1982 Legislative Session: 4th

Session, 32nd

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 )

MONDAY, JUNE 7, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 8017

CONTENTS

Ministerial statement re expenses of

Finance minister.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8017

Mr. Howard –– 8018

Ministerial statement re hospital

emergency services.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 8018

Mr. Cocke –– 8020

Oral Questions

Forest industry layoffs. Mr. King –– 8020

Mr. Lockstead

Expenses of Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum

Resources. Mr. Howard –– 8021

Ministers' expense accounts. Mr. Howard ––

Orders of the Day

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill

4). Second

reading. (Hon. Mr. Fraser)

Mr. Lockstead –– 8022

Mr. Lauk –– 8024

Mr. Cocke –– 8025

Mr. Mitchell –– 8026

Mr. Nicolson –– 8028

Mr. Kempf –– 8030

Mr. Leggatt –– 8030

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 8031

Offence Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 3).

Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Williams).

Mr. Macdonald –– 8033

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 8033

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy,

Mines and

Petroleum Resources estimates. (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On vote 28: minister's office (continued)

–– 8033

Mr. Barber

Speaker's Ruling — 8035

Royal Assent to Bills –– 8037

MONDAY, JUNE 7, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. FRASER: In the galleries

today are friends from my home town of Quesnel, Mr. and Mrs. Ron Paull.

Ron is deputy clerk for the city of Quesnel. I'd like the members to

welcome them.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In the gallery today is

the winner of the recent Canadian squash championships in Ottawa, Joyce

Maycock of Vancouver. With this exceptional athlete are her husband,

Tony, and some special guests from England, Joyce's mother, Mrs.

Butcher, and aunt, Miss Butcher. Both of these ladies are visiting

British Columbia and are spending the day in Victoria –– I would ask

members to join me in congratulating Joyce and in extending a warm

welcome to her family visiting the House today.

MR. KEMPF:

It is my great pleasure to introduce in the gallery a member of the

staff of the Committee on Crown Corporations, Mr. Yves Larue.

Accompanying Mr. Larne this afternoon is his mother, Mrs. Andre Larue,

visiting from Ottawa. I'd like the House to make them both very welcome.

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome a group of trade

unionists from the B.C. Federation of Labour, visiting with us here

today.

MR. NICOLSON: Also in our gallery today,

visiting from

Nelson, is Mr. Eric MacFarlane. I wish the House to make him welcome.

MR. HOWARD:

In recent weeks the House has paid respects to the centennial of the

Salvation Army. A goodly number of gentlemen from that organization are

with us and I'd like the House to pay respects today to Captain Moulton

of the Salvation Army for again leading us in prayers.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today is my

wife, Dorothy,

visiting us from the city of Penticton. I'd ask the House to bid her

welcome.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

George Hewison of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union is

visiting with us again today. He has with him a couple of guests, who

will be meeting with me later on this afternoon.

MR. LEGGATT:

In our precincts today is a group of students from Libya who are

studying public administration and the role of the opposition in

British Columbia. I hope you will all welcome them.

EXPENSES OF FINANCE MINISTER

HON. MR. CURTIS: I wish to make a

ministerial statement.

Immediately upon learning last week that New York theatre

tickets

for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) and his deputy had been paid for at public expense, without

his knowledge, I requested the Ministry of Finance to determine if this

practice had occurred in any other instance. Last Friday afternoon —

June 4, 1982 — I was informed that another case involved me.

One

of the first tasks I identified upon taking over the Finance portfolio

in very late 1979 was to visit New York to seek to attain a triple-A

credit rating for the province of British Columbia. This resulted in

the visit to New York in the last part of February 1980, just prior to

the opening of the legislative session on February 29. Several

officials travelled with me for this purpose. leaving Victoria on

Saturday, February 23, 1980. We returned on the 27th.

addition to key meetings with representatives of the two rating

agencies and the presentation of a detailed and exhaustive

summary of

provincial finances and the economy, I met with many representatives of

major underwriting firms in order to determine those best qualified to

work with us in forthcoming British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

borrowings. Further, because some considerable time had elapsed since

the last visit of a British Columbia ca'o;net minister to New York

City, I suggested and secured an opportunity for a dinner meeting at

which news of British Columbia and its economy could be presented to

very senior representatives of the New York financial community. A list

of those who attended to hear that speech is readily available.

all respects it was an extremely successful visit. One of the results

was the granting of the triple-A credit rating by the two international

review agencies: Moody's Investors Services, by a communication dated

May 22, 1980, and Standard and Poor Corp. on July 15 of the same year.

This action alone has resulted in interest savings to British Columbia

Hydro, and therefore to the citizens of the province, of many millions

of dollars. While difficult to quantify, it can reasonably be said that

we effected a saving of at least one-quarter of one percent on every

dollar borrowed by Hydro in the public market for capital purposes

since that time. In addition, this visit and whose which followed

ensured that prospective lenders would be fully familiar with the

province of British Columbia, the Hydro Authority and other Crown

corporations at a time when many other borrowers were having severe

difficulty in accessing international or national bond markets.

Mr.

Speaker, what I did not know about the trip until the end of last week

was that among a number of legitimate expenses incurred in this major

undertaking were included a charge-back of $1,200 for theatre tickets

while my group was in New York City. The tickets were for a Sunday

matinee performance of one Broadway musical, which I did not attend, as

well as an evening performance of another play, on February 25.

Attending in the group on those occasions were several individuals

directly involved in our working activities in New York, along with

some of their spouses. These persons, about half of the group, were

being entertained as individuals who would be an integral part of our

marketing activities in the months and years to follow.

Mr.

Speaker, taxpayers should not be charged for theatre tickets used by

provincial ministers or officials. This was and this is my strongly

held view. In these cases, each of us will repay our ticket costs.

is of considerable consolation to me that with respect to another

occasion in New York some months later, but still in calendar year

1980, each of us from British Columbia in the public employ wrote

personal cheques as soon as we learned

[ Page 8018

that

theatre ticket charges were included among legitimate expenses

associated with the second trip. I and others in the party at that time

have cancelled personal cheques — in my case, dated November 12, 1980 —

to verify and support this statement.

Regarding the February

1980 trip, I should explain that all charges which were incurred on our

behalf by the Canadian consulate were retained and forwarded to

Victoria some weeks later. The payment authority in British Columbia

was issued by an appropriate individual who was then in the Ministry of

Finance.

I think that the people of British Columbia will be

reassured to know that situations such as this cannot now occur.

Through last year, in conjunction with passage of the Financial

Administration Act, 1981, the Ministry of Finance implemented strict

hospitality entertainment requirements. New forms, now in use, demand

that any expenditure of this kind indicate the purpose of the

hospitality and who was in attendance. Further, if it is found that

even more stringent controls are required, then they will be put in

place forthwith.

Finally, there are certain expenses which

have been and will continue to be incurred in the establishment and

maintenance of an access to world capital markets at terms which are as

favourable or better than any other sovereign credit in the world.

wish to table two documents. One is entitled Financial Administration

Act Regulations R2, pages 1, 2 and 3. It is dated October 29, 1981, and

is approved by Treasury Board. The second document is Budget and

Administrative Policy, with an issue date of December 1, 1981, and an

effective date of 1981. I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, and the

attention of hon. members to the last page, which includes a newly

introduced hospitality expenses form.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this filing in connection

with a statement,

or is this a statutory requirement?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm filing in connection

with the statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted for the

filing?

Leave granted.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I think it needs to be said that very little, if any, of

this would have come to light had it not been for the production of

photocopies of the particular vouchers in question with respect to the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

McClelland). Photocopies of those vouchers, even though the acting

comptroller-general had indicated in a letter dated May 14 that they

would be available the day following the request, have not yet been

made available through that route.

What this also sadly

discloses is that the government did not know that this was happening.

It is worthwhile to question the period of time over which this was

happening. What we need is not just the occasional minister standing in

the House saying, "I have conducted an inquiry with respect to myself,

and I have discovered this," but we need a full-scale, open and

thorough public inquiry into what has been happening with the fiscal

expenditure matters and the squandering of public funds ever since this

government has been in office.

This is just the tip of the

iceberg. As I understood the minister to say, on his second trip he

discovered that some tickets were being paid for out of public funds

and he issued his own cheque at that time having discovered that.

That's commendable. I wonder, though, why he didn't go back at that

time and review the past practice. Also, why did the government find it

necessary to establish a formal relationship, with money paid for

services rendered, with one Nicholas Coolidge — formerly of the firm of

Kidder Peabody, bankers in New York, and who subsequently established

his own firm — so that he could make the arrangements for cabinet

whenever they visited New York or, presumably, elsewhere?

During

the days when the late W.A.C. Bennett was Premier and during the time

that my colleague the Leader of the Opposition was Premier, neither of

those governments found it necessary to pay good public money to

functionaries in New York City to make arrangements for them. I would

commend this action to this government: get rid of Coolidge and start

on a course of handling your own affairs.

We have attempted

in another place to have photocopies of other vouchers. So far that has

been blocked. So far we have not been able to attain access to

photocopies of those vouchers. Secondly, I would point out that we

attempted to have the documentation relating to public expenditures in

the fiscal year 1981-82 referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Public Accounts

and Economic Affairs. Every single member of the government on that

committee blocked that particular motion and denied that access. The

public must have full access….

MR. SPEAKER: Order,

please. The hon. member understands that matters which take place in

committee are not of interest of the House except through the Chairman

of that committee.

MR. HOWARD: That may well be,

according to the rules, but it is certainly of interest to the general

public. I think the government owes it to itself — to its own

integrity, whatever that might be — owes it to the general public, and

owes it to the Legislature not to have this piecemeal approach to

examining and baring one's breast and making declarations about

wrongdoing in the past, but only through a full-scale open public

inquiry into the accounts.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I have a

ministerial statement.

MR. LAUK:

On a point of order, following upon the speech by the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), he said certain other documents would be

made available. Because they refer to an important matter involving the

public interest, I would ask him to table the cancelled cheques to

which he referred and the other vouchers, so that the documentation

supporting his statement could be made available to the House.

HOSPITAL EMERGENCY SERVICES

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, late last week I sent a Telex to the chairman of the board

of the Royal Columbian Hospital, the executive director, with copies to

the president of the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the

president of the B.C. Medical Association. The text of the Telex

addressed to those officials is as follows:

"I have received a copy of the speaking

notes of Dr.

Ray March, past president of BCMA, June 2,

[ Page 8019

1982. I also have a

transcript of his

taped speech. In part Dr. March said:

'We've had cases already, emergency surgery, that because an operating

room was not available, had to be done in corridors and in the

emergency room, and I am not talking about little lacerations; and

somebody says, why don't you expose this? We don't expose this because

we try do do our best. Our staff is a good staff, but they are afraid —

they are afraid of getting sued, the legal complications; but I can

tell you all these cases will be documented.'

"In

addition, Dr. March said: 'I am an abdominal surgeon, and I do not

understand — I guess I am an old Watson Jones, if I could remember that

far back, but certainly with the new open procedures, orthopods have to

have a lot of equipment and he has reported to us — he has reported

that the equipment disintegrates in the middle of an operation, falling

into the open wounds. This is all documented.'"

In my Telex, I asked:

"Please

advise if these allegations are correct. Also please provide

immediately details of these cases with respect to dates, times,

attending physicians, and the written surgery report with respect to

any procedures which may have taken place in a corridor, and any

procedures which have resulted in equipment disintegrating and falling

into open wounds.

"Dr. March is reported to have said this

is all

documented. Please provide such documentation immediately."

Mr. Speaker, I have received within this hour a letter

addressed to

me from the Royal Columbian Hospital.

"The

following response is appropriate to the Telex of June 3, 1982, from

the Minister of Health according to the investigation which was carried

out on June 4 by hospital staff.

"We have not reviewed the text of Dr.

March's speech,

but are responding to the comments as directed by the minister.

"Dr.

March provided us with minimal information on only two cases that he

knew of. One case we have investigated. The second case, because Dr.

March was unable to provide a name or a date, we have so far been

unable to identify.

"The case investigated

showed that an emergency procedure was carried out in the emergency

department on a patient who had been transferred from another hospital

by ambulance and who arrived unconscious and on a respirator. After

initial examination and treatment was given, the patient had a CT

head-scan. Because of the condition of the patient, 20 minutes after

the return of the patient to Emergency from the CT scan, a procedure to

relieve the pressure of fluid in the brain was carried out in a

treatment area of the emergency department. There were six operating

rooms in use at the time, and the surgeon was waiting for a vacant room

to perform an operation on another urgent case.

"The

workload at the time in the emergency department and in the operating

rooms was normal for the hospital, and there has been no staff

reduction in either area as part of the 1982-83 budget reduction.

"My

opinion, therefore, on the first allegation by Dr. March is that the

operation was an emergency procedure which was performed due to

unavoidable circumstances and that such a situation could arise in any

emergency hospital at any time and was not related to any budget

restrictions.

"The second allegation relates to

orthopedic power

equipment.

"It

is true that the emergency and elective operating load for orthopedic

operations at RCH is very heavy and that the equipment is used very

frequently. It is also correct in stating that the equipment purchased

in 1978 prior to moving into the new health-care centre, provided

$50,000 worth of new heavy-duty drill and saw equipment which was

recommended by the orthopedic surgeons. Because of the workload it was

reported that this equipment required frequent repairs. In agreement

with the orthopedic surgeons in 1980, additional drill equipment of the

same kind was purchased in order to reduce the workload on all of it.

The orthopedic department submitted proposals in 1980 and 1981 for a

complete change to a different make of power equipment with a cost in

the order of $50,000 for the number of sets required. Because this new

power equipment would not be used by other surgical services such as

plastic surgery and neurosurgery, the former equipment would also have

had to be kept up for use by services other than orthopedics."

Under the heading of selection of equipment.

"In

the hospital the priority selection of equipment from the amount

requested in relation to funds available is made by a committee that

includes surgeons. In 1980 and 1981 the new make of equipment requested

by the orthopedic surgeons was not recommended by the surgeons on the

committee as having a high enough priority to be included in the

equipment which could be purchased out of the funds.

"Following

Dr. Harder's letter of November 6, 1981, I requested the medical

director and the associate executive director to meet with Dr. Harder

and a representative of the neurosurgeons in order to have them agree

on equipment that both groups could use. Meanwhile I attempted to

arrange additional funding from volunteer sources. In March 1982, I

informed the orthopedic surgeons at a general medical staff meeting

that some funding would be available for equipment from the RCH

Charitable Foundation.

"I am now able to

obtain $50,000 to be used on the recommendation of the operating-room

committee for equipment for the operating rooms. This is available

immediately from the RCH Charitable Foundation. and we anticipate that

the Ministry of Health would also cost-share in the equipment.

"The

power equipment which is at present in use at the Royal Columbian

Hospital is still the most widely used in hospitals in the province.

Despite regular maintenance and repair, it is likely that the emergency

workload at the Royal Columbian Hospital makes breakdown a little more

frequent than in other centres, but any power equipment is.subject to

breakdown.

"My comment, therefore, on Dr. March's

second

allegation is that the hospital has expended available

[ Page 8020

funds according to the

recommendations

of the medical staff members on the advisory committee. However,

because of additional funds of $50,000 being made available by the

Charitable Foundation the operating-room committee may obtain

additional equipment immediately, as it advises.

"Specifically,

we have not been able to find, nor have we had documented to us,

specific cases of 'equipment disintegrating and falling into

open

wounds.' While we cannot document specific cases, it is reported that

hoses on equipment have sometimes come off causing oil leakage, but

that this may happen with any similar equipment.

"In

summary, it is my opinion that the comments made recently in public by

members of the medical staff are in response to a real concern by the

doctors as to the problems that they feel will arise in the future

because of the likely conflict between the volume of emergency patients

this summer and the announced reduction of 109 beds at the Royal

Columbian Hospital due to budget constraints. They are aware of the

operational review being carried out in July, August and September, and

are confident that it must reinforce their comments as to the need for

more funding for emergency care at the hospital.

J.W.C. Biggs,

Chairman,

Board of Managers,

Royal Columbian Hospital"

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not comment on the obvious feud between

Dr. March and the minister. However, I will say that what this says to

me and, I think, probably to most people in our province is that this

is symptomatic of what is going on across the province — that the

government seems to be in a quarrel with virtually every

section of

society. Certainly the technical aspects are ones that the minister and

the hospital have to decide among themselves. But looking at the

overall context of where this came from, I would suggest that the

minister must look much more carefully at health care, because it is in

real trouble and chaos in the province.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, by leave,

may I table the

documents to which I have just referred?

Leave granted.

Oral Questions

FOREST INDUSTRY LAYOFFS

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Forests. Since May 14, when

MacMillan Bloedel closed its Chemainus mill operations, laying off 450

workers, there's been conflicting information regarding the possibility

of its reopening. Mac-Blo representatives indicated promises of an

upgraded mill for Chemainus are still being considered, but MacMillan

Bloedel's president, Mr. Knudsen, has not made such a commitment in his

letters to both the North Cowichan municipal council and the Member of

Parliament for the area. In the meantime, logs are being transported

from the Chemainus harbour to MacMillan Bloedel's operations in Alberni

and the lower mainland. Can the minister inform the House what, if

anything, he has done to protect the jobs of the 540 laid-off mill

workers in that area?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr.

Speaker, regarding the Chemainus mill, as a result of the layoff that

has taken place I have had discussions with the senior people in

MacMillan Bloedel, namely the president and others, and they have

termed the layoff indefinite, simply because they do not know when

market conditions will allow them to reopen the mill. My particular

concern was that the word "indefinite" might be another way of saying

"permanent shutdown." However, I have been assured by Mr. Smith and

others that that is not the intent at all and that as soon as market

conditions do improve — and at this time they do not know when that

will be — that mill will be reopened. They still have plans for a

change in that mill, to modernize it to better suit the type of logs

available during this day and age. However, they do not have a firm

time

schedule for when that work might be done.

MR. KING:

On a supplementary, can the minister guarantee, then, that the fibre

from that area will be utilized in that specified plant in that area,

rather than being transferred on any permanent basis to any other

processing facility?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The fibre

that has been used in the past at Chemainus does not necessarily come

from that area. It is transported from many other locations in the

province. I cannot guarantee that exactly the same amount of wood or

the same type of wood will be used there on a permanent basis. However,

I feel that MacMillan Bloedel does have a responsibility to its

employees and to the people of British Columbia to make the maximum and

most efficient use of the fibre that is at its disposal for

manufacturing in the province.

MR. KING: Again, to

the Minister of Forests: with respect to the bridging program for

temporary employment, which the federal and provincial government are

attempting to make available, has the minister decided to extend the

eligibility under that program'to sawmill workers as well as loggers?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

It has always been the intention of that program to make those bridging

employment jobs available to everyone in the forest sector who wishes

to take

part in it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Is the minister

aware that last Friday morning the Powell River division of the

MacMillan-Bloedel operation announced that 160 permanent jobs have been

lost due to the shutdown of number nine paper machine at that operation

at Powell River, and further that the Stillwater division of that same

company is presently shut down with no apparent possibility of

reopening for some time, with the loss of a further 300-plus jobs to

employees and contractors?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Does the member

have a question?

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Is the minister aware that 160 permanent jobs have been lost as of last

Friday in my community? It's having a disastrous effect on that

community. My question is very clear. I'm sure the minister understands.

MR. SPEAKER:

On any question that has as a

preamble "is the minister aware," the

Chair has to caution the fact that it does sound like it's information

being brought to the House. Perhaps a bona fide question should

accompany that kind of information. The minister wishes to answer.

[ Page 8021

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

I'm sure the member is aware that the forest sector, as is the case

with the mining sector in British Columbia, is having a very difficult

time now because of the world markets into which these products are

sold. The answer to the member's question is yes.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Has the minister made any

representation to

the company to determine if these shutdowns are permanent?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Yes, I have been in discussion with senior officials of the company.

I'm assured that these shutdowns are not permanent and that as market

conditions permit, people will return to work.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Has the minister decided to

include these

laid-off workers in the employment abridging assistance program?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, that's the same question asked by the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). Yes, the employment abridging assistance

program, which will create 10,000 jobs for people in difficulty in the

forest sector, is available to all those who may be temporarily laid

off.

EXPENSES OF MINISTER OF ENERGY,

MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources. I want to make sure that we clearly

understand the position of the minister with respect to a certain

subject.

Is it the minister's position that he was unaware

that the expenses of the New York visit of June 11 and June 12, 1980,

would be borne by the provincial government?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD: If you accept the minister's

story — and I do —

that he didn't know that….

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, I said that….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the

question and then

we'll hear the answer.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

With respect, the member asked me if I was under the impression that

the expenses for the New York trip would not be met by the government,

and I said no. That was not my position. Obviously, the legitimate

expenses of the trip would be met by the provincial government.

MR. HOWARD:

Then "Sugar

Babies" was on the agenda.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please.

Let's have a question.

MR. HOWARD:

What he is

saying now is contrary to what he said the other day.

If his particular New York travel arrangements were made, as

he said

the other day, in a silent conspiracy involving B.C. government

officials, Canadian consular officials and one Nicholas Coolidge, can

the minister explain why none of the B.C. signing authorities, who must

verify that the services were received, contacted the minister or his

deputy to perform this normal audit function?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I think I explained

that matter

very fully on several occasions in the last few days, and the way in

which

legitimate expenses were charged back to the government of British

Columbia.

Unfortunately, those expenses never came over my desk or my deputy's

desk for

approval. Some of the expenses which were paid for on that trip, as

part of a

package of what was considered to be legitimate expenses, I do not

consider to

be legitimate expenses. The moment it was discovered that those were

paid for

by the British Columbia government I made that position very clear.

MR. HOWARD:

Inasmuch as there is a very clear and precise manual indicating what

signing

officers are supposed to do, I wonder if the minister has determined

who it was

in his ministry who was responsible for the serious breach of financial

management policy in not drawing that matter to his attention.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I won't accept that there was anyone in my ministry who was responsible

for

what the member calls a "serious breach." There was no such manual at

the time. I have explained that had this trip been in Canada, every

expense

incurred as a result of any trip I would make in Canada would have come

across

my desk for approval. However, since there was a different system in

operation

for trips outside of Canada, for one reason or another that never came

across

my desk. The member knows full well, having seen all of the vouchers

involved,

that the authority for payment was made by a junior member of the

ministry who

was doing what that junior member considered part of that junior

member's job.

There's no one to blame in this matter in terms of the staff of the

Ministry of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and I won't have any member of

this

House attempting to lay blame on one of our public servants.

MR. HOWARD: That

type of blaming and labelling was done by the minister the other day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. This is question period.

MR. HOWARD: If,

as he said, whatever was done within his ministry is accurate and was

performed

properly and so on, and he accepts full responsibility for that blunder,

why

doesn't he act like a gentleman and resign, as he should do? It's

simple. It's

your responsibility. Pack it up.

MR. SPEAKER: Is

that the question?

MINISTERS' EXPENSE ACCOUNTS

MR. HOWARD: I'd

like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance then. On Friday last,

the

Premier announced that the Minister of Finance would review the rules

governing

the ministerial expense accounts for such items as travel, hospitality

and

entertainment. Will

that review include

an examination of the cabinet decision in December 1978 to remove the

test of

reasonableness from ministerial expense accounts and replace it with

the word

"actual"? Will that be encompassed within the review?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not certain that the member's question is based on

precisely

what the Premier

[ Page 8022

of the province did say. We would

have to

determine. I said at the outset that I'm not sure the premises on which

the member's question were drawn are correct. Nonetheless, the test of

the reasonableness still applies, although it may not apply to the

extent that the public of British Columbia or this government would

like.

In direct response to the member, I indicated in the statement

earlier today that we have, on a regular and consistent basis since the

early part of 1980, been reviewing a variety of manuals, requirements

and processes which are required in order that the public purse be

protected. Some of that work did not conclude until as recently as a

few months ago. I think we may be in a position at some point to report

that the system is fully in place and fully sufficient to avoid the

difficulties described in this and previous governments' activities.

MR. HOWARD: I

suppose it's easy to deal with matters once one has been caught out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

No debate.

MR. HOWARD: I want to ask

the Premier

if he approved or authorized removing the word "reasonable" from

expense guidelines in December 1978, as was stated in the House earlier

by the

hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis).

HON. MR. BENNETT: First of

all, because the first

question the

member asked the Minister of Finance wasn't directed at me, it wasn't

possible

for me to get up and say that the words, exactly as he attributed them

to me,

are not correct. I suggest the member be very clear on the statements

on which

he bases a question in the House, because he is once again

incorrect.

Secondly, any regulatory change that has been made from year

year has the approval of the government. Therefore it has the approval

of me as

a member of the government.

MR. HOWARD:

Am I correct, Mr. Speaker, in taking the Premier's answer to my

question to

mean that yes, he did approve removing "reasonableness"?

Orders of

the Day

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I ask

leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILIAMS: Second

reading of

Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

(continued)

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I

defer to my

colleague the member for Mackenzie.

MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please. I ask those members who are moving to

another

location to do it as quietly as possible.

MR.

LOCKSTEAD: This bill came up quite unexpectedly in my

absence. I

had taken

on commitments some months ago, and unfortunately I was absent from the

House

during the initial introduction of this bill. I want to thank my

colleagues who

spoke on the bill in my absence, and carried the bill over so I would

have the opportunity

to make a few comments on the principle of this bill during the course

second reading.

I read the minister's statement in regard to this bill with

interest and quite carefully. There's no question in my mind that that

government

and the minister are making an attempt to tighten up the driving laws

in British

Columbia with a view to reducing the carnage on our highways — I think

the

minister used that statement. There's no question whatsoever that we

will have

to support that aspect of the bill. Every MLA in this House certainly

is very

familiar with the number of…. We have to deal with the matters in our

constituencies

where so many people are maimed, injured and actually killed. The ratio

seems

to go up year after year. Traffic laws are more and more difficult to

enforce,

for whatever reason. The laws do need tightening up. In fact, the

official opposition

will be introducing several amendments to tighten up the laws in some

areas

where we feel the bill has not gone far enough.

There are concerns in

principle about this bill that have been expressed to us by a number of

groups

and organizations around British Columbia. I'm thinking specifically of

the

sections of this bill…. I have no intention of getting into

section by

section

of this bill now. This bill is primarily a committee bill, and we

agreed with

that when the minister made that statement in his remarks.

However,

there are

some principles involved here. The Civil Liberties Association of

British

Columbia has made representation to the minister and the opposition;

the IWA

and other industrial people affected by this bill have made

representation to

the minister and ourselves; the Associated Driving Schools of British

Columbia have

made representation. One of our basic concerns as an opposition is that

the

bill goes to the very root of what we feel is the very precious

relationship

between the citizen and the state. We have done our research, and we

have gone

over the penalty

section of this bill quite carefully.

If I may use a general

example during the course of second reading, one thing that concerns us

is that

it is quite possible now — and it will continue under this bill — for a

person

to drive while under suspension, without knowing they're under

suspension. It's

quite possible for that to happen. We will be introducing an amendment

to the particular

part of the bill dealing with that. It deals with several sections; it

is not

one section. The principle of this is natural justice. I'm not a

lawyer, I

don't know all these legal terms, but "natural justice" is pretty

self-explanatory. We referred to this many times in committee as a

lawyer's

bill, and many people involved in the legal profession will be speaking

on this

bill, I'm sure. So one of the things that can possibly happen under

this bill

now is that a person could be driving while under suspension and not

know it.

The new prescribed penalties for a person while driving under

suspension are

really stiffened up, and they perhaps should be.

However, the aspect I'm

concerned about is this: a person is stopped for whatever infraction —

going

through a stop sign or for a tail light, whatever — and the officer who

stops

the driver finds that driver X is driving while under suspension, but

the

driver would have no knowledge of this. There are many ways in which a

driver

could be suspended without

[ Page 8023

knowing immediately that he is in fact

under

suspension. He is almost immediately guilty, and there is no recourse

that we can find under this bill; and believe me, Mr. Speaker, we have

thoroughly scrutinized this bill to the best of our ability.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please.

Try not to interupt the member who has the floor.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) requires some information for

his own

presentation, which I'll try to provide to him while I'm speaking with

the

minister. It's a bit complicated.

In any event, that's one of our many

concerns. Another major concern is

section 2 and

section 5, which deal

with the

representation made to the minister by the IWA, amongst others, whereby

people

could actually lose their jobs.

I'll back up a bit. Here, Mr. Minister, you're

combining the old Highway (Industrial) Act and this new Bill 4. Many of

us have

had representations, and I'm sure the opposition has too, about people

who have

actually lost their jobs and their livelihood under this Highways

(Industrial)

Act,

chapter 168. Someone may be driving a logging truck on an

industrial road.

A front-end loader is defined as a mobile vehicle under other types of

equipment, and while that person may have lost his licence on the

public

highways, an industrial road is something quite different. Under Bill

4, which

was some 14 or 15 months in the making, based on the Motor Vehicle Task

Force

report commissioned by the ministry…. Part of this may be resolved

under

section 5 of the bill. I am not quite sure. I am not a lawyer. What can

happen

now is that if a worker's licence is suspended on a public highway, he

will

lose his licence and the right to operate a front-end loader or a

logging truck

on a purely industrial road or site, even though he is confined to

those. We

have some major concerns in that area. We have appropriate

recommendations and

will be putting them forward to the minister at the appropriate time in

committee. I am raising these matters now so that the minister,

hopefully, will

have time to listen to these representations and go back and perhaps

draft a

few amendments to cover these concerns that have been expressed to us

by these

people.

There have been numerous articles in the press and letters to

the

editor, some in support of raising the driving age, some lowering it,

some

leaving it — and all these things. We really don't want to get into

that, I am

sure, because I think that some of these matters and concerns that have

been

expressed in those articles have been addressed under the act. I do

want to

speak briefly, though…. We had a long meeting — and I am sure the

minister or

his staff did as well — with the Associated Driving Schools of British

Columbia.

This is an association of people who operate driving schools. They have

made 19

specific proposals to the ministry. I must tell you, quite frankly,

that I

don't agree with some of them, but some I do. I would think that

perhaps the

minister should consider some of these items under this bill. They have

suggested, for example, certification of checklists for minor-age

drivers by

their parent, legal guardian or qualified driving instructor. We are

all

familiar with the problems that people under the age of 24 encounter.

The

percentages are usually higher than the general percentages in terms of

accidents across the board.

I believe that somewhere near 42 percent of all

vehicle accidents and deaths are attributed to alcohol. There is a

severe

tightening up of penalties in that regard. Once again, it is very

difficult to

oppose those sections of the bill that do tighten it up. We do know

that in

other countries of the world — Sweden comes to mind…. People often

mention that

country because they have some of the strictest and most severe driving

regulations in the world. On the second offence of impaired driving it

possible to lose your licence for the rest of your life in that

particular

country.

The Associated Driving Schools of British Columbia also agree

that

there should be approved, rigorous road-testing standards for all new

drivers. They mention here that particularly for new drivers —

the 16-to-18-year-old age group…. But they go further and ask for

rigorous

testing standards for all new drivers. I know people who have not

learned to

operate a motor vehicle until they were in their sixties. There is

nothing

wrong with that, but it is much more difficult. I am 50. I hate to

admit it,

but I'm getting along. It is more difficult to pick things up than when

you are

young and confident and think you know it all. On the other hand, older

people

are generally much more cautious. What I am suggesting is that we

should have

rigorous road-testing standards as concurred with by the Associated

Driving

Schools of British Columbia.

We are concerned about other aspects of this bill

— where ICBC, for example, for non-payment, a cancelled cheque or a

mistake at

the bank…. That happens to all of us from time to time; it's happened

to most

of us for various reasons. For non-payment of an account at ICBC, it's

merely a

matter of ICBC phoning over to the motor vehicle branch and saying Joe

Schmo

hasn't paid his bill here — or whatever happened; to check his balance

for

whatever reason — and his licence is cancelled. In fact, here's another

case

where it's possible to be driving on the highway with a suspended

licence

because you haven't received a notification. You may have moved and the

letter

may not have caught up with you — whatever reason. We've had cases

along this line

under the present act. But for non-payment of a bill, which should be

for small

debts court, or whatever legal people do in these circumstances…. Like

any

other bill, if you owe somebody a bill and you don't eventually pay,

there are

other legal avenues open to the government. But under this

section you

have

arbitrary, so-called justice dispensed, without the person involved

being

present, and having the opportunity to tell his side of the story

through the

motor vehicle branch at the word of another bureaucrat sitting over

here at

ICBC. I think we lose something in terms of natural justice in this

country if

we start introducing this kind of legislation, whereby an arbitrary

action can

be taken to affect a person, sometimes without that person affected

even

knowing about it.

I've got a whole pile of other notes here, Mr. Speaker, but

I'm going to leave it at this point and ask the minister in all

seriousness to

take some of these concerns back to the people who drafted the bill in

the

first place and to make sure that natural justice for all citizens in

the

relationship between the citizen and the state is observed. I can

foresee — as

we go through committee stage we will be discussing this — where some

horrendous legal suits and court cases are going to arise out of this

new bill.

But more than that…. I don't want to sound too negative. I want to tell

the

minister and the government that we're certainly in agreement with the

improvement of highway, road and driving standards in British Columbia.

Let there

be no doubt about that. As I said, we're a bit

[ Page 8024

concerned that there are people

driving on the

highway today with in excess of 40 points. This is a situation that

should not be able to occur in this province. In these situations, when

somebody accumulates that many points, obviously there has to be

something wrong. How the heck they pay their ICBC is beyond me. I've

got a few points and I didn't like the extra increase I had to pay this

year, believe me. The carnage on our highways — we've all witnessed

it. I drive a great deal around the province and a great deal up and

down Vancouver Island, and I've seen some terrible accidents, like you

would not believe. One last week was terrible — sheared off a pole,

flattened the car. We're all familiar with this, so something has to be

done. The government will receive no opposition from us in that regard.

But we do want to protect, as much as possible, the legal rights of all

of our citizens in British Columbia.

MR.

LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I want to canvass the process by which

the

government has

apparently arrived at producing the amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act

in Bill 4. I'm glad the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Hyndman) is here. I'm only going to take a couple of minutes,

and I hope the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) also remains behind

just for a second.

I want to deal with some of the glaring inconsistencies in

the bill. I want to say at the outset that, substantially, I am

supporting the

provisions of this bill. I want to argue that it's long overdue, and we

all

realize it's long overdue. I think the government has been receiving a

lot of

pressure and a lot of representations from people who are fed up,

particularly

with drinking drivers getting away with murder on the highways in the

province

of British Columbia. I think we all accept, as modern citizens, that no

one can

have diminished responsibility for the results of his actions while

he's

impaired, when those actions do not require a specific intent, but

require only

a degree of responsibility and reasonableness, to know that if you are

impaired

or likely impaired you are endangering not only your own life but also

the

lives of innocent people walking on the sidewalks and driving on the

highways

of our province. It is for that reason that I look with a great deal of

interest to the amendments to this bill, and congratulate the

government for

it. At least I would like to, except that, basically, I can see a sad

and

tragic and ridiculous contradiction in the government's actions. On the

one

hand they are taking what apparently is a sincere and bold move to

control

irresponsible driving; on the other hand the greatest offender — the

person on

the highways of this province who causes the most harm to life and

property —

is the impaired driver.

When I look at my own neighbourhood and my own

constituency, in the city of Vancouver, I see that young people become

involved

in accidents, and in many cases have lost their lives — young people who haven't even started to live,

who haven't yet taken the first step off the threshold, if you like.

Quite

often it's not their negligence that's involved; quite often it is due

to the

negligence of a driver who is impaired: the case of a car travelling

across the

median, for no apparent reason whatsoever, that flies into a motor

vehicle

travelling, within the law, on the other side of the road and killing

the

people in the car; cases involving innocent pedestrians who are killed

instantly by a person who is completely incapable of driving a motor

vehicle,

because of alcohol. A lot of these people who are using alcohol and

driving

automobiles — certainly not all; I would even guess not the majority —

are

young people; some are in their teens. They are impressionable people.

They are

easily influenced, because they have not yet — in many cases, as I said

developed the maturity to resist influence which to a more mature

person would

be considered superficial.

I'm talking about those slick lifestyle ads

advertising liquor and alcoholic beverages in our province: the ads

that you

can see in magazines and that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Hyndman) now wants to put on television and on radio

broadcasts. They

advertise attractive lifestyles: good-looking people in smart clothes,

attractive surroundings, drinking booze. Mr. Speaker, to you and me

perhaps

that's not terribly attractive, because we know a little bit about

life. We

know that the real ads should show the poor rubbydubs, sitting

underneath a

bridge, drinking vanilla extract; that should be the ad for liquor in

this

province. The real ads shouldn't show healthy, good-looking people,

doing

wonderful things while they're drinking. The real ads should show the

carnage

on the highway, and say, "Drink Smirnoff," or whatever. Those are the

real ads that you and I know about.

It is a travesty indeed, Mr. Speaker.

Speaking for myself, I'm totally against expanding liquor advertising

beyond

the print media. The impressionable young people of this province, as

well as

other drivers, whom we are trying to restrict under Bill 4…. The

actions of the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs make Bill 4, in the hands of

the

Minister of Highways, a mockery. On the other hand, we're trying in

Bill 4 to

pick up the pieces after it happens, while the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs, because of some sort of incredible unawareness — to

appease

a handful of broadcasters in this province, for purely political

reasons — is

allowing liquor and alcoholic beverages to be advertised on the

air.

You know

the influence of television on our young people, Mr. Speaker. I say to

all

members who are left in this House this afternoon: you know the

influence on

young people of that advertising on television. How unfair and stupid

it is on

the part of the government to expand that purview to include liquor

advertising

on the air. It's a travesty, and it's a betrayal of a trust that made

different in British Columbia, that made us proud in this province.

I'm

certainly glad that the member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) is

here. I

remember her views on this subject. Unless they've changed, they were

precisely

the same as mine. I'm not asking her to stand up in this debate; I

understand

the problem of cabinet solidarity. For years now we've been picking up

the

wounded and the casualties of alcohol. This province has been paying

dearly for

it. And along comes a new minister, with no respect for the tradition

and the

possibilities of changing that policy, and he does so. And now they

bring in

this act, strong as it is, to close the barn door.

Yes, you know what the real

ads are, Mr. Speaker. They're the photographs that were on the back of

the

driving manual until recently. I wonder if you remember that photograph

on the back

of the driving manual. There were six kids in a car that had been

sheared away,

and they were all killed. The accident took place in 1956, and the

photograph

was of six 16-year-old kids. I remember it vividly and clearly, because

that

was the night that my family went down to the Royal Columbian Hospital

to look

at the makeshift morgue to see if I was one of those kids, because all

six were

in my grade

[ Page 8025

in my high school and were wiped out

in one night

because of alcohol.

Are we going to continue to see that? Can it be

argued that putting ads for liquor on the airways will not increase

consumption of alcohol? You know full well that that's why these liquor

companies are going to put out that kind of money. We're fighting a

losing battle here when one minister does one thing against the public

interest and the other minister does something for the public interest.

They've got to get their act together. I really do plead with the

government to reconsider this action to expand ads for liquor to the

airways. Take your political courage in hand. Is the mighty Legislature

of this province or the public going to be ground to a halt because of

a handful of broadcasters?

Mr. Speaker, insofar as Bill 4 is concerned, I have a grave

concern about the one

section that was mentioned by my colleague for

Mackenzie

(Mr. Lockstead),

section 94(1) of the proposed bill, and I'll deal with

this

when the committee sits. But I want to point out to the

Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Williams) that I have not seen a

section that is more likely to

offend

either the old or the new constitution. First of all, it requires a

minimum

seven-day prison term for anyone convicted on a first offence of

driving while

under suspension. I agree with that; there's no problem with me in

having an

automatic jail term for somebody deliberately driving without a licence.

But

here we have a phrase that we were taught since we were kiddies does

not belong

in criminal or quasi-criminal legislation, and that's the question of

absolute

liability. Under a free and democratic system under the British common

law, no

man or woman should be convicted unless they intended to commit the

offence,

and I think I find that offensive. I find it repugnant to the

traditions of our

law that says that subsection 1 creates an absolute liability offence.

suppose we could wink at something like that if it was a parking

offence or if

it was an automatic pollution-control type of thing where you know that

the

person who may be found guilty should be aware and should have taken

steps to

prevent the mischief, but in a situation where personal liberty is at

stake and

no automatic prison sentence is imposed, I don't know of any court in

this land

that's going to uphold this section.

I recognize that the member for Cariboo

(Hon. Mr. Fraser), eminently learned as he is, has not spent all of his

time studying

the law, as the Attorney-General has. It seems quite surprising to me

that this

section has missed the Attorney-General's attention or that the

Attorney-General has agreed to it being part of this statute. I do find

that

very curious indeed and, as I said, I think the first person to dispute

that

section on that basis will win — that's my prediction — and I would

hate to see

him do so if he was guilty of an offence. I would hate to see him get

out of

this offence if he deliberately drove while he was under suspension,

but as my

colleague for Mackenzie points out, if a person doesn't know they're

under

suspension, that's a terrible travesty of justice. Even the traditions

habeas corpus would have that man out of jail in 15 minutes without

even a

constitutional challenge. So I would ask the government to really

reconsider

that section, because you're ruining the impact of what essentially is

a bold

and strong attempt to get control over those irresponsible people who

are

contributing to tragedy and grief in our society.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I

could do no other than

support the bill.

However, I believe that somehow or other we're going to have to come to

grips,

beyond the measures in this bill, with drunk drivers. Everybody pays

lip

service to this situation. I think probably in the past I have as well.

think, however, as I live along and see incident after incident — some

very

recent — that I am more and more convinced that one of the biggest

mistakes

that we in our entire country are making is with respect to the civil

liberties

of a person who is the offender in a traffic violation. If one were to

go into

a pub or bar this afternoon, one of the conversations one might hear

is:

"Whatever you do, when you leave here drunk and you're in any kind of

accident, make sure that you either appear to have a head injury or are

sufficiently injured to wind up in the hospital." What happens then? At

that point, this bill becomes nothing more than a fine piece of paper.

I will

certainly commend the minister for bring it forward. I've congratulated

him

privately and I'll congratulate him publicly, but somehow we're going

to have

to get a handle on the situation where people can get on the road

drunk, bump

their head in an accident, and immediately be transported to a hospital

where

they can deny the hospital or practitioners access to their blood for a

blood-alcohol. That's their civil liberty. If they're just found on the

road,

offending in terms of the way they're driving, and they decide they

will not

take a breathalyser, they can be charged. That's not what I'm really

talking

about. Let me give you an illustration of what could happen, and what

does

happen from time to time.

A drunk can cause the death of another person

because of the driving situation. The victim has no civil liberties,

rights or

whatever. The victim's blood is taken to find out whether or not the

victim had

been drinking. If there's an autopsy there's access to check out that

aspect,

etc. The victim may have a blood-alcohol level. The offender, however,

who may

be blind drunk, does not have to — because he or she is living — submit

to the

blood test because of an injury, minor or major. Under those

circumstances,

who's victimized? Again, the victim's family and everyone else. On the

other

hand, oftentimes it turns out that the victim has absolutely no

blood-alcohol.

It makes the family feel great. It doesn't bring back the victim.

Meanwhile, because

another person can deny access to this diagnostic — call it what you

will —

procedure, then theoretically he can be scot-free.

I subscribe to the things

my colleagues have been saying — that if we don't toughen up a lot,

across the

country and in our province, we will see the needless mayhem continue.

Useful

lives, lives of people who are loved, people who really play a

part in

our

society, are wiped out because of a lethal weapon that we have on the

roads

called an automobile, a lethal weapon in the hands of an irresponsible

person.

That's precisely what it is — a lethal weapon.

Mr. Speaker, we haven't

toughened up enough. Some areas, some countries in the world…. To me

it's very

interesting that one of the champion countries in terms of civil

liberties is

Sweden, and I believe Norway finds itself in a similar situation. But

when it

comes to this sort of thing, not on your life! I talked the other day

to our

MP, Pauline Jewett, about this bill and about civil liberties, and,

because

she's always been a champion of civil liberties, I asked her what she

thought

of persons in the position where, by virtue of protecting their civil

liberties,

they can deny access to blood-alcohol. She said: "That's one area where

am in total disagreement with the civil libertarians."

I don't know what

our jurisdiction is going to do about this. I believe it to be federal,

but this

jurisdiction and every other jurisdiction in Canada should see to it

that

people are

[ Page 8026

responsible for their actions. Nothing

short of

that will be good enough. Every year the carnage increases. From the

time I was a kid until now it hasn't multiplied, it has geometrically

progressed. It will continue to do so until somehow we are able to

provide the laws that are going to make people suddenly come to terms

with it. The awful

part is that everybody believes "it can't happen to

me." Everybody believes: "I'm a re sponsible person behind the wheel

when I've been boozing it up. No one else is, but I'm okay."

In those Scandinavian countries where they toughened up a long

time

ago, when a group of people goes out partying, one person is

designated non-drinker; either that or they take a taxi, because they

know that a drinking offence is a major offence. They won't wind up

just with their wrists slapped; they'll wind up working it off in a

forest camp — businessman, clergyman, salesman or politician, they're

all the same. I believe that's what we have to see here. I've talked at

some length to my young brother; he's two and a half years younger, and

I must call him young under those circumstances. He's a superintendent

in the police force in Vancouver — many people know him — and has been

watching this situation for years, with his hands tied, and he has seen

others with their hands tied equally.

Again, I most certainly endorse what the minister is doing

here, but we've got to go beyond that. I've read it over and over. I

haven't

been charged with studying every bill that comes across my desk,

because I have

specific interests as a legislator in this House, but I have certainly

studied

this one. The minister knows, and I believe he endorses what I have to

say,

which is that it does not go far enough. We cannot be too careful in

seeing to

it that people are protected. Driving is not a right, Mr. Speaker; it's

privilege. Health care and education are rights, but driving an

automobile,

truck or any other motor vehicle on a public highway is not a right but

a privilege.

Anybody who turns their back on that deserves the full weight of the

law. We,

as legislators, must provide as much weight in law as we possibly can

protect innocent people from people driving what I consider to be a

lethal

weapon.

I guess every one of us can go on forever on this bill.

Every

time

we pick up the paper as legislators, let's remember that that name of

some

other victim that we read and gloss over may not mean a whole lot to us

individually, but is very precious to someone, somewhere. I believe

that it's

up to every person to do all they can to educate and legislate a demand

that we

make our highways safer and safer. Nothing short of that will do. In

the

carnage, we've seen more people killed than we've seen in wars and more

people

lost emotionally — vacuums in their lives — as a result of the fact

that we're

just not doing a good enough job in terms of our legislating and

educating

people toward better driving habits. I hope that we do a much better

job in the

future. Time is running out. There are more and more vehicles. There

will be

more and more victims unless we can turn the corner in this important

area.

[Mr.

Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly support the bill. I

admonish the minister, the Attorney-General and anybody else to go

after

increased toughness in law, and a lot more education of drivers and

potential

drivers. It's important to every member of our society, whether they

realize it

or not.

MR. MITCHELL: I was

expecting

someone from the other side of the House to participate in this debate,

because

I believe, like the previous speaker, that the driving problems of

British

Columbia must be supported, debated and understood by members from both

sides

of this House. It's something that should be promoted and educated to

all

drivers and citizens of British Columbia.

If the government ever wanted to

confuse this opposition, they sure did in bringing their amendments. In

trying

to follow the intent and reasoning behind this particular bill, not

only did

you have to refer to the Motor Vehicle Act, but to the practice of

ICBC. What

I'm finding — I'm saying this as someone who has a lot of experience

dealing

with this particular act — is that they're trying to do two things.

They're

trying to solve not only a social problem but also some of the

financial

collection problems of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

They're

trying to bring into this act something that was never thought of in

the past,

I believe. When we had private insurance companies it wasn't quite as

enforceable. They're trying to make the police departments and the

superintendent of motor vehicles the collection agency of bad debts

that the

person may inadvertently or deliberately have set up with postdated

cheques to

purchase his licence plates and his insurance. They're also using this

act, I

think, in a very high-handed manner without first attempting to contact

the

person. I know from experience what happens. Someone may work in Prince

George,

and hand in four postdated cheques for his insurance, then move to

Victoria and

close out his account in Prince George. The cheques may be bounced

after the

first one goes through; then he is driving with insurance that he

hasn't paid

for. I understand that happens, and I understand the concern of ICBC

and the

massive debt that is developing through people avoiding their

responsibilities

to pay for what they're using.

I also realize something that the driving

public haven't realized; that is, the amendments that have been brought

where ICBC will pay the victims of people who have been convicted of

impaired

driving, who have been convicted of dangerous driving, and who have

been

convicted of criminal negligence. What is coming out in this bill now

is that

they're using the right to drive as a collection agency to get back the

money

expended by ICBC. I believe that the minister and government know what

they're

doing, and I realize that there is a lot of merit to it. But the

general public

in the community…. I think a lot of the MLAs haven't realized the can

of worms

that this is going to open up. I'm hoping — and I say this not only to

the

minister who is piloting this bill through, but also to the minister in

charge

of ICBC — that they do set up some arrangement with those who have

incurred

this debt, or have incurred this cost, so that it can be paid back, and

they

can still maintain their licence.

I bring two examples of cases that have

already come to my attention. I know that as this becomes more

enforceable and

becomes part of the act, more people are going to be caught in this

pincer.

This was one who did commit a serious offence, driving with criminal

negligence, for which he pleaded guilty and served three months in

jail. He had

no hesitation in admitting that he was at fault in all cases. When he

was

released, and before he could get his licence back, he was advised that

would have to pay back $8,000, which was the cost of destroying two

police cars

when he tried to go through a roadblock. I agree he owed it, and the

community

shouldn't have to pay that cost. It took a little manipulation

[ Page 8027

and phone calls, but eventually ICBC

did agree to

accept his agreement to pay that money over a period of time. They

allowed him to have his licence back so he could continue working. In

this particular case he would have lost his job, the ability to pay his

mortgage on his home, so an arrangement was made and he is back into

the work force. He is back into the community, and I think he learned

his lesson.

Another case which came to me and is still before the courts

on a

second appeal concerned a young lad who had bought a four-wheel drive

and he had made certain modifications to this car with a kit that he

bought in a motor-vehicle supply shop that lifted the back end of the

car up so that it had that rakish look that all the young people must

have today. This person was travelling 30 miles an hour around a

corner, and because of the way the car was constructed it rolled over

and demolished a pickup truck and another sedan. In their wisdom, the

police said that this was dangerous driving because he had made

modifications to this particular vehicle, and he was convicted of that.

He was notified by ICBC that he would have to pay the sum of $27,000,

which was paid out on his behalf. The only problem is that the car was

in his father's name. The father, who was not driving the car and was

not making the payments, was given the bill. Under this particular act,

until he paid the $27,000 he would be liable to lose his right to

drive. In this particular case they did successfully appeal it, and the

conviction of dangerous driving was thrown out of court. Since that

date, through the Attorney-General and ICBC, they have appealed the

second court case. It's still before the criminal people, but I think a

lot of people are not aware of what's going to happen.

It's easy to stand up and scream and rant about impaired

driving. As one who has spent 23 years of my life scraping people off

the road

and seeing the problems of drinking and driving and speed, I'm the

first to

admit that the major cause of the most serious accidents is a

combination of

speed and alcohol. But I also want to say, as one who has worked with

it, that

there is a difference between drunken drivers and people who get points

for

speeding. I think this is something that indicates that there must be a

serious

review of the point system. I believe that there should be a more

flexible

manner in the way they're interpreted. It's easy to say that you have

so many

points and that you're a hazard to the road. This is a simple answer,

but in

fact, in the facts of life out in the driving public, there are many

degrees of

getting points. I know that with a conviction of dangerous driving,

high speed

and a police chase through miles and miles and many stop signs, a

person gets

ten points when convicted, because it's criminal negligent driving. At

the same

time you can have a professional driver who's never been involved in an

accident — granted that he is driving in excess of the posted speed

limit,

which, to be honest, not too many of us have never exceeded — and goes

through

the radar trap on a quiet day and he gets nailed and gets three points.

think when you really review it and look at it in all sincerity, the

three or

four convictions of a professional driver, who has never been involved

in an

accident, but who is a certain number of miles over the posted speed

limit, are

not as serious as one high-speed chase of criminal negligence that

endangers

many lives. So I would ask the minister to give some consideration of

reviewing

the way points are issued and how they were acquired. From a serious

point of

view, the degree of the points can't be just blocked off; in very

simple

language, if you have three convictions of speeding, that is as serious

as a

criminal charge. Maybe they should raise the criminal negligence

driving, maybe

they should have a different point system for a lesser dangerous

driving and

maybe there should be some flexibility in the impaired driving.

I think all

who have worked in the police have seen the office party where someone

who is

not a heavy drinker drinks too much. The reason he's picked up is that

he's

driving down the street at 15 or 20 miles per hour, heading home, and

he's

being very careful; he's going wide around the parked cars. He's really

not

that serious a danger to society, because he's driving slowly. He is a

danger

socially, but he is not as serious a danger when he's taking these

precautions

as someone who blindly drives down the street at high speed. If he was

picked

up, it was because he was obviously driving too slowly; he knew that he

was

drunk. Compare him to people who drive at high speeds, who sideswipe

other cars

and then take off, starting a high-speed chase. There is a difference

of degree

— in the way he got the conviction. I think there should be some

flexibility;

it could be by recommendations of the attending officers or by those

within the

motor vehicle branch who analyze the suspensions when they are given.

The

right to drive is a serious part of our life. The one thing that all

these

amendments, all the changes to the act, have not covered is the really

serious

heavy drinker, the person who has a long record of points, who has an

attitude

towards his right to drive…. He drinks and drives, burning rubber,

screaming

around, as a full-time hobby. But as the previous speaker said, when he

gets

into an accident he goes to the hospital where he malingers along,

holding up

beds and nurses because of one thing: he won't take a breathalyser test.

all talk about Sweden, where they lock people up if they are convicted

impaired driving. I talked to someone who just came back from Sweden,

where

there is a three-year waiting list to go to jail on convictions for

impaired

driving. I really don't think this is going to enforce it. I would like

They

enforce blood samples. I don't advocate that policemen should be able

to take

blood samples from people. But being able to demand a blood sample,

through

either the hospital or a medical person, is the only way to get a true

reading

of the person's ability to drive. The reading from a blood sample,

compared to

a breathalyser, is far superior for enforcement — for the department to

analyze

what level we should have for impaired driving. It may have to come

through

consultation with the federal government, because I know all the civil

liberties people will be screaming at me when I say that a blood sample

must be

taken because it's the best way of identifying impaired drivers.

As I say,

there are so many who day after day…. Maybe they were injured in the

accident,

and maybe they were committed to hospital, but they have still caused

the

carnage on the highways because of their high speed and their heavy

drinking.

These are the real causes of the destruction on the highways. In so

many cases,

because they are in hospital, because they are hiding because of a lot

advice from a lot of other drunks, they are not being convicted of

impaired

driving. They are getting off with six points for careless driving. The

police

who attended know they were impaired. The doctors in the hospital know

they

were impaired. But no one can take a blood sample, unless you can

convince the

person in the hospital that he wants to give it and then find a doctor

or a

nurse who doesn't mind getting involved in attending court to give the

evidence

that she took

[ Page 8028

this blood sample, and that it was taken

under proper

circumstances — that it was a clean phial, that it was sealed properly

and that it was conveyed from the hospital to a police officer, who

then conveyed it to Vancouver for analysis. This is the procedure under

the present system that we have to go through for blood samples. I

think that

section should be tightened up; it should become mandatory.

Maybe the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), when he gets into the

debate, will tell us if it has to come with consultation with the

federal government — if it would have to be an amendment to the

Criminal Code or some other code. I feel that until we bring in that

mandatory blood-test procedure that they have in England, we are going

to continue to have the real serious offenders getting away.

I feel that the bill is very wide-sweeping. There are sections

that

I'm not sure are very practical to enforce. At the present time 40

percent of those who are under suspension are driving, and until you

have some way of identifying those people — and I'm not sure of how

you'd do it if they are not in their own car — people are going to

drive, because they're forced to drive to survive, to pay for their

family commitments, their mortgages, and various things, especially

those from rural areas who don't have the effective transportation that

they have in Sweden, where everyone lives in a city and there is better

public transit. This is one of the ways it can be enforced.

But I would really like to stress to the minister that when

this act comes in…. I know we on this side of the House have brought up

time

after time the waste of money that is used for advertising, but I think

there

should be a program to advertise just as effectively as they have done

with the

BATmobile: what the government intends to do; that when you do

accumulate those

points, you are going to be under suspension; when you don't pay your

bills,

you're going to be under suspension; you will be going to jail.

I believe that

there was an amendment that went through last year where you get an

automatic

seven days if you're driving under suspension. There are a lot of

people that….

The suspension was served on them, and someone in the family took it….

In the

particular case that I am aware of, the daughter had moved out of the

house.

She didn't receive her suspension notice. She was put on the computer.

She was

stopped by a police officer; the police officer checked CPIC; she came

up as

being under suspension, and the next thing, she was in jail and her

lawyer was

down there to try to explain that there was an amendment through. In

fact, the

lawyer didn't realize at that particular moment that the amendment had

gone

through last year.

So I believe that the hard clout that these amendments are

going to have on the driving community should be widely and properly

promoted

to the public so that they understand it. I know that we as MLAs may

try to

talk to a few people, and our discussions may be effective, but this is

a large

change in the Motor Vehicle Act. As I say, it's trying to solve the

social problem.

It's trying to hit heavy on the drinking driver, which we commend. It's

trying

to collect the money to keep ICBC in operation from those who are

trying to

beat their bills. But it's also now going to be the enforcement arm of

the

change. That money that's expended on behalf of the third party,

because of a

person having a conviction for impaired driving or dangerous driving,

or having

a conviction for criminal negligence, will now be recoverable from that

person.

I think these changes are manifold and should be sold to the public.

They

should be advised of the changes; the public must be aware of them.

There are

sections that we would like to discuss; we will discuss them in

committee.

Again, I would like to say to the minister: you have a can of worms

here; it's

going to open up a lot of problems. Some good amendments were brought

in on Friday.

I think the attitude and how they are put together…. The government

must give

leadership. We who are dealing with the public must give some good

input into it,

because it's going to affect the driving habits…. For any of us who

continue as

MLAs the problems and the caseloads that we get will be enlarged

because of

these amendments.

MR. NICOLSON:

This is a very

important bill. It's a bipartisan

bill. I don't think there is going to be any objection to the bill. For

that

reason, it is my personal opinion — it's certainly not the opinion of

the NDP caucus;

I'm not speaking on their behalf — that this bill would be better

served if

there were an opportunity to bring witnesses before a committee of the

House —

before the appropriate select standing committee, or even before the

Crown

corporations committee, perhaps, since they are involved with ICBC

matters — to

examine the subject matter of this bill, and to receive input from

various

interested parties to the implementation and consequences of this bill.

Our

caucus sought to be enlightened on this very technical bill by

requesting that

the superintendent of motor vehicles come to us and help to explain to

us some of

the intricacies of the bill. We received notification…. It's my

understanding

that Mr. Whitlock was quite cooperative, but sought to clear this with

the

minister. We were denied the opportunity to have Mr. Whitlock's

assistance in

preparing for debate on this bill. I think that is very regrettable. I

really

would hope — and, as I said, this is my personal position…. While I

realize

that it might lead to a little bit of delay — and I don't think it

really need

lead to any delay — if this bill could be referred to a committee, we

would

have the opportunity of bringing in, maybe, the traffic superintendent

of the

Vancouver police force or a witness from the RCMP to testify to highway

safety

problems. We could bring in people from the courts; we could call

witnesses

from the ministry, or call in the superintendent of motor vehicles. We

could

get a better idea of just how practical this particular piece of

legislation

is, in terms of fulfilling the objective of all of us in this House,

which is,

of course, to increase highway safety, cut down on the needless deaths

that

occur, cut down on the needless maiming of people; then, after all

human

considerations, even cut down on the needless property loss, which goes

on at a

very alarming rate in this particular province.

I'm a member of the Crown

corporations committee. I'm quite willing to accept the fact that

British

Columbians have the worst driving record in terms of fatalities,

property loss

and maiming accidents of any province in Canada. Our record in terms of

impaired driving and various other things is certainly not one that we

can be

proud of as British Columbians. Something must be done. It is for that

reason

that I really feel that this bill might have been best put to an

all-party

committee. It is a bipartisan bill; there is no objection; there is no

political philosophical division on this particular piece of

legislation. The

questions I have, in looking at the bill…. I confess some ignorance.

People get

up in the House…. Everybody, I suppose, would like to let on that they

understand this bill completely. I, for one, don't pretend to

understand this

bill completely. I can say that I've read

[ Page 8029

over the bill; I've read the

amendments to the

bill; I've inserted the amendments into the appropriate sections of the

bill. Let's recall that this bill amends an existing act; it's not a

new act. The bill itself is an amendment to existing legislation. Now

we have before us amendments to those amendments, so it is a very

complicated, very technical bill.

The minister, in his opening remarks, said there were 100,000 bad

drivers

on the road. Yet, according to information supplied to the Crown

corporations by ICBC, there are 300,000 drivers paying the bonus

insurance premium because they have six or more penalty points. I

suppose the best indicator of a poor driver is one who can be shown to

be at fault in an accident. I would like to bring to the minister's

attention the fact that there are 300,000 drivers on the road with six

or more penalty points.

One of the

questions I have is: what is this bill going to do to improve the

problems of

retrieving data from the data bank of the motor vehicle branch? It's my

understanding from police that while drivers are supposed to have their

licences suspended if their penalty points get beyond a certain number,

there

are people driving without ever having had a suspension, not only with

20 or 30

points, but with as many as 60 or 70 points before the very slow

process can

catch up with them. It's my understanding from police that they cannot

retrieve

information on priors in the same way as one could receive information

from the

Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit if it were criminal activities that

one wanted

information on. If the police want to know whether someone has a charge

pending

against them — for instance, for possession of drugs, dealing or

something like

that — they can pick up information from CLEU not only on that charge,

but they

can find out whether there's a warrant out for that person's arrest,

even for a

misdemeanor. It could even be for the nonpayment of a traffic fine, say

in the

city of Vancouver, which might be outstanding, and for which the person

would

be picked up by sheriffs if still in the city of Vancouver. Of course,

if a

person moves up to the Kootenays they don't bother to transport him

back for

that kind of an offence.

There's

tremendous information retrieval

in the case

of CLEU, yet I've been informed that the police have sometimes handed

out not

15 penalty points in a year, but 15 in a week, and have not been able

to lift

his licence simply because the information does not flow. That is one

of the

questions I would like to have the opportunity to ask, or at least have

some of

my colleagues on an appropriate committee ask of persons like Mr.

Whitlock and

representatives of the ministry.

I would also

like to ask people in the

courts

what kind of load they anticipate this legislation is going to bring

forward once

we are setting the fines and possible imprisonment for any breaking of

the law.

Section 25 is my major concern in this bill. I believe it means that if

person does a California stop — a rolling infraction where he slows

down on

approaching a stop sign but does not come to a complete stop and goes

through —

he could get three points; or if a person was exceeding a speed limit

or failed

to stop at a crosswalk, perhaps when somebody had just stepped out on

the far

side, and then passed through the crosswalk. Maybe that doesn't really

endanger

the person, but still it's three points; it's against the law. Or a

person may

make a left-hand turn into a service station in the city across a solid

yellow

line. All of these could, I believe, get a person pretty quickly over

three

points. In fact, I think most of them would get a person over three

point with

one offence.

Then I see that if a person is

convicted, he can

be liable for a

fine of not more than $2,000 — there's no minimum set in this

particular

category — or to imprisonment for not more than six months, or to both.

So it

would seem to me that a person could for the very first time create

some kind

of rolling infraction other than ones that are mentioned. There are a

couple of

exemptions.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order,

please, hon. member. Possibly at this stage the member is beginning to

canvass

items that would be more appropriately brought forward in committee.

I'm sure

the member can see that when he's referring to a specific section, with

specific examples, that might be the case.

MR.

NICOLSON: It might, but it isn't, Mr. Speaker. As you know,

I'm a

fanatic

about rules of the house of parliament, Sir Erskine May, Abraham and

Hawtrey

and all of those great, revered parliamentarians who have passed down

the

traditions of parliament to us.

I am trying to bring forward the

principle that

I'm speaking to in this, Mr. Speaker…. I'm not even saying that this is

what

this

section says, or that sections of the bill say this. I'm saying

that it

appears to me that this is the tenor of parts of his act. I certainly

have no

debate with the principle of the bill, and no debate with the minister

pointing

out, as he did, that certain sections of this bill will create offences

for

persons who are driving in high speed chases, which is a specific

reference in

the bill. I certainly agree with that

section that the minister pointed

out.

What I'm trying to get across to the minister is that I would hope he

might get

up and tell me, in summing up second reading of the debate, whether or

not some

of these impressions that I have are true. Certainly, whether I would

perhaps

propose or support further amendments to the bill in third reading

would depend

upon whether the minister, who has of course studied this bill very

carefully,

were to enlighten me and maybe show me where I may be right or wrong in

these particular

instances.

If things are as they appear to me, then it would

mean that more

than 300,000 people in this province would be liable if they were to

continue….

I would expect the figure would be closer to 700,000 people in this

province.

Over half a million people, I'm quite certain, would have at least

three

penalty points at any given time in this province. Probably over half a

million

people would be in possession of more than three penalty points at any

given

time in this province, and could be liable for imprisonment for up to

six

months.

I hope the minister would reflect on the

fact that if a person commits

a murder, and then there's plea bargaining, and pleads guilty to

manslaughter —

I'm thinking of a very specific case, which for propriety's sake I

would not

name in this House — they're eligible for parole in two years. What

really was

a premeditated murder is reduced to manslaughter. What I'm thinking of

is a

rather grisly affair. Mr. Speaker, we're now proposing that the first

time

someone makes a rolling California-type stop, they would be liable to

imprisonment for six months or to a fine of $2,000, or both. Obviously,

minimum

penalties have not been set in that particular

section so that might

not be the

case. Whether I'm in the House or not, I certainly will read what the

minister says

in Hansard in closing this debate

second reading. I would be very appreciative if the minister could tell

whether my impression of

section 25 — and I thank you for your

forbearance, Mr.

Speaker — is correct, and if that is so I

[ Page 8030

would ask the minister whether or not

the courts

can deal with this. Are we going to have a piece of legislation on the

book that is not enforced? Are we not to worry about it because it

won't be enforced? If that is the case, then I would say that we should

look at the amendments to that section. We should bring in

representatives from some of the large metropolitan police forces and

some people who represent highway safety. I think we could listen to

the collective wisdom of a great number of people and we could make

this a bill which does not pay lip service to the problem, really

address this problem successfully, if that is possible.

I suppose there are many bills that come before this House

that

would best be put before a committee that can hear witnesses. I don't

say this is the only one that has ever come before us, but surely this

is one of those bills. In the case of the BATmobiles, I haven't spoken

to a police corporal that has not said that the BATmobiles…. They are

brought in and then they park them out in their parking lot. Sometimes

they use them for educational things, but I have had policemen tell me

that the best thing that could happen to the BATmobiles would be to

take that very expensive, breath-analysis equipment out of them and put

it into some of the police stations that are not equipped. Then the

vans, which are very excellent vans, could be turned into much-needed

ambulances to upgrade our ambulances in the province. The actual

BATmobile does not stand up in court. A good lawyer can beat evidence

collected in that drafty interior. The Attorney-General looks at me

with surprise, but if we had the opportunity to bring police witnesses

in front of a committee on that issue I think the Attorney-General may

learn something.

In spite of

having a few pounds of material on the bill, there are questions which

I think

all of us have that could best be answered by expert witnesses before a

committee. I make that personal appeal to the minister. Failing that, I

would

ask the minister to particularly explain my

interpretation of

section

25 in the

bill.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

MR.

KEMPF: I will be very brief. I really wasn't going to get up

in the

second

reading of this bill, as I had a couple of things to say in committee

stage,

but I would just like to make a few remarks on the question of

penalties.

Firstly, I would like to commend the minister for bringing in the bill

and for

tightening up and making the laws more severe in regard to driving on

our

highways and, in particular, drinking and driving penalties.

I say

this with

some experience because, as some in this House may know, I served as a

JP in

this province for five years prior to getting into provincial politics.

I would

suggest to this House and to you, Mr. Speaker, that no matter how tough

you

make the laws or the regulations, unless a very tough stance is taken

by the

judiciary of this province, it doesn't matter what sort of law you

bring in.

When

I was justice of the peace I remember that the laws were pretty severe.

remember being told after bringing down some decisions and meting out

some

fines that I couldn't do that. I said to that district judge: "Yes I

can.

It is in the regulations and I can impose those kinds of fines." I

remember imposing fines such as $500 under

summary conviction for being

convicted of drinking and driving and another $500 for failing to blow

the

breathalyser. I was told at that time by the district judge that I

couldn't

bring in those kinds of fines when it was quite clear in the law that I

could

have brought in fines twice that severe.

The point I am making is that

doesn't matter what the law is; if it's not carried out by the judges

of this

province, it's of no use to us at all. I would just like to make that

point

very clearly. I agree with the member who spoke to the problems that

the law

enforcement people have in this province. Time after time I have seen

them

spend an awful lot of time, effort and hard work bringing some of those

offenders to trial only to see those cases thrown out on a very minor

technicality, to their dismay, when it was very apparent that strong

and very

serious fines should have been meted out in those cases. I just say

again, Mr.

Speaker, it doesn't matter what we as legislators bring in as far as

stiff

penalties are concerned for offences on our highways, particular in the

area of

drinking and driving. Unless those are carried out to the limit of the

law by

the judiciary of this province, they're no good to us.

MR.

LEGGATT: I have only a qualified congratulation to the

minister

on this bill. I think the provisions that he's brought in, particularly

around

the key question of drinking and driving, are useful. He's doubled the

minimum

penalty that's imposed from a three-month licence suspension to a

six-month

licence suspension. That is desirable. It certainly does have the

support of

this side of the House in trying to discourage people from consuming

alcohol

and driving, but it is passing strange that at the time they brought in

this

legislation to impose higher penalties on drinking, they're busy

approving more

advertising for the consumption of alcohol. There's a little

inconsistency

there, Mr. Speaker, just a little inconsistency. The question of

drinking and

driving is probably the key question in terms of trying to control that

behaviour

by the law.

At the moment we have a tradition —

and the member

for

Omineca

(Mr. Kempf), who just spoke, correctly suggested that judges, who are

human,

have perhaps been too light in their sentencing. One of the reasons

they become

light in their sentencing is that they have three areas to consider.

The first

is the rehabilitation of the offender, the second is a sentence which

will

deter others from doing the same thing, and the third is to remove the

person

completely from society so that he can't do it again and can't harm

society.

You have to remember that a judge sitting on these cases doesn't have

the

victim to look at; he has the offender to look at. He listens to the

offender's

lawyer telling about the terrible things that are going to happen.

The

judge

is obviously going to have to consider the offender he has before him,

particularly on a first offence. That tends to be the rule: when

someone is on

a first offence, you don't throw the book at him. You try to consider

what is

best for the offender, and then secondly you look at what is best for

society.

What I think the minister has done right is to ask that in

drinking-driving the

public interest become paramount. That is a subject that, I think, Mr.

Speaker,

you'll find the official opposition to be in agreement with. In this

particular

instance it is now time to look at the public interest ahead of that of

the

specific offender in sentencing under impaired driving. Therefore,

while we may

argue that on tax matters there does not need to be a minimum, minimums

under

licence suspensions for impaired driving are useful and desirable. I

think it's

good that we've doubled it. I think the minister probably could have

gone

[ Page 8031

further and made an eight- or

nine-month mandatory

suspension of licence on impaired driving or a breathalyser conviction.

Some debate has gone on about reducing the impairment level —

right

now it's .08, which, in fact, is very rarely used. The courts need to

make sure they've got a reading of over .10 before charges are laid.

There is a discretion at .08 even at the present time; .08 is impaired.

If you want to drop the .08 level — and I realize that's a federal

matter — you're really saying that any drinking or driving is to be

punished whether there is impairment involved or not. That may be a

route to go; I don't know. If you really want to be hard on it, you'd

have to drop that .08 down to a .05 or something like that; that is a

decision.

I'm pleased about something else that's in the bill. It's

very rare that we get up and start telling everybody that we're

pleased

about a piece of legislation, but there is something, through you, Mr.

Speaker,

that I think the minister has been very wise about. There is tremendous

pressure to raise the age of driving from 16 to 18 years. The minister,

seems to me, has wisely decided to issue a one-year licence on that

basis, if I

read the

section correctly. That is wisdom, in my view, because it is

wrong to

punish all the good 16-year-old drivers for the actions of a very few,

very bad

16- to 18-year-old-drivers. If one were to follow the logic of raising

the age,

the other logic would be that no person over a certain age should

drive, since

there is a significant number of accidents caused by people who are

losing

their capacity to drive as a result of age. I think it's also wise that

the

probationary licence apply only to where a category appears to be

coming into a

high-risk area.

In those areas I find the bill good and wise, but I have very

serious reservations that by doing more advertising of alcohol we're

going to

cut down on the consumption of alcohol or the amount of impaired

driving we

have in our society. That is something the government should perhaps

have

another look at. I'd like to hear their statistics in terms of

advertising

alcohol and its impact on impaired driving. If you do a lot of

advertising

around a sporting event where you see nothing but pictures of Molson's

whatever brand you want, that's going to encourage people to consume

beer. It's

also going to encourage them to drive after the game, because they've

got to

get home somehow. You can't have it both ways. It seems to me that if

you're

going to do something about impaired driving, we've got to be pretty

tough

about this advertising question.

HON. MR.

FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your elevation.

Best of

luck.

would like to say that I've enjoyed the debate that has gone on here

today.

It's a very serious bill. It is going to change a lot of things as far

driving on our highways in British Columbia is concerned, and driving

on other

than highways as well. I certainly appreciate the observations that

have been

made. I'm going to try to deal from where the members who spoke today

were,

back to where we started on Friday, and try brief answers. This is

debate in

principle. Some good observations were made.

To the member for Coquitlam-Moody

(Mr. Leggatt), yes, you're right that the public interest is taking

over from

the individual. I think you made the observation that it's serious now

and we

have to come down with more difficult penalties. That's what is done in

this

bill, although we have the observation as well — as I think one of the

members

said — that we could be tougher. That certainly is a good observation

that

we'll argue about a lot.

Regarding young people driving, yes, we've had

requests to get a lot tougher on the 16- to 18-year olds, but the facts

of life

are — I believe the member for Coquitlam-Moody made the observations

correctly

— that we have a lot of good drivers in this age category. We can't

penalize

them all. What this bill does is to give the discretion to the

superintendent

of motor vehicles. That's quite a change. Before he had no discretion;

he had

to issue a five-year driver's licence.

I appreciated the experience the member

for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) has had. Regarding his remarks, I hope these

amendments

give to courts more direction and clarity of what the Legislature feels.

The

member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) talked about this bill being

put to

committee. This has come up several times. The task force was set up

quite a

while ago. They had public meetings all over the province. That hasn't

been

mentioned. A lot of the task force recommendations have been brought

ahead into

this bill.

He made the point — I didn't appreciate it — that a meeting

with

the superintendent of motor vehicles was denied. I have not issued a

denial of

any kind. I will gladly arrange a meeting. I think maybe some of us who

want to

could attend that meeting with the superintendent of motor vehicles

prior to

third reading. I will try to arrange that. I don't know where he got

the

information that I denied a meeting to the superintendent of motor

vehicles.

The

member for Nelson-Creston wanted to know what load this will put on the

justice

system. I'd prefer that the Attorney-General answer that, and I think

he will.

I'll certainly make the observation that it will put an additional load

on the

justice system. There's no question about that.

Then he was concerned about

section 25. I believe his concern was that somebody would go to jail as

soon as

he went through a stop sign. My

interpretation of

section 25 is that

when you

get more than nine points — that would have to be more than one

infraction of

the kind the member was speaking about — it then triggers the

fine-and-imprisonment

section of penalties. The point I am trying to

make is

that you have to have nine points and nine points from the previous

year. That

is not as simple as the member was trying to portray. I don't think he

understood. It is my understanding that you don't get into any

difficulties

with fines or imprisonment until after nine points have been achieved,

and then

there are varying degrees. There is a definite change. That is moving

away from

the straight penalty-point system.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr.

Mitchell) brought up the cause of accidents. He is quite right. Speed

and

alcohol and a mixture of both are certainly the biggest reasons for the

bad

accidents we have. He mentioned high-speed police chases. This bill

looks after

that and provides a new penalty for that offence. He was one of the

members who

referred to blood tests. More than one member has referred to blood

tests to

prove impairment. I am not very clear on that, but my observation is

that that

is tied in with federal law. I think the Attorney-General will have

something

to say on that. The reason I say that is that he has the Offence Act,

which is

more or less a companion to this. I think that he will deal with some

of that

when that is under discussion.

I certainly appreciate the member for New

Westminster's (Mr. Cocke'

s) remarks and convey our sympathy to him and

his

family. His family has just been a victim of what is going on in our

system. He

made some very good observations and

[ Page 8032

we appreciate that. The bill is trying

to overcome

some of the problems that he pointed out and do a better job of getting

at the poor driver.

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) referred to

impaired drivers, and there were other members who referred to liquor

advertising. I would prefer that the answer to that be given…. It is

government policy and has been announced but I think the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) can show that what

the government has just announced as policy is not all bad. I don't

think the other side really felt that way, but I think he is the best

one to explain it and it is certainly his responsibility.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I appreciate the support from the member for Mackenzie (Mr.

Lockstead) — as the official spokesman for the opposition — but they

will probably have amendments in third reading and this is a large

bill. We also appreciate that, and we will deal with that when the time

comes.

I could remind the House — some other member made the

observations — that a driver's licence is a privilege, not a right. I

think

that has been raised several times. I think the whole House agrees on

that

principle.

One other observation that wasn't mentioned before was that

the

member for Mackenzie referred to the penalties applying on industrial

roads.

That is put in there for a very distinct reason and purpose. It is just

further tightening up of driving. I think the only thing a driver can

do is

decide not to drink and drive and not get into these difficulties. Even

today

we have people appealing to us to get their drivers' licences back

because they

have to have them to make a living. That process has been going on in

the

province for quite a while. It is just not a reason to give back the

driver's

licence anymore. Expanding the jurisdiction to industrial roads could

well be a

hardship but the main thing is to get the bad driver off the road,

whether it

be an industrial road of any other type.

You mentioned the association of

driving schools. I met them myself and we are dealing with that group

now. Our

attitude in the ministry is that we think we can work something out

between us

so that they can be a distinct help to us. The superintendent of motor

vehicles

is dealing with them. As I said, I've met them myself. I think you'll

see

something come out of that where we can make use of their expertise.

A lot of

members have spoken on this; I think I have covered most of them. Oh,

no, I

still have to deal with the big item brought out by the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), which I want to comment on. He was

talking

about educating drivers and all that. Then he got into road design,

which is a

responsibility of this ministry. I want to read into the record what

has been

done in the last few years regarding analysis of accidents and what

follows.

Approximately

seven years ago a program for installing kilometre posts throughout the

trunk

highway system was started. With the installation of these kilometre

posts, the

RCMP accident reporting was changed to include a precise location for

each

accident relating to the kilometre post. A computer program has been

developed

which allows Highways engineers to obtain statistics on accident

locations and

types from the accident reports to the superintendent of motor

vehicles. These

accident statistics which include location can now be analysed to

identify

areas where there may be clusters of certain types of accidents.

Locations

where clusters of accidents are identified can be checked in the field

for

physical improvements which may improve safety conditions. Improvements

such as

clearing for more sight distance, more warning signs and installation

guardrails are then arranged.

I just comment, Mr. Speaker, that we know, as of

today, where the worst accident points are, because of this good

reporting. It

does change, but it comes out very clearly, and our engineers have to

concerned about that area and whether it's just the road. But we have

it all in

place and are using it. The use of the computer analysis of accident

locations

has been developed over the last two or three years and is expected to

increase

in use as the system is refined and more years of data become available.

closing on this item — and it's a big item — the present highway safety

program

each year includes the installation of approximately 30 new traffic

signals to

improve vehicle and pedestrian safety, at an approximate cost of

$900,000. It

also includes the installation of approximately 30 kilometres of new

guardrail

per year, based on a priority system to locate guardrails at locations

of most

need. The annual cost of that for the last five years has been

approximately

$1,650,000. A shoulder-widening and -paving program will eventually

provide a

six-foot paved shoulder on all major trunk highways. It's hard to

estimate

that, but we have started on that, where we repave a road or pave a new

road.

That's the new standard, a six-foot shoulder. Somebody gave me a figure

— I

wouldn't verify it — that to get it all done in the existing system

would

probably cost $150 million. But we are doing it now as the jobs come up

and not

on a special basis.

I was quite

interested in the observations of the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam. He's

the only one who brought up that point regarding safety, and it's an

excellent

point. Yes, our engineers do have good data to get something done about

where

there are problems, say, built into the system.

With that, Mr. Speaker, we've

had a good hearing on this important bill in second reading. I move the

bill be

referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next

sitting

after today.

Motion approved.

AN HON.

MEMBER: Was the motion for second reading?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion

was second reading of the

bill.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I

think that Hansard

will bear me out. The minister

moved the second resolution before he moved the first.

HON. MR. FRASER: I move the

bill be now read a

second time.

Motion

approved unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals

the House.

Bill 4, Motor

Vehicle Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of

the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

[ Page 8033

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Adjourned

debate on second reading of Bill 3.

OFFENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

(continued)

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker,

I think the bill could properly be discussed in committee. I am

concerned about the absolute liability provision in Bill 4, which has

been referred to in debate, whereby somebody driving while his licence

is suspended goes to jail for seven days, whether or not he knew about

the suspension. In this bill you have a

section that says he doesn't

have to be provided with notice. I think those things should be

thoroughly explained by the Attorney-General, in order that all of the

traditions and safeguards of our law are not swept away by this

government of high-livers.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I'll be very brief. I would like to assure the members, particularly

the second

member for Vancouver East, that we are not sweeping away any of the

rights of

citizens, as he would suggest.

Section 94, the absolute liability section,

refers to convictions under other sections of that particular bill. I

won't

offend the rules of the House, but I would just indicate to the member

that if

he looks at them carefully he will know that the suspension in those

cases can

only be made if the person whose licence is being suspended is in fact

in court

when the suspension is being made, or if his agent or counsel is

present. So

there is an order made which is verbalized. The person hears it, and

therefore

there can't be any doubt in his mind; he is being suspended.

MR. MACDONALD: Unless he's

hard of

hearing.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I

suppose

that's a possibility. The second member for Vancouver East may have a

defence

under the charter of rights and freedoms: that it would be a

discrimination

against the hard of hearing.

I move second reading of Bill 3.

Motion

approved.

Bill 3, Offence Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and

referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the

House after today.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the

chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,

MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

(continued)

vote 28: minister's office, $212,539.

MR.

BARBER: There is an interesting document now in public

circulation.

I think

it's of some interest to the committee because it reflects directly on

the vote

we are now debating, which is the office, personal, travel and other

related

expenditures of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Social

Credit stands condemned for its incompetence and its coldheartedness,

but in

particular it now stands condemned for the selfishness and the waste of

cabinet

ministers when allegedly on public business outside of the province.

The

document I'm going briefly to refer to is a wonderfully vivid way of

identifying the issue we have been trying to debate in this committee.

Let me

refer briefly to it. It is this wonderful poster, Mr. Chairman, that

reads:

"So That's the Socred Spirit." It's a charming picture of a pig….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order,

please, hon.

member. The records of the House….

HON.

MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, exhibits are

not

allowed in

Committee of Supply, as the member well knows from last year. Not only

does he

abuse that ruling that he already knows about, he tends to flout it

before the

House, which I think is a discredit to a person in his position.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point

of order,

the hon. member is aware of the rules in committee regarding the

production of

"exhibits." We have canvassed this matter before, hon. member. I'm

sure the member is now prepared to continue in his debate.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of

order, if Your Honour

reviews the rules

with respect to bringing items into the House, he'll find that the

origin of it

was in the British House of Commons of Westminster when somebody in

those early

days of difficult times, of development of our parliamentary system,

brought a

pistol into the House, and that was ruled as inappropriate. Now, this

poster is

not a pistol. It may help to kill off politically some of the ministers

opposite, but it is not a pistol.

In the House of Commons in Ottawa, which was

cited on an earlier occasion, the reference in there, if one were to

search Hansard , is that the ruling

of Mr.

Speaker Lamoureux — I believe it might have been he — related to a sack

of grain

that one of the prairie MPs brought into the House, and he ruled that

that

should not be brought in. But that has nothing to do with a poster or

exhibit of this nature — a poster to supplement the force of the debate

now

underway.

I think your Honour might well be advised to reserve a

decision

about that and come back at a later moment.

MR.

CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, before recognizing the member for

Nelson-Creston on

a point of order, I will quote from Beauchesne's Rules

and

Forms , fifth edition, page 117,

section 333:

"Speakers have consistently ruled that it is improper to produce

exhibits

of any sort in the chamber. Thus during the flag debate of 1964, the

display of

competing designs was prohibited. At other times boxes of cereal,

detergent and

milk power have been ruled of order."

Hon. members, I'm sure that if we

take a few moments to reflect on proceedings of the committee, we will

see that

there need be no delay in bringing a decision forward in committee on

the

matter.

MR. NICOLSON: Firstly, Mr.

Chairman, I draw your attention to standing order 1: "In all cases not

provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and

customs

of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom of

[ Page 8034

Great Britain and Northern Ireland as

in force at

the time shall be followed as far as they may be applicable to this

House."

I think that the practice in Westminster is quite applicable

in this

House, and I draw your attention to the nineteenth edition of Sir

Erskine May, page 433: "Display of Articles to Illustrate Speeches. The

rules of the House of Commons forbid bringing certain articles, notably

weapons, into the chamber. Members have been permitted to display

articles (but not weapons) to illustrate an argument in a speech."

I could point out that I have studied the citations in Erskine

May and find that one of the exhibits found to be inadmissible in the

House was on

an occasion when Bernadette Devlin brought a pistol in the House as an

example

of the ease with which people in her strife-torn area could acquire

weapons,

and she was trying to illustrate how weapons could be found. Mr.

Chairman, I

know that on an occasion when rotten grain was brought into the House

Commons in Ottawa, it was ruled inadmissible. In reading these matters,

one of

the objections has been that if items are filed in the House, of course

they

must be kept. If they are deposited with the House, they must be kept

by the

Clerks. For that reason, it is not admissible.

I also draw your attention to Mr.

Speaker's ruling in the House of Commons in Westminster on April 9, 1952.

Mr.

Speaker said: "It is governed by ancient usage of the House that there

are

certain articles for which it is out of order for hon. members to bring

into

the chamber. They are, quite briefly: weapons, decorations, sticks,

umbrellas

and dispatch cases." I am not going to read the entire ruling, but the

Speaker's ruling sets the parameters, drawing once again on standing

order 1,

which says that we follow the practice in Westminster and not the

practice in

Ottawa — thank heaven! Certainly in keeping with Mr. Speaker's ruling

of April

1952, and many others that I will not belabour the House with, posters

do not

fall into the classification of weapons, decorations, sticks,

umbrellas,

dispatch cases or, for that matter, rotten grain, which was brought

into the

House of Commons in Ottawa.

HON. MR.

HEWITT: On a point of order, I think the member for

Nelson-Creston

defeats

his own argument. He mentioned that in the House of Commons in England

they bring

in certain documents, etc., to support their debate. The poster does

not relate

to debate; the poster is a public relations effort paid for by the NDP.

It is

in poor taste, and we have ruled exhibits out of order in the past

which

were also in poor taste. I suggest that it does not support the point

that the

first member for Victoria is attemp