with respect to the criminal record check authorization process and how that process is going to work, which comes quite later in the bill under part 6, "General," in section 27. Those aspects of the bill may be troublesome unless the Attorney General can provide -- and I'm hoping he can to our satisfaction -- that some of the concerns that obviously will be put forward, with respect to individual rights, freedom of information and protection of security for individuals, are looked after.
But in the main, and certainly in principle, we have to strongly endorse this particular bill. I say without equivocation that the Attorney General is to be congratulated for taking, I think, a very bold and somewhat brave step in this regard. There will be those who will argue that somehow we have crossed the line of civil liberty, and therefore we have taken away this civil liberty. Nobody is a more impassioned spokesperson than I for the rights and civil liberties of individuals -- at least, I hope I'm as impassioned as most and perhaps more than some. But we do have to tread with great care. As we move Bill 26 forward, we are going to have to make sure in committee stage that we thoroughly explore that aspect of it, so that we have a comfort zone that recognizes that the state has an obligation to the individual undergoing the kind of record check that this bill will require.
[ Page 15897 ]
I would just like to say in closing, as we move to a vote on second reading -- I think there may be one or two other speakers -- that there are very few times in this House when an individual can stand up with such a strong and emotional conviction about a bill as I can on this one. This is important legislation. I couldn't agree more with the member for Okanagan East, who said that this may be among the most important pieces of social legislation that this government has brought forward in its mandate.
There are a lot of people -- an awful lot of people -- who have been subjected to sexual abuse and who are going to see this as the first step, a major step, in providing protection for others who might otherwise undergo the kind of abuse that they have endured. To those people I say: have hope and faith that as a society we are maturing, we are growing, and we are recognizing that we do have to take steps for your protection.
I speak strongly in favour of this bill. I hope all members of this Legislature, upon reflection, on second reading and upon listening to the words in this debate, will stand in support of this bill when second reading concludes.
[4:45]
J. Tyabji: It is interesting that this second reading debate is not unlike many second reading debates, in which I'm the only female member who stands up and speaks to it. That doesn't always have that much relevance. If it's a forestry bill, I may be less exposed to some of the issues than some of the other members of the House, perhaps because of my gender; maybe not. What I find interesting in this second reading debate on something as important as the safety of children is that I'm the only mother who has put any comments on record.
Everybody has their own opinion about whether or not mothers and fathers bring different perspectives to things. I happen to be one of those people who believe that men and women, although they have to be equal in the eyes of the law, tend to have different world-views and life experiences and, especially when it comes to parenting, will quite often bring a balance. Mothers will sometimes have a different perspective.
With respect to this bill, I have made a lot of comments already on the amendment which, I think, spoke to the principle of the bill. But if I could say one thing about the extent to which this bill goes, I remember having a long conversation with Monica Rainey the first time I was exposed to what she was trying to do. It struck me -- in that case, it struck me very much as a mother.... The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast said that often as legislators we speak as legislators, and in this case all of us are speaking as, I think, human beings, and many of us as parents. But as a mother, it struck me how sometimes there is a primary force that tells you, no matter what, that you protect your children.
I think everybody feels that you have to protect children, but I have talked to a lot of other mothers, and they'll often use expressions, quite glibly.... They'll say: "If anyone ever hurt my children, I'd kill him." They use that expression: "I'd just have to kill him." I hear the passion that comes out of very non-violent women sometimes when they talk about that.
When you talk about pedophilia and you talk about children who have been abused.... Certainly when I talked to Monica Rainey, the feeling I had was that you can't go far enough -- you can't. That's an emotional feeling. I'm not speaking now necessarily as a legislator, who in committee stage will go through every single section and do due diligence. But when I read this bill, I know that -- if I can speak on that level.... We have to have legislative protection for all people's rights, but the one thing I note about it is that it doesn't say that anyone with a criminal record who has had a sexual conviction shall not be employed. The Attorney General is nodding.
That's my first reaction to it. I think it's probably from the mother's side of the ledger rather than from the legislator's side. But certainly, I'd have to say that I would like to see something that would say that anybody who has ever violated a trust in any way shall not have a job in the government, if the government has an opportunity to say that. I recognize that we then have to go from there: debate and talk about rehabilitation, whether or not people are changed, what the circumstances were and all the provisions that we bring to it. In terms of the principle of this bill, if I would bring something to this debate, it would be the perspective of the immediate emotional response that if anybody hurts a child, they shall not have another chance -- no three-strikes-and-you're-out. That's one comment.
The second comment -- which I think a number of people have made, but I'd like to put it on the record -- is that the Attorney General and his government should be congratulated for taking this step. It's a step that's long overdue. I really don't think it goes far enough; we'll canvass that later and maybe we can even have amendments on the floor. But it needed to be done, and I know that there are many hoops that have to be jumped through before a piece of legislation comes to the floor of the House. Having said that, I'm pleased that the government has seen this as one of its priorities prior to the close of this mandate. I think it's encouraging that they did see that this had to be done; there were a number of other pieces of legislation, but this was among the priorities.
We know that government exists to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Of course, children have to be number one in this category. All of us would like to design a system to protect children. What does this bill do? It says that if you're going to be working for the government, prior to getting that job you have to go through a criminal record check. Is a criminal record check a new thing? Is it a new device? Is it something that has never been done before? Clearly it's not. There are many other circumstances where criminal record checks are a requirement. There are many times when, if you're going into a security job or a job that requires a high degree of trust, there will be a requirement for bondability and a record check. Ironically, in our society, in the past we have placed money or capital as the ultimate object of protection. If somebody is placed in a position of trust over a large sum of money, there has to be a criminal record check. So although, as the leader of the Alliance Party said, society is maturing and we see that this is one of the maturing aspects of society, we recognize that there are some things so much more valuable than what we often see as the bottom line.
I suppose that if there was a button that was pressed by the amendment that came forward earlier, it was the button of a potential cost-benefit analysis. I don't say that with any disrespect for the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, who I'm sure in committee stage may be able to make some suggestions to fine-tune the bill from a cost perspective. Nobody would argue that we should be irresponsible with money in designing a system to protect children. But having said that,
[ Page 15898 ]
we too often look at the bottom line. Too often, we have placed value on things that are tangible and material, and have automatically deemed them as having value to society because they can be placed on deposit somewhere. With respect to our children, we have a lot of excuses as to why we don't move on that. Somehow it doesn't become a priority because it's not something that is a tangible, day-to-day problem that any of us may encounter; whereas a budget, a theft from a security company or a theft of money is obviously something tangible and gets an immediate response.
I would hope that in setting up this mechanism to safeguard children, there would be some measure of retroactivity -- some measure of trying to ensure that if there are currently people in place, there will be some way, without contravening any kind of employment standards, labour standards or existing acts, of ensuring that they too would be put through a process to determine whether or not they should be in a position of trust. The reason that I say that is....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The Attorney General is saying that it does that. Where I had a concern, and certainly something that's been expressed quite a bit prior to this bill coming forward, is that right now there are people who are in positions where they are abusing trust. If the Attorney General is saying that they are going to go through this whole process, then hopefully we will end up with a system that will be safe for children in all different aspects -- not just for people who are coming into the system, coming on stream, or coming on as employees. I think there has to be an expansion, as well. I've looked at the schedule of some of the acts that are captured by the schedule. Those are things that we can get to in committee stage.
In Kelowna, we've been referring to this bill as the Monica Rainey bill. I should put into the record that she was honoured by the city of Kelowna as citizen of the year in 1994 for the work that she did.
Many hundreds of people volunteered with her. There are people right now in Vancouver who are fighting to have people exposed who don't have a criminal record but who are abusing trust. I don't know how we capture that. We obviously aren't capturing it in this bill. I don't know how we find those people in the system who do not have a criminal record and who have not been charged -- perhaps because they are in a position of trust or a position of authority, and people are worried about a reprimand. I don't know how we will ever deal with those people, especially if they are fairly clever at covering their tracks. That's something that has to be addressed. I'm sure the Attorney General has heard a number of submissions about people who are perceived to be upstanding members of society, yet there's a group of people who know the kinds of activities that have gone on and who have tried to get enough strength together to have some redress.
The last thing I'd like to say, because we're on the subject of sexual offenders, sexual predators and pedophiles.... It's really a subject that is difficult to talk about. Perhaps the most difficult subject that I've ever dealt with as an MLA has been trying to deal with people who contact our office to say they are having a rally to try to expose the background of someone who has been released on parole before their term is up, who they think is a dangerous offender. They are concerned about dangerous offenders being placed in their neighbourhoods -- as we had a debate about the potential eight beds that might be placed in the community in Winfield.
People are concerned that sentencing is too light and that sentencing has become light because of the overcrowding in the prisons, but that the communities are the ones who are going to be endangered by it. The most difficult thing I've had to do is hear from them the human cost associated with a system that has loopholes in it. For whatever reason, people who need those loopholes inevitably find them and find a way through them. I know we can't talk about this in any detail in this bill, but I would hope that this government would recognize that the current legislation and the current justice system are also not adequate in dealing with people who do commit an offence, and that there are so many difficulties around the balance between protecting individual rights in a free society and protecting the collective rights of the most vulnerable people in our society -- the children.
I would like to close with this image. Now we're talking about popular culture -- something that doesn't often affect us in this Legislature. We're getting into a different area. There's a TV show called "Picket Fences." I don't know if many of the members have ever watched it. It has won all kinds of awards. In this show they had an episode where life the following week mirrored that episode. The life incident that mirrored that took place in the East Kootenays, where a pedophile had moved back into a community that he had lived in when he was younger. In the TV episode it was a small town, and a convicted pedophile had moved back after he had been released from jail. There was a physician in that town who was a mother, and the pedophile confided in her that he continued to have urges. She was restricted by her doctor's oath from showing that there was any potential problem, yet she was also a mother whose children were potentially in danger. In the end, the entire town ended up killing this pedophile.
The interesting thing that I found was that the week after this episode aired.... It was an episode that was designed to provoke the kind of debate we're having today about the individual rights of human beings. He had served his time, had been through it, had come back out and moved to a small town, and was prevented from living a normal life because everybody turned on him. Yet in turning on him, it was discovered that he continued to have the urges that had put him into jail in the first place.
Although that was a fictional story, in the instance that I was citing of life imitating art, there was an example of a pedophile who moved back to, I think, Elkford -- a small town. Everyone knew the pedophile. I know that the Attorney General has been debating whether or not we should publish the name when a pedophile moves into a neighbourhood and to what extent the RCMP should be notifying people of potentially dangerous offenders. There again we had a huge public response in this town. I think there were 500 or 600 people; only a couple of thousand people lived in the town. The most frequently repeated phrase was: "Let's drive this person out; we don't want this person here." The fever pitch in that hall was to the extent that the police had to say: "It is our role to protect both this person and his rights and to protect the children that you're concerned about this person injuring."
These are the kinds of debates that we actually should have on the floor of this House, to try to determine how we as
[ Page 15899 ]
a society will mature to the next step -- that is, the preventive measures that will protect children and convicted offenders from there being future abuse. Even if, under this bill, people are not hired into those positions of trust, they still exist freely within society. They still have an ability, in a manner which is not captured by this bill, to interact with children and get into informal positions of trust. That will still be the rallying cry of people and parents whose children have fallen prey to them: try to design a system within our society where we can allow for the protection of the community and still not have this individual driven out or murdered or have vigilante action taken against them.
That's the kind of debate that I hope we can proceed with from here. Those are the comments that I would like to close on. Again, I congratulate the government and look forward to committee stage.
A. Warnke: I've said several times.... As a matter of fact, I can even recall the debate on one bill yesterday, where we talked about victims and offenders, and I outlined my philosophy. My philosophy -- as outlined especially in this chamber and several times elsewhere, as well as in the past, from 1992 to the present -- is that I've always accentuated the need to recognize the rights of the victim.
[5:00]
Indeed, if I may do so, in talking about the rights of the victim, I've said, even as late as yesterday, that too often -- and I really believe this -- we've extended the rights of the offenders.... I'm talking about offenders: those who have been convicted. To a certain extent, I think we've gone too far in one direction and, at least minimally, we've not really kept in mind the balance that's required for a civil society. This legislation being brought forth, Bill 26, really accentuates the pith of the problem: the rights of victims in this particular case have been ignored.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I do happen to believe that this problem of the physical and sexual abuse of children is on the rise, but as has been pointed out by so many people, it's not a new phenomenon. It has been around for a while, but it has not been addressed. This is a good case of where the rights of the victims have been ignored in the past. Indeed, not only is it extremely necessary but it really tells us something about our society that we not only are addressing abuses that occur in the present but are encouraging that any sort of abuses that have occurred in the past, even going back considerably -- 30 years or more -- are brought out. That is so essential. I think it's a really good trend, and this is one example where the rights of victims, especially the most vulnerable in our society -- children, young people under the age of 19 -- are not only protected but enhanced.
Given that that has been my philosophy, which I have stated so many times in this House, when we talk about the philosophy and principles of Bill 26, it's certainly one that not only I but, I'm pleased to say, all members of our party and the official opposition support, as has been stated by the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove and the official critic, the member for West Vancouver-Capilano.
It has been expressed eloquently by a number of members from all sides of the House that when it comes to the physical abuse and especially the sexual abuse of children, that is one area that is repugnant. I believe that all members in this chamber find it most repugnant; I would suggest that nearly all people in society find this most repugnant. Indeed, nearly all people in society cannot even understand it. Certainly I and, I'm sure, all members here have this sentiment. To engage in such kinds of acts -- brutally beating up kids and that sort of thing -- is just something that is really alien to the minds of people in society. Indeed, it is alien to what a human being is in society.
To express, as this bill does.... To help prevent the physical and sexual abuse of children by requiring individuals to undergo criminal-record checks is an extremely important, absolutely necessary direction that we must take in our society. I would say, from my own vantage point, that I share, let's say, with the parents of White Rock, many of whom wanted such a registry last year.... Actually, they wanted to go quite a bit further: a published list and all the rest of it. Perhaps that can be addressed at another time.
I think it illustrates that society -- nearly all people in society -- recognizes this as a fundamental problem, and therefore it has to be addressed. I would say, along this line, that the legislation may not even go far enough. It is good that we ensure, at least in the public sector, including schools, that it includes a registry to register pedophiles and people who have been convicted for sexual offences.
In some ways, I would even like to encourage.... I recognize that it's a difficult path to proceed along, but I would like to encourage that this be expanded. I said this before, earlier this afternoon. I would even like to see this expanded to voluntary associations; we can think of all kinds. In fact, we can think of some rather sensational cases, horrible cases -- whether it's in churches, guardian groups or whatever -- where these kinds of acts have taken place. I would even like to see an expansion of this somehow -- and into the private sector. I was checking through schedule 2 of Bill 26. I believe that there could be an additional list. I wonder about including the Correction Act itself, because you talk about violation and physical and sexual abuse that takes place -- perhaps in youth detention centres and whatever, where people under the age of 19 are horribly affected. We know of a lot of examples. Even in this House, that question has been raised before. I don't see that in here. So it's in that context.
I really appreciate what the Attorney General said in some of his remarks. He acknowledges that there are some weaknesses in the bill, and I guess that's what is so essential to pursue. If there are weaknesses, by cracky, we want to do something to ensure that there are no loopholes or opportunities for the most repugnant in our society to take advantage of. We have seen in the past, over several decades, how the most repugnant in our society do take advantage of loopholes and weaknesses in legislation.
I appreciate what the Attorney General has put forward. While there are criticisms, and while he acknowledges that there are certain weaknesses in the legislation that has been put forward, nonetheless -- and I said this earlier this afternoon, in another context -- when we deal with the essential principle of the bill, and the thrust and direction of where we want to go, that receives my enthusiastic support, certainly, and enthusiastic support of the official opposition -- and indeed, apparently, the enthusiastic support from all sides of this House.
[ Page 15900 ]
I do want to send out one warning, because I'm trying to anticipate something in the future. Given that there is universal support for the thrust, direction and principle of this bill -- and I believe there will be universal support for this -- I would hope that there will be no member who will mislead or do anything outside this chamber that even suggests otherwise.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: I hear one cackle over there, hon. Speaker, and that is what concerns me.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: You see, this is the problem, hon. Speaker.
But in Bill 26, as I laid out very clearly earlier this afternoon.... I'm laying out very clearly what our views are, and certainly what my views are and the philosophical premise that I'm operating from. I stick to that; I stand by that. And in that context, this, I see, is a bill that enhances the rights of victims. I believe it is so essential to enhance the rights of victims, because I think we've gone too far and because it is necessary to have a balance between those who are accused and those who are victims as a result of those offenders. Those offenders know the nature of their actions, because they have been convicted in a court of law.
As everyone here knows -- or should know -- when convicted in a court of law, you are convicted two ways: in substance and in intent. There are cases where people who engage in murder or, for that matter, I suppose, rape -- I can think of a couple of cases -- and they have been shown to be not guilty due to insanity. As a result, we have in our society a mechanism that suggests that you have to be convicted on the evidence and the intent. We have plenty of opportunity to allow for anything outside of that. Therefore anyone who is convicted is convicted on evidence and intent, and on that basis anyone who violates the most precious in our society.... Those who are convicted of such heinous crimes know what they've done; they intended to do them. One of the consequences of that is not a violation of civil liberties but a part of being a citizen: that they be registered in some form, and in this case a criminal records check is appropriate.
Mind you, there are weaknesses and difficulties with this bill, and as we proceed in committee stage, we will maybe get some responses from the Attorney General. But again, in conclusion, in terms of the thrust, direction and principle of the bill, I believe Bill 26 essentially takes the most correct direction, and I hope sometime we will go further.
L. Fox: I rise to speak on the principles and philosophies of Bill 26, the Criminal Records Review Act. I want to say at the outset, as I said earlier, that I support the intent of this legislation. In my view, it doesn't go far enough, and I think most people in this Legislature would like to see the bill more encompassing, but we recognize that we have to sometimes take small steps in order to achieve the end result. Let me say that I've heard much talk during the discussions about the rights of individuals being infringed on by an investigation into whether or not they have any criminal records. I don't see that; in fact, my experience is this: I happen to sit on a school board that, unfortunately for my district, hired an individual by the name of Robert Noyes. Had this act been in place, that individual's opportunity to achieve jobs in several school districts within the province would have been substantially reduced, and therefore the exposure of that man, or that scum, to our children would have been substantially reduced.
[5:15]
But I go beyond that. I want to say that in talking to many professionals, they would love.... They support the idea of some kind of registry or process for identifying those within all professions within British Columbia, because individuals want mothers and fathers to be comfortable that their child is in their care and is going to be cared for. I don't think you will see a lot of concern from teachers, doctors, dentists or other professionals that a criminal check on them would take place in order to give that assurance to parents. In fact, I think they'll support the bill.
My concern, though, is -- and the member for Peace River South mentioned it -- that the bill doesn't go far enough. It doesn't include municipal employees. We look at the kinds of facilities that many of those employees work at. There are swimming pools, parks and a lot of facilities where children are, in some cases in scanty clothing like bathing suits, shorts and so on. It would be reasonable to have included those folks in this legislation. The other thing I would like to see British Columbia move on is in the volunteering -- the sports arenas, coaches, that kind of thing -- and anywhere at all where children in numbers are placed in the trust of an adult or maybe even, in some cases, a teenager.
It's important that we understand that we need to have tough laws that strike out at these pedophiles, these individuals who abuse the trust placed in them, to prey upon our children. I look forward to the committee stage debate, where we can perhaps propose some amendments that would strengthen the intent of this legislation.
The Speaker: The hon. Attorney General closes debate.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I want to thank all members who have participated in the debate this afternoon -- an interesting afternoon in many respects. I can't help but say I'm struck by the conversion on the road to Damascus this afternoon, from the speech by the official opposition critic two hours ago, in which he recited a list of other people's concerns about the bill. He gave no indication at all about his own perspective on the issues. He gave me -- at least, in my listening to his speech -- no indication whatsoever as to whether he was pro, con or indifferent.
I got the sense that this was a typical Liberal approach, which has been the history of this country, where the Liberals want to wait to hear how the wind is blowing before they decide which way to go. That was a classic case this afternoon. But it wasn't the wind that descended on them; it was a hurricane. They very quickly, within two hours this afternoon, made sure that the former critic for the Attorney General's ministry tried to create a path down which it would make it clear to people that the Liberals had seen the light. It's sometimes called damage control, and there was a lot of damage to control this afternoon. I must say -- as a minor student of history when I have time, which doesn't occur these days anymore -- that it's really.... After watching the history of the Liberal Party in this country for decades, we've seen a classic example this afternoon of just how they decide what is
[ Page 15901 ]
in the public interest and what good public policy is: you put your fingers up and test to see which way the wind is blowing.
I want to say that I'm assuming there's now -- finally, this afternoon -- unanimous support for this bill. I'm pleased and delighted about that.
I want to repeat something I said in my opening comments in second reading, which was that this is only one step. This is not a panacea. If there's a criticism to be made of the fact or of the introduction of this legislation, the most severe criticism I would make is that it might tend to assist in creating a false sense of security. That's the biggest danger with legislation.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The critic says it's a concern that he expressed. It's concern that he read somebody else had expressed, yes.
It has been my concern from the beginning that we not create a false sense of security for parents and children in this province. This is a step. This is one initiative. The most important thing that all of us can do and that we're doing in our ministry in respect of this issue is an educational program. Education to get people to understand the risks and to deal with the kinds of issues that this subject raises is the most important thing that can occur, and that will continue to be our priority.
Having said that, the bill is an important step, and I re-emphasize that. We're talking about doing record checks on 280,000 British Columbians who are now employed in positions of trust with children. Either they are working in positions that are funded by government or they are working in positions in self-governing professions. That is the vehicle by which we will ascertain whether people need to be included.
Those 280,000 checks will take a couple of years -- just mechanically to do the physical checking. We have a schedule lined up, taking what we think are the most vulnerable sectors first and moving through.... Not just that, they are the ones that are the most convenient and easiest to do, in the early going, as we move through a two-year schedule, which will begin as soon as we can get the apparatus up and running. Hopefully, that will not be delayed too much, but my guess is that it will be around the beginning of the year.
If we were to add volunteers to that list, which a number of people have suggested we do, we would add some 800,000 people, just counting all of the people who work with children in volunteer capacities. Most adults do, in one way or another. That's a mammoth task to complete. It couldn't possibly be done in the first couple of years anyway, because we're going to be spending that time dealing with this component.
I have no doubt whatsoever that in subsequent parliaments, amendments will be made to this legislation. Whoever the government is, us or anybody else, I have no doubt that regulations will flow from the legislation that will expand and modify how the entire program works. This is not by any means the final document; this is a step in a process that hopefully will begin to make our society safer than it is now -- particularly for children.
There were quite a number of comments, and my staff were kindly sitting in my office, in front of my computer, taking notes of what everybody said. They have given me responses to each of the points everybody made, and I have all of that here. On review, it makes sense that that would be better done in committee stage where we can have a back-and-forth and I can give an explanation of why we have chosen to go a certain way. There are particular issues that I think need to be dealt with, such as when the employer finds out that this check is occurring and the section 11 concern about whether there's enough direction to employers about what they do if somebody does have a record. There are issues like that that I'd like to come back to. There are a whole series of other issues. We will deal with that fully, and I think there is a defence for the bill in each of these cases. During the debate it may turn out that I'll want to rethink my conclusions, and I'm open to that if the debate leads us that way.
In conclusion, I want to say that we have had an extensive amount of consultation on this legislation. We have had an exhaustive and exhausting process with all of the organizations that represent the people who are now going to be covered by this legislation. Clearly there have been anxieties about it, clearly there have been concerns raised, and clearly people feel a little bit that they're being focused on and others aren't -- a why are you kind of picking on me and my group kind of thing. Throughout all of that consultation, while there have been fears, concerns and expressions of worry about the bill, I think that without exception all of the people we consulted have recognized that the government -- the state, society -- has a paramount responsibility to protect children. If this bill can assist in the protection of children, then people are prepared to endure these additional kinds of processes that they have to go through.
I think it was the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast who raised the question of rights in respect of this legislation. This is no more an infringement on an individual's right than the question a potential bank employee gets when they're told they can't get a job working at a bank because they've been convicted of fraud. That's not a denial of rights, nor is this a denial of rights. We are saying that if it's....
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is a whole series of examples that one could cite, but the bank and the fraud issue struck me as being an obvious one. This is not an infringement on rights; this is a protection of rights. Children have the right to be free from this kind of activity. As a Legislature, whatever we can do to assist and ensure that children are free from pedophiles or others who may engage in behaviour that results in sexual assault or sexual abuse or issues of that kind.... We have that responsibility, and I'm delighted this afternoon that we're expressing very clearly in this House that all of us -- I hope, now -- support the quick implementation of such a scheme so that we can make British Columbia's children safer than they might have been before.
I now move second reading.
[5:30]
Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]
Bill 26, Criminal Records Review 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.
[ Page 15902 ]
Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 49.
ROYAL ROADS UNIVERSITY ACT
The House in committee on Bill 49; D. Lovick in the chair.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
A. Warnke: In my response in second reading of Bill 49, the Royal Roads University Act, I made reference to the fact that when a university puts out its calendar, it really puts out its philosophy, essentially, and the general direction of where the university is going and what it wants to accomplish. I made reference to what I would call a very good phrase in section 2(c), which says: "to maintain teaching excellence and research activities that support the university's programs in response to the labour market needs of British Columbia." There are two questions that I have with regard to this section, and upon further reflection....
Interjections.
A. Warnke: Hon. Chair, there seems to be a bit of noise, but that's all right.
There are two comments I want to make here, and they revolve around the phrase "labour market needs." It connotes quite different things, actually, and therefore I'm seeking clarification. At second reading I did mention one. I think that to encourage the thrust of the university.... I noted that in the press release on May 17 by the minister, the minister made reference to how Royal Roads will offer contemporary professional mid-career graduate programs such as international business marketing, environmental management and technology management. I think that's really pretty good. In some ways I thought that could be added to the phrase "labour market needs." Otherwise, it might.... Well, it might actually suggest, let's say, at some time in the future to a succeeding administration that the purpose of Royal Roads University is narrowly confined to responding to labour market needs. That's one query here.
The second one is on the definition of labour market needs in this kind of context, and that is: does the new university -- if there are no changes or anything like that -- develop teaching and recruit students solely on the basis of labour market needs? That is, in terms of analyzing that the labour market is going in a particular direction, it may have to recruit from, let's say, the forest industry or logging activities or engineering activities and so on. Are these the factors that enter into a decision on the basis of what the curriculum is going to be and on the recruitment of students? Those are the two aspects that I want to explore.
Hon. D. Miller: The member and I had a brief conversation prior to today's committee stage of the bill on these points, and I want to make a couple of points in response.
First, this institution will be different from the other post-secondary.... Let's deal with universities. It will be different from the other four universities. If you look at the purpose section.... There really is not a purpose section in the act, but there is a section dealing with the powers and duties of a university. There's some general language that says that the university has an obligation to provide instruction in all branches of knowledge.
Historically, the member is probably more familiar than I with the development of the university model. The academic research institution is unfettered, if you like, and free from interference in the pursuit of delivering education in all fields of knowledge. This institution is somewhat different. The governance structure is somewhat different, and the partnership that will be critical to making it a success is different. In a general way, what we wanted to do with respect to the purposes clause was simply outline that.
I could go into some of the ideas that have been mooted about with respect to what it should be offering -- for example, undergraduate and graduate studies in environmental management, business management, human resources management and specializations in areas such as conflict resolution, negotiation and public consultation. There is a range of courses that have been suggested as appropriate for this institution, which will be properly fleshed out by the board once it's up and running. We didn't want to limit or describe too closely the purposes with respect to specific courses that might be offered.
And yes, unlike other institutions -- although I don't want to suggest for a moment that universities aren't responsive to labour market demands or the demands of the economy -- this one will be a little different. It will be much more focused. Teachers will not be.... As we will see under the definitions section, they are not, as the faculty are at the university level.... They're professors, but they're not tenured. We hope to be able to bring together, in a team manner, issues that may be looked at in terms of problem-solving. People from private industry, from labour and from academia may come together for a one- or two-year project and then disband and take on other projects. Some teaching could flow out of that kind of approach.
So, really, this section is in general trying to describe the purpose of this institution. You don't find this in the University Act. I think the words and the language we've used in the three sections are appropriate, in a general sense, to describe that.
A. Warnke: I want to thank the minister for his response. I believe that there was a similar response at second reading, but it does help to clarify the nature of this particular section. I'm sure that if there is any reflection on what was intended by the legislation, the minister's remarks are quite adequate to clarify its nature. I accept that. I don't think it's even necessary to contemplate an amendment or whatnot. I'm fully satisfied with the minister's remarks on that and on essentially where the university is going from that. I think, too, the minister is quite right to point out that it's really up to the new administration to map out what its philosophy is and so on when it presents its calendar.
On that second point I raised, I just want further clarification about whether there is really nothing that is required in terms of assessing labour market needs. I guess it's the meaning of labour market needs that I am really after. It's in the context of the nature and direction of the university, rather than meaning something specific -- that no, we will plan our curriculum and students around what we define as the labour market needs, according to a specific, almost numerical criteria.
Hon. D. Miller: I think the member makes a good point. You obviously can't have a university, even one that's dif-
[ Page 15903 ]
ferent from the norm, that changes its courses every year. There would be no continuity. How would you attract students on a regular basis? There has to be some continuity with respect to the programming. The specifics of the programming will be determined by the board. Although it's not fully in place at this point, that board is comprised of people from the private sector -- from labour -- where there's a great deal of knowledge.
[5:45]
In addition, the ministry does a great deal of work on labour market trends and forecasts; some of the work, for example, that might come out of the B.C. Labour Force Development Board, a partnership of business and labour and equity groups, which we put together to advise the ministry on the kinds of demands that the economy is making -- what kinds of skills are in demand. Those kinds of questions will be useful. There's a lot of general information about that. No doubt some of the teaching will flow from the team approach that I talked about as well.
Just one final point. On the postgraduate side, we're hoping to attract people who may not ordinarily go to university. These are sort of the mid-career professionals who have a wealth of experience but perhaps not the academic qualifications. In that sense we're looking at issues like prior-learning assessment, so that those people could come into that institution and emerge with a postgraduate degree, in terms of developing their careers.
I think there is a need. Certainly some of the letters I've received.... I continue to receive a great deal of letters about Royal Roads, with a lot of ideas about what it should be. A consistent theme runs through those ideas that it should be more technologically oriented and more oriented towards meeting the demands of the labour market or the demands of the economy.
I hope I've responded to the member's questions.
G. Wilson: Just a couple of quick questions. One is with respect to the purposes in terms of the degree programs. The reason I raise that is that there is nothing in this act that specifically defines "degree program" as it might be different from the University Act. Yet under the next section -- which we can't get ahead to, but I just want to flag it -- it talks about the power to grant degrees in its own name and award certificates, and so on. Are the degree programs that the minister is referring to consistent with or similar to those that might be found in other universities, or is he talking about degrees that may be tailor-made to this new kind of approach to market-driven education?
J. Pullinger: I rise to ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. Pullinger: Just entering the gallery are some visitors from Vietnam. They've come to Canada to look at our forestry and to British Columbia to see what we're doing in forestry and, specifically today, to look at the Cowichan Lake Community Forest Cooperative. They're greening Vietnam and are looking at cooperatives in the villages as a way of doing that. We've had a very interesting discussion.
I'm very pleased to introduce to the House -- and I apologize if I don't pronounce the names right -- Mai Thuc Lan, who is the National Assembly Deputy and member of the Financial Commission of the National Assembly; Prof. Dr. Ngo The Dan, who is a vice-minister, Minister of Agriculture and Food Industry, Socialist Republic of Vietnam; Dr. Bui Quang Toan, NIAPP deputy director and CAEV director; and Cao Duc Phat, who is from the Vietnam program, Harvard Institute for International Development. Travelling with the group from our Canadian Co-operative Association is -- this is a difficult one -- Zilla Potivongsajarn, regional director of international affairs, and Eric Bellows, director of program development. I would ask all my colleagues in the House to help me make these people very welcome.
Hon. D. Miller: The degrees will be consistent with degrees offered in other institutions in the province.
G. Wilson: The only other question I have with respect to section 2 has to do with the balance proposed between teaching and research. Obviously in the college systems there is an emphasis placed on instruction and teaching. In the institutes that we have, such as BCIT, there is a great deal of emphasis on instructional teaching, whereas in the universities there's traditionally more emphasis on research. I notice under section 2(c) that they talk about maintaining teaching excellence and research activities. I wonder if it's envisaged within the purpose that there may be specialized research opportunities at that university, given the fact that there is some outstanding equipment there that would facilitate research. Have there been discussions as to what the balance will be between teaching and research and what kinds of dollars might be looked at in that...?
Hon. D. Miller: I think the important point is that unlike the universities that are governed by the University Act, and again citing from section 46, the requirements of a university -- the powers and duties of a university -- are to "establish facilities for the pursuit of original research in all branches of knowledge." That won't apply here. It will be much more targeted. I talked about the potential for looking at taking on research as a kind of a specific task approach. There may be a particular issue, for example....
One of the fields that I think needs some further work is this whole question of environmental decision-making. There is obviously, on many environmental issues, a body of opinion. Some of that opinion is simply that: it's based on emotion. I think that one of the challenges, particularly in the field of environmental issues, is to try to establish a baseline of facts from which all participants, regardless of their opinions, could draw. I think that's a wonderful field that we should be looking at, not only for our own purposes here in British Columbia; there's no reason why we couldn't develop some expertise that is exportable worldwide. The problems that we have are clearly not just in our jurisdiction.
Similarly, we're very interested -- I have a very strong personal interest -- in pursuing an initiative that I think this government has been fairly outstanding on: the partnership approach to various issues in our province. Whether that be, for example, the summits that were put together to develop the Skills Now program, bringing in those partners collectively -- the private sector, labour, business, educators and others -- along with government, to try to seize those issues and develop policy that makes sense, broadly based.... I think we need to continue to pursue opportunities for that
[ Page 15904 ]
kind of collaboration and cooperation to take place, particularly between labour and management. I think there is a recognition in British Columbia that the way we used to do things ten or 20 years ago is not conducive to developing our economy, and that in some ways it can be a lose-lose proposition. As we try to promote that concept of labour being a player in the economy, having an institute where specific issues can be addressed makes a lot of sense, I think.
Again, I wouldn't suggest for a moment that we should restrict ourselves to just British Columbia. In fact, we may develop some expertise where people come from other parts of Canada or, indeed, from offshore to participate in the programs that can be developed there, so I don't want to limit it. I have given a couple of examples of what I think are opportunities that really bring together research in a more applied and practical way than the sort of pure research that is done at the university level.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
A. Warnke: Basically, I just want a comment from the minister on the impact of this section on fundraising and tax-receipting, the reason being that a concern was expressed to me as to whether any restrictions, different from the other universities and colleges, in the area of fundraising and tax-receipting may impact upon Royal Roads University. I would appreciate a comment from the minister on that.
Hon. D. Miller: The board of governors will be responsible for fundraising endeavours. The University Foundations Act has been amended to allow the establishment of the Royal Roads University Foundation, which is in a further section of the bill. We do expect that the federal government will be treating this institution in the same way as others with respect to the favourable tax status for those. It's a very critical point, because we're trying to minimize the provincial contribution to this institution. That was specifically in the criteria, in terms of proposals that were made for uses of the facility, so we're going to try to continue to maintain that.
G. Wilson: My question relates to the reference under section 3(1), which says that you establish Royal Roads University as a corporation. Section 3(3) then says: "The university is an agent of the Crown in right of the Province for the purpose of leasing land for use as a campus for the university." Do I understand, then, that what we're going to do is make a distinction between Royal Roads, the entity and Royal Roads, the facility? Is it the intention that the Crown is then going to have the corporation act as a leasing agent for the facility, or does the corporation actually have a mandate on the property itself?
Hon. D. Miller: The university itself will be the entity with respect to their activities. Does that...? Perhaps the member might....
G. Wilson: Perhaps I didn't explain myself very clearly. Let me take another shot at it. It talks about Royal Roads University establishing a corporation, and it says that it is composed of "the board and convocation." I understand that: it's the entity for the granting of degrees, diplomas, certificates and so on. But section 3(3) says: "The university is an agent of the Crown in right of the Province for the purpose of leasing land for use as a campus for the university." My question is.... "For the purpose of leasing land for...a campus...." The title of the property obviously rests with the Crown. Is it as I understand it? It's unlike, for example, the University of British Columbia, which is on land held in trust.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm sorry that I missed that point. With respect to the lease, the member is aware that the lands that the university occupies are federal, and we have a lease with the federal government. The federal government, at its insistence, simply requires this provision to bind the province in respect of the obligations under the lease. In other words, the tie obviously.... If the university fails, for whatever reason, to fulfil its obligation, then the obligation becomes the Crown's. That's at the insistence of the federal government. It is only for the purpose of the lease that the university is an agent of the Crown; otherwise, it is independent of the provincial government, as are other universities.
[6:00]
Given the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Miller: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:30 p.m.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 6:01 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; S. O'Neill in the chair.
The committee met at 3:02 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT AND INVESTMENT
(continued)
On vote 24: minister's office, $375,615 (continued).
Hon. G. Clark: I've been canvassing with my colleagues.... This is probably an inappropriate time to say that,
[ Page 15905 ]
because there are no colleagues here. We're going to do transit, TFA and then ferries, in that order -- just for members who are interested.
D. Symons: I gather you are saying that we will do the transportation side of the minister's responsibilities. When we get into the other things that the minister of everything is responsible for, we'll go into Hydro and all the others as well.
I have a few questions backed up from yesterday, so maybe we could throw those out now. A couple of them involve commuter rail. If you don't have the answers, I'd be delighted to get them at some future date -- maybe you won't have the first.
I'd like to know, and read into the record, how many staff are involved with the commuter rail office and operation at this time. Also, what is the budgeted cost for that particular office on a yearly basis, either for the past year or the coming year?
Hon. G. Clark: I'll have to get those to you.
D. Symons: Okay, we'll move onto the next one. I didn't expect you to have those.
Who negotiated the railcar and locomotive contracts and who signed on behalf of B.C. Transit? We discussed a couple of individuals who were involved with B.C. Transit, who are no longer there. I know the minister said he was at Morrison Knudsen, looking at their operation. I would gather that your looking at the operation did not mean that you were actually the negotiator for B.C. Transit. If you know the answer to that, I can take that now. I would also be willing to wait for that.
Hon. G. Clark: The negotiations were primarily conducted by Lecia Stewart and a gentleman named Dave Sutherland of Go Transit in Ontario. He is an expert in commuter rail and its operations who was on contract through the negotiations. We had some other technical staff doing some of the work. Then signing the contracts were the chair of the board, Derek Corrigan; CEO, Blair Trousdell; and general manager of commuter rail, Lecia Stewart. There were three signatories on our behalf on both contracts.
D. Symons: Another matter we were discussing yesterday was sick leave. We were discussing the rather large numbers that seem to be endemic, particularly to the Vancouver side of it. I'm wondering how sick leave is handled by B.C. Transit, what the contract says as far as the number of days of sick leave they have and whether sick leave is cumulative. If you have 15 days each year, can you save what you don't use this year to build up a sick-leave war chest, so to speak?
Hon. G. Clark: As is, I think, appropriate in this committee, I'm going to ask the committee's indulgence for the vice-president of B.C. Transit to answer that, rather than have it run through me. So, Rick Krowchuk.
R. Krowchuk: Under our contracts....
The Chair: Order, please. I would like to remind the minister that it is in the sessional order that only deputy ministers can respond.
Hon. G. Clark: I apologize; I'm obviously not challenging the Chair's prerogative in this regard or the sessional order, but I wonder if the sessional order has changed. Two years ago, when I was last in this committee, I had staff who were directors, not even assistant deputy ministers, answer questions in committee. This seems to be a change.
I wonder if the Chair would permit, as we did yesterday, leave of the committee to allow staff who are here to answer questions from time to time. I ask leave of the committee to allow the vice-president of B.C. Transit, who makes more money than a deputy minister -- does that count? -- to answer a question in this regard.
Leave granted.
The Chair: Sir, would you stand and also address yourself through the Chair, please.
R. Krowchuk: Under our current contract with the Independent Transit Union, the maximum short-term sick leave is 17 weeks in any one year. After that, the individual would go on long-term disability, which is paid for through union dues exclusively. On short-term disability, an individual needs proof by doctor's certificate after an absence of five days. On the third absence in any one year, they start to reduce pay.
D. Symons: I suspect that this is for more serious illnesses, but for a flu or a cold, you're off a few days.... You said 17 weeks. You might have meant 17 days. I'm sure that a new driver wouldn't have the ability to be away for 17 weeks in a year. Clarification?
Hon. G. Clark: Maybe I'll ask the Chair, so we don't seek indulgence to answer some of these questions. If the member wants to know the nub of a management problem -- if you will -- it's that five days, as I understand it. You can take five days off on sick leave when you're sick, and you don't require a doctor's approval or certificate until after that. So it's your decision by contract right to take sick leave when you declare you're sick. You only require confirmation of that after five days.
I just ask that the chair of B.C. Transit, who I believe does qualify under standing orders, give an answer.
D. Corrigan: The difficulty we have -- and it is something we are trying to address -- is that you have three absences that you're entitled to take. On the third absence, you must obtain.... You have a financial disincentive -- that is, your pay is reduced as a result of you having been away. The problem we have with those five days before you have to get a medical letter is that they tend, once they're going to be absent anyway, to take the whole five days. On their third absence, whether it's been five days or one day or two days, or whatever, the financial disincentive kicks in, so they tend to take the whole five days when they are going to take any time off at all. We're trying to figure out a way, with the union, to reduce that so that if you're sick with the flu for one day, you're off for one day and don't attempt to take the whole five days, which would add up to your third absence. Essentially, what you want to do is reduce those days. This rule was initiated by management in order that there be a disincentive to taking time off. What it created instead was an incentive to take more days off than you need.
D. Symons: I think we're getting to the nub of the problem with the large number of absentees, but I'm still not sure. I
[ Page 15906 ]
gather that you can take five days off; two weeks or a month from now, if you catch the flu again, you can be away for another five days. As long as you're not over five days, you don't need a doctor's certificate. The third time you do that, there is a financial disincentive to a certain extent, but does that disincentive grow? I heard that the figure before was 17 weeks. It doesn't sound like you could keep on going to that, and then onto a short-term or long-term disability program. When I reflect upon my years as a teacher, initially it was ten days, then later on you were allowed 15 days each year. After that, if you didn't bank it, you basically weren't getting paid for those days. All these days you're talking about -- the first five and the next five -- are paid ones and then there is a disincentive. Can you give us some flavour, perhaps, as to how this disincentive works if somebody is away quite frequently?
Hon. G. Clark: I'll ask the chair of B.C. Transit to answer that question.
D. Corrigan: The disincentive, I believe, is 15 percent on the third absence. The short-term disability is very different than the sick leave you would have had while you were in the schools. There is a 17-week short-term disability period. All the sick leave is taken up in that short-term disability. You get the first days of disability paid for in full by the employer for up to five days without a medical letter. The third absence, whatever length that absence is, now becomes.... So you could take five days off with the flu once and then five days with the flu again. If you then need to take a day off because you have a headache, then you have to get a doctor's letter or you are docked pay. What they tend to do is take those five days at once, because whatever length of absence it is, it's going to be for five days or one or whatever. Do you understand what I'm saying there? It makes it a perverse arrangement, where you encourage an employee to take longer time off than they really need to recuperate from illness.
To be perfectly fair in this, the other difficulty we have is that there has been a very difficult relationship at B.C. Transit for some years. I personally associate many of the problems we have over absenteeism with a dysfunctional management-labour relationship. Within the peer group, there appears to be an acceptance of taking days off as a way of taking your due from the corporation, as opposed to being more loyal to the corporation and its goals by attending work as often as you can.
I think we're trying to change the culture that causes absenteeism as much as change the rules that allow absenteeism. I can say that we've had very positive responses from the unions in addressing this issue; they don't like it either. The unions look at short-term disability and people who are problematic, absentee employees, move on to long-term disability. The unions end up with the same employee on long-term disability, and then they have the financial problem. This difficulty is one we share. Once we had identified the problem, there was a real desire on the part of the unions to work with us in order to remedy it.
[3:15]
We have discussed with the union the possibility of using the money we have to reduce absenteeism within the corporation in instances that will benefit all employees at the same time. That reduction in absenteeism will be shared by the employer and employees of the corporation in ways that will benefit everyone.
D. Symons: Thank you for that answer. It seems that you're addressing a chronic problem. I congratulate you for recognizing the problem and attempting to overcome it. I wish you success. From the answers we were getting yesterday concerning absenteeism, I think you have a serious problem there.
Another problem, and it might be tied in with this, is that of overtime. You mentioned that at Oakridge there was a $400,000 overtime bill for a one-month period. Granted it is probably the largest transit centre, but that's a huge amount of money. When do time-and-a-half and double time kick in? How quickly do people move from regular time to time and a half to double time? I'm trying to get a handle on how it could build up to $400,000 in a month.
Hon. G. Clark: If it's okay with the member, I'd rather give him the detailed answers, including the collective agreement, rather than take valuable time in the committee dealing with this. I will say two things: there are not any special, gold-plated provisions which give them automatic overtime in general; secondly, the challenge of the Transit system is that if you're in the middle of your route, you don't stop because your eight hours is up. Traffic congestion and things like that often delay the time, and that can have a general impact on the overtime bill.
Obviously, it's the member's call to determine to pursue this question, but I'd rather give him a full briefing. We just don't have the expertise or the ability to answer that kind of detail today.
D. Symons: I was trying to get a flavour of how quickly overtime mounts. I have the impression -- maybe I'm wrong, and the minister can correct me -- that after two hours of overtime, they're into double time. If you are putting in two hours overtime, you move quickly into double time, so there might be an incentive to continue doing that. The minister is indicating that's true; that was one thing that concerned me.
The other is when bus drivers work split shifts -- and I assume a fair number would because of the peak periods of travel -- is there some sort of pay differential if you're working a split shift rather than a regular eight hours? What's the arrangement on a split? Is there a maximum break you can have between the first part of the shift and the second part?
Hon. G. Clark: Up to 40 percent of the bus drivers can be on split shifts, although we try to reduce that. There are some challenges associated with that -- the shifts have to be within a 12-hour period. The member is correct; obviously, it is to deal with the peaking question, and to provide for both of those.
D. Symons: I'm looking at a newspaper article of April 24 of this year, and the headline is "Peace on the Buses." It indicates that management and labour are beginning to get better on the bus, which was indicated to me just a few minutes ago. I think that's great.
I gather a lot of this might have come out of the relationship-by-objectives program that was set up by the previous CEO. I think my first question got answered. Is the program working? I think the indication you gave me was that it is working. Was the program initiated by the former president of B.C. Transit, Mr. Frank Dixon? Was the person in
[ Page 15907 ]
charge of setting up the program Paula Boddie, who seems to no longer be with B.C. Transit? If I'm correct on those two, it would seem peculiar that the two people who were responsible for improving peace on the buses are no longer working at B.C. Transit and seem to be layed off.
Hon. G. Clark: It absolutely was not the former CEO, but it was the former chair, working with an employee that he'd hired, Don Jantzen. Don Jantzen was working for the chair directly. Mr. Jantzen suggested to the chair that we have this challenge with labour relations. Paula Boddie was the new vice-president of industrial relations, and obviously this was a question which concerned her. On Mr. Jantzen's -- the chair's -- recommendation, they then proceeded to help set up and engage the discussion, working with Ms. Boddie and other managers, including Denis Clements and others.
We have to be careful not to overstate the significance of an intense two-day workshop on labour relations, but I think it's fair to say that it really sparked the beginning of a new relationship, and it's been moving since then. A series of committees coming out of that have really been successful. Again, Mr. Jantzen is continuing to work for the current chair in attempting to drive that, because both sides need some encouragement to try to deal with the cultural problems that have developed over a long period of time.
D. Symons: I do hope Mr. Jantzen remains there in the job to carry that on, because it seems that there have been quite a large number of layoffs in the management and administrative end of B.C. Transit. The figure I have right now is that there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 43 people still on a golden handshake severance package program, which involves their salary, a 30 percent increase for benefits, holidays and pensions, and this goes on for an average of 18 months. We have 43 people who are somewhere within that 18-month period. I'm wondering if you might give me an idea of how many people you have in your numbers. Maybe my numbers are a little off, and some of these have passed off the golden handshake and are now out to pasture totally.
Hon. G. Clark: We'll just check the number for you, but it's certainly not 43, to my knowledge. In any excluded or management terminations, there is a cost associated with that, as there are in any organization of this size. I personally think that the cost is offensive -- that's my personal view. The way in which the judiciary allocates severance arrangements, particularly to senior managers, is offensive to me and many British Columbians. Having said that, I have no ability nor any particular desire to interfere in our judicial system. People have rights under law, and increasingly, those settlements have been very, very high.
So when you terminate individuals in a professional manner, you have to deal with the termination strategy, and you have to compensate accordingly or you face legal action. Even with a very good case there is often a severance arrangement that's required by the courts or by the company.
We had, as I understand it, nine severances in 1994-95. That means that the arrangements around those.... I can give the member information in terms of the size of some of the settlements, but essentially they don't carry on with an 18-month golden handshake. There is a negotiated package pay-out in lieu of a contractual relationship or in lieu of the fact that we would likely face larger settlements in a legal process.
D. Symons: I understand that in most of the cases where people have been terminated, it hasn't been because of a reorganization and a downsizing of the management side. Indeed, it seems that in many cases the position has been filled by somebody else. I'm wondering if we might just indicate whether that part is true and why there seems to have been that number of layoffs. You mentioned nine in '94-95; I wonder if I might have the figures for '91-92, '92-93 and '93-94. You may not have them, so I'll accept them at a future date. And at the same time, you might give me, from '91-92 to '94-95, what the total of these partings-of-company with B.C. Transit have cost. If you tally up the salaries, holidays and all the other benefits that they have received as a parting package.
Hon. G. Clark: Two of the nine positions were eliminated. I guess the member is correct that there were nine terminations; seven of them have been filled. Again, I can't second-guess management on these questions, and I don't tend to generally. In many cases there have been changes in management. I'm very impressed and pleased by the management team in place, and some of them....
F. Gingell: You say that every year.
Hon. G. Clark: Do I? Well, I am saying it genuinely now.
Some of the problems that the member has been alluding to require changes in personnel -- if you are trying to effect cultural change, etc. Again, I try to ensure that I support management in their efforts to terminate people who they think are improper, because I think that is important. I don't give them a signal. In other words, I don't say: "Gee, I'm worried that my critic will attack me in committee or the House over severance; therefore please avoid severance." If anything, I give them the opposite message, which is: "Manage this efficiently, and if that requires termination and you have to deal with that, then you will have my support in so doing."
D. Symons: I guess we have one of those cases before the courts currently.
I wonder if we might go back to some figures given yesterday. You mentioned an award that B.C. Transit will get. But I gather that a recent B.C. Transit report on performance to the end of the third quarter of fiscal 1993-94 -- that's up to December 1993, I believe -- showed that the ridership in the Vancouver area was down 3.7 percent below the 1992 level. Considering the region had grown by 2.5 percent over the same period, this represents a ridership decrease of approximately 6 percent. You indicated that one of the reasons you were getting the award was that it was going up, but it seems that B.C. Transit's own report indicated that ridership was down. If your ridership is climbing now, has it climbed beyond the point it had dropped to just a year and a half ago?
Hon. G. Clark: In only one year in the last ten, I understand, was there a slip in ridership, and that was 1993-94. It was a very modest dip in ridership from 106 million to 104 million. In 1994-95 it went up to 109.8 million, so it went right back up again with a 5 percent increase. There was a little dip for one year. Remember to put it in context: throughout North America, in every year for the last decade most transit properties have seen declines in ridership. We've seen a continual increase, a slight dip in 1993-94 and then right back up in 1994-95. I think you do have to put this in context.
[ Page 15908 ]
[3:30]
D. Symons: It might be because of the deteriorating quality of the roadways, but we'll not speculate on that.
I have one last question here in this chain of things. There was also a study done, I believe, on public satisfaction with the service. I believe it showed that the transit service performance at the end of the third quarter of 1993-94 also fell. It seems that the number of riders rating Vancouver's overall service as "very good" or "good" decreased to 64 percent in 1993-94 from 71 percent in 1992-93. What might you be doing in order to overcome the fact that there seemed to be a decrease in customer satisfaction? How have you reacted to that, and what is it now?
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Hon. G. Clark: Just looking at the numbers, I think it's fair to say that they are statistically insignificant. If you count each "very good" and "satisfactory" in every year of the last three years, you are running around 92 to 94 percent. If the member is correct, there has been a 1 or 2 percent dip. We are concerned about that, as we should be, but there are a variety of factors, and one shouldn't diminish them. For example, I don't like it when SkyTrain is crowded; I prefer to get a seat. If it is crowded and I have to stand, I might be less satisfied than if I could sit. But from our perspective of course, we want them crowded. So customer satisfaction is important to us, and we're doing very well. It's a very modest, statistically insignificant dip, although we're conscious of it. I think the company is very concerned about making sure that the satisfaction profile is maintained.
D. Symons: I seem to have different figures than the member; the member was indicating they're up in the nineties....
Hon. G. Clark: "Satisfactory" to "very good."
D. Symons: This was taking "very good" and "good" together and indicated that for the third quarter of '93-94, it had dropped from 71 percent the year before to 64 percent. I think if we take just the two beyond "satisfactory" -- that's "mediocre" -- it dropped from 71 to 64 percent, which is a 7 percent drop, which is more than the 1 or 2 percent the minister was referring to. Are my figures incorrect?
Hon. G. Clark: Very slightly. We're looking at 69 percent "very good" or "good" in '92-93, down to 66 percent in '94-95. So there is a 3 percent slip from "good" to "very good," and we're obviously concerned about it, but I wouldn't overstate it.
D. Jarvis: In August '94 there was a transit study done on the North Shore: West Van and North Van. I was just wondering if I could ask a couple of questions with regard to what has transpired since then -- if you are considering putting HOV lanes on the bridges to alleviate the traffic situation and if you have done anything further about transit across the northwest Vancouver area.
Hon. G. Clark: I could answer these generally, because I'm not sure of some of the details. There's an interesting challenge in West Vancouver, and that's the blue buses. When I say challenge, I don't say it in this respect. There is a very good economic argument for merging the North Shore services, particularly the cost of the second maintenance facility and the like. On the other hand, there's a very good argument about local control, identification, pride and culture that goes with that.
I have to say that at the end of the day -- this is unusual for me, frankly, in my experience in government -- I tend to side with the blue bus service, and not everybody has been happy with that. We still keep reviewing it because of this tension between the efficiency gained by moving it together and the loss of local community control. Some of the studies we've been doing have been looking at the question: can we optimize some of the services we have between West Van and North Van? So that's just a general comment, and I'm becoming increasingly persuaded of this notion of having a bit more identification and local control if we can, without compromising fiscally.
On the question around service on the North Shore, I think the big issue we can spend some time on is the Lions Gate Bridge and whether there's a transit alternative to adding single-occupancy-vehicle lanes. As the member knows, we did a fairly serious study looking at SeaBus: expanding terminals and looking at new terminals. It got reported recently as something the government was going to announce. I'm not happy to say that it's not likely we will announce that. I like the concept, and I think everybody does, but it just didn't make it on the economics at the moment.
Any incremental expansion of the road system.... I'll tell you the government's position, although it's not yet announced. We're really looking at no single-occupancy-vehicle expansion other than fixing the existing roadway, like the Westview interchange, the Mary Hill bypass, etc. So our position on any new expansion, without being absolutely rigid, is that it should be HOV expansion. Bridges or anything else we do should not expand the number of lanes for single-occupancy vehicles. We should expand it for HOV and bus-only opportunities.
Having said that, we also believe there's significant room for efficiencies in the existing road system with some relatively modest investments on the part of Transit, making the system more efficient with queue-jumpers, bus-activated lights, HOV bus lanes and the like. We've done lots of work in that regard to maximize it. The big advantages of the North Shore are in terms of moving in that direction.
Lastly, with respect to the North Shore, some quite surprising numbers came out of our analysis of a transit or SeaBus alternative to a new Lions Gate Bridge. For example, there is the same number of people using the Lions Gate Bridge today as there was ten years ago -- maybe 15 years ago. There has been no increased demand on the Lions Gate Bridge. That's kind of counterintuitive, especially when you look at increased congestion everywhere. The main reason is that with ICBC, B.C. Rail, some of the office buildings and more jobs associated with North Van, it's less of a bedroom community to Vancouver than it's ever been.
That militates against a very expensive rapid transit solution, when ridership is not growing. It also, frankly, argues against some of the more elaborate options to single-occupancy vehicles, because in the scheme of things, compared to the Surreys or elsewhere, the number of people using
[ Page 15909 ]
it is simply not rising. In fact, if anything, it's static. That's been consistent for a good ten or 15 years, and that's a big surprise. It was a surprise to me, and a surprise to the people on North Shore, who instinctively think it must be more congested today. The evidence suggests that it's not.
D. Jarvis: I tend to agree with most of the remarks that the minister has made, unfortunately. I also understand from what I've been told that the number of vehicles crossing is anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 more than Richmond or Coquitlam has commuting. It's been reported in the papers and all the rest of it, but I don't know what their figures are. Having said that, I repeat: I agree with the premise of your discussion.
Have you done any transit studies with regard to the future or with regard to moving up the Squamish corridor? Are there any plans on the books or is a study being made? Could one be made on it?
Hon. G. Clark: As I said yesterday, B.C. Transit does not have a mandate for intercity service; the private sector does that. We're very careful in terms of incrementally expanding a very heavily subsidized service and putting the private sector out of business. We haven't been as successful in being sensitive in that regard as even I might like, frankly. I know that comes as a shock to members opposite, but I take no pleasure in expanding a subsidized service modestly and then impacting on inner-city private sector service.
We set up an inner-city bus committee with private sector operators on it. That's why you don't see Transit go up to Squamish or the like. Transit would probably like to do that. Our union would like to do that, but frankly, of any service, we believe that inner-city service should be left to the private sector.
K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister about commuter rail with regard to the south Fraser area. Southern Rail has an excellent line that runs right from Scott Road all the way through. It links Scott Road to the SkyTrain over a very short distance and would provide a very good interchange point. It goes right through Newton, Cloverdale, Langley, Aldergrove and out into Abbotsford and Chilliwack, if ultimately you want to go to Chilliwack.
Could the minister give us some idea of what sorts of reviews or planning have been done? Have there been any talks with the new owners of Southern Rail with regard to utilizing that line for a commuter rail line? We recognize also that it goes right beside the new campus for the Cloverdale university.
Hon. G. Clark: We did look at Southern Railway with a consultant we hired out of Calgary, named Brian Sullivan. He used to be at B.C. Transit and is really an expert in commuter rail -- the first person who really looked at all the commuter rail options. It was fairly quickly dismissed, to be honest with you. Obviously, in the long run, it's a very good transit corridor. In fact, I spoke against the privatization of Southern Rail -- it used to be B.C. Hydro's -- on the basis that it was a critical transportation corridor. We didn't want to give it to the private sector and forgo the opportunity for Transit use in the future. Interestingly enough, Jack Davis, a very effective cabinet minister of the day, amended it to make sure the right-of-way stayed. They didn't sell the right-of-way; it stayed with government. So we still have that. Remember, not to belabour the point, commuter rail is the inverse of SkyTrain. SkyTrain is high frequency, low volume. Commuter rail is high, high volume, very low frequency. Those are the economics.
If we took the Burlington Northern route and stopped at the Grandview cut at Commercial Drive and dumped 1,200 people from one train set of five commuter railcars, to get on SkyTrain, it would take SkyTrain 40 minutes to clean out that one commuter rail train. They work the opposite. Commuter rail is not rapid transit; it is commuter transit -- high-volume destination. It's criticized, and I understand the criticism, but that's why we're running, as you know, a peak service in the morning and a peak at night, and we're not running all day. The economics just don't work for it; it's not rapid transit.
When you look at commuter rail in other corridors, you need the destination-to-destination loads to run them at peak periods. It just doesn't work to run it like an old train, trundling along once in a while during the day. The numbers just don't work there, and that's why we don't have the densities or the destinations to warrant it at this time. But clearly, if you're farsighted and you look at a possible network of commuter rail routes down the road, 20 years from now, you want to protect those corridors. There is opportunity, I believe, for potential expansion, but I would say that the Burlington Northern is clearly the next best, and Southern Railway is a distant third or fourth, on that route. If we get a big campus there, things may change. But we're talking quite a ways in the distance.
D. Symons: How about the fact that this transit that Southern Rail provides goes through the major growth areas that aren't really well serviced by Transit? Is it possible that a light rapid rail facility could be put on that rather than commuter rail? This used to operate very effectively as the interurban route. This was a viable system back in the forties and fifties, which should still be capable of being utilized in the same manner. This does not pour a large volume down Commercial Drive. We're taking about Scott Road at 120th in Surrey, and that allows the traffic to flow both up to the east into Surrey and out to the west to New Westminster, Burnaby and Vancouver. It takes a lot of the traffic and focuses it more effectively.
Hon. G. Clark: I certainly understand the intuitive appeal the member is referring to, and I share that, but it's not suitable for commuter rail. There aren't the density nodes of destinations to deal with commuter rail.
If the member is suggesting that we have a kind of interurban, that's a fundamentally different service. That's more like a streetcar going up and down. In that case, I think the member is correct. The Southern Rail line would be more useful for a streetcar approach rather than commuter rail. I'm sorry, I don't want to mix it up, but if we keep it on apples and apples, frankly there's no chance of commuter rail in the distant future.
If you want to look at other forms of transit -- streetcars and the like or that kind of lower capital cost trolley operation -- then it's still a ways away, and the economics are very difficult, but I think that has more likelihood in the medium to long term than any kind of commuter rail option. We don't have any streetcars here. The member is correct; people remember them with great fondness. Cities that have kept them at least in some fashion tend to be quite successful.
[ Page 15910 ]
[3:45]
You can integrate light rapid transit with more of a streetcar system, but in terms of priorities, this would not be on the priority list at this time or in the next ten or 20 years, but it certainly might be in the future. We have to start thinking about that.
D. Symons: If light rapid rail or some other better higher-speed transit isn't on the plans for the next ten to 20 years, how does the minister expect to deal with the failure of Highway 10, the failure of the Fraser Highway and the failure of Highway 1 to handle the traffic flow? There is nothing there to take the volume of growth, which is maximized in this corridor. There is absolutely nothing being done.
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, it's important that the GVRD's livable region plan does not want to encourage growth out into Cloverdale -- that kind of spread of growth -- and that's one of reasons that they are so upset about the government's attempt to look at a university there. In fact, B.C. Transit has concerns about servicing such a facility. It's not in the GVRD's plan for density, where we want to have Transit feed that. It's not on our ten-year plan. It is part of protecting a corridor for future use.
It's not correct to say that we're not dealing with the problems the member referred to on the highway system. We are, and will be, and the south perimeter road, I believe, will be the highest and best investment we could make in terms of improving the east-west connection there. We are making other changes in terms of HOV lanes, priority lanes and bus lanes on some of those corridors. Generally speaking, that has been the case.
In addition, the key debate, which we haven't had discussion on yet, is Highway 1, expansion of an HOV lane on existing highway and another crossing at the Port Mann Bridge or across from Coquitlam to Surrey. Those are very high on the government's priorities and, I know, on the people's priorities.
K. Jones: I would just like to emphasize that the job locations or industrial areas, which are drawing people through this corridor, are not located within Surrey. They are not located near Highway 1. They are located in Newton, along the Cloverdale area and in Langley. The GVRD planning on this concept was way off base. Their comments with regard to the Fraser Valley university location are hogwash.
They were totally looking at the GVRD plan and saying that the concentrations of urban development were to be in the Whalley area of Surrey, in Surrey city centre and in the Coquitlam area, and they were using those two as one core to say that that would draw the population. But the fact is that the population is already out in Cloverdale. The population is along that area as densely as it is in Coquitlam, Maple Ridge and certainly Burnaby.
We have an urban-developed population there. The higher density that's going to raise Surrey to a city as big as Vancouver, if not bigger, will be occurring in the Whalley area. That's where the highrise concentration will be, but the urban development, which is what Transit usually provides for, needs to be placed there now.
As Vic Parker used to say, as chairman of Transit, when we were planning for this area in 1974 -- and that was the former NDP government -- if we don't get transit to the people in their subdivisions as they develop, before they buy their second car, they will never go by transit. Once they put the investment into a second car, they will not get out of that car. They will use the car, they will pay the insurance and you'll never find them in transit.
So if you don't get the transit out there first, ahead of the development.... The development is going in Surrey. Surrey's plan and Langley's plan are for additional development included within the GVRD planning process. I'm aghast at Transit's statement that there was no transit going past that location in Cloverdale. Of course there's transit going along that route. The transit goes along Highway 10. It's right there in Cloverdale.
I don't know who made that misleading statement about there not being any closely associated transit in that area. They were way off base again. That whole report was full of holes and should never have been taken with any credibility.
Hon. G. Clark: I don't want to belabour this point, so I'll be brief. Remember, every transit system in North America really made money until the 1960s and the invention of suburbs. There has been interesting work around that. In the innercity, transit actually tends to at least break even or comes very close to it. The subsidy per ride goes up the farther out you service these spread-out communities. We are now paying, in some cases, an $11, $12 or $16 subsidy per ride to service some parts of the member's constituency.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, Langley and Cloverdale.
K. Jones: No.
Hon. G. Clark: Yes. We can give the member.... I'm not sure what the number is for....
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm saying that we've been trying to minimize the taxpayer's subsidy. I know that members opposite would support an expansion of service; we would, as well. But we have to balance the need and the cost, and make it the most effective. I have some concerns about the compact metropolitan region that the GVRD has come up with; the member does, as well. I don't want to say it's perfect, but that's how you minimize the costs of transit and how you use transit to help feed densification and the livable region strategy. You cannot simply expand service in the way we have in the past just to catch up to the spread-out suburbs. The costs are prohibitive, and it's not particularly effective.
K. Jones: I was interested in the minister's comments about the south perimeter road being the answer to the problem of finding additional means of getting across to the north. It has just been cancelled as far as an infrastructure funding program goes. It has been announced in the ministry's newsletters to the city of Surrey. Copies were given to us. All the major development projects that were put forward have been cancelled. Maybe the minister could explain what he was saying with regard to that.
Hon. G. Clark: As we speak, we're working on a joint planning effort with Surrey and Delta on the south perimeter
[ Page 15911 ]
road. It's one of the highest priorities of our transportation plan. The problem is only the infrastructure portion. The federal government is refusing at the moment to cost-share a piece of the south perimeter road, as Surrey would like and as we would like. They're arguing that it's a piece of a bigger road, and as a bigger road, it requires a federal environmental impact assessment if federal money is going to be involved. That would be a huge and expensive undertaking.
I'm arguing as aggressively as I can that there is a discrete element of the south perimeter road that should be eligible for infrastructure funding. We can do it right now for a cost that would be in the neighbourhood of $30 million to $50 million. That would help in the short run. If it happens to be part of a bigger highway that we want to build, that should not stop the federal government from participating. They're refusing, to be quite candid. They're saying that we're just trying to off-load some of our costs onto them and that it's not eligible.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: That's part of the debate, but that does not diminish the province's commitment to this very worthwhile project. But there are a lot of challenges. It's easy for me to say that we're in favour of the south perimeter road. There is the question of Burns Bog and how it deals with that. There is somewhat of a division between Surrey and Delta. I'm not going to overstate that, but there are challenges.
We, meaning the province, want it as a critical goods movement corridor from the Fraser ports. As an east-west connector, it's critical to our infrastructure. The cities tend to want to make sure that their constituents can use it as a commuter route. With the south perimeter road, there is some tension in terms of access and egress. We're in favour of it. We started a joint planning study with Delta and Surrey. Surrey has been outstanding in terms of wanting to contribute to it. We'd like some federal participation through the infrastructure program. If they're not prepared to do that, then we'll carry on ourselves in any event. We're working as fast as we can on it.
K. Jones: We agree that it's very important and wish to give it every support. What involvement have you given to the MLAs in the areas that the road will go through?
Hon. G. Clark: The government MLAs are literally in my office every week demanding the south perimeter road. It's a high priority for them, because they know it's a high priority for their constituents and their city. They have been advocating aggressively, and I'm sure the member, by just raising it, is in agreement with the government members from Surrey -- although he hasn't been to see me, but that's probably because he couldn't get in.
The MOTH and the staff at both cities are involved in the technical planning exercise that is being undertaken by the Transportation Financing Authority, so it's not something that MLAs should, in my view, particularly get involved in. They haven't been involved in meeting on the rail corridor planning study we've undertaken, although I think it is fair to say that the government MLAs from Surrey were instrumental in getting us together in terms of pushing us to get on with the work.
K. Jones: Quite some time ago I brought this up in estimates, and I've had meetings with the Minister of Highways on the subject; it's one of many issues we've brought up with the Highways minister. Certainly I've talked to you about it, hon. minister, when I've caught you in the hall, because it is hard sometimes to get into your office.
Could we go...?
Hon. G. Clark: Could we finish B.C. Transit first? Sorry, we had kind of an agreement to do transit first....
K. Jones: I'm sorry, but you brought that up, hon. minister.
Hon. G. Clark: Sure, that's fine.
K. Jones: The hon. minister brought that item up as a result of the transit problems, and we wanted to get that clarified.
I'd like to ask the minister one other thing. What is going on in regard to north-south rail and highway planning, primarily rail planning, for both freight and passenger services in the lower mainland?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm not quite sure what the member is getting at. Is he's getting at the new service to Seattle and some of the questions around that? No? Just generally.
Well, the transportation policy unit of the ministry with the TFA has been working on an integrated transportation plan. As well, we're obviously looking at rail corridors and how we can protect them and take advantage of them. In that light, there are several obvious ones. One is the possible Burlington Northern commuter rail route, which is not economic at this time, and we have to look at competing highway uses. For example, if we do HOVs on Highway 1, then we probably won't do commuter rail for some time, because they compete directly against each other. That is the kind of trade-off we are making now.
On the passenger side generally, there is the Amtrak service, which my ministry has been very much involved with. I didn't have a chance to attend the inaugural run, but the Premier was there to greet them and some of my staff were on it. We're very excited by that, although there are some challenges in terms of how they looked at it, which the member would know about, I'm sure, coming from Surrey. We've done some preliminary work about relocating the line, but it's just prohibitive at this time. In general, it is part of our integrated transportation plan.
K. Jones: What specifically has been looked at in the way of providing for the 300,000 trucks and 400,000 cars that are travelling north and south across the U.S. border at the Highway 15 border crossing, at Highway 99 and at locations to the east? No plan appears to have been put forward in that area, certainly not for public discussion. It appears that both the rail lines and the truck transport problems for north-south traffic don't seem to be addressed by anyone within this government.
Hon. G. Clark: As a follow-up to Transport 2021, there is a south coast system plan, which is being worked on now by TFA, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the GVRD. That corridor is part of that study and some of the things you mentioned. So there is a lot of work being done on
[ Page 15912 ]
the planning side, and there is some significant rehab work in terms of signs and other work being done at this time, which the member may be familiar with.
I don't mind answering the questions from the member, of course, and it's the member's prerogative, but we're trying to do these in segments -- Transit, TFA and then Ferries. We're now into the highways part, which I'm happy to answer if it helps to short-circuit further debate later. I'd rather try to finish off Transit, have Transit staff leave, bring TFA staff in and carry on discussion that way, rather than move off. It's partly my fault, because I'm trying to answer the questions, but I'd rather not answer any more highway questions.
K. Jones: I'll agree to that. I'd just like to ask the minister if he could provide me with planning parameters or details in regard to the north-south corridor in the lower mainland, particularly through Surrey to the U.S. border.
Hon. G. Clark: Absolutely. We'll give you that.
D. Symons: I'll go back to the buses. In the 1980s the Premier was mayor of Vancouver. When he was a member of the Urban Transit Authority -- I think it's now the board of directors of B.C. Transit -- he was of the opinion that transit should be moved to the regional level and that B.C. Transit should be disbanded. Basically he felt we should turn transit over to the responsibility of the GVRD. I'm wondering if the Premier has expressed that opinion to the minister responsible for B.C. Transit, or whether the minister responsible for B.C. Transit might have some ideas of his own along that line?
Hon. G. Clark: I certainly can't answer for the Premier, but I can say that it is my view -- and I believe the Premier's and the government's view -- that it would be desirable to have more local control in governance of transit. I've been working hard with the Transit Commission, exploring ways in which we can do that. I can tell you that it's frustrating. In general, my position is that I would be supportive of devolving the authority for the bus transportation system in the lower mainland to the region. But we cannot devolve the authority to spend money and divorce that from the ability to raise money.
My position is, and continues to be, that I would recommend to government that we give Transit tomorrow to the GVRD if they will pay the incremental costs associated with expanding the system from the local taxes in their control. I'm not prepared to say to the GVRD or any local body, "Here you go. You can have the transit system, and have the provincial taxpayer pay the bill," which is what they want.
I seem to recall the member for Okanagan-Vernon having to deal with this question on SkyTrain costs at one point. Any time there's an expansion to the system.... They have a pretty good deal right now. They attack the province for not giving more money but are not prepared to take the responsibility that goes along with control.
If you want devolution, I'm in favour of that. Frankly, I think there's some real tough governance questions around the current system. But with devolution and control come responsibility, and I think political accountability is critical in this regard. I don't want to get philosophical, but too often in this country, with the layers of government we have, there is a lack of accountability with politicians and a lack of understanding on the part of the public as to who's responsible for what and where their taxes go. I think it's increasingly important that the taxpaying public knows who's accountable for spending it.
In transit, it's one of those murky issues where the Transit Commission recommends to government that we raise the gas tax. We raise the gas tax, the province is responsible, and they spend the money. I'd be delighted if they wanted to take it over, run it and cap our contribution and the provincial contribution, or maybe just have the provincial contribution on the major capital infrastructure costs associated with the transit system.
In any event, it's a big, big topic and a tough question. Philosophically, I know I'm supportive of the position of the then-mayor -- now the Premier -- of giving more local control in this regard.
D. Symons: You mentioned cost-sharing and so forth in your response. I gather that in OIC 520 of this year some changes were approved from before that dealt with cost-sharing. Apparently the Vancouver regional transit group decided to fund 100 percent of a rapid bus service on Broadway -- there's additional service to that -- and capital improvements for a safer-city task force program and the purchase of 15 buses, which is actually a purchase of a year ago.
I'm wondering why the commission was taking this on 100 percent. Might you explain why they took on 100 percent of these, when normally they could have passed some of this -- as you were saying -- on to the provincial government? They didn't do that; it seems counterproductive for them not to do that, but very good for you.
Hon. G. Clark: Well, the member is correct. We have cost-shared formulae. As I mentioned the other day, they are all different for the different systems. But as a result of the changes that the government made with respect to the gas tax, we ended up with a surplus. You can't spend a surplus, because even if they are 30-cent dollars, they still need money from the province.
I said: "Gee, you have a surplus, and you'd like to expand the system. We don't have any more money; I can't go to Treasury Board and ask for more money. So I'll support you if you want to spend some of that surplus on expanded service." To their credit -- because they haven't always done that -- they agreed to some modest expansion of the system paid for by the surplus which is in their account.
D. Symons: I am looking at the cost of service. Apparently in October 1993, B.C. Transit submitted a report to the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission that showed that B.C. Transit service in greater Vancouver cost $83.12 per hour to provide, while in Victoria it was costing $68.56 per hour. The same report showed that the service in Whistler, Abbotsford, Matsqui and Mission cost in the range of $55 to $60 per hour and is operated by the private sector. I'm curious whether the minister feels, based on that, that it might be more cost-effective to have the private sector involved in transit in the greater Vancouver area as well.
Hon. G. Clark: It's extremely difficult to make an apples-and-apples comparison. I'm not trying to evade the question,
[ Page 15913 ]
but in Victoria, the transit service stops at midnight. In Vancouver, we go to 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. It's more expensive to run between midnight and two or three in the morning, but it's a big city, and you want to provide that service. They don't provide it in Victoria; that skews the cost.
Similarly, in small communities you have different factors. I would instinctively say that there might be some savings in terms of a non-union operator or a different union. So there are a whole different series of factors, and I don't think you can pinpoint any particular one.
The committee recessed from 4:08 p.m. to 4:20 p.m.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
F. Gingell: Just before the committee recessed for a moment, the minister said that B.C. Transit's revenues from the subsidy areas had been substantially greater than had been anticipated -- perhaps less had been needed. So I rushed out, and I've been deeply involved in studying the financial statements of B.C. Transit in last quarter of an hour. This must be for the year ended March 31, 1995, because all we have is the year ended March 31, 1994. Perhaps you could give us a quick skim through the financial results for the year ended March 31, 1995.
Hon. G. Clark: The projected balance in the Vancouver regional transit system transit fund, the 1994-95 forecast, is $14.71 million surplus; the 1995-96 budget is $19.87 million surplus. As you know, because these are linked expenditures, they end up having more or less surplus based on the province's determination of their budget. Because we trigger, if you will, spending on their part, they can't trigger spending on our part.
What happened was, again, because.... Frankly, it's a little bit annoying in some respects, because they had a deficit of $10 million, which we're struggling to overcome, if members remember this. So we came up with a solution to the deficit and, lo and behold, largely because of cost-saving efforts, cuts in the province and trying to manage that, unanticipated revenue growth, more ridership and everything, they ended up with this very large surplus.
They couldn't spend it, because they needed the provincial government share of their funding, and we're not providing it. So I went back to them and said: "Why don't you spend 100-cent dollars out of surplus?" And they did that in a very modest way.
F. Gingell: So we've actually gone from a $12 million deficit for Vancouver to a breakeven at the end of '94 of $500,000, and you anticipate that at the end of this year it's almost $15 million.
Hon. G. Clark: Yes.
F. Gingell: And you anticipate this going up to almost $20 million.
I wonder whether the minister would make available to us the current B.C. Transit statements, because the latest we've got are 15 months old. That would be most helpful.
Hon. G. Clark: This is an audited consolidated financial statement approved by the board last week. It's highly unusual to give it to the opposition prior to even being tabled in the House, but I don't have any problem with that. It's usually tabled with the annual report.
F. Gingell: When we look at the estimates for 1995-96, you've actually provided $30 million more, a 12.5 percent increase, for the province's total contributions to B.C. Transit; it's up from $245 million to $275 million.
If things are better, have we overprovided, or do you think $275 million is the correct number?
Hon. G. Clark: In a perfect world with a surplus in the local share, they might agree to fund more of Transit, and the province therefore funds less. Unfortunately, we don't have that situation. They have legal authority over their budget, and it's only with pressure and discussion with them that they choose to spend it.
I think it's fair to say, though, that a big chunk of our funding for Transit this year is commuter rail, which was a provincial initiative, and debt-servicing associated generally. Of the $30 million, $10.5 million is associated with commuter rail -- the provincial share, right. Then there are the new vehicle purchases for bus and SkyTrain. How much is that? That's about $3 million debt service. The total debt service here is $16.13 million and $13.65 million operating. Of the $13.65 million operating, $6.5 million is West Coast Express startup.
F. Gingell: So these are all increases from previous periods? It's actually gone up a little more. We were looking for $30 million. We've got $10.5 million for commuter rail, $3 million for vehicle purchases, $16.5 million for debt service, and I presume that means that debt service in this current year is going to be higher than the previous year. You've got some maturities coming in. Of the $13.65 million for operating, how much is for the West Coast Express?
Hon. G. Clark: There's a little bit of double accounting there. The $3 million I mentioned for new vehicle purchases is part of that $16 million debt service. West Coast Express infrastructure debt service, $4 million; payout of SkyTrain phase one debt issue, $5.4 million; and the new vehicle purchases, $3 million. The only one that's up is interest rate changes: $1.34 million. Then it says, "facilities and others," so I guess this is probably minor capital, new capital, $2.46 million. It isn't maturing old debt generally, although I'm not sure what SkyTrain phase one debt.... It's one debt instrument we have that requires a balloon payment. It's all in the financial statements.
D. Symons: Just an observation and maybe a response from the minister. I think this came up in some other questions earlier. It seems that B.C. Transit is trying to provide a mixed rural-urban sort of transit system. With the collective bargaining unit agreement, it's really designed for urban areas. This may be causing some problems there.
For instance, we could have a driver who lives in Maple Ridge, and his route is Maple Ridge. He's going to have to drive into Port Coquitlam; he picks up his bus there. He's now on paid time. He drives back to Maple Ridge before he actually begins going on his daily route. He reverses that process in the evening. I wonder if there is some way that we can get a more efficient system, where we're using our drivers and equipment in a more efficient manner.
[ Page 15914 ]
Hon. G. Clark: You have to be careful in setting up duplicate facilities too. You have these central depots, so there are some driving costs. But you are potentially replacing the capital costs of replicating the service. I don't dismiss the notion that there are efficiency gains we can make in working with the union on the labour relations side. I think it requires a better cooperative labour relations structure than we've had.
To give you one example, when B.C. Transit brought in the articulated buses, the union suggested that they should be paid more. B.C. Transit said absolutely not, as was their management right. And they sort of stuck to that in a nasty way. Then when B.C. Transit brought in minibuses, they went to the union and said: "Gee, they're smaller buses. Maybe you could take a lower wage." The union said: "Well, when you brought in bigger buses, you didn't give us more money." With a mature labour relations arrangement and mature discussions, you might well get flexibility on the part of the union on the smaller buses, provided you're treating them with respect and dignity in working through a relationship.
Similarly, on some of these questions, I have no doubt that some flexibility for expanded service in the suburbs could work with the union, but you can only do that if you fix the underlying respect and trust that the parties have in mutually agreeing to try to save the system.
[4:30]
Fortunately the position of the Liberal leader on privatizing B.C. Transit may well help to drive a great situation, with both management and labour realizing that the disruption that would cause, and all the problems associated with what I would consider to be a reckless move, ironically might help to work to achieve greater harmony in labour relations as we fight together to save the system from the opposition's possible actions.
D. Symons: I find his observations quite interesting, because not many minutes prior he was saying how smaller units might work to better service the people by having local control and local interest in it. He used the blue buses as an example. I'm quite sure, in the comments that our leader has made, that it's not simply an idea of suddenly throwing the whole thing open and fragmenting it, but looking at it bit by bit in an effective manner, as is expedient to do.
Certainly if I happened to be minister in a government such as this, I would not want to see you suddenly try to put it on the market and sell the whole thing as a unit to the private sector. You would look at ways that.... You might do what the minister himself referred to earlier: get smaller units working together where you could get the pride and camaraderie that goes with a smaller organization working that way. Anyway, we'll move on.
I note that the minister is quoted -- quite often, as a matter of fact -- when government talks about their transportation plan, their new ferries and buses and so forth, saying that we have an ancient fleet of buses and aging ferries and that he wants to get these on the move. We need that. I know there have been cancellations of runs because of lack of equipment.
I've had people phone me, and I've phoned Transit, to find out what was going on. They basically said: "We didn't have enough buses, so one of the buses on one of the runs was taken out and just didn't appear." These people were rather unhappy when they were trying to catch a particular bus to bring them back to Richmond. That No. 2 Road bus at 5:15 at the downtown stop just didn't appear because they were short of buses on that particular day. I don't think there are enough buses to fill in as backup. At times we seem to have driver problems as well.
The minister is talking of a ten-year plan to replace 70 percent of our aging fleet. I'm wondering why it's taken the three years they've been in government to realize that this problem existed. Things have only gotten worse during that time, which makes the problem more difficult to deal with.
Hon. G. Clark: B.C. Transit didn't have a strategic plan, a business plan, and it had archaic labour relations problems. I'm not criticizing, because the system worked as well as many transit systems around North America. We had to deal with some immediate pressures at Transit. We had to deal with the debt-management plan and the fiscal pressures the province faces. We tried to put together a rational planning process, both for strategic and business plans for the corporation, and a ten-year vision for Transit.
I appreciate that the world doesn't stop while you do these kinds of exercises. I think it's fair to say that we've expanded the transit system. We're doing commuter rail simultaneously with the planning exercise. I believe we're the only transit system in North America that's expanded service every year since we've been in office, in spite of difficult financial pressures. So I don't accept that notion.
We have also opened the SkyTrain extension to Surrey and committed to 20 new SkyTrain cars at the outrageous sum of between $60 million to $70 million. We've taken some major initiatives and are now about to embark upon what I hope will be an exciting and integrated transportation strategy linking the ten-year plan for Transit, the ten-year plan for ferries and an exciting transportation plan for the province.
D. Symons: A B.C. Transit document states that the Vancouver region will need 835 new buses at a cost of around $300 million." There were a variety of options put forward to pay for these improvements. One was a residential, recreational or farm property tax, supposedly to raise $58 million per year; a parking tax for each commercial parking space that would raise $275 million per year; or a motor vehicle levy of $45 per vehicle that I think would raise $57 million per year. These were some of the major options, among others. Has the government or the minister settled on which method will be used? I'm wondering when B.C. Transit's ten-year plan will be unveiled.
Hon. G. Clark: It will be unveiled very soon, but I'm not sure of the answer to that, to be candid. Probably either in the next few weeks or September. We're still working on it.
I said earlier that the big challenge -- the reason for the delay -- has been making sure that the transit plan.... The Finance critic might be interested in the reason for the delay. It was largely due to reconciling the transit plan with the debt management plan, which, as the member knows, is very challenging indeed, in terms of the capital debt limits that we've placed on ourselves. So we had to go back and review all the transportation envelope to make sure that, over a ten-year horizon, we're consistent with the commitments we've made and the Minister of Finance has made. That's been a big challenge.
[ Page 15915 ]
On the funding, there's certainly no decision I could make now. You can't bind future governments in this regard. You have to simply plan the rational plan over time and the debt management strategy, and then the Minister of Finance has to decide on these questions on an annual basis. We certainly aren't looking at major tax increases.
D. Symons: You mentioned earlier something about SeaBus, commenting about how it probably wasn't going to work. There were two or three things put out a while ago, one being that you might use different -- I was going to call them ports -- wharves on the North Shore. The other one is simply to add a third SeaBus on the current route so that you'd have more frequent service. I'm wondering if that third SeaBus option is one that might be leading the pack as far as future expansion of the SeaBus service.
Hon. G. Clark: The short answer to that is yes. In terms of priorities, that makes more sense than, say, Ambleside or something. The more complete answer is that we think there's a possibility of getting more seating and more efficiency out of the existing seabuses, so a retrofit option might be more cost-effective, at least in the short run. The third SeaBus option, obviously, is more attractive for service, because we'd improve the frequency of the service and the like. It's certainly the higher priority of any SeaBus addition.
D. Symons: As for SeaBus, I shouldn't show my age, but I've actually ridden the Ambleside service. When there was such a bus running down in the Woodward's area, there used to be a service over to Ambleside wharf there. So it's not new; it's old. The Hollyburn was the ferry that used to make that run, and I think that ferry's still in existence now, under the Harbour navigation company. I think they own the ferry that was used on that system; it's still around. Just a little bit of trivia there.
In 1994, B.C. Transit teamed up with the Commonwealth Games in Victoria to include transit fare with the event ticket. I'm wondering if Transit had considered using that approach to encourage transit with sporting events in Vancouver.
The SkyTrain is not far away. It might be an idea to approach various sporting organizations or other events that come up that involve large crowds of people, either for a single event, such as the dragon boat race that we had in Vancouver last weekend, or things of that sort that might be over a week of time, like various festivals. Have you thought of expanding that idea and approaching the promoters of these events to see whether they would be willing to go along with some cost-sharing process in adding transit, so that if they bought the ticket, they might use it, and you might get people used to using buses that way?
Hon. G. Clark: Absolutely. I'm pleased with the limited efforts we've taken to date, and we're in discussions, as we speak, with some agencies. I don't want to say anything further, because we're in discussions, but it's an excellent idea, and we're very supportive of it.
D. Symons: That's good. It's great to hear that, because I thought it was a great idea for the Commonwealth Games. I don't know if you might have results from the Commonwealth Games. Beside the factor of more people in town, did it seem to hike ridership? Did people who wouldn't normally use the buses use them because of that?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm going to ask the chair of B.C. Transit to answer that question.
D. Corrigan: We were extremely pleased with the performance....
Interjection.
D. Corrigan: I'll try not to filibuster.
We were extremely pleased with the performance of the Victoria transit system during the Commonwealth Games. In actuality, from what I hear in Victoria, there was less traffic congestion on roads during the Commonwealth Games than on normal days, which is really a tremendous accomplishment for transit and a great success. Also, I might mention that the idea of expanding the Commonwealth ticket-purchase transit system is an excellent one. The public viewed the fact that the transit pass was included with their ticket very positively. These people seemed to really appreciate that and thought it was a great advantage.
We think that using transit in those kinds of situations is somewhat similar to the Oak Street Bridge issue you pointed out yesterday. It's one in which you get opportunities to introduce or re-introduce people to transit. They find out that the system is good, that it is effective and that they get there quickly and with less stress. As a result, they are inclined to go back and use the transit system again. So any chance we get to reintroduce people to transit.... Even though they may have only used it when they were young or while they were in school or university, if they get an opportunity to use it again, it makes for a very valuable opportunity for B.C. Transit to get riders back onto the buses or the SkyTrain system.
D. Symons: I want to continue with a variety of miscellaneous topics. Bicycle racks were introduced a year ago on the Highway 401 service. I wonder if there has been an evaluation of that and whether bike racks might be introduced on other routes, as well.
Hon. G. Clark: This is another innovation by B.C. Transit, one encouraged by the new board and administration. It's a pilot project. It's working very well, and we are looking at a significant expansion of the service to other routes.
D. Symons: I might comment that this was encouraged by me from the very first time I stood up and asked questions about it. I've gone through the tunnel with a bike a number of times -- not riding the bike, of course, but on the shuttle service.
I have another item here. How many times during the last fiscal year did the transit board or the transit commission meet? I also wonder what the total cost was. I would also like to know what the stipend or honorarium is for each meeting. Can you include in that the costs of committee meetings, as well and lump it all together? Could you give me the total cost for the transit board meetings and committee meetings over the last year, including stipends, travel and associated costs?
Hon. G. Clark: It's $100 a day for the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission. They meet almost every month, except for the summer months, so it's about ten or 11 times. Sometimes they form the odd committee, but not very often.
[ Page 15916 ]
For the board, it's $250 a meeting and $500 a meeting for the chair. The board also meets monthly. They have a couple of subcommittees that meet from time to time; I'm not sure how often.
D. Symons: I would appreciate having the total cost at some time; I'm quite willing to wait. There may be travel costs included. You say the commission is $100 a day, and the board is $250. Is one a full day and the other an evening meeting or something? Why is it more profitable to be on one of the panels than the other?
[4:45]
Hon. G. Clark: It's historical, and we haven't changed it. I was going to make a comment about municipal politicians; I have to be careful with the Chair here. Generally speaking, everybody thinks that municipal politicians make less money than provincial politicians, and often they do. The former mayor in the chair here is pretty alarmed. But in Vancouver, if you find yourself on the board of the GVRD and the transit commission, and you have a meeting of the Transit Commission in the morning and a GVRD subcommittee in the afternoon.... Some of these mayors actually do reasonably well, and it's all per diems. In any event, I think the Transit Commission is often a half-day meeting and the per diem is $100, and the board.... I would argue that the board is a big corporation -- it's not insignificant -- and it has big challenges to deal with. The Transit Commission is dealing with the service plan, which is work done by B.C. Transit employees. I think the amounts are fairly accurate on a relative basis.
D. Symons: Looking at the issue of fare increases, I believe fares in the Victoria area were increased in May. I only have the options. I don't know what the results were, because I haven't been on the bus since then. It looked like a 10 percent increase, regardless of which options.
Hon. G. Clark: For Victoria or Vancouver?
D. Symons: Did I say Vancouver? I meant Victoria.
Hon. G. Clark: You said Victoria, but I thought you meant Vancouver.
D. Symons: Well, that's coming up, and that's the question. Are there any increases in store for the greater Vancouver region? Or have they had one that I've missed? I wonder if you might give us some idea of what's in store for Vancouver.
Hon. G. Clark: I think Victoria is going to increase fares again this year. Sorry, they just increased them last month. Remember, there's quite a distinction. First of all, I want to commend Victoria for saying that they wanted more control. So I said to them: "Well, take some responsibility." They went out and removed the Hydro levy on their own and put on a small property tax. They paid somewhat of a political price for that, although it's a very modest property tax. They then said: "We want a 25 percent increase in transit service in this area, and we're prepared to pay more of our local share for it." I think it's a very good program here, and they're really to be commended. They took responsibility and they moved it forward. Some of that responsibility, however, means they have to raise fares, because they're expanding service and they have to get their local share somewhere.
On the Vancouver side, we certainly have not had that kind of cooperation or support, but we understand the different politics. They have this surplus we talked about a minute ago, and they are not raising fares. If they did, I'd have a press conference and attack them, given the large surplus they have in their share. So they don't need any revenue, and I think it would be outrageous for them to raise fares, given that they have a surplus. But they do have that prerogative, and I would not be allowed to stop them. Frankly, I don't believe in raising fares, and I don't have any approval on the fares side -- that's all the Transit Commission.
D. Symons: I don't know whether you should end up attacking them if they do raise fares if that raise in the fare was to pay down the debt, particularly the debt caused by SkyTrain or whatever. I think we have to be looking at that side as well.
I gather that we're now committed to introducing some new fare boxes that sound like very marvellous little implements: they will count up the money and tell you in musical tones or whatever whether you've put the right amount in. But are these $7,000 each? Are there roughly 1,000 boxes involved in the Vancouver system?
Hon. G. Clark: That's correct.
D. Symons: How long is it estimated to be until Transit will recoup the costs of putting these fare boxes in?
Hon. G. Clark: It's really important. This is something we've been really working hard on, and it has been elusive. The other thing these fare boxes do is provide data. You can't really say right now how many people take this bus route because of transfers, etc. This will give us real number counts and data on where they get on, so there'll be a lot of data collected.
In addition, remember it's not a static thing. You have to replace fare boxes anyway; there is a regular replacement program. It's not purely incremental costs above what would be for a traditional one, although they're clearly significantly more expensive. Finally, there's the fare-evasion question. The onus is on the bus driver, who finds it increasingly difficult in the tougher urban environment to stop people and say: "You didn't pay." At least this will say electronically how much they paid, and we'll have less disputes, we hope, around that question of fare evasion. But will it recoup its costs in terms of fare evasions? I don't know the answer to that, and I would just be misleading to try to even guess at this point.
D. Symons: Yes, that was part of it. We raised the fare-evasion issue with the government a year ago. We were assured that fare evasion was a very small problem. It seems, then, that if you're paying $7,000 for a new fare box, that maybe the minister has reevaluated how much fare evasion has been costing the transit system. That might be driving the move to using these particular fare boxes.
I think another issue relates more to SkyTrain, which I'm going to be discussing later, than transit in general. You mentioned just a moment ago that crime related to transit includes
[ Page 15917 ]
difficulties with people arguing what the fare is or not paying the fare, and that sort of thing. I wonder if the minister might say what steps he's taking for the drivers besides the radios that they now have, which at least give them contact with somebody outside to say that they're in trouble or that there's likely trouble brewing. What other steps are being taken to help the driver deal with issues of...?
Interjection.
D. Symons: On anything. I was really referring to regular buses right now, because they have had issues at the end of the line where bus drivers have been beaten up. I'm wondering what steps you've taken besides the radio contact. The fare box will now, at least, give the driver a mechanical way of saying: "Hey, you didn't put the right amount in".
Hon. G. Clark: Actually, we've been doing a lot of work in this area. I'm going to have the chair of B.C. Transit give you a bit of an outline.
D. Corrigan: We are in a position right now where, at the instruction of the minister, we have taken security on our system to be one of our highest priorities. While we have one of the safest systems in North America -- and I think everyone would admit that -- the perception of crime on any of the public transportation systems is a very serious factor for the public. In a straight business sense, it hurts our ridership levels and revenue. As a result, whether or not crime is a problem that is very real and prevalent or whether it's a perception people have of the system not being safe, it needs to be addressed.
At this point, we have approved through the board the hiring of additional police constables to add to our Transit security force. We have seven officers coming on this year, and we plan to have another six officers on next year. We are establishing a liaison officer with each of our transit depots in order to have an officer at the depot to deal with any complaints from our operators or staff on an individual basis, follow up on the investigations with the local police departments about those and follow up with the prosecution in ensuring that they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
The other thing that I'm doing personally is having a meeting next week with all the police chiefs from the various regions surrounding SkyTrain. We'll begin to coordinate our approach on SkyTrain and our assistance to local police departments with them. As you can imagine, with 1,000 buses out on the system, it's impossible for us to have a police force follow up on all incidents. We have to depend on the local constabulary to assist us and be able to provide us with assistance on an ongoing basis. I think we also have to explain to them the high priority that should be attached to any kind of complaint about the public transportation system, not just the nature of the incident but the necessity of having good public perception of public transportation and the safety that's attached to it. I'm going to ask those police chiefs to ensure that there's a very rapid response time to any incidents.
I've also suggested to them that we can work with them in community police offices close to our SkyTrain stations. I also suggested to the police chiefs that if we could have their officers come into SkyTrain stations -- to do their notes, for instance. Maybe we could help out by providing coffee at our stations or doing anything we could to encourage them. If they're going to ride the train, we'd like them to ride the train and leave their car in our parking lot while they're gone. I've even suggested: "Why don't you bring a car, leave it there, park it and go away. You can do whatever you have to do, but at least your presence in our area, or the appearance of your presence, would be helpful."
It's an ongoing battle. I went to the APTA conference specifically to look at these issues on SkyTrain security. I went to the New York system, the San Francisco system and the people who are operating those systems said:"We have a security problem, and we want you to help us get some solutions for it." They kept laughing at me every time I came to them and told them we had a problem. They said: "You don't have a problem. I've been there; I've seen it. You don't have a problem. We have a problem, but you don't have a problem."
I said: "Maybe we don't have a problem as great as yours, but tell us how we avoid getting to where you are and give us some assistance."
What they said is: "In the future, after you've had a chance to do what you can do, we're even prepared to come in and give you a peer review. We'll look at your system and tell you from the perspective of other systems in North America how you're doing and whether you're addressing in ways that are appropriate."
We are also moving to a community policing concept on the SkyTrain. We're going to have our transit officers assigned to areas so that they take ownership of those areas and develop a relationship with the local police department and with the passengers. They will get reports of any incidents or suspicious circumstances. It's a very holistic plan that we're developing. We're working very hard at it, and we take it very seriously. We know that our minister and the government want this to be a high priority for B.C. Transit and this board of directors.
D. Symons: I think it's very encouraging to hear those remarks, because there have been some concerns over a couple of SkyTrain issues, and I think the swarming of young people has been a concern at one of the stations.
Something else that I think B.C. Transit is moving along very well on is joining with BCBC in going to a bus pass plan. The way it's been implemented, it seems that people have to decide by a certain day, and then they join as a group. If you get on it, you basically have to stay on it. If you drop it after a year or so, you can't get back on. Have I got it correct? I can see a person having to sign up for a year's program. You can't have people buying a year's pass and then dropping out of a program partway through, unless they move or die or something. I can't see that after a year they might go off of it and want to come back a year or two later. Have I received misinformation as to how this plan works?
Hon. G. Clark: It was part of the Victoria accord project, actually, as we take out some of the parking lots and make efficient use of land. I think it's important. We try to learn from these experiences and look at them. It is true that the subsidies are linked in part to more ridership over time. So for Transit to enter into a business relationship like this, there has to be some commitment on the part of the rider to give us the revenue, if you will, to make it work. Some of these wrinkles
[ Page 15918 ]
make it less easy to go on the system or easier to get off, and there are conflicting values. It's a 15 percent discount; it's an annual pass through B.C. Buildings Corporation and B.C. Systems Corporation. That's why it's an annual pass: we're providing the discount, but you have to take it for a year.
D. Symons: From the minister's answer, I would gather that at the end of your year, you can go off, and if your circumstances change, you can get back on another year later. I had the impression that that was not the case. If it is, I think that's fine, and I would like to see us expand that to the private sector as well, if we can. It would be an idea if you approached some of the larger employers in Vancouver and tried to get them.... Maybe some employees of the larger department stores could be on this program, particularly those who might work the off-hours. It would be a great idea.
I'm wondering about bus passes, reduced fare or student fare for college students and maybe private college students. You have it available for universities, BCIT and that sort of thing, but how about private schools? Are they eligible for reduced student fares or concession fares, whatever they're called, or do they have to pay full fare?
Hon. G. Clark: At this point, it's a very deep discount, which we obviously support, but it has been only for publicly funded and authorized institutions. We are certainly looking at providing it, but there are literally hundreds of small private institutions. We haven't really taken the leap to expand the deep-discount subsidy for them, because there is obviously a significant revenue loss potential associated with it, although there is a gain in public policy. At this point, we are still looking at the economics of it and weighing that against the public policy objectives.
[5:00]
D. Symons: I wonder if we might move for a moment into the disabled cab aspect of things, the transfer of the disabled. I gather that there is some problem with the handyDART, in that people have to book them days in advance, and there's a priority system and so forth. If somebody either isn't on the priority list for their disability, or if something comes up sooner and they aren't able to give the three days' notice that might be required, they have problems. There is a pass that you give or sell to people that they can use for taxis in a taxi-saver program or something of that sort.
I gather there's a group called FACT that has been suggesting that maybe we could do away with handyDART, or downsize it to a great extent, and get involved in using the taxi system. They seem to have brought some figures out that would indicate that the cost is about $2.86 per kilometre for people who are using handyDART, whereas using taxis on that taxi-saver program seems to be costing about $1.44 per kilometre. It would seem to imply that going toward using taxis rather that HandyDART system could be cost-effective and give better service and more ready service to people who might need that.
Hon. G. Clark: There's been a huge increase in the taxi-saver program. In fact, 83,384 passengers made taxi-saver trips in '93-94 -- we call them taxi-saver trips -- a 31 percent increase year over year. There's a joint committee of the Transit Commission and the users to look at some of these questions. This is a challenging problem, because handyDART works very well and it's very popular. I don't want to in any way criticize its service, but it's very expensive. It also has the challenge of being expensive and excellent -- if you get on it -- but also doesn't have the convenience associated with quick trips around town. You have to book in advance.
I agree with some of the concerns the member has raised, but I think we have to move very sensitively in this area. We're looking at all these questions. The handyDART system right now has -- you can see on the road -- very few passengers, from time to time, travelling on a system which is very expensive. On the other hand, the taxi company service is not nearly the same service, and you have to be very careful in saying that the private taxi companies can do all this business and provide the same kind of customer satisfaction and service.
We've been expanding the taxi-saver service at the margin, sort of more frequently, and looking at this whole question. I shouldn't say "we"; in this case the commission deals with the service levels and the user groups, to see if there isn't a more optimum way of increasing service and dealing with the cost question.
D. Symons: The figures I have here indicate that in '91-92 the taxi-saver had about 21,000 passengers, whereas '94-95 was 108,000.
Hon. G. Clark: It was 109,000.
D. Symons: Yes. So the minister's comments are correct in the sense that the taxi-saver program certainly seems to be growing quite a bit there, while the handyDART system hasn't grown by nearly that amount. It might indicate that moving in that direction might be worthwhile, particularly where people actually pay a portion of their taxi-saver. It might create a limiting factor if there's a user-pay part involved with that as well, maybe considerably more than is involved with the handyDART. I commend the minister if they are indeed looking into the feasibility of expanding the taxi service system or going more on the taxi route as a way of dealing with the handyDART and disabled issues.
I'm wondering if we might look at Rimouski just for a moment. It has totally done away with its transit system and gone completely to taxis, and it seems to be doing very well in saving a large amount of money. I'm not sure how Rimouski compares in size to Vancouver or Victoria -- I suspect not -- but I'm wondering whether that is a move that might do well in some of the smaller communities that we are providing bus service for, which is rather expensive. Would Rimouski's plan be applicable to Vernon or Fort St. John? I'm wondering if that has been looked into and if the minister might enlighten me as to the advantages and disadvantages of that.
Hon. G. Clark: Just yesterday we announced a major expansion of the taxi-saver program in Kelowna, along with some expansion. I hesitate to get into this. There is a question as to whether some of this is appropriately a transit service and how we work it. It sort of was cooperatized in Vancouver so that there was a separate contracted agency that managed it.
As I say, it is not appropriate for taxi service all throughout British Columbia, because there isn't a properly equipped taxi service to take advantage of it. There is a question around that, so we might have to be careful.
[ Page 15919 ]
There is a huge demand for expanded handyDART service not just in the lower mainland but in every little community in British Columbia. It's one of the highest demands for new service, as people move into it. In terms of priorities, we have been expanding the handyDART service, but again, it's the big challenge. I hope that a big chunk of this service can be provided by making the existing system more accessible. This is a broader debate, and I hesitate to get into it.
In Penticton we moved to 100 percent low-floor, wheelchair-accessible buses. The actual bus system -- it's in parts of Victoria as well -- is accessible by wheelchair for handicapped individuals. That has huge potential implications for the handyDART service if the existing bus service is wheelchair and handicap accessible. It doesn't solve all the problems, because you still have to get to the bus stop and all of that. If you start doing the wheelchair-accessible conventional service, that can relieve some of the pressure on the handyDART service in some ways, be more efficient and save us some money as well.
By looking at incremental expansion of the taxi-saver service at the margin, which is what we have been doing, you can see that we have expanded that a lot faster than handyDART for obvious efficiencies, improved service and cost savings. Generally, the Transit Commission is now working with users to reevaluate the whole system.
S. Hammell: I certainly agree with the minister's assessment of the handyDART service. Regular buses capable of handicap service are limited to high-density areas -- the lower mainland or whatever. Smaller communities don't have any of those services provided. The minister is correct that in a lot of small communities taxis are not equipped to handle handicap services. The one in my hometown of Vernon is probably one of the highest utilized in British Columbia. What I heard the minister say is that they're looking at different methods. Does that mean that any expansion of that service is on hold for this year?
Hon. G. Clark: No, it doesn't. The member has made some good points. It really means that we have to look at each individual community and try to minimize taxpayer costs and maximize service in every case. The member is correct that in some of these small communities -- very small, like Vernon -- the cost per rider on the handyDART service is less than in some of the other areas, because it's better utilized and there aren't the alternatives. Without doing much research, other than in your case -- Vernon's case -- it strikes me that quite likely the most appropriate form of transportation is the handyDART service and an expansion of the handyDART service. In Kelowna, where they have a bigger base, half of the conventional buses, or low-floor buses, are accessible, and we've now expanded the taxi-saver service, because they have some wheelchair-accessible handicap taxis. That was the more appropriate mix: to get more handicap access rather than a traditional expansion of the service, at least in the first instance. So we have to look at each of these significantly differently.
There are four handyDART buses in Vernon. I haven't made this announcement yet, and I don't intend to here, but we are going to be expanding some of the handyDART service in some communities in British Columbia this fiscal year.
L. Hanson: Are you saying that there are four buses servicing Vernon with the handyDART system now?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes.
D. Symons: We've had the problem with renewed service.
I forget what the other part of the building is referred to in Surrey there. It's a service and administration centre. There were problems with sickness at the building. I went through that building the day before it was officially opened; it was an interesting building. I did note that when the drivers were coming in or going out there was a place for them to pull up alongside the building, and the bus fumes could quite easily go up the building, over the top and be drawn in through the ventilation system. I'm wondering if that might have been the cause. Have they discovered the cause of the illness there, and have they corrected it?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, we've discovered the cause, and we've corrected it. It was CO2 and an improperly functioning ventilation system. I'm advised that it has been fixed.
D. Symons: You mentioned the Ballard fuel cells earlier when we were talking about alternative fuels and so forth. B.C. Transit, I believe, is a main supporter of the Ballard fuel cell and has outfitted a bus. I'm wondering if you might be able to tell us when that experiment will be completed. When will we be getting buses? I think there might be some problems with the Ballard system -- with the hydrogen source. Are you still deeply involved in that, and is it leading anywhere?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, we are. One has to be careful with these questions, but it's very hard not to get excited by the Ballard technology. Mercedes-Benz has now invested significantly. Southern California Electric has invested in a fuel-cell technology. B.C. Transit and the government of B.C. have invested in the transportation side.
There are two aspects to Ballard: the fuel cell for electricity, if you will, and the propulsion system, which is largely for buses. There is a prototype bus; I'm sure the member has seen it. There's now a new one. A full-size, 40-foot bus is coming soon. They are discussing the question of further support with B.C. Transit and the government. We haven't made any decisions yet. We did negotiate a royalty arrangement on the instructions of the government. I won't overstate it, but we negotiated, for the last investment we made, some potential return if the investment is successful. I think that's a positive way to go.
They're looking at having some commercially viable prototype buses on soon, and they're discussing this option with lots of companies, particularly in light of the emissions standards coming down in California. I have to say that they clearly are world leaders in this technology, and they are on the leading edge. That does not mean that they will be successful at the end of the day, but they're certainly leading the world in moving in this direction, and it's very impressive technology.
D. Symons: There are some questions still outstanding in my mind. I think I may have asked these before, but we could just very quickly deal with them. The Whalley station: what Social Credit had in place was supposedly cancelled by this
[ Page 15920 ]
government, and later you reannounced more or less the same deal, which I think involved the parking lot. It was a great deal when you did it, but not such a good deal when they did it.
[5:15]
The same sort of thing happened with the SkyTrain cars. They seemed to have put in an order, or were at least looking at working with bigger cars, and I think they were maybe even going to be locally built. I think about $3 million was spent on design for this, but it seemed to get cancelled. Again, when it came back in, we were paying $2.5 million per car when we had to buy cars recently.
We're dealing now with a sole source for designing and building these, whereas we might have had an alternative source if we had gone with what the Socreds seemed to be setting up there. Could we have just a little bit of discussion on those two issues?
Hon. G. Clark: There were substantial changes between what the previous government agreed to and what we ended up with. We had the opportunity at the station in Whalley because, for a variety of reasons, they couldn't complete the transaction. We negotiated a significantly more advantageous arrangement for the province, where we received some land in lieu of completion and then allowed the project to go ahead. I think those were tough negotiations. They were good negotiations, and the province is better off because of them. I can't remember the exact amount of success.
On the question of SkyTrain cars, I remember that some time during the election period, they announced that they wanted 60 Mark II SkyTrain cars at some unbelievable sum of money. We spent some time revisiting that decision and decided that the unproven technology was just that. And it will be proven; I think it's good technology; it will be there, but it's not there yet. We did not want to take that risk.
Secondly, it was an absurd situation. They were going to buy 60 SkyTrain cars -- at a cheaper price, of course. Then they were going to put 20 in a garage for a year until we needed them, or something. So we did a financial analysis of the cost-savings versus the costs of the interest and capital. It was just a ridiculous deal. It was obviously some political announcement; it didn't make any financial sense.
Having gone back and reviewed and reviewed it, we ended up purchasing 20 conventional SkyTrain cars. We saved the taxpayers probably $100 million -- just an astronomical amount in this transaction.
F. Gingell: They cost $3 million each, don't they?
Hon. G. Clark: They cost $3 million each, or $2.5 million each, but they were going to buy 60 unproven cars and not use them for some time. So there were significant savings.
Having said that, I don't diminish the challenge that SkyTrain has now in servicing this very rapidly growing population in Surrey with the existing system. It's packed, so we do need the 20 cars, and we look forward to getting them.
The challenge in any of these public sector decisions is this: if you want service, you can always provide service for a price. If you just want to go and build.... It would be great to have 60 or 80 more SkyTrain cars, and then everybody could get a seat. That would be nice. People would like that, but the costs are just overwhelming. You have to balance those questions of maximizing the use of existing facilities before you commit scarce taxpayers' dollars to expand the system. I think we've done that very effectively with tough analysis. I'm not sure that people are happy that the SkyTrain cars are more crowded than they would be otherwise, but I think it's absolutely the correct course of action for a provincial government.
D. Symons: Back to the black box or fare box thing with SkyTrain, I gather that there was an ad in the paper on May 20, 1995: "B.C. Transit, Vancouver Regional Transit System, supply and delivery of an automated fare collection system. Request for proposals." Is that an indication that you are going put in some sort of fare checker or turnstile system with SkyTrain?
Hon. G. Clark: Does it say SkyTrain?
D. Symons: No, it doesn't. Are these the electronic bus ones? Okay, let's just ask the question then. Since you are looking at that as a method of checking fares, etc., as well as at other things for the buses, what are you considering for SkyTrain? Will there be turnstiles?
Hon. G. Clark: We have had this discussion every year, and the member knows I'm very sympathetic to putting turnstiles in. Every time we look at this and do a study, and we've done numerous ones, we haven't been able to come resolutely to a solution to the question.
The issue is simply this: we know there is evasion on the system. I'm not happy about that, and no one is, but we have to deal with it. We also know that the stations were not designed for turnstiles. The capital cost of retrofitting the stations is huge, and the cost of operating the turnstiles is very large. We have to prove that the increased cost is justified by dealing with the fare question in a hard business analysis. We have not quite been able to do that, although we do not have as accurate information as all of us would like on what the level of fare evasion is, because that is a critical assumption in terms of justifying the turnstile.
What we have done instead, in the short run, is to dramatically increase the fare-checkers. We have increased staff and increased the ability to check for failing to comply, and we issue tickets accordingly. That is clearly something we should be doing. We are looking at it, and we continue to monitor the situation.
D. Symons: That's totally different to the topic I've been dealing with, but you mentioned the word "garage" one question back, and it just jogged my memory on something.
You have an old interurban car; in fact, I think B.C. Transit has two in a garage somewhere, and I believe that one of these was restored. The information I was given is that the one that was restored by B.C. Transit was done partly by people working on their time off and partly with B.C. Transit service employees, and a fair amount of money went into restoring it. After it was restored, it was discovered that the B.C. Transit didn't own it, but that it was indeed owned by a couple of individuals in Seattle.
I gather that particular car in its restored stage has been offered to the city of Richmond if they will display it for a period of time, but they can't afford to put up the building to
[ Page 15921 ]
do that. We were also trying to restore one in Richmond. Can you indicate to me whether my story about this business of B.C. Transit getting involved in restoring the wrong one is...? Was it only after the restoration process had progressed fairly well that it was discovered? Indeed, you contacted the people who were storing the car up here and said: "Hey, we've restored your car." What's the whole story on that?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm glad you asked, because your leader was on the board of B.C. Transit when this happened. It is an outrageous story. They spent $500,000, which in itself is outrageous when renovating someone else's interurban car. It was approved by the board of directors of B.C. Transit when the current leader of the Liberal Party was on the board of directors. It is hard to fathom why they would do that and how they could do that. The cost overruns were.... I think they kept going to the board for more funding all the way along, and, of course, your leader continued to vote to give more money to renovate something.
D. Symons: By himself?
Hon. G. Clark: He was consistently voting with the majority on this question.
F. Gingell: The majority of these people were appointed to the board by your government.
Hon. G. Clark: These were all appointed prior to our election. This was all done by the previous....
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: We discovered this, and I can tell you that we're taking steps now to attempt to retrieve the car. We certainly have a moral claim, and we invested $500,000 for someone else. We are working hard to sort this mess out. It is, perhaps, a small episode, but really a rather sordid one, of the previous administration, and the previous board in particular.
D. Symons: I'm glad to see that the minister is going to hold the board responsible. I gather that there would have been somebody in B.C. Transit who was passing information to the board and that the board was making decisions on information and recommendations given to them. Have those people been sought out, and have they been properly dealt with?
Hon. G. Clark: Let me put it this way. None of the senior people who were associated with this project are still at B.C. Transit.
D. Symons: I like that answer, considering the turnover we've had at B.C. Transit. I would rather suspect that you're trying to put the onus on one board member. That's the way the member put it out there. The board is a group of people, not one person. Boards, even the current B.C. Transit board, are made up of a variety of people with various skills and so forth. Quite often these board members are dependent on the information given to them by the transit people, so I do hope that the current management of B.C. Transit will take note that your heads might be on the platter if you give some wrong information to the board.
Could we move on for a moment to light transit? I notice that the current Premier, when he was mayor of Vancouver and chairman of the city council planning committee, said: "I can see all kinds of things falling apart if an LRT system isn't built. Without LRT, traffic increases will keep exploding on a year-by-year basis. It's just pound foolish not to proceed with LRT."
The current Premier made that statement in 1977. He's been in office now for going on four years. I wonder if you might just say what movements have taken place, because the GVRD has done studies and all the rest. We're waiting for the announcement of what is going to take place in the LRT.
Hon. G. Clark: The then mayor was absolutely correct, and we're living with the congestion problems associated with the lack of foresight of previous governments in dealing with this in a progressive way. That means building rapid transit.
Since we took office, we commenced the first 2021 study, which was two-thirds paid for by the provincial government -- one-third B.C. Transit, one-third Ministry of Transportation and Highways and one-third GVRD. That's been completed. We're starting this major expansion of commuter rail. We now have a tenured transit plan, which is not quite finalized.
To harmonize that with the debt management strategy, we don't want to do what the previous administration did, which was to announce a SkyTrain system for some municipalities, through people's neighbourhoods. We want to work with the local government in terms of planning as much as we can.
Again, the realities are that the justification for rapid transit is in part traffic, but it's also to feed the densities and livable region strategies, which maintain a livable environment in the lower mainland. We want to work both in concert with them, and we also want to try to put pressure on them to live up to some of the goals that they've set for themselves in terms of maintaining a livable environment. Very soon we'll be announcing that. We won't be doing it in a way that just tells them what we're going to do. It will be a way that works with local government to try to solve some of these big problems. But the Premier was certainly correct when he made those statements in 1977. We worked hard over the last three years to get into a position where we can put forward a rational plan for the next ten years which avoids the problems of the last ten or 20 years.
D. Symons: I will read from a newspaper article in the Vancouver Sun, May 19, 1994: " 'Decisions on rapid transit links for Coquitlam, central Burnaby and Vancouver-Richmond could be announced in the next six months,' Harcourt said." I'm just commenting that in 1977 he made some comments. He's now said: "In the next six months." Six months have passed. We're more than a year past that particular date
I haven't written down which paper this was, but I am reading from it on March 16, 1995: " 'Rapid transit is sexy for politicians,' Corrigan conceded, 'but there isn't enough money to build the three lines at once, so the focus in B.C. Transit is shifting back to buses.' " If there isn't money for three lines, it seems there isn't money for any line. This seems to be more postponement on the part of the government.
[ Page 15922 ]
If we look at SkyTrain, in spite of its very high capital costs -- and I will certainly concede that they are excessive -- I think the one thing SkyTrain does have going for it is that it's making money on the operational side.
Interjection.
D. Symons: If I just might finish off this train of thought, I'll let you think about it when we come back.
Has a study been done on SkyTrain versus light rapid transit or rapid bus on the total cost over a 20-year period -- that is, capital and operation costs -- to the yearly operation shortfall plus capital costs over a period of time? Does this add up to more than the capital cost of SkyTrain? Over an extended period, because your operating costs for SkyTrain are on the plus side, might that negate some of the capital and operating costs of the others?
Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:30 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]