1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 18, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

11107 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Community Tree Protection Act (Bill M231). Ms. Cull

Introduction and first reading –– 11107

Oral Questions

Castlegar airport. Mr. D’Arcy –– 11107

Closure of Duffey Lake Road. Mr. Rabbitt –– 11108

Financial assistance to fruit growers. Mr. Barlee –– 11108

Rent increases. Mr. Blencoe –– 11109

Driftnet fishing. Mr. Peterson –– 11109

Flood damage compensation. Mr. Zirnhelt –– 11110

Ministerial Statement

Americans fishing In Canadian waters. Hon. Mr. Savage –– 11110

Mr. Rose

Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 62). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Fraser) –– 11110

Mr. Clark

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Gabelmann

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Solicitor-General estimates. (Hon. Mr. Fraser)

On vote 61: minister's office –– 11113

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Sihota

Ms. Pullinger

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Ree

Mr. Rabbitt

Mr. Zirnhelt

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Davidson

Mr. Jones

Mr. Perry

Mr. Williams

Game Farm Act (Bill 9). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Savage) –– 11150

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Perry

Third reading

Food Products Standards Act (Bill 57). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Savage) –– 11158

Ms. Edwards

Third reading

British Columbia Wine Act (Bill 58). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Savage) –– 11160

Ms. Edwards

Third reading

Family and Child Service Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 45). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Jacobsen) –– 11162

Ms. Smallwood

Third reading

Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 60). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 11163

Mr. Lovick

, Ms. Edwards

Mr. Blencoe

Third reading

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR VEITCH :

An old friend of mine from many moons ago is in the members' gallery.

His name is Mr. Guenter Raedler and he is a vice-president of the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Would the House please make

him welcome.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I'd like the House to

welcome a visitor from Hemet, California, a young lady by the name of

Karyn Larieze, who is here to observe the operations of one of her best

friends, our legislative Page Heidi Mueller.

MR. BARLEE : From the lakeside city of Penticton, Mr. David Innes is here. Would the House please make him welcome.

MR. REID :

Mr. Speaker, on your behalf and on behalf of myself, I would like to

make a special welcome today to Gwen and Ray Baker from White Rock, who

are visiting in the precincts. Would the House make them welcome.

MS. PULLINGER :

It gives me great pleasure today to introduce my cousin and friend Bill

Kitch, and his friend Terri Pleasance, from North Vancouver and

Richmond respectively. Would the House please help me make them welcome.

MR. SERWA :

Some 32 years ago a friend of mine, Doug Mervyn, and I were wandering

in the centre of the North Island of New Zealand. By fortuitous chance

we met a very splendid gentleman and we spent a couple of days fishing

with him. Since that time the legacy of that relationship has benefited

three families over a period of time, and I would like the House to

welcome George and Vera Enright from Maraetai, near Auckland in New

Zealand.

MR. PETERSON : On behalf of our Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds), it gives me a great deal of pleasure

to introduce to the House Betty and Bill Fraser of West Vancouver and

Dr. Stuart Strachan of Victoria. Would the House please join me in

making them very welcome.

MR. JONES : Joining us

today is the chairperson of the Pacific region of the Canadian

Federation of Students, Brad Lavigne. Would the House please make Brad

welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, visiting

from the great constituency of Kamloops today are three people I'd like

the House to welcome: Rosemary, Charles and Jason Humphrey. Please give

them a warm welcome.

MR. PERRY : As is the tradition

at least once a year in this House, I'd like to welcome to the gallery

all of the other people in the audience who haven't been introduced.

Introduction of Bills

COMMUNITY TREE PROTECTION ACT

Ms. Cull presented a bill intituled Community Tree Protection Act.

MS. CULL :

Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Municipal Act by restoring a

provision allowing municipalities to regulate the cutting of trees

within their boundaries, with the exception of trees in a tree-farm

licence and trees that are covered by the provincial forests under the

Forest Act.

The bill recognizes that urban trees are public

amenities every bit as much as they are private amenities, and it

recognizes that mature trees contribute as much to the neighbourhood

quality of life as the type, size and scale of buildings, which is

already subject to community regulation through zoning bylaws.

The

wholesale clearing of trees for urban development and the thoughtless

cutting of specific trees by individuals has caused considerable

controversy in greater Victoria and greater Vancouver. But municipal

councils have been unable to do anything about it, because they have

had their authority stripped from the Municipal Act through a

misguided, ideologically based program to remove their flexibility and

creativity.

The bill will satisfy the longstanding request

of the UBCM to regain power and will put the power to preserve mature

trees back into the hands of local government.

Bill M231

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

CASTLEGAR AIRPORT

MR. D'ARCY :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and

Highways. The terrain around the Castlegar airport makes it perhaps the

most difficult of any in British Columbia for a pilot making that

approach. The federal government yesterday announced, in its usual

cavalier fashion, that they are withdrawing traffic controllers from

that particular airport. The federal government seems bound and

determined to abandon most of their services in British Columbia,

including post offices and unemployment services.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Is there a question here somewhere?

[ Page 11108 ]

MR. D'ARCY :

Mr. Speaker, I don't really wish to take up the entire question period

with this question, but as long as the government House Leader insists

on interrupting, I suppose it'll be spun out.

Interjections.

MR. D'ARCY : If the government House Leader wishes to make a speech, he can always rise in his place anytime he wishes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Will the member please continue with his question.

MR. D'ARCY :

I'm not going to ask the minister if she opposes this closure, because

I take that as a given. I am going to ask her, however, if she has

decided to put anything in place to ensure the safety of the passengers

and occupants of the some 30,000 aircraft which use this airport every

year, in order to fill this gap that's going to be left by the federal

government. Quite clearly the actions of the federal government are not

adequate in this regard, and it would seem that the province of B.C. is

going to have to take up the slack. What has the minister decided to do?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I'm afraid, hon. member, that I am not familiar with the problem. It

seems to me that we could be better served by some of our federal

Members of Parliament who would work for us in Ottawa. But I'll take

the question on notice and bring back the information to you as quickly

as possible.

MR. D'ARCY : I appreciate the minister's answer, and I'll await her reply.

supplementary to the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and

Technology. He's been sitting there comfortably, waiting for this. As

this control tower serves the Selkirk College commercial training

program, whose graduates are respected by the aircraft industry

colleague to make sure that the post-secondary needs of this operation

continue to be served, and to assist the Minister of Transportation in

ensuring that traffic safety at Castlegar airport is going to be

maintained.?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : As the member

indicated, I knew this was coming as soon as I heard the question to

the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Selkirk College operates

one of the best flight training programs in Canada.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Sure. Why not? One of the reasons it's such a

good training facility is, as the member indicated earlier, that it's in

a mountainous area, and students qualifying in that part of the world really

have earned their wings. But no, I take the member's comments and his question

with some sincerity, and I will be pursuing that, along with my colleague the

Minister of Transportation and Highways, with the federal authorities — and

with some urgency as well.

CLOSURE OF DUFFEY LAKE ROAD

MR. RABBITT :

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Native Affairs. In light

of the serious crisis that has developed as a result of the blockade of

the Duffey Lake Road by the Mount Currie Indian band and their refusal

to remove the blockade until they've met with the federal minister

responsible for Indian affairs, the Hon. Tom Siddon, will the minister

facilitate a meeting between Mr. Siddon and the Mount Currie Indian

band as soon as possible?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : Last

Sunday the deputy minister met with the chief of the Mount Currie band

and members of the band. They discussed several issues, but as you

indicate, they feel very strongly that their land claim is not

receiving the attention it should from Ottawa, and indicated that they

requested a meeting with Tom Siddon and some senior people from the

Department of Indian Affairs. We've passed that request along as well.

Inevitably,

out of this issue, there have been calls made to my offices and, I'm

sure, to many MLAs' offices by people wondering why the RCMP moved

quickly on the independent truckers at the border crossings but failed

to move as quickly with the Mount Currie band. It's important for

members of the House to understand that at Mount Currie the roadblock

is on reserve lands, that Highways don't have a gazetted right-of-way

across the reserve, that in fact the highway at Mount Currie is in

trespass of the reserve, and that the band is within its rights to do

as they wish on their own reserve lands.

[2:15]

the wake of Meech Lake and the situation in Oka with the Mohawks,

emotions are running very high in the Indian communities across Canada.

It's important for us to consider that as we deal with this issue and

do what we can to resolve issues and avoid confrontation. That's the

approach we'll be taking, and I hope that Indian Affairs Minister

Siddon will also respond in a similar manner,

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

TO FRUIT GROWERS

MR. BARLEE :

To the Minister of Agriculture. The province's fruit-growing industry

is desperately in need of financial assistance and cannot wait on

proposals from the Premier, who is only at this late date addressing

serious, longstanding problems that have existed since well before the

day he first came into office. The question is — and it's a serious question —

has the Minister of Agriculture prepared measures to help the fruit

growers, such as an immediate extraordinary grant of ten cents per

pound for fruit produced in 1989?

[ Page

11109 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE : The member is from a fruit-growing area and

obviously realizes the importance. Let me assure you, this government

absolutely realizes the importance as well, because we have launched

into discussions — as you can well appreciate — with the

industry. I'm sure you've had lots of feedback, Mr. Member. As

government, we are very concerned about the future of the fruit

industry in this province. I have been working with my colleagues and

other levels in our ministry to try and see where we can best assist

the fruit industry. I cannot at this stage announce the type or the

amount of the help, but you can rest assured that this government does

care and will help.

MR. BARLEE : A supplementary to

the same minister. Has the minister directed his department to have

this legislation completed for presentation and debate in this House

prior to the end of the current session?

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The question is out of order.

MR. BARLEE :

Clearly what we have is the Premier proposing a body, by which no

preparation work has really been done, and ignoring the immediate

problems.

Interjections.

MR. BARLEE : Members on that side may find it very humorous.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please, hon. members. The member will please proceed.

MR. BARLEE :

Clearly the government members don't realize the seriousness of the

problem; I think the tree-fruit growers of the Okanagan and Similkameen

do.

Here's the question: has the minister at the very least

picked a date by which he expects to announce an extraordinary grant

for 1989?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : That is future policy, as

the member may well know. I'll reserve the decision on the date until

we have all the details ready to hand out.

RENT INCREASES

MR. BLENCOE :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for

residential tenancy in the province. British Columbia tenants and their

families continue to experience intolerably high rent increases and a

government that has so far refused to act to protect tenants.

The latest example is in Kitsilano, on Blenheim Street, where tenants have

received increases of between 60 and 126 percent. They have been told that there

is no cost-increase justification — the fact is that it can be achieved. The

question to the minister is: how long is this government going to sit on the

sidelines and let such intolerable increases go ahead without some review or

rent stabilization program in British Columbia?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

Mr. Speaker, I want the member to know that the government will not sit

and wait at all, but will continue to do as it has done in the past: we

will take whatever action we can to help the people who face

difficulties in society in whatever way. If his suggestion of rent

controls was a solution, we would have looked at that a long time ago.

But we know that it is not a solution, that it will aggravate and make

the situation even worse than it is. His party has said that

repeatedly, but he continues to pursue this as a suggestion. It's a

political agenda, and it doesn't work. It won't work, and it won't help

the people, so we're not going to become involved in something that

does nothing worthwhile for the people who have this problem.

MR. BLENCOE :

The minister is therefore endorsing 126 percent rent increases in

British Columbia. That's what he's saying today. Does the minister

think that British Columbia tenants and their families can afford more

than a doubling of their rent without any justification, with no bona

fide reasons to show that those rent increases are justified?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

The minister is not endorsing anything of the kind. The minister does

not pass judgment on rent increases. This one appears, from the

information we are given, to be very excessive; others are more

moderate. They are done between the landlord and the tenant, and we do

not endorse or have input into what the increases will be. The only way

to deal with the problem of rental supply is to get more accommodation

on the market. That's what we're doing, and we're doing a very good job

of it — a job we're all proud of.

DRIFTNET FISHING

MR. PETERSON :

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. Following

up on my question of last week, we have now seen the first tangible

move by Japan to curtail its driftnet fishery. Unfortunately, it does

not affect the North Shore fishery, which is our shared area of

concern. I would like to know what steps the minister has decided to

take to consolidate our progress in eliminating the ecological

devastation of driftnet fishing.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : It

is indeed a pleasure to try and answer as quickly as I can. As you

know, this government has taken the lead, from the point of view of

Canada, in trying to deal with the driftnet issue, specifically in the

North Pacific. In our evaluation, it is a disaster.

For

those of you who do not know, we have funded two observers this year to

be on board the Japanese fishing fleet. We have put $60,000 in place to

[ Page 11110 ]

pay

for those observers. We are participating in meetings with federal

officials and are fully briefed, very often, on international issues.

have met recently, as you can appreciate, with state legislatures,

state representatives and Fisheries representatives relative to how we

can best attack the problem of the cessation, as quickly as possible,

of driftnet fishing in the North Pacific. This type of fishing is

totally unacceptable and wreaks havoc on marine life. We will do

everything we can as a province to have it cease and desist as quickly

as possible.

FLOOD DAMAGE COMPENSATION

MR. ZIRNHELT :

I have a question for the Solicitor-General. Riverbank erosion from

recent floods is forcing ranchers in the Bonaparte and Horsefly area to

replace washed-out bridges with substantially longer bridges than were

there originally. But government policy states, in one example that I

know of, that a 75-foot bridge will have to be replaced by a 75-foot

bridge, although the span is now some 100 feet.

Will the Solicitor-General agree that this policy is short-sighted, inadequate, and falls short of helping...?

Interjections.

MR. ZIRNHELT : At a time like this there can be nothing wrong with bridge-building questions.

These

ranchers need to get to their crops on the other side, and this policy

is short-sighted. Can you assure the ranchers that this policy is going

to be revised?

HON. MR. FRASER : The policy that the

government has in place is very generous. We have gone to extraordinary

lengths to help people. We've gone to a lot of trouble and a lot of

thought to make sure that people who have suffered losses get

compensation We do not, as you know, compensate all losses.

Ministerial Statement

AMERICANS FISHING IN

CANADIAN WATERS

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I rise to make a ministerial statement, albeit at very short notice.

have received information this morning that the United States is openly

contesting Canadian sovereignty in our territorial waters. American

vessels have been spotted fishing for salmon south of the A-B line.

They are accompanied by an American Coast Guard vessel. Canada has not

recognized that the U.S. has rights to fish for salmon south of the A-B

line, although American fishermen are allowed to fish around Cape Muzon

for salmon and elsewhere for groundfish.

I've ordered my officials to contact Ottawa and demand immediate action.

I wish to assure the fishermen of B.C. that this government stands in full support

of our territorial boundary. The fishery is one of our greatest renewable resources

and it must be protected.

The

Premier has advised me that he will be immediately contacting the

Governor of Alaska, Steve Cowper, to protest this flagrant provocation

of Canadian and British Columbian sovereignty.

MR. ROSE :

We would have appreciated it if we had been given a little bit of

notice. I don't know; the Americans may be confused. They may think

it's just part of the free trade deal.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE : Some of us on this side of the House feel that free trade is an invasion of our sovereignty as well.

would like to echo the minister's concerns and say we consider this a

very serious matter as well, and would lend any support possible —

as a unanimous position, from this side of the House as well as the

other side of the House — to put as firm a protest to the federal

government as we can.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call committee on Bill 62, Mr. Speaker.

SOLICITOR GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 62; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

section 1.

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Chairman, our critic is unavoidably away at the moment, and I would

like the minister to clarify what precisely this amendment does. The

explanatory note says it clarifies the losses and expenses for which

compensation may be awarded under the Criminal Injury Compensation Act.

I guess the germane question is: does it expand the amount which may be

compensated or does it narrow it in some way?

[2:30]

HON. MR. FRASER : Actually, it's really straightforward. I don't understand why you had a question on it.

MR. CLARK :

As I explained, our critic is away. I'm sure he's more cognizant of the

details of this than I am. But I note that this says that it clarifies

the losses and expenses for which compensation may be awarded. I'm

trying to get a sense of whether it expands or narrows the number of

things that may be compensated for under the Criminal Injury

Compensation Act.

[ Page

11111 ]

HON. MR. FRASER : It's a straight clarification.

MR. CLARK :

Perhaps the minister could say why it was required to be clarified. Was

there a problem in terms of money being awarded which it was felt

shouldn't be awarded under the Criminal Injury Compensation Act? Or is

it the reverse, that certain things were exempted from the act and this

was necessary to clarify it in order to facilitate the compensation of

victims of crime?

HON. MR. FRASER : It identifies

those types of losses and expenses for which compensation may be

awarded. The existing provisions were general. In describing the types

of damages eligible for award, in practice the board has tended to

refer to the categories for eligible damages for which Canada

contributes to the province pursuant to cost-sharing agreements. The

new proposed categories reflect those contained in the cost-sharing

agreement and will clarify the types of damage eligible for

compensation.

MR. CLARK : Is it fair to say that this

has the potential of decreasing the amount of compensation to victims

of crime, in the sense that now what is to be compensated is

specifically defined? Where the general provision may have been

interpreted loosely, that option is not available. If that's the case,

could he inform the House which kinds of things were compensated under

the previous legislation that will not be compensated under this

clarification of the Criminal Injury Compensation Act?

HON. MR. FRASER : It is my understanding that there will be no reduction.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

MR. CLARK :

I would like some clarification of this

section 9 of the Motion Picture

Act. As members know, there was a fairly major change in the Motion

Picture Act which had the ability of affecting projectionists and

others. I wonder whether this has some impact on that. The easiest

question is: why is it necessary to repeal this? Is it a delegation now

of authority to municipalities and a reduction in the role of the

director of film classification? Is that what it does?

HON. MR. FRASER :

You are talking about the role of the municipality and the role of the

classification board. The removal of this section, really, lets each

jurisdiction perform its respective roles.

MR. CLARK :

What did

section 9 do that requires you to remove it to facilitate the

roles of the municipalities and the director of film classification?

What are you deleting, and why are you deleting it?

HON. MR. FRASER : The

section that was in place obliged municipalities

to issue municipal licences to people who had authority from the film classification

board. What the change does is say to municipalities: "If you want to do

some zoning to make sure the films are shown in specific areas, you may do that.

We will classify the film. You can do your municipal work by having licences."

The two were in conflict, and that's why it has been changed.

MR. CLARK :

Does this enable municipalities, then, to restrict the operation of a

particular theatre the municipality finds offensive to the community?

Is that the intent?

HON. MR. FRASER : They can zone

locations for showing a movie, but they can't deny the showing of the

movie if it has been approved by the classification board.

MR. CLARK :

So they can, with this, deny through zoning. Can they rezone an

existing theatre out of existence, essentially? Does this enable that

option now for municipalities? It wasn't there before, because if the

film was cleared by the director of film classification, then the

person had every right to show that film. Now is the reverse true, in

other words, of what you said? They can now, in fact, close down a

theatre by using their municipal powers, and the theatre can't rely on

the film classification branch to argue that their films are lawfully

approved, or something.

HON. MR. FRASER : I advise that it's not retroactive.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

MR. LOVICK :

I note in the explanatory note here that the intention of this

particular amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act is simply to introduce a

region-by-region-basis program for the reduction of motor vehicle

exhaust emission. In a very quick canvass of the section, I too must

admit that I'm a little out of my league. This isn't my area, and

therefore I haven't had a chance to read the entire chunk of the

section, but I'm wondering if the minister could just start by giving

us a brief explanation of why that's necessary. Is it because we burn

higher-octane gas on the lower mainland and that kind of thing?

HON. MR. FRASER :

The member is right. There are areas in the province with significant

air pollution problems — one of them being Vancouver — so

this act makes it possible for us to have emission testing on vehicles

in specific areas such as Vancouver.

MR. LOVICK :

I appreciate that answer. I just wonder what significant differences

there are in this act with this amendment as compared to the old act.

Is it the case that only in the last year we've recognized a genuine,

brand-new need, or is this

[ Page 11112 ]

simply a polishing and clarifying of things that we had in some form before?

HON. MR. FRASER : This is new.

Sections 5 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

MR. LOVICK :

A couple of us on this side of the House have pointed out that we are

without our critic in this area, and I think the public interest would

be better served if we were just to slow it down ever so slightly so we

can at least understand what the

section headings are, rather than just

peremptorily saying: "Aye, aye, aye."

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK : Yes, say "aye" slowly. You could spell it perhaps, Mr. Premier. It might be a struggle. Just give us a moment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GABELMANN : I wonder if the minister would explain. Do I understand that

section 9 reduces the penalty from three years to two years?

HON. MR. FRASER : You asked me whether it reduces it from three years to two years. You haven't read it?

MR. GABELMANN : Have you? What's the answer?

HON. MR. FRASER :

As you probably know, the

section is repealed and replaced with a

provision that establishes a mandatory prohibition from driving for two

years following a conviction for failure to stop when requested by a

peace officer. In other words, this particular

section has had some

problems in that there had to be a difference between a high-speed

chase and an omission by a motorist to stop when he or she didn't

happen to notice that the policeman was behind.

There

was a

mandatory conviction, and that was seen to be incorrect by the Charter

of Rights and that sort of thing. So it's now saying: "If it is indeed

an inadvertent mistake, then obviously this will not apply." However,

if it is in fact this way — the way it will be now — the

judge can make a decision based on the merits of the particular case.

MR. GABELMANN : I must say I'm not clear on this. If you evade arrest

by speeding away from a police officer, under the current legislation, if you

get caught you are subject to three years' — as I understand it — prohibition

on your licence. This amendment would reduce not the jail sentence, but the

penalty of forfeiture of licence to two years — which begins on the day of the

conviction. So, if you get a three-year jail sentence, the first two years you're

in jail you can't drive. It doesn't seem to make a heck of a lot of

sense.

wonder about a couple of things. Why is it reduced from three to two,

if in fact that's correct? Why wouldn't the forfeiture of your licence

become effective on the day you get out of jail, rather than while

you're still there?

HON. MR. FRASER : The

section

says that if you do run away and get into a high-speed chase, for

example, you get convicted of that and this as well.

MR. GABELMANN : I wonder if the minister would like to try that again.

HON. MR. FRASER : We'll try again, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your indulgence.

The

old

section said three years; you're absolutely right. It was seen to

be extraordinarily punitive. This new one says that if you're guilty

under one of these particular sections in the act, then you will get a

two-year probation.

MR. GABELMANN : I hesitate to

accuse the government of being soft on crime, but that's an impression

here. It's a pretty serious offence when you drive at a high speed away

from a pursuing police car.

The government seems to want to

reduce, the driver's-licence component of the penalty. I don't

understand that. Nor do I understand why the forfeiture would occur

while you're possibly in jail. The time of your licence being forfeited

can be eliminated while you're in jail. You can come out and drive

away. That's not a penalty, is it? Or have I misunderstood this?

[2:45]

HON. MR. FRASER : In fact, this was not initiated by us. The courts ordered us to make this change; that's why the change was made.

MR. GABELMANN :

I'm glad we're not in the Attorney-General's estimates. Courts don't

order legislatures to make changes; they interpret laws made by

parliaments. Unless we've got a Charter of Rights violation here.... If

it's the Charter of Rights that is creating a problem here, I wonder if

the minister could explain how the Charter has affected this.

HON. MR. FRASER :

The court said that the previous

section was punitive, and as a

consequence dismissed a case. This is our attempt to put into the act

something in the way of penalty for this crime or infraction.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

MR. LOVICK : Are sections 10 through 12 fairly construed as housekeeping? Okay, 10 and 11 we can let go.

HON. MR. FRASER :

Section 10 establishes securement rules that will apply to all roads in British

[ Page

11113 ]

Columbia. That's basically housekeeping to make sure we have safe tie-downs and load securities all over the province.

Section

11 is actually an interesting small amendment. It really says you can

take a car from one jurisdiction to another without having to get two

permits. You can get one to go from here to Alberta, for example. It is

really a convenience for people transferring cars from place A to place

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

MR. LOVICK :

I am wondering if the Solicitor-General could share with us the origin

of this. Do these recommendations come from a law reform commission or

something regarding parole?

HON. MR. FRASER : This came from our own parole board. It gives a prisoner the right of appeal.

MR. LOVICK :

Do I understand correctly then that prior to this particular amendment

there was no right of appeal of a parole judgment or a parole board

decision?

HON. MR. FRASER : That's correct — not within the statutes of B.C.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

section 15.

MR. LOVICK :

Regarding the Transport of Dangerous Goods Act and the amendments

listed here, can the Solicitor-General perhaps give us an overview of

the intention of these?

HON. MR. FRASER : This

particular

section gives the RCMP the right to look for dangerous

goods, which they didn't have before. In addition to that, it says we

can designate a class of person as opposed to an individual person. So

it is by class as opposed to by name, which makes it administratively

simpler.

Sections 15 and 16 approved.

section 17.

MR. LOVICK :

I am just wondering if the minister would tell us what the situation

was before this amendment in terms of the province's ability to recover

its own costs.

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr. Chairman, we would have been obliged to sue.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. FRASER : I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 62, Solicitor-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker,

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

On vote 61: minister's office, $267,592 (continued).

MR. LOVICK :

When we left off the discussion of these estimates last night, the

subject of our discussion was commercial vehicle inspection and, more

specifically, truck safety. I want to pick up on that for a moment, if

I may.

Before that, however, I would like to advise the

minister of the document I made reference to last night that I couldn't

recall the title of. I am sure he will appreciate knowing it came from

the British Columbia Safety Council, and it was a submission offered to

the traffic safety directorate. The document, incidentally, was

entitled "Traffic Safety Initiatives: A Time for Action," and was

submitted, I believe, in September 1989. It is interesting to note that

just for the record, because I detected in the newest document

published — the discussion papers entitled "Traffic Safety Initiatives" —

some evidence of that particular document's influence. It seems to me

there are a couple of specific recommendations that have obviously been

picked up by the traffic safety directorate, so I think we owe the

British Columbia Safety Council some gratitude for its input.

want to begin by picking up where we left off. Yesterday in answer to

my opening queries about traffic, truck safety and highway safety.... I

made reference to the very high standards that we have in the province,

and the minister was quite confident about that. He also went on to

talk about what might be done in order to ensure that the standards are

adhered to. It seemed to me he was using some pretty powerful language

that suggested some significant action might be taken.

I would refer, if I may, to the Blues of July 17, last night, in which the minister said:

"We

will probably increase the auditing of the preventive maintenance

programs so that people adhere to our standards. We are prepared to

become very difficult and virtually punitive, if necessary, with those

who disobey our rules.... If it is necessary for us to lift individual

drivers' licences to make the highways safer, we will do that. If it's

necessary

[ Page 11114 ]

for us to remove commercial...carrier plates, we're prepared to do that."

Now

all those words sound encouraging, I'm sure. What I wondered was

whether the minister could give us any indication of specific measures

his ministry is looking at to beef up the enforcement of standards to

ensure that those standards are being adhered to. Can he give us any

specifics?

HON. MR. FRASER : There's no question that

we're serious about safety and that we want people to make sure they

are Indeed driving safe cars and trucks. We are looking at things such

as more spot-checks and bigger fines.

MR. LOVICK : I

thank the minister for that. I'm wondering if it might be possible to

look at some other possibilities. I would just refer him to some

correspondence I believe he will have received by now from the Western

Owner-Operators' Association. That organization has been through a

rather difficult time, a difficult dispute. Their two concerns were

essentially (

a) that they weren't being paid sufficient money, and (

b) safety. You can argue that the two issues overlap. Certainly they made

the case that they weren't being paid enough money to do the kind of

maintenance on their own vehicles that would guarantee public safety.

That was part of their argument.

the document I'm quoting from now — a letter to the

Solicitor-General dated July 10, just in case he wants to make

reference to it —

they offer a number of suggestions as to how we guarantee that the high

standards will be adhered to. They talk, for example, about an

apprenticeship program for people taking up the occupation or vocation

of truck-driving, suggesting as well that perhaps individuals who have

been in the field for a while should be given some refresher courses,

some updating, simply because the technology of motor transport is

expanding and getting more and more complicated as time goes by.

I'll put a number of these questions at once, if I may. It may expedite matters somewhat.

The

other area they suggest is inspections. They argue that we now have a

system for commercial vehicle inspection whereby members of the RCMP

pre-eminently, though perhaps other police forces — I don't know that —

have the ability to stop a vehicle and draw that vehicle's attention to

what appears to be a failure to meet the standard. I guess that is

based on a visual assessment or something. The argument by the

owner-operators is that these people are perhaps not qualified to do

that sort of inspection, which must be done only by qualified

Inspectors or qualified mechanics. I'm wondering if the minister wants

to respond to that.

They also make reference to the fact that contrary to the minister's response

that a good chunk of the responsibility must rest with the driver.... To be sure,

that's the case, but as these people point out, if you aren't making

enough money to make payments on your rig, then you're obviously not going

to replace your tires, for example, as regularly as you ought, and the longer

the failure to replace goes on, the greater the safety risk. With all due deference,

I think the owner-operators might have some difficulty accepting the Solicitor-General's

comments from yesterday that a good chunk of that responsibility must rest with

the driver himself or herself.

I'm

wondering if the minister might like to respond to those concerns and

questions expressed by the people actually doing the work of driving.

HON. MR FRASER :

Mr. Chairman, the member is correct: we are indebted to a number of

organizations for input into the traffic safety initiatives. As we

mentioned yesterday, we encourage people to make their submissions to

us by September 30 this year, because we want to know their feelings;

we want guidance from them and are prepared to consider everything that

is submitted. That is the purpose of the document. Indeed, it included

things from the Safety Council and other organizations. I encourage

members on this or the other side of the House to encourage people in

the industry in their ridings or others to submit information.

With

respect to the truckers and inspection of trucks on the highways, all

inspectors that we send out on the highway are indeed qualified. In

fact, we even have a citizens' committee that is assisting us with

qualified inspectors on the highway. We are making a concerted effort

to ensure that traffic safety standards are met in B.C.

[3:00]

The member talked about rates and the complaints of the trucking

people that they weren't making enough money to keep their trucks

maintained safely. The fact is that we are not a rate-setting

organization. As independent businessmen I think they would want to

establish their own rates, and I said so to them when we organized that

meeting some time ago. They may be correct in saying they are not

making enough money to maintain their trucks safely, but that is not a

justification, in my mind, for their not doing it. If they can't

maintain their trucks at the rates they're getting, then they should

negotiate some other rate in order to ensure safety. I am more

concerned about the safety aspects of transportation than about the

rates being set by individual truckers.

MR. LOVICK :

I share the minister's concern that what they obviously need to do is

negotiate a better rate. The predicament, as we discovered in the last

go-round, of course, is that those folks had some difficulties in

organizing, simply because it is such a scattered industry. I wonder if

the minister would be willing to look favourably on the initiative

presented by way of a private member's bill from this side of the

House, suggesting a slight change to the labour code so that those

individual owner-operators can indeed organize to protect their

interests. That's a rhetorical question; I'll simply leave that on the

record for him.

I notice the minister didn't respond to my

reference to the apprenticeship program and the upgrading program. I

wonder if he has an answer to that.

[ Page

11115 ]

HON. MR. FRASER : I'm sorry, I didn't make a note of that

question. As I say, with all the other Initiatives that are coming

forward as a result of our request — or I hope they will come forward as

a result of our request — we will consider everything that has to do with

truck and truck safety, driver and driver training, and all that kind

of thing. We are not going to turn anything down without consideration;

we're not going to accept anything without consideration.

MR. LOVICK :

I wonder if I could look at three very specific questions, all to do

with the issue of truck safety. They are quite direct and quite short.

The

first one concerns the recent testing, I believe, in the area of

Kamloops of the 100-foot commercial trucks. Some people have expressed

real concern about that testing program beyond the obvious reservations

one would have about a truck that's going to be some 20 to 25 percent

beyond maximum? What's the maximum now? It's 80 feet, I believe. In any

event, it's a significant increase, a significant lengthening of the

vehicle. People are concerned about the desirability of that in itself.

Also,

however, concerns have been expressed, as I understand them, about the

fact that our testing, our effort to find out whether this

extended-length vehicle should or should not be allowed to operate on

our highways, has been done when the vehicles have been empty. A number

of people in the profession have suggested that trying to test one of

these vehicle's ability to perform when it isn't loaded simply doesn't

tell us anything. We don't get any sense at all of how rapidly a

vehicle could change lanes, for example, or of what it can do in terms

of acceleration up a hill or any grade. I wonder if the minister could

tell us whether that testing procedure has been revisited or is being

examined with a view to determining whether an empty-truck test is

going to tell us what we need to know.

HON. MR. FRASER :

I can tell the member that the LVCs he's talking about — the long

combination vehicles — are indeed about 105 feet long. The initial

highway testing program is complete. We're doing an, evaluation of

that, and anything subsequent to what's been done will be considered at

a later time.

MR. LOVICK : I appreciate the answer,

but it's not very specific. I wonder if it's the case that the testing

thus far has indeed been on empty vehicles — that's (a); and (

b) is

whether that is satisfactory, given the concerns expressed by people in

the industry.

HON. MR. FRASER : We are advised by experts that that was the way to do the testing. That's why it was done that particular way.

MR. LOVICK : My second question, a very specific one, has to do with

the coroner's inquest that followed the Kamloops tragedy. We posed this

question in question period some time ago, and the minister quite properly said

at the time that he wasn't going to answer it because it was future policy.

Therefore I deferred the question to the estimates debate.

just wonder if he can give us an update about what has been done in

response to that coroner's inquest. Is there active consideration being

given to those recommendations? Can he give us a status report on what

his ministry is doing with the recommendations from that inquest?

HON. MR. FRASER :

I would advise the member that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mrs.

Johnston) and I will be coming down with a combined statement on that

inquest. We will have considered everything in the report. As soon as

we can get that done.... I'm not trying to delay the delivery of that

statement; it just hasn't been done yet.

MR. LOVICK :

One of the points that we on this side of the House made was that,

given the geographical location of Kamloops and the nature of

transportation and the transportation infrastructure in this province,

it would be a logical place to establish a 24-hour inspection facility

for commercial vehicles. I've stated that publicly, and I am sure the

minister is aware that that is the position we've taken on this side. I

wonder if he can tell us how his government, his ministry, looks upon

that idea. Are you dismissing it out of hand, or is it something that

is being given any consideration?

HON. MR. FRASER :

The idea of 24-hour inspection stations meets with our approval. We

haven't yet decided whether it will be in that area or another one. But

in general terms, with respect to safety, we would like to keep moving

into the high-tech area with respect to truck safety. We would like to

be able to weigh trucks on the move and do all those things that make

trucking easier. The driving force behind everything we're doing is to

make it easy for people who are obeying the law with respect to roads,

securing loads and that sort of stuff to pass through the system, and

make it difficult for people who are not obeying the rules. That is the

motivation. Whether we have that station in Kamloops or not, I can't

tell you now.

MR. LOVICK : The minister and I

exchanged a couple of pleasant and harmonious comments last night about

the fact that the report had just landed on my desk and I hadn't read

it. I'm happy to note that the minister's answer is close to a

statement from the report tabled yesterday, in terms of how we approach

achieving these objectives. I just thought I'd demonstrate to the

world, Mr. Chairman, that I have now read it — at least enough of it to

appreciate the point being made.

I want to turn to another

area now: the private vehicle inspection program. I do so with mixed

feelings, because I have no doubt whatsoever that a vehicle inspection

program is necessary and desirable. I accept that premise. The issue is

whether the one we've got is everything it ought to be. I want to pose

just a few questions about that.

[ Page 11116 ]

am sure the minister is familiar with the organization calling itself

the Association for Vehicle Movement Safety. I believe he has had some

correspondence with individuals representing that organization. My

reading of the material presented by that organization is that they

have essentially two problems with the private vehicle inspection

program as it's currently set up. There are two fundamental issues, the

first being whether the program requirements are too stringent or

perhaps go beyond safety matters, and the second being whether the

means of carrying out the program, the method of enforcement, is

perhaps not carefully enough defined, so that the regulations make it

possible for abuses and perhaps infringements on people's civil

liberties. That's the argument one hears.

On the first one,

whether the program is too stringent, the basic contention is that

we're looking at some cosmetic things that don't necessarily have much

to do with safety. We all know that if we impose a vehicle inspection

program, it is more likely that the older and cheaper vehicles and

those owned by people with less money are going to be rejected than are

new vehicles. In that sense, the program is necessarily going to be

discriminatory against lower income people. That's a given; there's no

point in lamenting it. It's a fact of life, and we can't do much about

it. What we can do, though, is ensure that the requirements we put into

a program do indeed make sense and are defensible for safety reasons,

and guard very zealously against any requirements that don't have any

justification based on safety but rather seem to, be cosmetic or, dare

I say, almost aesthetic.

To make that point, I'd like to

quote from a letter from the Association for Vehicle Movement Safety

and ask for the minister's response to it. I'm quoting a paragraph that

tries to make the point that the inspection program's requirements — or

some of the criteria, at least — seem to be as much cosmetic as based on

safety concerns:

"The criteria upon which

vehicles are to be judged are deep in the realm of the ridiculous. This

program is endeavouring, under the guise of 'safety,' to have us

accept that a musical horn, a torn seat cover, a worn accelerator

pedal, rust holes in the fender, worn weather-stripping, a loose

battery-mount, a failed accessory switch, etc., etc., are legitimate

excuses to force these mechanical conditions to be fixed!"

Clearly

the individual is pointing to some things that don't appear to have a

heck of a lot to do with safety; they have a great deal to do with what

I referred to earlier as cosmetic or even aesthetic things. I'm

wondering if the minister would care to respond to that criticism of

the program.

HON. MR. FRASER : It's a very timely question, because there has

been some confusion about the private vehicle inspection program. Essentially,

cosmetics don't play a role. It really doesn't matter if there's

a hole in the fender. What really matters is: does it have the capacity to stop,

and can you steer it and drive it safely? The cosmetic reference probably refers

to the taxi section, in which there is some cosmetic requirement, so that people

who come to Vancouver will not be offended by the shabby condition of a taxicab.

The private motor vehicle, of course, is a different thing.

The

program, as you know, is not mandatory; it's voluntary. We do want

people to take

part in the program. But in view of the fact that about

2 percent of the accidents, or less, are caused by vehicles that are

not in perfect condition, it did seem to us to be an imposition on the

motoring public to have a mandatory testing program. If it turns out,

of course, that the volunteer program is not working, then we may have

to rethink that particular decision. But we didn't want to impose on

people an expenditure that was unnecessary, if the vehicle was safe.

That is why, as I say, it does accommodate people who are not

financially capable of all sorts of extraordinary spending. Maybe they

could save the $25, $30, $40 or whatever on inspection and spend it on

things that are more necessary, providing that the car they are driving

is actually safe.

The biggest problem with traffic safety,

as you know is the driver. It's the people who fail to think just for

that split second. You've heard me say before that every snowfall in

the city of Vancouver costs an extra million dollars in damage. It's

inevitable, year in and year out. It's hard to believe, but it's

actually true. People just know they can make it home or to the office

or wherever they are going without damage; inevitably, they can't. The

inspection program doesn't solve some of those problems.

are anxious for people to enrol in the program on a voluntary basis. It

does seem to be working. We have inspections on the highway, and cars

that look suspicious are pulled over. It's apparent to the police that

some of the cars should be tested, and they are. If they have no tread

on the tires, for example, that is not legal; therefore you must get it

inspected. When we do an inspection on vehicles with trained mechanics,

we are empowered to pull cars off the road and take them away with a

tow-truck. And we do that.

[3:15]

The

private motor vehicle thing is actually working quite well. We're

encouraged by the results, but we'll see what happens. If it requires

us to impose a cost on the driving public that we would rather not

impose, we will consider imposing it in any event.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. LOVICK :

I'm encouraged to hear from the Solicitor that cosmetics don't play a

role. I'm wondering if he could clarify for me that those items I

referred to, such as a torn seat cover, rust holes in the fender, worn

weather-stripping and a failed accessory switch, are matters that can

be used to reject a particular vehicle. My understanding is that it is

part of the inspection manual. Perhaps it's the case that that belongs

just to commercial vehicles — taxis. If so, could you clarify that? It

does sound on the face of it that those items I just listed here do

belong to the realm of cosmetics, doesn't it?

[ Page

11117 ]

HON. MR. FRASER : Some of the items you mentioned, of course,

are cosmetic. As I said, my understanding is that they are not part of

the private vehicle inspection program. However, I will direct a letter

to clarify that particular question.

MR. LOVICK : I appreciate that. We'll look forward to receiving it.

The

other area I made reference to had to do with whether the enforcement

mechanism for this particular program was all it ought to be. What I'm

referring to is the arbitrariness of things.

Let me give

you a specific example, again just quoting from information that has

been submitted to me. You can respond accordingly. A particular

incident, as it happens, was reported in the Vancouver Province , I

believe — does Keith Morgan write for the Vancouver Province ? Yes. In

the Province of June 1, 1990, he describes the tale of the Vancouver

police officer who sees a vehicle and perceives that it is speeding and

is missing a tail-light. The first infraction the officer sees isn't

terribly significant, but then he sees others as he follows.

recognize I'm treading on pretty dangerous ground here, because one has

some sympathy for the officer who says: "Look at that person who is

clearly violating the law and scaring the heck out of everybody, and we

ought to be watching." I have some sympathy for that, but what seems to

have happened in this case, according to the newspaper story, is that

the officer, when he finally pulled over the vehicle after a number of

perceived infractions, decided to act the part of judge and jury and,

as it happened, executioner. He piled on fine after fine to teach this

guy a lesson.

I'm prepared to forward the particulars of

this case, too. The question that comes to my mind, as somebody who has

some concern with civil liberties but who is also committed to the

notion of the need for a public safety program, something to protect

the public interest, is whether there might be too much discretionary

power vested in the individual police officers by this particular

program. I'm wondering if the minister has any thoughts on that

subject, whether that's been a complaint he's heard before, and if

there are some answers that have been drafted to those kinds of

concerns.

HON. MR. FRASER : It’s probable that no

program is perfect in its conception, and therefore no program is

perfect in its execution. There's no question that, depending which

officer pulled over a car, you may have different results.

There

is some discretionary power with that particular program. If indeed it

is a tail-light, I would presume that the officer would say: "Your

tail-light is out. Get it fixed." There's no difficulty with that. If

the vehicle is deemed to be unsafe, it is sent in for an inspection. If

it has been sent in for inspection, then they have to report back that

the inspection was done and any necessary work completed.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

There's

room for discretionary differences, and that's part of the human

problem. The thing that I was trying to impress upon the police force

with this program — the radar speeding program and others — is that it

is very important not to discredit a valuable program by being

overzealous. We're not looking for speeding infractions of one

kilometre per hour; we're looking for speeders. It's the same with this

program: "We want you to get unsafe vehicles off the road, but don't

discredit the program by being punitive. If it is something simple that

is not a safety hazard at the moment, such as a tail-light which can be

fixed immediately anywhere...."

MR. LOVICK : I

appreciate that answer, and I take some comfort in the knowledge that

this message has indeed gone to the enforcement agency, saying: "Look,

we mustn't be perceived to be punitive or vindictive, because if we do,

we'll kill the credibility of the whole program." I think that's a good

response. I would dearly hope that that will be well and truly known by

the people working in the field.

I have a last question on

the same subject. The association I referred to, the Association for

Vehicle Movement Safety, has been behind a campaign to get individuals

to write in either to your office or to my office. They produce a quite

formal-looking and professionally printed little card. It's headed, "To

the NDP transportation critic, " and then it names me. The card has a

very short message: "The new private vehicle inspection program is

oppressive to lower-income groups in B.C. Vehicles ten years and older

will be rendered financially unviable. I request you" — I think they

mean you, Mr. Minister, rather than me — "make public facts and statistics

that could possibly justify this program." End of message.

would like to ask the Solicitor-General to help me with that

predicament. In other words, would he or his staff undertake to provide

me and my colleagues with a nice, succinct, detailed answer that will

satisfy the concerns and allay the fears of the people who are sending

me these cards and perhaps sending him similar cards? I am wondering if

I could have that assurance from the Solicitor-General.

HON. MR. FRASER :

Yes, we can.... Let me put it this way. We are not trying to make the

program punitive. We are trying to make it improve the safety

conditions on the streets. If we can assist you with some information

to get the message out, then we will do that. Obviously no class of car

can be excluded from safety, whether it is ten years old or less or

more.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask

the minister a number of questions. This may take some time, I guess,

to go through the afternoon. I didn't mean to scare off my colleagues

when I said that.

I think it will become evident why I want

to spend some time, together with my colleague the second member for

Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger), in raising an issue of some significance. The

issue relates to events which occurred at the end of March of this year

when

[ Page 11118 ]

number of children were under the care and control of the program run

by a group called Coastline Challenge, based in Metchosin and mandated

under this ministry to carry out the provisions of probation orders.

the minister knows, there were tragic circumstances surrounding that

whole situation. We had a number of young children die and others

injured as a consequence of what transpired on March 30 and 31. I am

sure the minister has some familiarity with the situation, so I don't

have to go into detail. All of the young women in this program were

required to be in attendance as a consequence of a court order that had

asked them to participate in this type of program.

I know

from one of the young women who was in the program that she was

required to be on this program. As I understand it, because there was

an absence of programs of this type for females, it took some time for

there to be a sufficiently large pool of young females who could

participate In this program before they could go out and serve their

required community work — if I can put it that way — under the

provisions of the program. In one case, the time from sentencing to the

time of actual participation in the program was somewhere in the

neighbourhood of ten months. In other cases it took a lot longer than

that, and in some cases it was shorter. But there was some time-gap

between behaviour and consequence. Be that as it may, I will be talking

a little more about that situation.

After reviewing the

situation — and I read the newspaper accounts of it and have also had

the opportunity to discuss the situation with the parents — it occurs

to me that something went seriously wrong here. When you have seven

young females involved in a program under the care of these people and

taken from the local community off on some trip somewhere else, very

quickly there seems to be — from what we can see from the public record — a breakdown in communications between the young women in the program

and the people who were supervising the program. Tensions were

heightened, communications broke down and the young people in the

program became increasingly frustrated with the experience they were

partaking in.

Eventually the situation broke down to the

point where a number of the young people in the program decided to

leave. They made a decision on their own that they wanted out, and they

weren't content with the type of supervision they were getting from

those running the program. That may be valid; it may be an invalid

conclusion. That was the conclusion they arrived at, and once they

arrived at that conclusion, they decided to leave on their own. It is

at that point that my concerns begin to arise.

They left on

their own, and they were followed for some time — as we now know from

the evidence that has been publicly recorded — by an individual who was

responsible for the supervision of the kids on the program. He had to

let them go.

It seems to me that one of reasons he had to let the kids go was that he had

no authority to apprehend the children in question. He didn't have the authority

to apprehend the children in question because the program had been privatized.

I don't want to get into the politics of privatization, but I'm going

to ask the minister a question that relates to privatization and how it relates

to this situation.

[3:30]

Prior

to the government privatizing these programs, government workers who

were responsible for the supervision of children on these types of

outward-bound programs — if we can put it that way — had the ability to

apprehend children. After privatization they did not have the ability

to apprehend children. When the children decided to make a break,

previously they could be handcuffed and brought back. Because of the

changes that occurred due to privatization of this program, the ability

to apprehend was denied. As a result, four youths would normally have

been taken to a detention centre and put in custody immediately or to a

remand centre where they would have been held, and within 24 hours they

would have been brought before a judge or a justice of the peace. Under

no circumstances, prior to privatization, would they have been allowed

to simply walk off on their own. The authorities, prior to

privatization, had that ability.

I have a number of

questions I'm going to ask the minister, but I'm going to start on this

one first: does he agree that as a consequence of the privatization

program, the ability to apprehend these children and contain them was

denied to those who were in supervision of the children?

HON. MR. FRASER :

Mr. Chairman, the program in question is one that is very imaginative.

We have on the board of directors of that particular organization

people like Chief Snowdon, chief of police of the city of Victoria, and

we can indeed take some pride in that particular program.

With

respect to the specifics of the issue, as the member knows or will now

know, there is going to be an inquest, and it has been delayed at the

request of the family. Accordingly, it would be improper for me to

comment on anything related to that specific event.

MR. SIHOTA : The minister is missing what I'm saying. I'll just put my question aside and come back to it in a minute.

course I realize that there is going to be a coroner's inquest into the

situation and that therefore the inquest will get into some of the

factual considerations. Separate and apart from that, Mr. Chairman, are

the policy considerations, the practices of this government. So I want

to let the minister know in general terms where I'm going, and then

I'll go question by question. I want him to know that the purpose of my

raising this matter in the House is to discuss the policies of his

ministry as it deals with children, using this situation as an example:

the policies with respect to the timeliness of probation orders; the

practice of enforcement of probation orders; the matter of timing

between the time that the behaviour occurs and the time that the

consequence is provided. Those are all appropriate policy ques-

[ Page

11119 ]

tions that are not part and parcel of the coroner's inquiry.

However,

let's deal with the inquiry first. There was a significant time-gap, in

my mind, between the events that occurred at the end of March 1990 and

the announcement by the coroner that there would be a coroner's

inquiry. It seems to me that it must be — I don't think I can find words

for it, to be frank — traumatic for anybody to have learned through the

news media that their children were involved in an incident that

resulted in death or injury. They may have been told in this case by

the people in the program first; it may not have been from the news

media. But the point is that it's a traumatic thing to have come and

fall upon you. Yet these parents had to fight with the authorities to

be able to get a coroner's inquest into the matter.

There

were some comments made by the BCGEU; there were some comments made by

the minister. Those were in the realm of politics. I'll get to some of

those comments later, but the point is that it took some time. Is the

minister satisfied now, on reflection, having reviewed the situation,

that a decision to have a coroner's inquest of this matter was made as

speedily as it could have been under the circumstances? Or does he

regret that there was such a delay and that it was only through public

pressure, editorials and the parents' demanding that that occurred?

HON. MR. FRASER :

Let me just say this: no one could regret more than I the death of

those two children. I also want to assure the member that the coroner

is an independent authority, as he knows. Finally, I want to assure the

member that, because of the forthcoming inquest, I have no intention of

saying anything about that particular incident. If he wants to talk

about policy, of course, that's another matter.

MR. SIHOTA : What does the minister have to say about the time delay?

the minister wants to jam out and not answer any questions as simple as

that, I guess we'll just start asking some tougher questions, and

hopefully he'll come back and recognize that that one's fairly basic.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA :

If the minister wants to get into debate — the minister behind you, Mr.

Minister — he can stand up and get into it, but if he wants to....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : I didn't hear that, but it's probably better that I didn't.

The minister said that this was an imaginative program. This program used to

provide services for kids on a weekend basis. This was the first time that that

program decided to provide a ten-day intensive program for young females.

Has

the minister's ministry investigated why this program was changed in this

instance to go from a weekend-only program to an intensive ten-day program?

HON. MR. FRASER : That'll all be part of the inquest, as the member knows.

MR. SIHOTA :

In one of the cases involved in this situation, one of the youngsters

had a ten-month waiting-period between the time that she was sentenced,

May 1989, and the time that she began to participate in this program,

March 1990. Does the minister consider, as a matter of policy, that

that is an appropriate time-gap between sentencing and consequence?

HON. MR. FRASER :

I have as much time as the member has. If he wants to continue to ask

questions that will be a subject of the inquest, then he can go ahead.

I'm not going to answer them.

MR. SIHOTA : Putting

aside this incident, will the minister answer this question? As a

matter of policy, is he satisfied that it takes ten months from the

time a child is sentenced to the time that a child is in a program that

deals with the consequence of the child's behaviour? As a matter of

policy, is that the type of time-gap his ministry considers to be

acceptable, in general terms?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA :

As a matter of policy — putting aside this incident — does the minister

consider it proper that there should be a ten-month gap between the

time that a child is sentenced and the time that a child serves the

order and satisfies the provisions of the probation order?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA :

Question to the minister: does the minister think that six months is

satisfactory? Does he not think that there should be a shorter time-gap — whether it's six months, one month or three months? In his view as a

minister, where would he like to take his ministry? What guidelines

does his ministry have in place? What target does his ministry have for

what they would like to see be the period between the time a child is

sentenced and the time the child participates in a program? What does

he think is an appropriate time-period?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA :

I want the minister to know that that is a question of policy he should

be answering, and that his ministry should have some targets with

respect to the amount of time that elapses between when they're

sentenced and when they participate in a group program.

[ Page 11120 ]

Does the ministry have a stated target?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA :

This reminds me of the time I was involved in the Knight Street Pub and

watched ministers sit there stonewalling, stone-faced and ill-prepared

to answer any questions.

Let me ask the minister another

question, putting aside the specifics of this case. Given the fact that

since privatization the people who supervise these programs no longer

have the authority to apprehend children, place them in custody and

handcuff them so they can't walk away, does the minister, as a matter

of policy, now not regret that privatization has taken that ability

away?

We're talking about privatization, Mr. Minister.

We're talking about the consequences of privatization. We're not now

talking about the specific case that I raised. Does the minister not

regret that the authority that used to exist prior to privatization for

these correctional officers to be able to apprehend children has now

been denied to those who are participating in the supervision of these

programs?

HON. MR. FRASER : All of these issues are

probably going to be central to the inquest that will be held.

Obviously none of us in this chamber wants to prejudice the outcome or

the result of any work to be done as a consequence of the inquest. The

member believes, I suppose — according to him — that I'm stonewalling

his questions, but the fact is that I don't want to interfere with the

natural flow of justice or with the inquest in this case. As a

consequence, I'm going to take extreme care with questions that relate

to that event. If you want to talk in general terms, I'd be quite happy

to do that. We consciously devote a lot of effort to youth and youth

programs in the ministry, and I'm proud of that.

MR. SIHOTA :

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that I'm asking

some questions with respect to general issues. They're very basic,

simple questions that relate to the practices and policies of your

ministry. There are other kids beyond the ones involved in this

incident that I referred to who are under the supervision and care of

the ministry. There are other kids who are exposed to the policies —

and the inadequacies — of this ministry.

We don't have to deal with this situation; not every situation is under

review. I've said to you: "Okay, fine. I won't ask specific questions,

at least this time, with respect to that situation." But I want to ask

some general questions in terms of where your ministry is coming from, because

I think those other parents who have kids under your ministry's supervision — under your correctional programs — deserve an answer. They want to know, Mr.

Minister, whether or not your ministry now regrets that the privatization program

denies those who look after the kids the ability to apprehend the kids. Does

the minister not think that that ought to be reviewed and revisited by his ministry?

HON. MR. FRASER :

I guess I'm going to have to answer the question the same way every

time. Undoubtedly the whole circumstance will be canvassed by the

coroner's inquest. I think it would be best if we left it until then.

Perhaps if these estimates were going to be done in October, or

whenever the inquest is finished, we could discuss the incident in

question more fully. But the fact is that I do not wish to prejudice

the outcome of this particular inquest, and I have no intention of

doing that. I've got all the time in the world to sit here. I can sit

here, and I presume the other member can as well. I would think that he

would want to be more careful than most not to prejudice the outcome.

MR. SIHOTA : I'll move on to another line of questioning instead of listening to that crap.

HON. MR. FRASER : I think that reference should be withdrawn, Mr. Chairman.

[3:45]

MR. SIHOTA : If the word "crap" offends the minister, I'd be happy to substitute another word.

question to the minister is this, then: is the minister satisfied that

probation officers in this province have sufficient ability to ensure

that children are in compliance with probation orders? When they are

not in compliance with probation orders, is he satisfied that there is

a means to deal expeditiously with the enforcement of probation orders

that may be violated?

HON. MR. FRASER : Yes, we cooperate with Crown counsel.

MR. SIHOTA :

I didn't ask you, Mr. Minister, whether or not you cooperate with Crown

counsel, but I'll still applaud the fact that you at least chose to

answer something. Maybe you will be able to answer the question.

Under

the Young Offenders Act, probation officers are required to supervise

young children and supervise court orders which require children to do

A, B, C or D. Is the minister satisfied that probation officers in this

province can expeditiously enforce violations of probation orders?

HON. MR. FRASER :

It's possible that not every probation officer is happy with every

event. The central fact remains that our youth programs are the envy of

the rest of the country. We can take great pride in this ministry in

their effort in that regard.

MR. SIHOTA : I take it

that the minister is not of the view that young offenders go out and

violate probation orders, and generally have a view that nothing is

going to happen to them if they are in violation of probation orders. I

take it it's the minister's read on the world that that's not the case.

[ Page

11121 ]

HON. MR. FRASER : That's correct.

MR. SIHOTA : What does he base that on?

HON. MR. FRASER : As I said, we cooperate with the Crown, and we prosecute where necessary.

MR. SIHOTA :

That doesn't answer my question. What does he base that on? Does he

have statistics? Can he quote us statistics in this House with respect

to compliance and enforcement? Does he have any of that kind of

information?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA :

Well, I'll put it to the minister this way: does he not think that, in

light of the matter of March 30, 1990, that I referred to in this

House, there is a serious question as to whether or not probation

orders are being complied with?

Well, I see the minister just not wanting to answer any questions, Mr. Chairman, with respect to this situation.

Let

me ask the minister another question. Let's just put this situation

aside. With respect to people who seek to do this work.... I take it

that this work is put out to bid, and individuals have been asked to

bid on providing these kinds of correctional or supervision services. I

take it that that is the way it works, and I know the minister will be

quick to correct me if I'm wrong on this matter. How does the minister

deter mine whether or not the people engaged to do this work are

qualified to do the work?

HON. MR. FRASER : We have very comprehensive contracting standards. The inspection and standards branch reviews contracts.

MR. SIHOTA :

Provide us with a little bit more detail. What work do you do, first of

all, to determine that these people are qualified to do the kind of

work that they do? What are the criteria that are employed by your

ministry? You've got your deputy there; I'm sure he knows that

information. What steps do you take to ensure that what people say

they're going to do with respect to the programs is indeed what they

do, and that once they get the contract, they follow through? If they

say to you that there will be a ratio of three counsellors to seven

kids, what steps do you take to ensure that there is a ratio of three

counsellors to seven kids, or whatever it is they may say in a

contract? What are the criteria that you have in place to assess the

programs, and how do you actually monitor to determine that people are

fulfilling the contract into which they entered with the government to

provide these programs?

HON. MR. FRASER : The best

way to provide the member with the information is to provide him with a

public document which is the contract policy manual, and I will so do.

MR. SIHOTA :

Well, the minister has got his staff there. Can he direct his staff to

get on the phone and go and get it, so we can have it in the House so

we can discuss it? Are you prepared to do that?

HON. MR. FRASER :

Whatever the hon. member wishes, but the fact is I thought I'd send it

to you. I presume you haven't read it, so I thought I'd send it to you

and you can read it at your leisure.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr.

Minister, I'd like to read it in the context of what I'm raising here

in the House, so I'd like to have it in the House. You can put it on

the record, I can listen to what you've got to say, and we can make

some decisions. I would ask that you summon your officials and ask them

to bring that forward, and you can tell us what those criteria are, so

that we can have this debate.

The second question, that you didn't answer, related to the matter of enforcement. How do you enforce the contracts?

HON. MR. FRASER :

The enforcement is done by the inspection and standards branch, as the

member knows. But we will secure the manual, and we can go through it

line by line if you wish.

MR. SIHOTA : With respect

to the enforcement and monitoring of these contracts, when people say

they will provide certain services, what steps do you take on an

ongoing basis? Are you telling me that on an ongoing basis you're

checking out all these programs to ensure that they're fulfilling the

terms of the contracts? Is that how it works? Do you check daily?

Monthly? Weekly? Do you keep a record of the people you're checking up

on?

HON. MR. FRASER : We check basically on a demand basis, when we think it is required.

MR. SIHOTA :

With respect to that— and the minister says he's prepared to table the

policy in the House, and I thank him for that — I want to know if the

minister would be prepared to table in this House any indication as to

how frequently the Coastline Challenge program had been checked in the

past. Are you prepared to do that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. FRASER : No.

MR. SIHOTA :

Why is the minister not prepared to table in this House a document

showing just how frequently in the past the Coastline Challenge program

had been investigated?

HON. MR. FRASER : Let me

repeat, Mr. Chairman: I will not discuss anything that has any contact

with the inquest that will be held. As I said to the member a minute

ago, if the estimates were being done some time subsequent to the

publicity of the inquest, then perhaps we could go into great detail.

But no one — and especially you, I submit, Mr. Member — would want to in

any way prejudice the outcome of that

[ Page 11122 ]

inquest. I certainly don't want to do it; I don't think anybody wants to do that.

You

may persist, if you wish, in asking questions with respect to that

particular incident, but I am not going to answer them. I will do

whatever I can to enlighten you with respect to the activities of the

ministry in general, but I do not want to entertain anything that will

prejudice that inquest.

MR. SIHOTA : You know that

your ministry has an obligation to check out these programs. You have

confessed in this House that you don't do it. What you have told us in

this House is that you do it on demand — if someone asks you. That's

just great! What does that say to the parents of the kids that are

under supervision? "Yeah, we'll let contracts. And if people want to

get into bidding for the contracts, that's cool. And if they tell us

that they're qualified, we'll believe them. Maybe they are qualified

in terms of the list of names they provide at the top of their

letterhead, so we will believe it, but we won't check to see whether or

not they're doing their job. We're not going to check to see whether or

not they are fulfilling the provisions of the contract. We're not going

to check if children are getting adequate supervision and care. No,

we're going to play ostrich. We're going to put our heads in the sand

and wait for somebody to come in and ask us."

What kind of

obligation does a government have to children who are under care? Is it

fair for government to play ostrich with respect to programs involving

children, let alone anybody else? We have seen — over the last three and

a half years that I have been a member of this House — all sorts of

examples of programs with respect to kids that have a stated intention

and they haven't delivered.

I don't need to talk about the

Coastline Challenge program, because the minister doesn't want to talk

about that program. I know it wasn't in your term, Mr. Minister, so you

can duck the question on that basis, but hopefully you will be more

macho than that.

There was a program running in Hedley

that was supposed to provide services for children. It came under

considerable scrutiny and was exposed by the Vancouver Province about a

year or a year and a half ago for...failing in its ability to look

into the program. And your government — the Social Credit government —

stood up in this House and said: "That won't happen again. It was just

one bad apple. But we are going to make a commitment to make sure that

children are looked after, and we are going to enforce these

contracts." Then we got into a debate into this House about

privatization.

I make no bones about the fact that I'm mad

right now in terms of what this ministry is doing with respect to the

care and supervision of children. And this government, believe you me,

deserves to be kicked around.

I can only personify what must be only 1 percent of the kind of emotion the

parents must feel when they lose a child. We had a debate in this House about

privatization in general terms, and in specific terms about this ministry. During

the course of that debate in this House, the Premier of this province and all

of the cabinet colleagues of the day vowed to this House that if we engaged

in privatization we would make sure that all programs are being properly monitored — that there is proper supervision, whether it be Highways, which I don't

want to talk about because it's out of order, or this kind of a program,

which is in order. We were told in this House, and the public was assured by

this House, that there would be ongoing enforcement and monitoring of those

types of programs to make sure that once they were privatized, the public got

the same level of service they had prior to privatization.

was talking to a parent today who lost a child under this program. You

know what he said to me? I made a note of it. I didn't really quite

believe him, but I believe him now. He said to me: "When we talk about

this program, we talk about a business." And he went on to tell me that

it's run like a business, that there's no accountability whatsoever.

listened to him and I thought: "Yes, you're right, in some ways it is

run like a business; but on the other hand, I think you're wrong in

terms of accountability" — so I thought. I thought there would be a

mechanism by which programs like this could account to the public for

their actions. Then I sit here in the House, and the minister doesn't

want to answer any specific questions about this program. That's fine;

I'm going to still try, and I will ask you some more questions later.

[4:00]

Mr. Chairman, this government doesn't have a prerogative to abdicate

all of its responsibilities to children in this province. When you

stand up In this House and you tell me, Mr. Minister, as you did, that

you're going to check on demand, what happened to that vow you gave to

everybody in this House — the Premier and all of your cabinet

colleagues, because you weren't minister then? What ever happened to

that vow? Was there any substance behind the promise that under

privatization the government would continue to monitor these programs

and continue to provide the same level of care as it had done prior to

privatization? Oh, it was good political rhetoric then. But under the

scrutiny of a real-life situation, we have the minister come into this

House and say that they're only going to check it on demand. It was a

lie, Mr. Chairman, for anyone who participated in the debate to suggest

that these programs were going to be monitored. The minister has proven

that to be the case from his statement.

I'm going to have a drink of water and settle down for a minute. I'll defer to the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger).

But

I want to tell the minister that at the end of the day he has to be

held responsible for the inadequacies of those programs that fall under

his administration. This program failed two kids; they died. Two others

were injured, Mr. Minister. And you cannot, under any circumstances,

hide behind the statement that your ministry does not have a

responsibility to check. You should have been checking. You should

[ Page

11123 ]

have been monitoring that program. You should have assured those

parents, before the kids went on that trip, that all of those standards

from before privatization would continue to exist. And you shouldn't

have said it in political rhetoric; you should have been able to prove

it.

John Shields is right. I heard that debate between you

and Shields, where you were giving Shields hell for talking about it.

But at the end of the day, Shields was right. He was bang on when he

said, in his press release, that the teenage deaths were due to

privatization. He was right, Mr. Minister. It's about time, for the

sake of all those other kids under your care and supervision, that you

engage in a better process of checking to make sure that these programs

deliver in the fashion they're supposed to.

Go ahead. Have

your shot. We'll continue this debate, Mr. Minister. I'm not here, as

you said earlier, to waste time. I'm here to get some answers from you,

and I'm going to get them.

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr.

Chairman, I'm happy to advise all members of the House who didn't

already know that I accept fully the responsibilities of the work I do

as Solicitor-General — as I always did. So that's no problem.

presume, then, that the member will be pleased to hear that the

ombudsman has reviewed the work of the investigation and standards

branch, and he has complimented the branch on their work.

MS. PULLINGER :

I too want to ask some questions about this program in general. As the

minister makes very clear, it's under investigation; there's going to

be an inquest. I will refrain from asking questions that are specific

to the incident out of which this whole issue arises.

I'd

like to ask just some questions, just to get some information for

myself and for others about the program and how it operates. I wonder

if the minister could start by telling me what the objectives of that

program are, and how they differ from those of other correctional

programs. Secondly, which young people are chosen? Why are they chosen?

What is the basis? Is it who they are, the nature of their offence, the

number of times that they've been convicted? I wonder if you could

answer those questions.

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr.

Chairman, I understand from the questions that the member was referring

to the same incident and the same program that were referred to by the

member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota). I have said a number of

times — and will repeat endlessly, if it's required — that I will not

comment on that particular case, because there will be a coroner's

inquest. I do not wish to prejudice the outcome of that inquest, nor

should you. Ask me anything you like about what's in the estimates for

the ministry, but I will not talk about that particular program because

of the proper constraints, imposed upon me and probably and supposedly

and hopefully imposed upon you.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I

would suggest, just before I recognize the second member for Nanaimo,

that the Solicitor-General has, on several occasions now, stated quite

plainly that he is not prepared to answer questions on this precise

matter. It would seem to me that to persist in asking questions on this

specific matter is really wasting the time of the House. I would

suggest that perhaps the member has some other questions she might wish

to put to the Solicitor-General, which he could respond to.

MS. PULLINGER :

I made it very clear in the very short

preamble to my questions that

I'm not asking questions about a specific incident. I have no intention

of getting into that specific incident. I don't want to prejudice the

inquiry in any way, shape or form. However, Mr. Minister, to ask what

the goals, purpose and mandate of a program are as compared to other

programs offered for young offenders, or to ask what the criteria are

for selecting participants in that program, I don't think would in any

way prejudice that case. I'm talking about the program generally, as it

goes on. I wonder if the minister would answer those questions.

HON. MR. FRASER : That will all be part of the inquest.

MS. PULLINGER :

I find I'm getting the same response as the member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew did. It's simply stonewalling questions that are quite

legitimate and valid. I'm sorry that the minister chooses to do that.

the minister won't answer those questions, I wonder if he could answer

a few about the kind of training counsellors have in those

outward-bound types of programs — not even that specific one. I assume

you have more than one. What kind of training in terms of wilderness

survival, leadership, first aid and counselling for kids who obviously

have had some difficulties are required for counsellors on that type of

program?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Maybe the member has another question while the minister is being briefed.

MS. PULLINGER :

Mr. Chairman, it's difficult for him to listen to my further questions

when he's listening out of the other ear. I'll wait for the response.

HON. MR. FRASER :

With respect to any program that we have in the ministry, standards

vary from program to program. Some of the people in the programs have

university degrees — all those things. Again, I think we're venturing a

little too close to the specific event. I know it's frustrating to you;

it's equally frustrating to me. I would be much happier if I could

answer all your questions with an answer, rather than saying that it's

under review and the subject of a coroner's inquest. I think you

appreciate that I can't say anything.

[ Page 11124 ]

want the parents of those children to understand that the process was

totally in order and unprejudiced in every way, and that nothing we say

here will affect the outcome of what is done by the coroner.

understand your interest in pursuing this. But as I said, I really am

constrained by the circumstances of the day. I can't do anything about

it. Obviously the results of the inquest will be a public matter.

Everything that you asked today will probably — or possibly — be

answered by that inquest.

To persist in this line of

questioning, which may in fact complicate a program or an outcome,

doesn't seem to me to serve the interests of the parents, you or anyone

else. Consequently, as the Chairman has said, I will answer other

questions about the ministry, and there are lots of questions to ask.

But I cannot, in all conscience, pretend to or attempt to answer

questions that would possibly interfere with the result, and as a

consequence of that, I can't answer.

MS. PULLINGER :

I find it very interesting, Mr. Chairman. I'm not asking about any

specific incident, whether rules were bent, broken, adhered to or any

of those kinds of things. I'm simply asking the minister to put on the

record those — I assume — very standard rules, regulations and practices

that are part of the Coastline Challenge program and others like it.

I'm assuming that there are some very clear standards — there certainly

ought to be — and very clear practices and regulations. I'm simply

asking the minister to talk about the program and not about any

incident that happened within the program. It seems that he is either

unwilling to recognize or unable to understand the difference. That's

unfortunate indeed.

I skim-read — it's a very thick volume — the regulations that were alluded to earlier in debate with the

member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. My understanding was that the

monitoring of outdoors programs is through probation officers. They

are, in effect, the contact with the child and with the program. Is

that correct?

HON. MR. FRASER : I've already

committed to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew that we would bring

up the policy manual. It's on the way. So if we want to talk about the

policy manual, we can talk about the policy manual.

MS. PULLINGER :

I've got that policy manual, and as I say, it's not absolutely clear;

in some places it's vague. I'm asking for confirmation from the

minister that probation officers are the liaison between the child and

the program and therefore are the monitors of the program. Will the

minister kindly inform me of that? I have read the regulations, and

it's not clear.

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr. Chairman, the whole issue of all this material

will undoubtedly be the subject of the inquest. I've asked all of you repeatedly

not to interfere with the natural flow of this inquest. All those questions

will be addressed; I suppose they will all be answered. Whatever comes out will

then end up in the public domain. I've got all the time in the world to

say: "I won't touch it; I don't want to get near it. I don't

want to prejudice the case. I will not prejudice the case." I presume that's

your motivation as well. You do not want to impose upon those parents an unsatisfactory

result as a consequence of asking questions today.

MS. PULLINGER :

The minister obviously doesn't want to answer my questions. They're not

going to prejudice the case. These are simply factual questions about

your regulations, your rules and who does what. They're not difficult

questions, nor are they going to in any way prejudice any particular

case.

[4:15]

I wonder if the minister can tell me this, then: what's the average caseload for a probation officer?

HON. MR. FRASER : I will seek an answer to that directly.

MS. PULLINGER :

The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew touched on the difficulty of

privatization and the fact that prior to privatization, the people In

charge of young people were peace officers who therefore had the power

to detain these people; and afterwards, they could not. I find it

really interesting that these programs are obligatory and that neither

the children nor their parents have any choice as to whether their

child goes to this program. They must attend, as the court lays it out.

I find it very difficult to understand why the ministry would leave

children in a situation of being essentially without any means of being

controlled, when these kids have obviously had some difficulties. I

find that absolutely incomprehensible and quite amazing.

have one last question. Again, it's generally about these programs;

it's not about any particular incident. I wonder if the minister could

tell me what the standard emergency procedures are for young offenders

in any program outside the city or the normal place young offenders are

kept.

HON. MR. FRASER : The caseload for officers

actually does vary. As in other circumstances, averages don't really

mean a lot. The essence of the program is that if probation officers

have difficult cases, they will not be overloaded with an extraordinary

number or a higher number of cases. If the cases are easier, then of

course you can do more. So we don't have specific answers on that. The

average caseload answer doesn't really mean anything. But I am advised

that the workload has decreased from '89-90.

MR. SIHOTA :

A question to the minister. Does the ministry have any guidelines for

outdoor programs on the ratio between the number of children in a

program and the number of supervisors that the ministry requires to be

there with them?

HON. MR. FRASER : All those things depend on the nature of the program, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page

11125 ]

MR. SIHOTA : I see. Could the minister then tell us, depending

on the nature of the program, what would be the appropriate ratios?

What are the ranges?

HON. MR. FRASER : It's very much

like the answer I gave to the member for Nanaimo. It very much depends

on the circumstances and on the young offenders, or the people or the

children who are in the program. Again, averages really don't mean much.

MR. SIHOTA :

When children are out on an outdoor program for in excess of seven

days, does the ministry have any guidelines as to an appropriate ratio

of counsellors to youngsters?

HON. MR. FRASER : I'll

try to put it another way, Mr. Chairman. The programs are, in the main,

specifically designed around the needs of the people who are in them.

MR. SIHOTA : My question is: does the ministry have any guidelines?

HON. MR. FRASER : Yes.

MR. SIHOTA : Could the minister state what ratios are expressed in those guidelines?

HON. MR. FRASER : Common sense.

MR. SIHOTA : Are there written guidelines?

HON. MR. FRASER :

We try to develop programs related directly to the needs of the

individuals involved in the program. Every program could be a little

different. That seems to me to be one of the more positive things that

the ministry does. In other words, instead of being hard-line, with

averages and medians and all those things, which is just a number count

basis.... The activity of the ministry with respect to this program has

received the compliments of many inside and outside this province.

I said, the ombudsman has commented favourably on the actions of the

inspection and standards branch. As I said earlier, I'm advised that

the youth program we have in this ministry is the envy of almost all of

Canada.

MR. SIHOTA : I'm glad to hear that it is the

envy. The minister, I'm sure, would be anxious to share with us in the

House the guidelines, which he says are flexible; he takes pride in

that. Could he just tell the House about the guidelines and the

programs others are so envious of? Are there written guidelines that

lay out staff-to-children ratios?

HON. MR. FRASER : If the member was to look in the Blues tomorrow, he'd see that I've already answered that question.

MR. SIHOTA :

The question to the minister is: are there written guidelines? I don't

think he has answered that question. If he read the Blues in the

morning, he'd see that he didn't answer it. Are there written

guidelines?

HON. MR. FRASER : I answered that question, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SIHOTA : I'll put it this way, then: Mr. Minister, will you table those guidelines in the House?

AN HON. MEMBER : You can't table in committee.

MR. SIHOTA : Is the minister prepared to table those guidelines in the House?

HON. MR. FRASER :

We've gone to some length to demonstrate to everyone on the opposite

side of the House — and indeed to the members of the gallery who are

here today — that what we do is develop programs specifically designed

to meet the needs of the people involved in the programs. As I said,

obviously, therefore, averages don't mean much. The average caseloads

are meaningless numbers. It's like having an average speed limit when

you are going either way below it or way above it; averages don't mean

much.

I can't table something that is an individual program. I will just consider that the question has been answered.

MR. SIHOTA :

I take it that the minister is saying he can't table something that

doesn't exist. I'm sure the minister will concede that

staff-to-children ratios expressed in the form of guidelines do not

exist;

I'll assume that. If he's wrong, he can correct me. It's wrong for

anyone to come into this House and suggest that written guidelines

exist.

Let me ask the minister this: is it not true that

the driving force — the driving factor — in your deciding which

programs you are going to support is really the bottom line, in terms

of the amount of dollars they say they will provide the service for? Is

that not really the case? Is that not really the way in which you

figure it out? You go to the lowest bidder. Isn't that really the

attitude of the government?

HON. MR. FRASER : The

whole motivation of these programs, which are so serious for the future

of all of the young children involved, is to design the program that

will be the best for them. This is not, in that sense, a bottom-line

ministry. We're concerned about these kids. We have a well-focused and

highly motivated interest in making sure that people who are involved

in these programs do not become repeaters, in residence long-term, in

our institutions around the province. it is important to understand

that what we do — everything we do, in fact — is directed towards the

best interests of the people involved in the program.

[ Page 11126 ]

MR. SIHOTA :

We have ratios for children who are in child care, and they are

expressed in regulations. One would think that the same would exist

with this ministry with respect to children in its care, but obviously

that's not the case; nor are there written guidelines. I would suggest

to the minister that all you really do is take a look at the

bottom-line dollars.

Let me just ask you this: in terms of

your policies, if children are required to go on a particular program — any type of probation-driven program — is it expected that parents will

be informed of the itinerary so that they know where their kids are

going to be? Is it expected from your ministry that parents will be

given a phone number which they can call to learn of the status of

their children? Is it a policy of your ministry that parents be given

an itinerary, and is it a policy of your ministry that parents be given

a phone number to call in case of emergencies?

HON. MR. FRASER :

Mr. Chairman, again, this is probably going to be part of the inquest.

As a consequence, I'm not going to answer that question.

MR. SIHOTA :

Is the minister saying that because he thinks that question may come up

at an inquest, he's not prepared to tell us in general terms whether or

not the ministry has these kinds of guidelines? Are you saying that

that's why you're not going to give us the answer on something as

simple as itineraries and emergency phone numbers?

HON. MR. FRASER :

You know, Mr. Chairman, it is so important for everyone in this House

to do the job right, especially with regard to young children who are

in trouble. It's so important that we do it right that it seems to me

that we should go to extraordinary lengths to avoid involving ourselves

in engaging in a debate that may have an impact on the inquest.

understand from the members opposite that they don't share my concerns

in that respect, but I assure you that it is not my intention to

deliver to those parents, because of questions being asked today,

tomorrow, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, all of July and the rest of August,

something that is less than as perfect as we can make it. You have to

understand that I am not going to prejudice that case, no matter what.

If it means that we don't get out answers to some questions that don't

appear to be significant, then that's the consequence.

it was October, or if it was some other day after the inquest report

was delivered and was a public document, it would be a totally

different matter. I don't know what your motivation is, but I'll tell

you what mine is. I want to make sure that what is done at that inquest

is totally, absolutely proper, and I have no intention of making a

statement here that would possibly affect that case. I hope I have made

that clear, but if necessary I can repeat it.

[4:30]

MR. SIHOTA : I want the minister to understand. All I want to know is

what kind of guidelines — what kind of policies — your ministry has in place.

I don't see how that can prejudice an inquiry. An inquiry is going to ask

what kind of guidelines you've got in place, what kind of rules you set

down. They're going to ask you that anyway; you're going to provide

that information anyway. It's not going to prejudice the outcome. It's

just basic, factual information. It's not a skill-testing question to ask

you whether or not parents are required to be given an itinerary.

Let

me ask the minister: what requirement does the ministry have for

outdoor programs with respect to emergency communication equipment? Do

you require it, or do you not require it? Let me tell you before I even

ask the question: in this case the person had a radio device that could

get them in touch, so you're not going to prejudice it. Just tell me

what your policy is.

Vehicles when kids are outdoors — do

you have a policy saying that vehicles ought to be there? You're going

to have to answer that question anyway. How is your answering in this

House going to prejudice it? It's not going to. It's a simple question;

it's not a skill-testing question. Do you have to have vehicles if kids

are in outdoor programs? Or is it your ministry's policy that it's up

to the program to decide?

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr.

Chairman, I don't seem to be able to get this message over to the

members opposite. I am in no way going to prejudice the outcome of that

inquest.

The other thing I think you ought to know is that I'm a man of almost infinite patience.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Just before we proceed, hon. members, the Chair feels absolutely

compelled to tell you.... Perhaps the second member for Vancouver-Point

Grey (Mr. Perry) would take his seat; thank you very much.

I've

listened very attentively to what's been going on in here for the last

hour, and I feel compelled to bring to your attention that this

particular point has been very well canvassed indeed, and the

Solicitor-General has in the plainest of language made clear his

position. I can't see that this House is being served by a continuation

of this line of questioning. So I would suggest that in the interests

of efficiency and of getting on with our work we move to some other

subject.

MS. EDWARDS : I want to ask the minister a

couple of questions I attempted to ask the Minister of Transportation

and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) the other day, and I discovered that

they were in the Solicitor-General's area.

I want to ask

the Solicitor-General about the licensing of vehicles from out of

province. I refer first of all specifically to rental cars. At the

Cranbrook international airport, the rental cars are all lined up, and

all of the cars belonging to one company have Alberta plates on them. I

have brought this up with the motor vehicles people, I believe, and

they say they have been unable to do anything about it. Those cars are

driving on British Columbia's highways and

[ Page

11127 ]

operating as a car rental service out of the city of Cranbrook. It

seems improper that they should be operating with Alberta and not

British Columbia licence plates.

The problem, I am told,

lies in the Motor Vehicle Act,

section 20(l)(e): "...the owner or

operator of the motor vehicle...is in the Province for, and uses the

motor vehicle...for, other than touring purposes, for a period of 30

days...."

If the company is attempting to say, "All

right, we're just bringing our car in for 30 days and we'll whisk it

off to the Lethbridge airport for the next 30 days," that is

duplicity. If it's not duplicity, we should change the Motor Vehicle

Act.

I would like the Solicitor-General to respond, because

it is a very busy car rental agency, and the province of British

Columbia should be receiving some licence fee for the operation of

those vehicles.

HON. MR. FRASER : I am unaware of the

circumstance that the member talks about. However, I share with her the

idea that if the vehicle is operating in British Columbia all the time,

it should be registered in British Columbia. We will send some

information to you, and get some from you as well, with respect to

what's happening, and try to determine if it's correct, and if it isn't

correct we'll take corrective action.

MS. EDWARDS : I

thank the Solicitor-General for that, because I believe some action

should be taken on it. If the company is simply whizzing their cars in

and out, I don't believe it is appropriate for the situation to be

allowed to go on.

I have frequent discussions about the

various things that happen competitively with contractors in our area,

because we live so close to the Alberta border. Besides all the

difficulties that contractors have trying to outbid companies from

Alberta that are only a few miles farther away and who can also buy

everything without a sales tax at present.... It won't be long, I know,

before there's a sales tax on things in Alberta, but it won't be

Alberta sales tax British Columbia does have a sales tax, and of course

anybody who operates out of British Columbia and buys something in

Alberta still has to pay the sales tax. That is one problem; I am not

asking the Solicitor-General to solve that one. I wish people would

stop asking me to solve it. Anyway, it is a major problem.

Along

with that come contractors who bring in fleets of vehicles that are

licensed in Alberta. It's under the Commercial Transport Act, as I

understand it. I think it's

section 5(4) and perhaps

section 5(5). What happens is that the contractors from another province, nearly always Alberta,

can come in; they frequently operate with Alberta plates on their vehicles.

I would like the Solicitor-General to respond and say what he can do about this

situation, which may be unfair to the province and certainly seems to many of

the contractors in my area to be unfair to them. This is not just half-ton trucks,

vehicles for the roads. It may well be also dozers and other such machinery

that has to be licensed.

HON. MR. FRASER :

I gather you're talking about highway construction or that sort of

thing where people from other provinces come into British Columbia. We

will investigate. I certainly want to make sure that the taxpayers of

British Columbia who build the roads and all those things that we all

use and enjoy are getting fair revenue for providing those roads. If in

fact there is a violation of a B.C. law, we will obviously take action.

But first we will investigate, and I will commit to doing that. With

your help, I am sure, in providing us with the information, we will

follow up and do whatever is required.

MS. EDWARDS :

I am pleased the Solicitor-General says that if any of the laws are

being broken, he will see there is some follow-up. But I would like to

make the Solicitor-General very aware of the problem. It may be that

our laws are not adequate to do what we want to do with them.

is very clear. I hear many people at gatherings and so on — and it's

not always cases that are brought to my office and laid out with the

documentation — and it is the general talk that they have gone to the

motor vehicle branch, attempted to do something and are always told:

"There is no protection in our law."

I don't have a

solution ready for you, but I do know the problem is there. I wish the

Solicitor-General would look into it and consider, if necessary,

revising the legislation so that we can see there is a very clear, fair

ground — a level playing-field, if you like. I am sure that most of

these problems are also experienced in the northeast, in the Peace

River country. We seldom get to talk to those people up there because

of the nature of our province, but we always find their problems are

very similar — living right on the Alberta border. I think it would

deserve a good look.

I leave that in the

Solicitor-General's hands. I'll ask him if he would investigate and

consider some measures to ensure that it is very fair to the people

operating commercially, and that the fairness is there when they are

going to compete with contractors who are more and more coming in from

Alberta and finding it easier to outbid the local contractors.

want to move on to another issue which was partly addressed by my

colleague the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick). It is the issue of

large, long trucks on the highway. Even on the highways where these

supertrucks — as they are called — are not going to be allowed, the

experience is very clearly that there are much longer trucks on the

road. These trucks are much more numerous than they used to be; they

are now commonly travelling in convoys of five or six. I have read

legislation that says this is not allowed, but it happens regularly and

frequently. Considering the fact that the average driver on the highway

may well be driving a much smaller and lighter car than ever before, it

seems to me that the danger is much worse than it was before.

[ Page 11128 ]

have a letter which was written in late May to the Cranbrook Townsman ,

and it quite clearly describes the problem. It is an example of what

the public is saying.

"There was a time when

trucks were only two to three times the size of automobiles, and when a

pass was executed by a truck on a wet or snowy road, the hazard of

restricted vision did not persist too long. The situation today is

quite different, especially when a truck is hauling a trailer at least

as long as the truck itself. When they execute a pass under wet, muddy

or snowy conditions, the windshield wipers on a car cannot cope with

the amount of debris deposited. There is no alternative but to drive

virtually blind until the truck has pulled far enough ahead to

alleviate the situation, all the time hoping nothing is in your way."

can certainly assure the Solicitor-General that I have experienced that

kind of thing many times, because I spend a lot of time on the highway

in my riding.

This writer says:

have had the experience of having to stop to wash the windshield of mud

before being able to proceed, and also of nearly being run into a

concrete abutment by the huge trailer when the driver started pulling

in before the trailer was clear."

This is not uncommon

either. There are lots of problems driving these big trucks around. He

talks about railways and the reduction in rail traffic, and says:

"Since

the railways are cutting down on many routes, the slack is obviously

going to be picked up by the trucking industry. This is like putting

railway freight cars on the same right-of-way as automobiles, and I

don't believe that is a reasonable situation.'

There is more here. The man is not against trucking per se, but he is certainly against unsafe situations.

would like the Solicitor-General's response to those problems in

safety, which includes the very difficult problem of trucks being there

and not being able to be passed, or passing and slopping all the

highway slush — salt, mud, stones, rocks and what have you; a great

slurry of miscellaneous content — onto your car, and the difficulties of

them passing and just manoeuvring on those narrow mountain highways.

HON. MR. FRASER :

The question of the use of highways by trucks is actually a very

interesting one. It involves a number of things, and first of all is

driving manners. There's no doubt about the fact that some people are

more thoughtful on the highway than others. We would like to think that

over time people driving on the highway will be considerate of other

motorists; however, there's no way we can legislate that, although we

can try, through driving training and things of that nature.

With respect to longer vehicles, it's actually one that you might

want to think about, because the long vehicles we talked about earlier,

which were tested on divided highways and two-lane highways so that

passing would be easier.... There's no doubt about the fact that

vehicles that are 105 feet long will be more difficult to pass than

vehicles that are half that length. No one misunderstands that.

It's

also part of the equation that if you have larger trucks, you will as a

consequence have fewer trucks. You will also have less air pollution as

a consequence of exhaust emissions and that sort of thing. While the

long vehicle train combination has been given the highway test and is

now being evaluated, I share your concern about people who are not good

on the highway. I would like to think that truckers or cars don't

travel in convoys, making it impossible for anyone to pass if they're

not going up to a safe speed. In that respect, I would like to make the

point that the posted speed limit is the maximum speed limit under the

best conditions. You're not always supposed to go the posted speed if

conditions are worse.

All these combinations have an effect

on traffic. As I say, if we have larger trucks, we have fewer trucks;

if we hav