(Hansard)
THURSDAY, JULY 18, 1996
Morning
Volume 1, Number 22
[ Page 511 ]
The House met at 10:07 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd like to call Motion 34 that's printed in Orders of the Day.
[That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills to examine, inquire into and make recommendations on the matter of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act with particular reference to the process of selection of the commissioner and the duties and powers of the office pursuant to Section 10 of the act.
In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the said committee, the committee be empowered:
(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee;
(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following session and during any sitting of the House;
(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and
(d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the committee;
and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]
Motion approved.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A to hear the estimates of the Attorney General, and in the legislative chamber I call second reading of Bill 10.
Hon. L. Boone: This bill offers British Columbians various protections: protection against vehicle fraud, protection of parking rights for the disabled, protection against excessive speeding and protection against drinking and driving. There are some in our society who choose to violate regulations aimed at protecting the consumer and preserving road safety. It is our task to prevent them from doing that, and we will not shirk our responsibilities in this regard. By introducing Bill 10, we're meeting our obligations to the B.C. motorist head-on. No longer will criminals be able to alter the identities of stolen vehicles and fraudulently re-register them, using vehicle identifications from wrecked vehicles. No longer will they skirt the safety inspection requirements for rebuilt salvage vehicles. This bill helps to ensure that information on a vehicle's previous accident history is not concealed for illegal purposes. Ultimately, it helps to preserve the safety of everyone who travels on B.C.'s roads and highways.
We all have an obligation, both in this House and outside, to look out for the interests of those who have been disadvantaged, either through disease or through injury. The disabled, after all, have the same rights as you and I. While a parking space may seem like a simple thing to some, to the disabled the absence of a parking space merely adds to the frustrations that they encounter every day. If we have an obligation to improve the quality of life for all British Columbians, then we can do no less for those who do not have the same advantages that others enjoy. Protecting parking spaces for the disabled adds to the quality of life for all disabled people. This bill will do precisely that by giving municipalities clear authority to create disabled-parking bylaws and, more importantly, authority to strictly enforce those bylaws with bylaw tickets.
Finally, it is a sad fact, but B.C. is one of the worst jurisdictions in North America for traffic crashes. In one year traffic crashes kill nearly 200 people, injure countless more and result in well over a billion dollars in health and insurance costs. It's time to call a halt to those devastating numbers. To that end, B.C.'s traffic safety initiatives are among the most ambitious efforts to curb highway crashes, fatalities and injuries anywhere in Canada. We have a responsibility to ensure a greater measure of safety on the public roadway for all British Columbians. We have a responsibility to the taxpayer to cut the massive costs in health insurance and loss of productivity that highway crashes produce every year. Helping to fine-tune traffic initiatives in this bill brings us one step closer to the goal of making B.C. one of the safest places to travel in North America.
I am proud to stand here in support of this bill, and I look forward to comments from the members opposite. I look forward to their support of these initiatives that will make our highways a better place for British Columbians. Hon. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 10.
D. Jarvis: Well, when we have 35,000-odd vehicles per year going through the salvage yards, it is probably necessary that we have some definite statements made about how we're going to protect consumers in this province. The first part of this miscellaneous amendment bill appears to look after this, although I feel probably that it could go a little bit further.
Ostensibly, it says that specific reporting to the superintendent of motor vehicles is required with regard to salvaged vehicles, those that haven't been completely written off, and unrepairable vehicles that have been written off. As I say, it will give better protection to the public. These have been previously declared a total loss, and now many of them are unsafe and being pushed out through some type of scam -- or cheating in some ways. I believe that this may solve the problem to a certain degree. I think about 35 percent of the write-offs are rebuildable, from the reports I've read. Although the majority are probably used for parts in the repair system that we have, and are necessary, these scams will probably be slowed down to a certain extent, perhaps, through this legislation. It's a welcome step, and I believe it can be supported.
[10:15]
Another part of this miscellaneous amendment, as the minister was saying, allows us to create bylaws to give municipalities the opportunity to enforce their disability parking. I suppose all of us have watched inconsiderate drivers in this province and everywhere. If you are aware of people who have a disability, you know how they have driven around and around and around in parking lots looking for that space. It's high time that more enforcement was put out for those inconsiderate drivers who do not actually consider what the disabled driver has to go through when he wants to find parking. So I can support this aspect of this miscellaneous bill.
There's also a section in here enhancing the new-driver program and tightening up new drivers' applications for
[ Page 512 ]
licences. It allows for suspensions and convictions. After someone receives their licence, it will be noted with any conviction that happened prior to that. That's a good aspect.
There's another involvement with regard to the impoundment of vehicles and the responsibilities of the owners of these impoundments to pay the cost while impounded. I do not see anything really difficult about that aspect of it and we would support it, but I am also concerned about who can release these impoundments if the police are not available. That will have to be canvassed in committee stage, because there could be problems arising out of that. This bill also looks after the security and digitalizing of files and driver's licence files, and the upgrading of an old system that's been around for many, many years. I can see that there would be no problem with that as well.
The one thing is the delivery of tickets through photo radar. Forgetting the philosophical aspect of photo radar, this probably would be a good system to go with. I understand that if you're served personally on photo radar, you have to pay in 30 days. If you are served by mail, you have 45 days in which to pay the fine. If I am correct, I understand that if you still fail to pay, you will have another 30 days if it's served personally and that everyone will be served personally after that 45-day period. Seeing that we've got, I think, $130 million of outstanding fines in this province, a tremendous number of dollars, we are going to have to have process servers. How many are we going to have? What will this do as far as adding to the bureaucracy of the motor vehicle department? We intend to canvass these points thoroughly in committee stage, because I believe that we're going to run
At this point, I'll say that in most instances this bill appears to be in order, subject to some questions, and we'll look forward to committee stage.
B. Barisoff: By and large, I also support a lot of the items in this bill. It seems to go a long way toward improving highway safety, handicapped parking and areas like that. The one area that I do have concern with is the unrepairable cars and salvage vehicles. I'd really like to know the intent of the bill here. There are a lot of areas where it should actually go further than the hon. minister has taken it, to curtail some of the illegal activity that's taking place in the province. At some of the places, I've been led to believe that flipping can take place up to seven or eight times, with no accountability back to the person who actually buys the vehicle from ICBC. Those are the areas that I think probably should be addressed.
I think this bill should actually go further to protect the end user of the vehicle or to protect ICBC. Where the vehicle is sold and how many times it gets sold thereafter is probably one of the biggest areas that concerns me, because it becomes a false economy for ICBC when they're selling vehicles that are stolen at one point in time and are returned to the road under different serial numbers. A lot of it is going outside the province. That's not within our jurisdiction, but I think that if we could possibly extend section 16 even further -- I think if we tightened it up -- it would go a long way toward improving the bill.
Overall, I think the rest of the areas seem to have a lot of good points and are going in the right direction, and I think that in committee stage we will look at maybe fine-tuning some of these. We could have a serious look at section 16 to actually extend it further.
D. Symons: I too generally agree with the intent of the bill. I have concerns, as the other two members have said, regarding the disposal of salvage and irreparable vehicles. I'm wondering why, because I think a better way would be to cut the problem off at its source rather than simply following the VIN numbers. I agree with what you're doing with the VIN numbers; that's great. By prequalifying those who are able to purchase wrecks from ICBC I think you could cut a lot of the problem off at the source. The element that might be using these vehicles in an inappropriate way in trying to get them back on the highways could be cut off in that manner. That is one suggestion that I hope the government will follow through on.
Another concern I have is regarding the electronic signature storage. My concern is simply on the security of such a system. I don't want my signature, which I use on cheques and other important documents, to somehow be stored somewhere for retrieval by who knows who. I assume your ministry is going to make positively sure that those signatures are stored in such a way that they cannot fall into the hands of anybody who might use them inappropriately. It says here that you have special circumstances where they may be used, but I'm more concerned about access to them, and them being inappropriately used beyond what the bill says.
I note also, in a news release of July 15, that the minister has made some comments about digital drivers' licences and that you're going to have the signatures stored digitally. It's curious that when you got into the speed-monitoring devices, you chose cameras that were photo rather than a digital photo approach, and you seem to be having some problems with ATS and the system they were offering. I remember that a year ago I was asking the then minister why they weren't using a digital format for those photographs. I don't think we would have the problems we are currently having in the delay in implementing photo radar if that choice had been made.
The last item I'd like to mention is the problem with the disability parking. The rules have been there but nobody has been quite sure of the jurisdiction. So I thank the minister for looking after that problem in making sure that municipalities now know that they have the authority to control, regulate and tow, if necessary, vehicles that are parked in areas for the disabled. With those comments, let's move on.
G. Wilson: In a sort of omnibus bill such as this, it's always difficult to speak in principle. We and the people of British Columbia who will be affected by this bill must recognize that Bill 10 can't be read in isolation from Bill 9.
Quite frankly, I'm staunchly opposed to what this government is attempting to accomplish in this process. What we're seeing for the first time is a movement by government to allow an insurance company, essentially, to have and store documentation, including medical records in the case of commercial drivers; to provide them extensive powers; to provide photo radar surveillance of people, which they will keep an electronic record of there; to allow them to keep a record of an insured vehicle, whether it's salvage or otherwise; and to have all of that documentation and those records deemed originals in the case of a dispute in a court of law. This is going to be covered under an appeal process which, as we all know, was introduced last session.
This is a very, very dangerous precedent. The only analogy I can draw to what the government is attempting to do in these two pieces of
[ Page 513 ]
are a few people in our society who are offenders. Those people routinely break the law. In the case of speeding and the photo radar question, these are people who routinely break the law, who have no concept of their social contract that would require them to work and stay -- and drive in this case -- within the law. As a result of that, people who normally go about their course of business but may exceed a speed limit from time to time, which is a violation, will now be subjected to exactly the same kind of rigorous scrutiny as dangerous offenders.
People who drive a motor vehicle carelessly, recklessly, with abandon, and decide to flagrantly break the law are dangerous offenders. But the vast majority of people in this province are not; they're people who are going about their day-to-day business. If they should travel ten, 12 or 15 kilometres -- or whatever that grace period may be -- above the speed limit from time to time, it may be that they are doing so within the parameters of the safety margins with which the roads are constructed. It may be that they're doing so without any possibility of injuring others, because the road may in fact be in good, safe condition.
Yet they will now be subjected to photoelectronic surveillance that will photograph that vehicle and deem the person who owns the vehicle -- not the one actually driving it -- to be in violation. If they get their notice in their mail, which is going to be another departure from the current practice, and as that notice comes in the mail, if they deem to simply throw it in the waste can, which is what most people who are violators and continually break the law are going to
Who's going to pay for this? The chronic violators? The people who are in flagrant violation of the law, who simply thumb their noses at authority and the police? Or is it going to be the average, law-abiding citizens who from time to time exceed the speed limit? The latter are going to pay for this -- the good, honest, law-abiding citizens who are not, generally speaking, the people causing the havoc on the roads that the minister alludes to. These are not the people who generally cause accidents. These are not the chronic speeders. But there are others who are going to throw it in the ash can. They're going to move from place to place to place, and a whole army of process servers is going to have to be employed, at a cost to government and the taxpayer, to go running around trying to find where these people are.
[10:30]
What about people from Washington State, Oregon, Alberta and other jurisdictions who come up here to visit? Within the jurisdictional complexes that we have, how is this going to work for our visitors? And what of those who are commercial drivers? How is that going to affect their right as commercial operators to be able to continue to operate a vehicle if they speed from time to time?
Interjection.
G. Wilson: What the minister is asking is: should you therefore have the right to speed? What a strange society we live in.
Let me use another analogy. The tobacco industry can make cigarettes because the smoking of cigarettes is a legal activity, and yet we now put all kinds of curtailment on people who are addicted to cigarettes or who choose to smoke. But it's legal. We have an automotive industry that makes automobiles with the power and ability to well exceed speed limits, and not only are they sold to the average buyer but they have engines that can go from zero to 60 in whatever amount of time. We brag about the size, we brag about how big and fast and powerful the engines are. This is all legal. It's legal to market vehicles that can go two and a half times the speed limit in the province of British Columbia, but it isn't legal to drive that way. And you know what? If you tried to put a constraint on the sale of motor vehicles or said that we will put a governor on which would allow motor vehicles to only travel at the maximum posted speed limit, then you would have a hue and cry that this government wouldn't be able to withstand.
Bill 9 and Bill 10, read together, allow an insurance company to have sweeping and intrusive powers over the lives of the citizens of British Columbia. They can get away with putting this in place only because of those chronic violators who have caused havoc on our streets. They thumb their noses at authority and the law. Exceedingly difficult times have been created for those people who have had members of their family hit by these violating drivers.
In terms of the new photo radar system that this bill is allowing to be brought into effect, the definitions provided and the consequential amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act, I wonder if they will be able to tell whether that driver actually has a valid driver's licence when they snap a picture of that vehicle driving beyond the speed limit. Probably not. I wonder if they'll be able to say whether or not that vehicle is a stolen vehicle. Probably not. Will that snapshot of a picture be able to say whether or not that driver is driving under the influence of alcohol? Probably not. Will that snapshot be able to say whether or not that driver is driving dangerously? Will it have a record of where it left and where it is now? Probably not.
That's the value of police-enforced speeding regulations. When an officer comes to the window of a car to serve a notice of speeding on a driver, the officer has an opportunity to see firsthand who is behind the wheel, whether that person is clearly under age and therefore shouldn't be driving the vehicle and whether that person is under the influence of drugs or alcohol. While that car is stopped, that officer is able to punch through the code numbers of that licence plate and find out whether that vehicle is stolen.
The problem we are dealing with here is that the people who cause the havoc on our roads are not the average British Columbians who may from time to time speed above the limit. I don't know for sure, but my guess is that most people in this chamber have from time to time speeded above posted speed limits. I would suppose that the average British Columbian has from time to time done that, along with a whole host of other drivers on the road who are travelling at the same rate.
What this bill proposes to do is punish those people who are, generally speaking, law-abiding citizens and who will live within the limit of the law. They will not catch those people
[ Page 514 ]
who are chronic offenders. What it proposes to do is send a new stream of revenue to government, because that revenue is now going to be brought together through Bill 9, which gives an insurance company all the records of that driver with respect to their right to have a licence: whether they are suspended, whether there is a limited suspension, what their record will be and, in the case of a commercial driver, their medical records to boot. What kind of government gives an insurance company the right to have access to medical records of people who they are going to insure? Most insurance companies will require a physician's certificate, and that's enough.
What we are looking at in these two bills, Bill 9 and Bill 10, is a massive intrusion into the lives of British Columbians. Also, when we look at them in consort with the bill we dealt with yesterday, it becomes even more scary, because it talks about the possibility of sharing personal information, information that normally would be under the concept of the Privacy Act. When we get into electronic media and the movement of that electronic media through such things as the Internet, e-mail propositions, etc., the documentation that is held by people, either through their social insurance number or their driver's licence, is enormous. How many people in cashing cheques, for example, use their driver's licence as a part of their identification? The numbers recorded on their driver's licence will now not only be stored in a central storage facility by an insurance company in perpetuity but may be shared with various jurisdictions, according to the legislation tabled and given second reading yesterday.
This is serious stuff. I don't know that the members of the government fully understand exactly what they are doing. I would hope that they don't, because I would like to believe that they believe that there has to be some sanctity, some privacy and some right to personal recordkeeping that is not shared with the state. The state doesn't have the right to bring together all that information and share it in a manner that simply eliminates the right of privacy by individuals.
I find it curious that yesterday the members of the Liberal opposition took exception to a bill that dealt primarily with the matter of privacy, because of the opportunity for the exchange or sharing of information. It sounded like they were in favour of Bill 9 when they spoke, but when they voted they were opposed to it. They are clearly supporting this bill today, and I find it curious that they do not understand or they don't seem to think it's important that what this government is doing is entering into a whole new process of data gathering, data collection and the right of an insurance company to act in that manner with that information. In my judgment, this is an absolute violation of the rights of individuals to privacy, and the appeal process is going to be virtually useless in this system.
Your right to appeal what will be a summary conviction through a photograph is an amazing departure from what I would consider standard processes of jurisprudence. If we allow this legislation to go forward unchallenged, if we do not stand up and speak out against this whole concept of allowing the process of entry into electronic data collection and electronic photo surveillance in this section, where will it end?
There are a whole host of areas within the social contract that we make with government, where photo surveillance may in fact be used to enforce the law. There are a whole host of other areas where we may cite violations of the social contract, where we might in fact introduce photo surveillance to enforce those laws. Is this what we want to do? Do we really want to start down the course of having a process whereby the state will enact a photo surveillance campaign on the citizens of the province of British Columbia, and entrust that electronic information not so much into the law enforcement
It would be one thing if there was a court order by the police to put in place a photo surveillance, an electronic surveillance, on individuals. It's something that the judges deem very seriously, because it's an intrusion and an invasion of privacy. There are possibilities of entrapment. But no, what we're saying now is that we're going to allow this surveillance and all of the electronic data and collection of the surveillance to go to a company, albeit a commercial Crown corporation. That company is allowed now to keep records, to share records and to use those records to their advantage. Think about it. This is an enormous movement away from the rights and privileges and freedoms that individuals have previously enjoyed in the province of British Columbia. Why are we doing this? That's the real question.
Well, the government says they're doing it because of the carnage on the roads, and I'll be the first person to say that we have to do something to try to reduce the number of deaths on our highways. But there are three components that lead to the problems we have on the highways. The first is the condition of the highways themselves -- and how those highways are maintained, upgraded and kept, especially during the winter months. Are we, with due diligence, putting work into those highway systems? Our population is expanding, and the number of vehicles on our highways is growing -- and that's a problem.
In my riding, which I've offered an invitation to the minister to come and see, you would see that most of those highways which are deemed normal highways, like part of the provincial system, are substandard. They are substandard; they are too narrow; they have not been properly maintained; there are no white lines to demarcate the outside sections of the road; and on dark, rainy, stormy nights, those roads are dangerous. Deaths have occurred on them, deaths that I have brought to the attention of this government, in an attempt to get that highway properly maintained and upgraded. For four years, money was put aside to widen, to straighten and to pave those roads. And in four years, that money has been removed. Every single year it has been taken away.
Deaths have occurred, not because of high speed, but because the road is dangerous. When you have two large commercial transport trucks with trailers coming at each other on a road that is barely 40 feet across, that's dangerous. When it's a winding narrow road, and it's dark and it's wet and it's icy, it's extremely dangerous. And all your photo radar isn't going to save those lives.
The second thing, hon. Speaker, are people who deliberately violate the law. I don't want to pin that on any one segment of society, but there are people who deliberately drive recklessly, carelessly and impaired. These are people who drive under the influence of alcohol, and I believe there should be zero tolerance for those people because those people are dangerous offenders. Photo radar will do nothing to determine whether the operator of that vehicle is impaired or not. You have no idea who is behind the wheel. So people driving under the influence of alcohol who may be involved in a hit-and-run aren't going to be picked up on the photo radar. This bill will do nothing to eliminate those impaired people who violate the law or those people who are hot-rodders and get into drag races along the highways. Sometimes the youth of our society who get behind the wheel for the first time and some others who like to drive hot, souped-up vehicles -- a couple of ministers, maybe -- like to collect
[ Page 515 ]
those large vehicles with the big, slick wheels -- barracudas, I think they are, with the great big pipes that roar and are an outward expression, presumably, of their manhood. I'm not sure about that part. But the thing
R. Neufeld: Not everybody does it the same way.
G. Wilson: The member for Peace River North says, "Not everybody does it the same way," and that's true. There are some ways that are more fun than others.
However, the point is that photo radar isn't going to nail those people.
Hon. C. Evans: It caught me.
G. Wilson: The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says: "Well, it caught me." My guess is it probably caught you on an interior road -- I don't know -- which is a big highway. The Coquihalla Highway is going to be the biggest cash cow for
An Hon. Member: It is now.
G. Wilson: It is now, as the member says, and that's true. But with photo radar, imagine it. Yet the fact is that in those municipalities where photo radar is going to be used, I fear the revenues are going to become a functional part of the revenue of doing daily business rather than an enforcement of law against those people who are dangerous offenders. That's who we should be going after here, and the fact is that we're not going to catch them under these acts.
[10:45]
The third of the three aspects I pointed out is people who are driving vehicles that are clearly dangerous on the highway. A photograph of a car isn't going to give you that determination. We must not, cannot, should not supplant an officer on the road looking at these drivers, connecting with these drivers and being informed about these drivers in that enforcement process.
We certainly do not wish to have the data collected in this process through Bill 9 and Bill 10 stored in an insurance company that holds monopoly rights over the provision of insurance. It's wrong. Philosophically, in principle, it's the wrong thing to do. We should be reacting against big, intrusive government, where the rights of individuals are not protected. We should be protecting the average citizen from intrusive government that is simply going to put in place systems that will be used to put in place another form of taxation against them.
I want to talk just for a moment about the section with respect to the serving of summonses, tickets, because this is important. The reason I drew the analogy between this bill and the gun law is that they're very similar in principle. The principle of trying to protect citizens from people who would illegally use guns is really important. Everybody wants to have restrictions on those criminals who will use guns in a criminal way, but there are many people who transport and use guns in a perfectly safe and sensible way, through sportsmanship and everything else. There are many of us who own guns, who have owned guns for many years, and who use them in a safe and proper way. By putting in a registration, it impugns those of us who are law-abiding citizens. It puts a further burden, a further restriction, a further elimination on our individual rights as a citizen. In that sense, it's intrusive, it does nothing against the criminal.
This legislation is precisely the same. This is not going to go after those people who are dangerous offenders. The reason I say that is that when you go to enforce those people who are criminal violators, I think you will find when you look at other jurisdictions and you do examinations that many of these people will have no fixed address for any length of time. Many of them are people involved in commercial transport on a temporary basis; they are temporarily hired employees. Often they are people who are simply not law-abiding citizens. You know what they're going to do? Everybody's going to figure this out in a minute. They're going to get a summons in the mail, and they're going to realize that if they don't respond to it, nothing is going to be done. That summons is then going to have to be served on them in person. So they're going to throw it away, because they don't respect the law anyway. They're hardly going to go: "Oh my goodness, look what's happened. I must rush down and pay this fine, and send in this information." They're not going to do that. We're going to end up having an army of servers, who are going to be running around, at our expense, trying to serve these summonses.
Hon. D. Streifel: What other laws do you want to break?
G. Wilson: The member asks: "What other laws do you want to break?" Let's talk about what other laws we wish to break. Think about this for a moment.
I understand the government is going to come back saying: "Those people who are opposed to this want the right to violate speed limits and to speed." It's not a question of having the right to speed. Posted speed limits are there, and people, through a mutual coercive force, should obey the law. The laws of the state are only as good as the willingness of its population to live within them, and you cannot possibly have a state that puts in place a surveillance process to enforce every law.
I would be willing to sit down and go through the law books and statutes with this government, and I'll pull out many that have been on the books for 30, 40, 50, 60 years. One of them is that you're not allowed to ride a horse across the Lions Gate Bridge. There's an interesting point. People don't do that anymore because the law is now redundant. As laws become redundant, we recognize a mutual constraint. Besides, for most, it would be a dangerous activity.
The point is this: if this government is arguing that the mutual coercive force, the social contract, is so fragile and that the citizens of this province are generally so untrustworthy that it's going to invoke electronic surveillance to make sure that they live within the law, that's a very, very slippery slope. What a dangerous thing for this government to be saying!
Let's put electronic monitors on all of our citizens at all times, so that we can have some Big Brother sitting in some Crown corporation somewhere, making sure that every time they break the law, they are served with a summons and we can take money off them. That's exactly what they're saying: let's make the government so intrusive, have electronic surveillance so pervasive, that every aspect of our lives is photographed at all times. Any time somebody deems we've broken the law -- not even as an individual, but in any function of our ownership, as is the case with a vehicle -- we are now liable for the dollars that will be assessed and charged against us. What a dangerous, dangerous precedent to set! The freedom of democratic society exists only when the population is willing to live within the confines of the law as part of a social contract. The moment we start to put in place electronic surveillance and enforce those laws, we change focus.
[ Page 516 ]
Generally speaking, the police force is there to go after people who break the law. That's what we have the police for. When we look at this bill and the entrenchment of these acts, we see a change in attitude. Now we're saying that we're going to post a limit and post a camera, and the moment your car violates that limit, you are liable for a fine.
At the same time, do we hear this government saying: "No automobile sold in British Columbia will be allowed to have an engine of a size and capacity that will allow it to exceed the maximum posted speed in the province"? No. We can sell cars that can do twice the speed limit; that's legal. But by God, the moment you do, that's it. We're going to be there with our photo surveillance cameras to pick you up. Why? Because it's revenue to government, that's why. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the provision of safety on the streets, because those chronic offenders aren't going to obey it anyway.
I'm amazed, frankly, and surprised that in principle, this government would embark on this route, because there are better ways in which we can start to look at safety on the highways. As I suggested, it seems to me that for those people who are chronic offenders, one of the things we need to do is make sure there is adequate and proper driver training. We need to make sure that there is a better way of looking at the licensing of individuals who essentially are given the privilege -- and that's what it is; it's not a right -- to operate a motor vehicle.
Better than that, in municipalities, why should we not be looking at getting away from single-occupancy vehicles and moving toward a much greater commitment to rapid transit? Let's start to get the vehicles out of the inner city -- so that people who need cars in the rural regions are able to have them -- and provide citizens who live in the urban centres a better way to get around through rapid transit.
If we're really worrying about the carnage on the streets, then let us start to look at where those incidents occur. I'll tell you, it often pains me as I drive along the highways of British Columbia to pass sections of road where there are all those crosses on the side of the road -- not one but often three, four, five and six -- because there have been many accidents. Get the highways people involved in making sure that we find out what's going on there and clean up that problem, so we can stop those multiple accidents from occurring in those sections that are bad. We'll have more to say on this in third reading.
R. Neufeld: I rise to speak in opposition to Bill 10, as we did yesterday. There are obviously some in this chamber who agree with photo radar. Photo radar is a way of combatting carnage on our highways. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has very eloquently given, as he usually does, some of the reasons why he doesn't believe that it's going to work. I can tell you that during the election campaign, and prior to it last year, when the government started introducing legislation about photo radar, we were adamantly opposed, and we're just as opposed to photo radar today as we were a year ago.
It doesn't surprise me that the government would bring in some bills last year to amend the act so that they can start enforcing photo radar, and again this year bring in Bill 9, and then a second one, Bill 10 -- all really targeted at photo radar.
I must confess that a couple of things in Bill 10, such as vehicle fraud and VIN numbers -- in fact, I think that's probably a move in the right direction -- and the municipal control of disabled
I agree with what was said -- that most people don't break the law because they want to. But there are those offenders that continually break the law and have no regard for the law at all. Both will be classed the same; the average citizen, who pays his or her taxes and who drives back and forth to work every day, will be treated no differently from the person who now just wantonly breaks the law. That is difficult for me to understand, because simply
When policemen on the road -- policepersons, I guess, is probably the correct way to say it -- stop someone, they can pick out whether that person is under age, whether that person is drunk, whether that person is not wearing glasses and should be, whether that person has a restriction on their driver's licence that they shouldn't be driving at night -- all kinds of things.
I think all of us in this House can probably state a time when we have been stopped for speeding. I can tell you that when you're stopped for speeding -- because I have been stopped for speeding and I've received a number of
It's an obvious grab for money, that's all it is. It's a cash cow. We called it a cash cow last year, and I still maintain that it's nothing but a cash cow for a cash-strapped government. This government has great ways of spending money -- great ways of wasting money, I should say. I would rather see them put more police officers on the road.
[11:00]
If I read correctly -- I believe it was the throne speech or a news release recently -- the government of British Columbia is going to put out approximately 100 new police officers this year. That was an election promise. I guess it sounds impressive if you're in Vancouver, but if you think about the length and breadth of the province of British Columbia and 3.7 million people, 100 police officers is pretty slim. Not only that, if those police officers are out on the highway checking for all kinds of other
When the minister introduced the bill for the first time, it was interesting to note -- if I remember correctly, and I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong -- that she said they will use the 85 percentile. So that means if the speed limit is 90 kilometres per hour and everyone is doing about 110 on average, that's fine; we're not going to hand out any tickets. Isn't that amaz-
[ Page 517 ]
ing? Just a few minutes ago the minister was heckling me about one law for all British Columbians. Is the minister really saying that 90 kilometres per hour is really not the speed limit? If all the traffic is going above the speed limit and everything seems to be going fine, we're not going to send out tickets?
You wonder where the government is coming from. Maybe we should take that a step further. Maybe there are pieces of road in British Columbia -- I have one in my constituency; in fact, there's only one good piece of road in my constituency, and that's the Alaska Highway that's being rebuilt and maintained by the federal government, not the provincial government -- where the speed limit could obviously be increased. It is a good, long, straight highway. The province controls the speed and all the revenue from that highway, including permits, fuel taxes and everything, and they don't have to spend one cent on it. We would like to see the speed limits on that road increased, because it is a cash cow. But we can't do that. So I guess if they bring photo radar up there and people are travelling 110 kilometres per hour on the Alaska Highway, it will be okay.
As I said earlier, I think photo radar is nothing but a cash cow for a cash-strapped government that wants to raid -- pillage, I guess, is the word -- every bit of revenue it can from the people of British Columbia in the guise of safety. We know for a fact that it really didn't work in Alberta; it hasn't reduced the number of deaths. In New Zealand, as I understand, it has, but there has been a strong enforcement with police officers on foot, not cameras in their cars -- a whole process that goes along with photo radar to decrease the carnage on the highways.
I want to talk a little bit about the carnage on our highways. It's fitting that the Minister of Highways is here today introducing this bill and talking about the $1 billion in insurance costs. I agree with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast about the conditions of our highways. They're absolutely deplorable in some instances.
We have a government that seems to be driven the other way. When they assumed office, within two years they reduced the Ministry of Transportation's budget from about $1.2 billion to around $600 million -- cut it in half. They haven't done anything to speak of for rehabilitation to bring our highways up to speed. Some of our highways were built in the fifties. We've encouraged more development, heavier loads and large loads, and yet we haven't built up the road base.
Hon. Speaker, I would make this invitation to the minister today: get on the airplane with me and fly to Fort St. John. We'll do it today or tomorrow. We will rent a four-wheel drive at the airport, because that's what's going to be required. We'll go out on some of the highways that this government is thinking of putting photo radar on and we'll see firsthand -- or she will -- the difficulties that some people have on some of those highways. You need a four-wheel drive and a tractor in front of you on a gravel highway in British Columbia just to get from town to your farm.
You know, if you were to take photo radar money and put it back into highways, you might even start convincing me. But this government knows nothing about really getting the highways up to speed, other than a few areas -- maybe Vancouver, maybe the Island Highway. I'm not going to say they're not needed, but I think what we have to do is go around the whole province and look at all the highways, because that's a fact. I have at least a dozen calls on my desk this morning from people travelling on gravelled main highways in British Columbia who are using four-wheel drives. It's taking them two hours to get 40 kilometres. In some cases, they're being towed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that in some cases vehicles are getting wrecked. That contributes to insurance costs. That's what this government should be looking at.
The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast talked about the intrusion on privacy. It bothers me an awful lot. We talk about gathering all this data, giving it to a Crown corporation to store and to use. I think every British Columbian should think really closely about those kinds of things, because it's another intrusive move by government into the lives of individuals. If there's one thing I hear many times in my constituency and across the province, it is that people are really getting tired of government intruding on their lives, the intrusive moves of government. It continues in this bill.
It amazes me that anyone would stand and want to support a bill like this. Before, a ticket for speeding or any infraction had to be given directly by the police officer to the offender. This bill allows the government to mail. Take a picture and mail it, and you're guilty. You may not even have been driving the vehicle at the time. You may own the vehicle. How about the trucking companies? There are a number of different companies around here that own ten trucks and have ten different drivers. The ability for that company to go back to that driver and collect the money for the speeding infraction is not there. It is not going to happen. The companies are going to end up paying the bill. If they try to collect it from the drivers, it may work with some, but it's not going to work with all of them.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
It's much like the WCB, where we fine the company for persons working on equipment without wearing their seatbelts. Fines that amount to $15,000 for a person not wearing a seatbelt don't go to the person that's not wearing a seatbelt, they go to the company; they go to the person that owns the equipment.
There are many parts of both Bill 9 and Bill 10 that bother me, and I can tell you that we will be voting against Bill 10 -- although there are a couple of sections, like I said, that I agree with. That's typical of this government: "Let's get a number of bills in, and we'll get a little bit of good stuff here and try and make them vote for it." But I can tell you that we will be voting against Bill 10, which is the final step in bringing in photo radar -- which is actually just a cash cow for a cash-strapped government.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers on second reading debate, I'll call on the Minister of Transportation and Highways, whose comments will close debate.
Hon. L. Boone: I must say I really appreciate the comments from all members opposite. There were some excellent things. I appreciate it when somebody says we didn't go far enough, and I look forward to working with you in future years, to see what we can do to improve the legislation that comes into this House to ensure safety on our highways.
[11:15]
I must say I'm little disappointed with the last two speakers. I thought that you would have seen the light. I really thought that by now you would understand that this bill is a safety initiative bill. This bill is here to deal with many issues. Photo radar is certainly one of them, but photo radar is not a
[ Page 518 ]
cash cow. Photo radar is there to improve our highways and to work to reduce the number of accidents on our highways. For some reason or other, those members seem to have blinders on when it comes to explaining exactly what photo radar is. I will try to explain it again, and maybe eventually this will come through.
We are trying to get people to reduce their speed. Yes, there is an 85 percentile range. The 85 percentile is done when sites are chosen, and the sites have been chosen with the RCMP, or the police, with Motor Vehicles, with ICBC, with municipal councils. The photo radars are not going on the highways, they are going into municipalities. Those municipalities who choose not to have them have a right, and some have already done so.
The sites are chosen, and then there is an assessment done by the RCMP to determine what the 85 percentile is, what speed 85 percent of the people are actually doing. The whole intent is to catch excessive speeders, not just those who happen to find themselves a little heavy on the foot -- "Gee, I'm five miles over." That's not who photo radar is going to catch. It's not even going to catch those that are ten kilometres over. It's there to catch those that are speeding excessively.
The assessment has been done in some areas, hon. member from the Peace River. And you know what? They found that the speed limits were excessively low, that 85 percent of people were going 20 kilometres over, and they said: "Obviously this speed limit is not a reasonable one." They have reassessed those and they have increased the speed limits in those areas. There are two that have happened in the province so far. It's not there just to deal
We are then looking at, so the communities
But let me get this straight. You're saying that if you know there's a speed radar camera out there -- you're told in the morning before you leave to work -- and you still want to go more than 11 kilometres over the speed limit, then you think that's entrapment? That that's a cash cow? That we're not saying that people should slow down? We are saying: "Slow down." You can easily beat the camera trap. You can easily not get a ticket in the whole world if you just slow down. That is the bottom line. Slow down, save lives on our highways, and let's make sure that we keep our highways safe for everybody. The whole intent of this is to get people to slow down, to reduce the number of accidents on our highways and to save people.
Now, the members also say that you don't have the police there looking at the impaired driver. Well, guess what. The police doing the photo radar cameras are extra police -- which is going to do what? It's going to free up other police to do the things that you want them to do, which is to try to deal with the drinking driver out there and all the other issues. They are extra police, so don't tell me that this is not going to assist out there. People are tired of having to pay the cost for people who are driving excessively.
This is a good bill. This is a bill that deals with safety issues on our highways. We are talking not just about photo radar but about disabled parking. This is excellent. One of the things I've heard -- and so have every one of us, probably, as elected members, every time we go to something with the disabled community -- is that their major problem is all the people who take those parking places. I've heard about this problem for the past ten years, since I was elected. We are now giving the municipalities the ability to deal with those things.
We're dealing with fraud. We're dealing with the ability of people in the past to sell vehicles that have been wrecked. This is a great bill. It's one that I'm hoping all members, even members at the end of the line here, will eventually see the light on. I hope they will recognize that they have a responsibility to their constituents. The people out there do not support those who speed excessively -- and I'm talking "excessively" -- and this bill is going to save lives on our highways. It's going to make our highways safer. It's going to reduce our health costs, it's going to reduce the cost of ICBC, and it ought to be supported by all members in this House. Hon. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Second reading of Bill 10 approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 66 | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Priddy | Miller | G. Clark | |
| Dosanjh | MacPhail | Sihota | |
| Brewin | Randall | Sawicki | |
| Lali | Doyle | Gillespie | |
| Robertson | Farnworth | Smallwood | |
| Conroy | McGregor | Janssen | |
| Hartley | Orcherton | Kasper | |
| Walsh | Giesbrecht | Goodacre | |
| Bowbrick | Stevenson | Pullinger | |
| Calendino | Waddell | Kwan | |
| Ramsey | Streifel | Hammell | |
| Boone | Cashore | Zirnhelt | |
| Evans | Dalton | Gingell | |
| Reid | Hurd | Sanders | |
| Plant | Stephens | de Jong | |
| Coell | Anderson | Nebbeling | |
| Whittred | van Dongen | Thorpe | |
| Barisoff | McKinnon | Masi | |
| Coleman | Chong | Weisbeck | |
| Jarvis | Abbott | Symons | |
| Hawkins | C. Clark | Hansen | |
| Reitsma | J. Wilson | Hurd | |
NAYS -- 2 | |||
| G. Wilson | Neufeld | ||
Bill 10, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1996, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
H. Lali: I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
[ Page 519 ]
H. Lali: A couple of friends of mine are visiting. One is from the Premier's riding; his name is Mr. Andy Aadmi. The other friend is Amrik Sangha, from the riding represented by the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. Would the House please make my friends welcome.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Committee A will resume its debate in Committee of Supply, and in the Legislature I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 2.
The House in committee on Bill 2; G. Brewin in the chair.
On section 1.
F. Gingell: Section 1 is similar to section 4 and section 10 -- to all that deal with the issue of grants in lieu of property taxes. I thank the minister for the briefing note I received this morning. It raises some questions that I'm sure we can deal with reasonably quickly.
[11:30]
The first question that it raises is the issue of the relationship of what the taxes on improvements would be in these particular circumstances to the pot of money, the $2.2 million. When I see that Simon Fraser University paid $200,000 to the municipality of Burnaby, I think about all the buildings that are on top of Burnaby Mountain and the taxation they will be subject to. Particularly when I look at the grant that was paid by Simon Fraser University to Vancouver, which I presume is primarily for the downtown campus in the old Eaton's building, at $63,000, I'm sure that if that property was still in commercial use, the taxes that would be applicable to the property would be substantially greater -- many, many times that.
When you come to the issue of the statement that's here, that grants were based on the assessed value of exempt improvements, could you also please deal with whether you use the multiples that are normally applicable for commercial property versus residential property, and whether you used the mill rates that the municipalities would have charged for those properties?
Hon. A. Petter: To place this in context -- and I'm sure the member is aware of this, but I think it helps inform the discussion -- what the government was trying to achieve here was to start to move toward some recognition of the fact that certain institutions like universities and other major educational institutions impose costs on the municipalities in which they are located. It is perhaps unfair that those costs are borne by those local municipalities, given that the institutions serve the province and draw populations from around the province.
Some recognition of those costs was sought, and to do that, this provision was included and is now expanded in this legislation to provide grants-in-lieu based on the assessed value of the taxes and improvements. It was not based on the mill rate, and as I think the member is aware, a cap of $200,000 was placed for the first year. Recognizing that this is not going to provide full compensation but also recognizing that we are using the assessed value as a base here, what we're really trying to do is compensate those municipalities for the costs of providing services to those entities.
The assessed value is a proxy, and a cap has been placed on it to try to distribute the funds as fairly as possible and to recognize that the costs may not simply be a function of assessed value. I'm informed that the mill rate was not part of the equation -- I think that was the member's other question.
F. Gingell: There was a $200,000 cap for 1995. What is the cap for 1996?
Hon. A. Petter: That matter has not been determined. I think we have to look at all of these entities as a Treasury Board and government and determine once again, as we did last year, the fairest distribution within the financial limits that we have. I am not in a position to tell the member exactly whether that cap will be raised or not at this time.
F. Gingell: I note that the grant for $88,000 paid last year to Royal Roads University was for a portion of the year. I take it your briefing note says it was based on the federal grant -- i.e., the particular number of months, calculation only, just a pro rata. Can you tell us how many months, please?
Hon. A. Petter: I hesitate to guess. If memory serves me and staff's memory serves us, it might be around half the year. Hon. member, if that's an important factor, I think I would do better to get that information and provide it to you separately.
F. Gingell: The reason I brought it up was that thinking back, I had a feeling that the province took over the property on September 1, which would have been a four-month period. If that were the case, then three times $88,000 is going to come to $265,000, which would be in excess of that cap. I wonder whether you have made the municipal district of Colwood aware that they may not receive as much money in the future if you have a cap that will affect the amount of money that they received in the past for the services delivered to Royal Roads University.
Hon. A. Petter: Again, I'd be happy to get the member the more detailed information. As the note that I provided the member indicates, the provision of a grant-in-lieu for Royal Roads University was governed by a framework agreement with respect to the transfer of the university, so it may well be that the member is correct in the sense that it may not be governed by the same cap -- it may be governed by the framework agreement. Again, I'd be happy to get that factual information for him, if he requires it.
F. Gingell: If that framework, when you go back to check it out, indicates to you that you would be treating Colwood substantially differently from the way you will treat Burnaby, Saanich, Oak Bay, North Saanich -- the ones that are listed
Hon. A. Petter: Not for that reason alone. We will be revisiting the whole issue now that we have the additional entities included, and we'll be setting a new budget target.
I want to explain the Royal Roads situation, because the nature of a federal system is that it gives rise to anomalies. As I understand it, Royal Roads was subject to federal taxes, or grants in lieu of taxes to Colwood previously, that were higher
[ Page 520 ]
than would have been provided through the formula we have here. The agreement tried to recognize that fact in order to facilitate an acceptable transfer of those assets to the province, for the purpose of the university, that would be acceptable to the municipality. So it is an anomalous situation, much like the one we deal with on airport transfers -- as when Vancouver airport was transferred. Now we're looking in this bill at other airports being transferred. We're trying to find a way to make those transfers acceptable by providing equitable tax treatment.
The member's concern that Royal Roads is in a different category stems from the fact that Royal Roads, under the federal jurisdiction, was in a different category, and its transfer, and the negotiations around it involving the municipality and other entities, took account of that. One tries to do the best one can in a federal world to recognize the situation without exacerbating anomalies, and that, I think, is the outcome here.
F. Gingell: I have one last point on this particular section. Just as Royal Roads is unique, the University of British Columbia is unique. I must admit I don't have a really good feeling for how the grants to universities are built up, but UBC has clearly been paying a whole series of costs for many years, I would presume, that in every other institution's circumstances are provided to them by the local municipality. I'm wondering whether your ministry and your policy group have thought through the issue of how we deal with UBC in an equitable fashion. Are they now suddenly going to receive a little more in the way of grant money to help them pay for these services, now that other institutions are being given money to contribute to municipalities?
Hon. A. Petter: I think the case is rather that UBC may well have been in the advantaged position historically, partly as a function of their land situation and holdings but also because the university has been paying for many of these services. That has been recognized as part of their operating costs and grant funding historically, and that is indeed part of the anomaly this is trying to correct with respect to other municipalities and institutions.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
F. Gingell: Perhaps we could start discussion on section 2 by the minister advising the House on the amount of homeowner grant that is not granted due to the phase-out in excess of the stated values.
Hon. A. Petter: Again, I'll have to try to get that information for the member. I'm told that the increase in the threshold imposed an additional cost of $5 million, but I don't have the number for the total cost of the revenue gap right now, and I hesitate to give a guesstimate that may not be correct. We'll try to get that number for the member.
F. Gingell: I seem to remember from the budget speech, when you were speaking on the matter of increasing this, that you indicated that 96 percent of homes in British
You know, we spend many hours in this House discussing the issues of progressive, or what we call fair, taxation frameworks. The phase-out of the homeowner grant bothers me. It really does focus on the issue that was a rallying cry in the recent election -- besides balancing budgets. The other rallying cry was: "Whose side are you on?" When you look at the phase-out of the homeowner grant, it really is focused on a very limited number of people, many of whom do not fall into the category of ability to pay.
The fact that real estate values in the lower mainland, particularly west of Main Street and in certain parts of the capital regional district, have gone up dramatically, has put these homeowners, often people who are older and have lived in these communities for many years, at a substantial disadvantage. It isn't good enough to say: "Well, there is the tax deferment plan." People who were brought up and grew up in the years of the depression of the 1930s have an aversion to debt. They see deferred property taxes, because of their age, as being a deferred debt. They have this thing in their minds that they really want
[11:45]
I'm interested in knowing how much money is involved because that perhaps will indicate to the minister that they should rethink the issue of phase-out. I'm not sure that I've got a question so much as used this opportunity to bring up this issue.
When we deal with taxation, we shouldn't look at different packages of taxation in isolation. Taxation is an all-encompassing situation, and we have wealth taxes, user fees, income taxes, consumer taxes, and per capita taxes or poll taxes. They all make up this huge burden that citizens understandably complain about. I know it's difficult to get a sense of fairness and equity throughout the whole of those different packages of taxes, but I suggest that it's one of the most critical things for the Minister of Finance to be concerned with. I appreciate that this minister comes from a university where a particular law professor wrote a famous paper that we refer to now and again. In all sincerity, I would suggest to the minister that he doesn't use that particular model in developing tax systems.
I personally think that the collection of property taxes by the provincial government is something you should think about getting rid of, because it cramps the ability of municipalities to do the kinds of things that they should do. Municipalities have such little ability to collect taxes, and the province shouldn't be elbowing its way in there. When I was on the school board the school taxes, which the homeowner grant was originally developed to help pay, were the only practical means available under the division of taxation rights for a school board to collect revenues from its citizens. But school boards don't any more
[ Page 521 ]
common sense to it rather than all of them just looking for a little more tax room that they can push into. I'm sorry, hon. Chair, I don't have a question at the end of that, but it's something I wanted to get off my chest.
Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's comments, which range somewhat beyond the confines of the section, but they are interesting nonetheless. Obviously I'm very committed to fair taxation, and I suspect our definition of that will differ at times, hon. member. But I'd rather not engage in all the things one could say about the redistributive effect of the province collecting property taxes and then distributing them back through municipal grants, or about the phase-out period for seniors being greater than for others or about the deferment system. While I do not share the member's concerns in their entirety -- one does have to look for fairness in the system -- the member at least should be pleased that we have moved in this initiative to increase the number of homeowners who get the full grant from 95 percent to 96 percent, which is responsive to his view of what fairness would require in these circumstances. Perhaps I should just leave it there, hon. Chair.
F. Gingell: Good, I support section 2. I wish that $525 was higher, but there you go.
Talking about fair taxation, I just want to draw the minister's attention to the special committee and the report that the NDP government of Ontario brought in when they were first elected about 1989 or 1990. They had talked a great deal about fair taxation in the election where they defeated Peterson's Liberal government. They immediately set up a commission to look at the issues of fair taxation. That report is a very interesting read. It indicates the difficulties and perhaps indicates that the taxation system is fairer than we sometimes give it credit for. But it did point out the problems of election rhetoric with the practicalities of a commission sitting down and looking at each separate issue. I suggest that it's a good read.
Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's suggestion. Reflecting on his earlier comments, I'll also say that there are initiatives. The province is very committed to working with the federal government on a joint fiscal strategy around debt, deficit and tax collection that will hopefully ensure greater equity and efficiency in all these matters.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
F. Gingell: Section 3 deals with an issue that we seem to deal with on a fairly regular basis, every so often. I'm not sure whether this really is the time or whether we should deal with it in estimates. The industrial development incentive fund has never paid out quite as much money as they budget every year. They budget certain sums and they are usually way behind. In this particular case, this special account is not a revolving account. It is a cumulative account, so you have to keep adding on every time you want the program to continue. Could the minister quickly tell us, without getting into detail, what their plans are for this current year that required this increase from $300 million to $400 million, and does the minister feel that this is an appropriate way of dealing with this? Should we not use a special account or make the special account a revolving account? That would at least put a more meaningful limit on the amount of money that's outstanding at any time; that is, receipts would be credited back to the fund and be available for reloaning, whereas right now it's a cumulative arrangement.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm certainly prepared to consider the member's suggestion around a revolving account, although I would note that this mechanism does provide more control in terms of ensuring that expenditures are vetted through both the Legislature and Treasury Board. But I'd be happy to take that under advisement.
I'm advised that the increase in the funding cap will help to accommodate, principally, the first $50 million payment to the Columbia Power Corporation, pursuant to the Columbia Basin accord.
F. Gingell: I must admit that when I was reading the bill I made a note to question whether this act comes under the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry of Employment and Investment.
Hon. A. Petter: For all but the purposes of this debate, the Ministry of Employment and Investment.
Section 3 approved.
Hon. A. Petter: I would 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. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.
The committee met at 10:16 a.m.
On vote 16: minister's office, $425,473 (continued).
G. Plant: When we adjourned last night, I was near the end of questions about the Victims of Crime Act. The question
[ Page 522 ]
which, at least in my own mind, was left hanging had to do with the interrelationship between the victim support workers who are to be hired under the act and the volunteer agencies that are going to, as I understand it, assist in the operation of the act. I wonder if the Attorney General could provide a bit more of an explanation about what role volunteers and volunteer organizations are expected to play in the operation of this act.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: These would be volunteers who would be working under the direction of the victim services workers; they wouldn't be employees. They would do such things as accompanying victims to courts and the like.
There is no formal relationship per se. These are volunteers who may be attached to volunteer agencies that do similar work, but there would be no formal relationship. They would be trained to do the kind of work they would be doing, and they would be assisted in learning the techniques of doing that work by our personnel. But there would be no formal relationship other than -- I'm now thinking out loud -- that they would be advised about the need for confidentiality and such things.
G. Plant: Is it the view, then, of the Attorney General that the successful operation of the act will depend on the availability of volunteers?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That has been generally the case, even before this act. There have been hundreds of volunteers over the years that have participated in assisting the Crown in trying to provide some of these services to victims. Many other agencies that help victims, such as transition houses and others, have volunteers on their lists who sometimes participate on a voluntary basis in the work that the Crown does.
G. Plant: Perhaps I should just say that it's good to hear that this kind of legislative initiative involves people in local communities helping on a volunteer basis to make sure that the objectives of the act are realized -- provided, of course, that the kinds of safeguards the minister spoke of a minute ago in relation to confidentiality are maintained.
I want to move to a different subject: policing. The report of the commissioner, the hon. Mr. Justice Wallace T. Oppal, is growing old on the shelf, which is a place where commissioner's reports all too often languish, unfortunately -- gathering dust, I think the phrase is. I'm quite certain that this report is not languishing, but I would be interested in a progress report from the Attorney General with respect to the implementation of Justice Oppal's recommendations over the course of the coming year and what he expects to have accomplished in the year for which we are now discussing the estimates.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The ministry has been working on this issue. We hope to introduce legislation in the next sitting with respect to the police complaints commissioner, which has been developed pursuant to extensive consultations throughout British Columbia based on the recommendations by Mr. Justice Oppal. Of course, we continue to encourage community policing. The 100 new police officers that have been promised in this budget would be part of that thrust to enhance and extend community policing to most areas of the province. We will also propose legislative changes to provide authority for the creation of regulations governing the use of force. Of course, municipal police will be consulted with respect to the drafting of such regulations. We also plan to establish, in consultation with municipal police departments, minimum recruiting standards very shortly. We're also working on the issue of establishing a working committee to develop guidelines for police who are seeking and executing search warrants.
There is work going on on many fronts. There is now a new emergency operations and communications centre which will service the lower mainland. It's the regionalization and coordination of that operation in one place. I'm hoping to spark a debate in the next few months on the whole issue of regionalization of police forces in the greater Victoria and greater Vancouver areas, at least, to see where we can go. We want to take the municipalities in that direction. Municipal police forces are independent, and municipalities deal with them directly, but I want to try to persuade them to go in that direction. Those are just some of the areas we're working on.
G. Plant: The minister made reference to the budget promise to hire an additional 100 community police officers. Will the implementation of that promise be contingent on the completion of some of the community policing initiatives that the minister has also just spoken of? Or does the ministry intend to find other processes to put these folks in place on the ground in the short term?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I recently met with the UBCM justice committee, and we're going to be consulting with the chiefs as well, to develop criteria for spreading these police officers across the project in some innovative projects around community policing. We're hoping that that can spread throughout the province.
G. Plant: The term used in the context of this budget promise is "community police officers." I'm not sure if that is a new category of police officer or if the government is talking about providing sufficient funding so that within the existing municipal police forces and the RCMP, new positions will be made available for people who are otherwise ordinarily qualified as police officers.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: These wouldn't be distinct police officers, separate and apart from what exists. Our whole thrust has been to encourage the municipal police forces to engage in community policing, and the RCMP has been engaging in community policing as well. So when we call them community police officers, they're not distinct from other police officers who already do community policing. We want to push the concept of community policing, in terms of crime prevention and neighbourhood police work, in coordination with the volunteer agencies that function within those areas or that may crop up in those areas where there's need.
G. Plant: I want to get some sense of the financial aspect of this budget promise. I take it that the government is talking about new money -- that it's providing additional funds to permit the hiring of 100 police officers. What amount does that entail?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The amount of money would be approximately $8.5 million per year. For this year it might be less, because we have to put the mechanisms and the personnel in place.
G. Plant: I'd like to get some sense of what an incremental addition of 100 new police officers means in the context of the total complement of police officers serving in British
[ Page 523 ]
Columbia. I'm afraid I don't have those numbers; perhaps the minister does. Is the ministry able to assist me in identifying the total number of police officers serving in British Columbia, both those serving as RCMP and those serving in the various municipal police forces?
[10:30]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'll give the hon. member all of the figures I have here. They are accessible to him, and we can provide him with a copy. We have 140 members of the administration of E Division RCMP; 832 are in the RCMP federal force; the RCMP provincial force is 1,554; the RCMP municipal force is 2,372; and the independent municipal police forces are 1,940 -- a total of 6,838.
G. Plant: To complete the arithmetic, then, over the course of the next fiscal year, the intention in the budget promise is to add 100 additional police officers, funded provincially, to that number. Perhaps I should leave the question that way -- that the provincially funded direct addition to the total complement of police officers in the province over the next year is intended to be 100 police officers?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: I have to ask a question which I'm sure I should know the answer to. I assume that the municipal police forces have some autonomy in relation to decision-making about hiring additional police forces, so that the total number of police officers in the province might grow during the course of the year by reason of their decisions.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: I need to impose on the minister's indulgence for one more question that I should know the answer to. Are municipal police forces -- and I don't mean the RCMP municipal police forces, but the independent police forces -- totally self-funded, or do they receive grants or transfers from the province?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are grants in the form of an independent police equalization grant that is available to the municipal forces, and it is $5.8 million per year at this point.
G. Plant: Is the $5.8 million per year for the province as a whole?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: For the 12 independent police forces, yes.
G. Plant: I am standing to create the -- no doubt -- effective impression that I am immediately prepared to ask the next question. I want to turn to another subject, which is the subject of corrections.
Perhaps I should say something now that I probably should have been saying all along. I recognize that the minister has been assisted by staff people from a variety of branches of the ministry along the way, and I want to impose on the minister, if I can, to this extent. I want to be sure that he lets the people that have helped him know that I am grateful for the assistance that has been provided by his staff people along the way.
During the course of the minister's opening comments at the introduction of the debate of this section of the estimates, I think I made a note to the effect that there was going to be an estimated increase in corrections branch funding for this fiscal year of $5.64 million -- that is $5.64 million in additional spending. There was mention of at least two ways in which I understood this money was to be spent: overcrowding, and what was described as sick leaves. Perhaps the minister could provide a fuller explanation of how this increase in corrections branch
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I can provide the details to the hon. member through the officials later on, but basically the increase of $5.46 million, which is about 2.3 percent, is as follows: funding of $1.12 million for salary increases in general terms; and then an increase in employee benefits from 20 to 20.5 percent, and that is $0.55 million. The $1.12 million is made up of the benefits that I have talked about, as well
G. Plant: I'm grateful to the minister for that additional explanation. What did the minister mean in the context of his opening statement when he talked about overcrowding? I'm quite sure I heard the term. Of course, in this context it sounds like we're talking about overcrowding of institutions, but it may be that we're just talking about overcrowding of offices for corrections staff. I'm not sure what he meant.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The reference was essentially to the inmate count going up in the corrections facilities across the province, which then leads to a requirement for overtime, and of course there is the stress and tension resulting from those issues. Let me just say that between 1991 and '95-96, the adult institutional count increased by 37.5 percent in British Columbia -- rising from about 1,800 to about 2,450. The largest increase has been in the remand count, which has risen by 61 percent in six years. All of that puts pressure on the resources, as well as on the personnel that work with the adult population.
G. Plant: I need to go back over a couple of those numbers to make sure I heard them correctly. The increase of 37.5 percent in the adult inmate count -- is that an increase that has taken place over a five- or six-year period? Is that what the minister has said?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, five.
G. Plant: And is the increase in the remand figures of 61 percent also over the same time period?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: What provision, then, is being made in this year's estimates to address that growth in inmate and remand figures?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously the figures that are indicated in this year's budget take into account the 46 new FTEs. Also, a facility in Prince George has provision for double-bunking, and that takes care of some of the additional burden. So we have projected to satisfactorily take care of the increased need for this year.
[ Page 524 ]
As the hon. member may be aware, of course, there are some correctional facilities, both in terms of youth custody centres as well as the adult correctional facility contemplated over the next few years. Work has been in progress, but nothing is certain, due to the capital freeze, as to where we may end up. If we continue with the pattern that has developed in British Columbia in terms of longer incarceration for offenders, if we don't find ways of diverting offenders into rehabilitative programs, and if we don't try to deal with minor offenders in more creative ways that are both productive for society and for the individual, and less costly and more contributive towards the total welfare, I think we may have to look at much larger resources in the coming years -- not necessarily this year, but in the coming years. That's why I said that as Attorney General, I would be extremely pleased if I could actually shut down a corrections facility in the next two or three years rather than build a new one.
G. Plant: Are the 46 new FTEs corrections services officers? Is that what was meant there?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: The minister referred a moment ago to planning for youth and adult custody facilities that may be affected by what he called the freeze. Could the minister identify the institutions for which planning is underway and which planned institutions or institutions are affected by the freeze?
[10:45]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: All those that we were contemplating are affected by the freeze, with the exception of a zoning proceeding with respect to the Okanagan facility. These are the facilities that are affected: the Prince George law courts; the Penticton youth attendance program -- which is corrections, of course; and then the Okanagan correctional centre, Port Coquitlam Pretrial, the Mount Thurston correctional facility and Vancouver Pretrial. There was a rezoning and planning approval that's now on hold.
G. Plant: I suppose it goes without saying that each of these institutions or proposed institutions would not have been on the planning books if it was not the view of the corrections branch, or of other branches of the ministry that are responsible for them, that they were needed to serve the public interest of the province. I take it that it is the Attorney General's view here today, still, that each of these institutions and proposed institutions is in fact needed to serve the public interests of the province.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, that is the correct way of looking at it.
Let me correct myself: the Prince George law courts is not on hold; that's proceeding.
I think that in general terms, if we had the needed resources and if the money was available in British Columbia, we would be building some of those things without reviewing them. These are difficult decisions, obviously. We're going to have to begin to be more creative in the way we deal with our population of offenders, which in turn would hopefully lead to better utilization of resources, less dependence on these kinds of resources and more creative ways of integrating minor offenders back into society, where they would provide some taxes, rather than costing us by having to look after them.
There's no question that having these contemplated facilities put on hold poses some difficulties for the ministry, but that's part of being in government and dealing with them.
G. Plant: Well, you're in government; you'll have to deal with them.
What I want to explore in just a bit more detail is the length of the planning process that has already gone on in respect of each of these projects. I would do it as a compendious question, if I could. How long have these projects been on the books of the ministry as things that ought to be done?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: From the moment that these projects are thought about and the land is purchased or acquired, and the rezoning process through the municipal councils and bodies such as that goes through, it takes years for them to come to zoning approval or planning stages for the actual buildings. I can have the staff provide all those details to the hon. member if he is interested in the individual facilities we are contemplating.
G. Plant: I accept that invitation, and I look forward to receiving that information.
One of the concerns that arises is that presumably these facilities and institutions we're contemplating to plan for were necessary to fill needs that have, in some cases, been identified over the course of years. The question is: how are those needs now going to be met in the short term? I recognize that what is required is difficult decisions. The question is: what are the kinds of difficult decisions that the minister is going to have to make over the short term in respect of these projects?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Some of the ways we're trying to deal with these issues, and there might be more as we think about them, are double-bunking in some institutions, extending electronic monitoring programs more than before to deal with minor offenders, and also extending supervised serving of sentences outside the facilities, to the extent that's possible.
G. Plant: Would I be correct in understanding that these alternative ideas are currently under active consideration within the ministry as a result of the imposition of this spending freeze?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, but to a large extent, these ideas have been under consideration earlier on. Obviously, the need becomes much greater to focus on these issues now.
G. Plant: I'm not exactly sure how to ask the next question. The direct way to ask it is this: is your ministry having any input into the review itself? It strikes me that it would be foolish for it not to. If the review is being coordinated, implemented and conducted only under the auspices of the Minister of Finance, they will bring into consideration all the resource limitation issues. But they won't have the benefit of the minister's and the ministry's expertise in respect to the need for the very facilities we're talking about.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is a team working on this issue comprised of representatives from all the major ministries that are affected as a result of the freeze. In general terms, no review would be successful and satisfactory unless you take into account the needs of various ministries before you make final decisions, even when making tough decisions to stop some projects from going ahead. I think priorities have to be looked at, and that's going to be done.
[ Page 525 ]
G. Plant: Does the minister contemplate any consultation taking place with stakeholder groups as part of this freeze, to ensure that their interests and needs are identified and taken into account before any final decisions are made?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: In terms of the stakeholders, the major players are sometimes municipalities, in terms of the zoning approval. We've always been in very close touch with them, and they are always consulted in terms of what we say as part of the committee that's reviewing all of these projects.
G. Plant: Let me go back, then, to tie a knot, to make sure that I understand something that was said earlier. I think there were two different answers about one project. As I understand it, the Prince George law courts project is proceeding, as is one of the Okanagan facilities -- at least it was described by the minister as an Okanagan facility. Is that the Winfield jail?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Okanagan facility has proceeded to the extent of having rezoning approved. That's the extent to which it will proceed for now, until the review is completed.
G. Plant: What about the Prince George courthouse? Where is that?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That is under construction, and it's not affected by the freeze. That was an error on my part earlier on, as I said.
G. Plant: I know that one of my colleagues, the member for Chilliwack, has been assiduous in reminding me that there has been a courthouse needed and pined for in Chilliwack for many years. I know this isn't a corrections issue -- although the minister may think that judges should be locked up sometimes.
Interjection.
G. Plant: I'm only kidding. What is the status of the Chilliwack courthouse presently?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I recognize the problems with respect to Chilliwack and share the concerns. In fact, the hon. member for that area has spoken to me and has, I believe, been briefed somewhat thoroughly by ministry staff with respect to where things are at in terms of the Chilliwack law courts. It has been scheduled for replacement for some time. In fact, I did a five-day trial before the Hon. Judge Selbie several years ago in that courtroom, and I felt then that it needed to be replaced.
Due to all of the fiscal constraints that we function with, we are considering options for delivering services in the Fraser Valley in some alternative fashion. I don't know how, but we're working on it. We will continue to work with the hon. member for that area, and with yourself, to try and resolve some of these issues.
G. Plant: I have some questions now about electronic monitoring. In the annual report for 1994-95, at page 11 there is a statistic: "Over 94 percent of offenders on EMP successfully complete the program." There are two questions: what does it mean to successfully complete the program? And what happens to the other 6 percent?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Successful completion simply means that 94 percent abide by the terms of the electronic monitoring. They don't violate the terms, and they serve out the sentences successfully. The other 6 percent, obviously, engage in some technical violations of the electronic monitoring program and are returned to the facilities to serve out their sentences.
G. Plant: Just to restate that, is it universally the case that the 6 percent of offenders who do violate the terms, technically or otherwise, of the electronic monitoring are in fact returned to custody?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: As I understand it, the program as it's currently operated is generally limited to persons who have been convicted of offences, and doesn't apply or has not yet been extended to persons on interim release or bail. I may be wrong in that. If I am, I hope the minister will correct me. If I'm right, though, the question arises: given the basic cost-effectiveness that it appears to have as a program, and the general condition of overcrowding that exists in the correctional system, has the ministry given any consideration to extending electronic monitoring to persons on judicial interim release? What plans, if any, does the minister have in that regard?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would agree with the hon. member that that is something we should be considering. We would be asking the federal government to change the law. As the law stands now, once you're in remand, you can't be considered for electronic monitoring. But as there is constant pressure on our resources, I think it's one of the ways that we may have some efficiencies.
G. Plant: So I take it that there isn't currently an initiative underway to lobby the federal government for this change. Is that correct?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the ministry has been lobbying the federal government in that regard.
G. Plant: The annual report indicates that the average count of persons participating in the electronic monitoring program increased during the 1994-95 year to 290. Does the minister have more up-to-date statistics?
[11:00]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. For the last three months, the highest count was 436 individuals. That's 20 percent of sentenced offenders. The average count for 1995-96 was 303, which is about 14 percent. The current counts are generally in the range of 375 to 400, which is in the 18 percent to 20 percent range.
G. Plant: Is it the minister's view that these figures are about right, which is to say that EMP is currently being provided to all of the people for whom it is appropriate within the corrections world?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are criteria used to assess the risk of placing offenders on this program. I can tell you that if we could place 95 percent of the offenders on EMP -- keeping public safety issues in mind, if they didn't pose a risk of violently reoffending against victims or other individuals
[ Page 526 ]
-- that is the kind of program we should be placing individuals on, because it's one half the cost of incarcerating them. So there is no limit to what we should be doing. We should be doing as much as we can, but we have to keep the public safety concern paramount in our minds.
G. Plant: I share the minister's concern with respect to public safety. The question I asked earlier arises out of the fact that the total number of persons who are on electronic monitoring is growing. That may be because the total number of people convicted of offences is growing. But if it's not, I'm not sure why that figure is growing. There are a number of possibilities. One is that the criteria are being applied in a more relaxed way; another is that the criteria are changing over time. What is the reason for the growth in the number of individuals who are on EMP, in the context of the minister's statement about his concern for public safety?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Percentages do vary, but they are essentially the same. They have gone up somewhat, I believe, but I think it's substantially a reflection of a growing population in British Columbia. So there are more offenders going to jail and getting out on EMP. I would be happier if we could increase the percentages. That would mean that we are dealing with more offenders on a percentage basis in less a costly fashion.
G. Plant: The availability of the program is dependent on the application of criteria. Are these criteria under review? Do they get changed? Are there any plans to change them?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: These are established criteria, of course, and they are constantly under review with the individuals who work in this program on a day-to-day basis. The current criteria for assessment, if the hon. member is interested, are as follows: voluntary willingness to comply with the conditions of the program; serving a sentence of six months or less; no pattern of violence; no record of sex offences; does not present an apparent threat to the community; has ongoing, constructive time commitments in the community, such as work, education, participation in treatment programs; and has a positive community assessment. We are trying to expand the number of community resources available, in terms of residences, for a possible expansion of the EMP program by way of a pilot project in the Vancouver area at this time, so we might reassess all of this at the end of that.
G. Plant: This pilot project contemplates the possibility that individuals on monitoring would not necessarily be in their own homes but would be in special community residences?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. Some of the offenders have no fixed address or telephone. These residences would provide that and, of course, may be less costly than incarcerating those individuals.
G. Plant: I want to turn to a different corrections issue, which is the concerns that arose as a result of the riot drill at the Vancouver Pretrial Services Centre late last week. I want to ask a couple of questions about how this particular centre is operated. Is the ministry able to say what a code yellow emergency is? If there are other kinds of emergencies, like a code red emergency, how are they different from code yellow emergencies?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously, for the sake of being effective, all of these pieces of information aren't available publicly. But in general terms, a code yellow means that staff requires assistance in some area.
G. Plant: Are there different types of emergency situations with other codes that apply to them?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, there are different codes with different colours, and they are meant for different kinds of circumstances. For instance, there might be a different code for an inmate who may have attempted to commit suicide and is in need of assistance in a particular area.
G. Plant: It appears that the incident on July 12, which is described in the ministry's press release of July 16 as an emergency drill incident, involved some kind of simulation of a code yellow emergency at the services centre. Is the minister able to say whether that is the case?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: I recognize that there are some investigations underway into what actually happened during the course of this incident, and I will have some questions about those in a minute. But is it the usual practice of the corrections branch to conduct these exercises or drills in circumstances where inmates are involved in them?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Absolutely not.
G. Plant: So if it were the case -- and I'm speaking hypothetically -- that inmates were in some respect involved in or directly affected by a code yellow emergency drill incident, it would be contrary to good corrections practice within a centre.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It would clearly be unauthorized.
G. Plant: What is the investigation, inspection and standards office that is referred to in the press release of July 16, 1996, as an office which is conducting one of the two reviews arising out of this incident?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's an independent office set up by statute after the Perrault inquiry of some years ago. That office is not part of the corrections branch. It reports directly to the Attorney General.
G. Plant: Is this an office which is permanently staffed. If so, what is its staff complement? Or alternatively, is it an office that gets filled on an ad hoc basis, as and when the need arises?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me add to what I said earlier with respect to the statute. I understand the Correction Act was amended to include this independent office -- independent of corrections -- and it has a complement of ten full-time individuals, including a director who reports directly to the Attorney General. It also investigates court services, sheriffs and the like, if there are incidents in that regard. So it is not just meant for corrections.
[ Page 527 ]
G. Plant: So the director reports directly to the Attorney General and not to the director of the corrections branch.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.
G. Plant: I'm looking for it in the organizational chart of the Ministry of the Attorney General for 1994-95. I guess the reason it's not there is that the organizational chart is constructed in a way that has really two trees or umbrellas under each of the two deputy ministers. This office would not appear under either of those because this person reports directly to the Attorney General rather than to either of the deputies.
[11:15]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That office does directly report to the Attorney General. I think the chart that you have may be an earlier chart which doesn't show the uses of that office, but it reports directly to the Attorney General.
G. Plant: Let me put a proposition to the minister for his response. The people who are in the Vancouver Pretrial Services Centre are individuals who, I would assume, by definition are people who have been charged with offences but not yet convicted. They are individuals who the law presumes are innocent until proven guilty not that their civil rights would necessarily be any different from the civil rights of people who have been convicted of crimes.
Nonetheless, these are individuals who may, in some cases for the first time in their lives, find themselves caught in the confines of an institution. They have limited recourse to the public and limited access to whatever ordinary support services they might have in the community. They are somewhat at the mercy of a fairly large and authoritarian kind of institution, filled with jail guards and those kinds of things.
They're people who probably don't have access to the kinds of vehicles or ways of making concerns known that most of us take for granted. Those individuals, irrespective of the truth of the facts in respect to this incident, are there in that institution. They're being told that there are two reviews under way: one is a review that is internal to the branch itself, and another is a review which, although it will result in a report to you directly rather than filtered through officials, is nonetheless a report that is made to you as the minister who has the responsibility for corrections within British Columbia. It seems to me that in circumstances where we have this kind of an incident, the public interest will be better served if an investigation were conducted by someone who was entirely outside the Ministry of Attorney General or any of its branches -- in fact, completely independent of the Ministry of Attorney General, so that the review would be conducted by someone who had no vested interest in maintaining the integrity of the branch or the ministry one way or the other. That's the proposition.
The Chair: The committee will recess to facilitate the division in the House.
The committee recessed from 11:19 a.m. to 11:32 a.m.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The question that the hon. member raises is very important. You currently have two investigations underway. One is the internal investigation and the other is this independent investigation. As I said before in the House, I want to look at the results of those two investigations and I would share them with the hon. member and the House -- and the public subsequent to that, if there is a need. All options would be considered. The interest I have in this is that an investigation ought to be done appropriately and should seem to have been done appropriately, and if there are any lingering questions at the end of the day, I would certainly consider all of the options and take into account what the hon. member has said.
G. Plant: I appreciate the assurance just given. The general subject of corrections and facilities has the interest of a couple of my colleagues, so I'm going to defer to them for a few minutes.
M. de Jong: The Attorney General will know that he has inherited the unenviable position -- right across the province -- of being the arbiter of where new courthouses and new corrections facilities are to be located. I come here today not seeking his fiscal assurance on a project but, more importantly, an expression of his philosophical leanings with respect to a project that is in the very early developmental stages in my community in Abbotsford, where there is a generally and legitimately held belief that there is a need for courthouse facilities and some corrections facilities. But the discussion that's taking place relates to the possibility of a private developer constructing a facility that could be made available to the community.
It goes beyond that. There has been an expression of willingness on the part of the local civic government to make lands available, and it's novel in the sense that this notion of a justice centre that would incorporate courthouse facilities and other justice-related facilities would necessarily have a commercial component to it. The most recent discussions relate to the possibility of attaching a remand-type facility to it. There are undoubtedly challenges associated with doing that, particularly given the location that's being discussed. But one of the concerns -- and meetings have taken place involving member representatives from the court services branch, local bar officials and officials from the existing courthouse facility -- relates to what is thought might be a hesitancy on the part of the Attorney General's ministry and the judiciary to see a facility that represents an amalgam of what has heretofore been public facilities with a commercial component. Now, the minister obviously can't speak on behalf of the judiciary, but he can perhaps give some indication at this stage whether that is a project, or a notion of a project, that the ministry would be supportive of, at least in principle.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think it's an important issue, and when one is faced with the fiscal constraints that we are faced
M. de Jong: I understand that this is likely the first the minister has personally heard of the project. If I can be a little more specific and ask if the
[ Page 528 ]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the judiciary and the bar were concerned, that would be a cause of concern for me. But when I started articles years ago, there were court facilities in the building on Georgia Street just across from the old courthouse, and several floors were taken up by private offices and there were banks on the ground floor. I articled, and I, in fact, appeared in those courts regularly, and they functioned well. So I am not discounting any concept at this time, but if the judiciary and the bar were very, very concerned about it, one would have to take that into account.
M. de Jong: I won't belabour the point. I appreciate the remarks made by the minister and would say, for the record at least, that it wasn't that long ago that courts in some of the outlying and not so outlying areas of the province were held in church basements and other community facilities. I'm not suggesting we take ourselves back to those days, but this notion that justice has to be delivered in an ornate facility that is exclusive to the use of the
I appreciate the fact that the minister is, at this point, open conceptually to the development of a plan, and will
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I will be happy to receive that report.
J. Weisbeck: The item I'm going to speak to today is very specific to my riding of Okanagan East. As you're probably aware, we went through a very, very difficult process of jail-site selection. It has created a number of problems in my community. I wanted to read just a very small part of this letter to the editor:
I'm concerned about that. There seemed to be an awful lot of emphasis on actually promoting this particular jail site. I would like to know why they were so determined to push this site through when an independent poll we did clearly showed that the public was very much against it.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Rather than getting into the specifics of all that happened, let me say in general terms that I'm familiar with the issue. I became aware of this issue when I became Attorney General. But I was also comforted by the fact that extensive consultation had taken place over two years and a citizens' advisory committee went through the process. At the end of the day, we all had to make difficult choices. Of course, there isn't ever any choice that one makes among those difficult choices that is acceptable to all individuals or institutions in any given area. It's important for us to remember that when these kinds of institutions are being placed in a particular area, there is no unanimous welcome mat spread out for these institutions.
I appreciate the concern the hon. member has, and I'm aware that he has expressed these concerns before. But I believe that all of the consultation indicated to us that this was the most appropriate site -- chosen, of course, pursuant to a very extensive consultation process. Obviously it doesn't make everyone happy, and I understand that.
J. Weisbeck: The public was involved very late in the process, and this was the problem. I think a lot of the decisions were made before the public was involved, and when they finally were, they felt as though they were left out.
But what I really want to know is how many dollars were actually spent on promotion, because I do think it was a promotion; it was a really hard attempt to promote this site to the public. There seemed to be an awful lot of dollars spent. I'd like to have that number, please.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think it would be wrong to categorize what happened as promotion or advertising per se. I understand that no more than $500 or $600 was spent on advertising a phone line. Obviously there was a lot of education; a lot of stereotypes and myths had to be dealt with by way of education. I understand that in terms of the consultation process, land acquisition and zoning, there was a cost of approximately $600,000. If $600 of that was spent on a phone-line ad in the local paper, I believe that's quite appropriate.
[11:45]
J. Weisbeck: I think it was far more excessive than that. They flew people around the province showing them various jail sites, etc., and there were videotapes made. I'm sure it was much more than $600.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That was the public review committee -- the citizens' advisory committee -- and obviously for them to provide the government with their independent assessment of what they thought was in the best interests of all British Columbians, they had to be taken to different sites. I think that's an appropriate thing to do.
J. Weisbeck: I guess the final question is whether this facility is going to be built. Is it in this budget, or is it under review as well? My concern is that the school next door has been put under review, and the citizens of that area are very concerned if we need jails more than we need schools for our children.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The project is under review. As I said before in response to the hon. critic for this ministry, I would be the happiest Attorney General if I could shut down a corrections facility in British Columbia rather than having to build one.
R. Neufeld: It's pretty close to the time that we should adjourn.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.