Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 6, Number 19

[ Page 5573 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. G. Clark: This could be a long introductory session this afternoon. I have a few people to introduce. First of all, we have on the floor of the House today the Premier from the Yukon Territory, a good friend of British Columbia, a good friend of mine -- someone who stood up with British Columbia against the United States on the Pacific Salmon Treaty and who has been very, very supportive. I'd like to ask all members to welcome Piers McDonald to the chamber.

Earlier today, hon. Speaker, the Women's Equality minister and myself had the honour of meeting with some very accomplished women. They are the Victoria and Vancouver 1997 YWCA Women of Distinction recipients. Among these women are two very special young women, and as Minister Responsible for Youth, I'd like to introduce to the House Aliyah Rahemtulla and Riga Godron. I ask the House to give these outstanding young women a very warm welcome.

Last but not least, I'd like to ask all members of the House to give a warm welcome to my wife -- who's in the gallery for the first time this year, I think -- Dale Clark.

Hon. S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, as the Premier just mentioned, we had the privilege of meeting with the women who are leaders in their field and who have made a positive influence on the lives of others. It was a pleasure and an honour to meet and have dinner with the 1997 Women of Distinction, and I would like to present them.

They are: Elaine Holmes, Anne Spicer, Lara Lauzon, Jannit Rabinovitch, Heather MacAndrew, Lynda Raino, Nancy Turner, Janine Fuller, Shushma Datt, Dana Brynelson, Renee Strong, Jill Bodkin, Sandra Stevenson, Maria Klawe and Rita Akselrod. Would the House please, with me, make them very, very welcome.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I have as my guest today a retired provincial judge, Cunliffe Barnett. Mr. Barnett was a judge in the Chilcotin for many, many years and has led the province with respect to justice for aboriginal people. On many other issues, he's been a very outspoken and very forward-thinking individual. He's done a great deal for the justice system.

I appreciate the fact that Mr. Barnett has also provided yeoman's service in terms of matters around probation issues and has given me great service in understanding more about the probationary services. Would the House please make him most welcome.

H. Lali: I have two sets of introductions. Touring in the Legislature today and also having several meetings with various ministers and ministry staff are Mayor Kevin Taylor of Lillooet, along with councillor Brian Grossler and economic development officer Dale Wheeldon. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Reid: With us in the House today is Mrs. Marie Ash. Her husband served this Legislature as an MLA in the years 1948 to 1952. He served as the Liberal member for Saanich. I'm delighted that she has joined us this afternoon. I would ask the House to please make her welcome.

The Speaker: My apologies to the member for Yale-Lillooet. You blended into the background and I lost you.

H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I don't know if the members sitting beside me are all getting tans or if I'm getting a little lighter because I haven't been able to go out there to refresh my tan. But anyway . . . . It's the tie.

I have some very close people who are here visiting us in the galleries today: my niece Nindy Nann, as well as my wife Rani, my six-year-old son Ajhmair and four-year-old daughter Suman. Would the House please give my family a warm Victoria welcome.

K. Whittred: Seated in the gallery today are 33 grades 10 and 11 students from North Shore Continuing Education. I'm pleased to see that our schools are continuing throughout the summer. They are accompanied by their teacher Ms. Cynthia Bunbury. Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

P. Calendino: I'd like the House to give a warm welcome for the first time in this chamber to the woman I share my life with, my wife Chedna.

K. Krueger: Although I introduced her on Monday, I'll ask for the House's indulgence once more to introduce my daughter Keturah Krueger. Keturah has been coming back every day to question period. She insists that she's going to keep doing that until she hears at least one of our questions answered. So I ask for the mercy of the cabinet to not make my daughter grow old before my eyes. Please make her welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: I'll resist the urge to bite on that one. It's question period, not answer period.

Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to welcome my wife Gail Ballard. Just to set the record straight, I want everyone to know -- no disrespect to Victoria -- that we actually prefer Prince Rupert, and we're looking forward to getting back there.

E. Walsh: It is my pleasure to stand here and introduce to the House . . . . Actually, I have two introductions today. First off, would the House make welcome my husband, who has been my best friend for about the last 27 years. I would like the House to join me in welcoming my husband. I guess I should tell you: my husband's name is Gerry -- my best friend Gerry.

Also, I would like to introduce to the House a delegation from this morning, representatives from the East Kootenay Educational Consortium.

And somewhere in the precincts are Mr. and Mrs. Storteboom, their son Scott Storteboom and also Brian Conrad and Jim Forsythe. Would the House please welcome them also.

W. Hartley: It gives me great pleasure to introduce someone who I just recently discovered may be a cousin of mine . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, please. It will be passing strange if the Journals have to record that we called the House to order during introductions.

W. Hartley: Thank you, members; thank you, hon. Speaker.

My newly found cousin is Peg Orcherton, who happens to be the wife of the Victoria-Hillside MLA.

[ Page 5574 ]

S. Orcherton: I can't let that go. I haven't found a new cousin, but it is indeed a pleasure to introduce to the House the wife of the MLA for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, Alice Hartley. I'd ask the House to make her welcome.

[2:15]

J. Smallwood: I also have the pleasure of introducing my spouse. As the House can tell by all of the introductions, we're very pleased to have many family members today to celebrate a bit of a spousal appreciation day, and no one deserves it better, in my view, than my husband Larry.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon is my wife Aileen, who has come over to spend an exciting evening with me.

G. Robertson: With us today we have Karen Schwalm, who is an outstanding woman. Karen is patient, hard-working, supportive and compassionate. I would ask all members to please welcome my partner Karen to this House.

Hon. P. Ramsey: What a wonderful . . . . I'm glad to join the group on this, to introduce my spouse joining us here in the House. It's a long way from Prince George to Victoria. I'm very pleased that Hazel is able to join me here for this evening and also for the entire week. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like the House to welcome my partner and the person who runs the ranch when I'm away, Susan Zirnhelt.

G. Bowbrick: I know everyone is thinking: "When will this end?" I'd like the house to welcome today my spouse, Ana Santos, who is the one who allows me to come over to Victoria and do this that I love so much.

The Speaker: On behalf of the singles, the member for Chilliwack.

B. Penner: I don't have a spouse to introduce to the House, but if I did I'm sure she would be here today, and I would . . . . [Laughter]. Consider this a paid advertisement.

Although we're not married, Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to see some friendly and familiar faces in the gallery when I walked into the chamber this afternoon. Seated in the gallery are Doug and Donna Steinson from Chilliwack. In fact, Doug Steinson has had an ongoing involvement with the B.C. Liberal Party in some capacity since the 1950s. This was not always an easy task, especially in a riding such as Chilliwack. Doug Steinson is also a member of Chilliwack district council and has been, I believe, since 1993. Would the House please make Doug and Donna Steinson welcome.

T. Stevenson: I would like to introduce my spouse, but unfortunately we haven't changed the legislation yet. Hopefully, after that I will be able to do that in the House. [Laughter.]

Oral Questions

FUNDING OF COMMUNICATIONS

CONSULTANTS FOR GOVERNMENT MLAS

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd just like to say that if members stay here long enough, they'll be in my situation, where they won't have anybody to introduce -- which means we'll all get out of here a lot faster. [Laughter.]

Over the last couple of days, the members opposite have vocally criticized the opposition for their use of government mailers and government funds. I accept the criticism. But I have in my hands a document obtained from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, where it shows that a Mr. Paul Jeune has been contracted to spend his time writing speeches and press releases for the NDP backbench members. Can the Minister of Municipal Affairs tell us why it is that someone being paid out of his ministry funds is doing the communications work for members of the NDP back bench -- something that no other members of this House are entitled to?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll take the question on notice.

G. Farrell-Collins: A new question. I'm surprised, actually, at the answer to the last one, because on April 19, 1995, Mr. Jeune did a press release for someone who was humbly known to this House at the time as the member for Port Coquitlam and who now occupies the seat of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I'm surprised at the lack of understanding.

Perhaps the minister, now that I've refreshed his memory, can explain why the Ministry of Municipal Affairs continues to do press releases for NDP backbench members and write speeches for NDP backbench members -- a service that's not provided to anyone else in this Legislature.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer is the same as the other one. I'll take the question on notice.

The Speaker: The last question, as you know, was out of order. I hope this is a new question.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, hon. Speaker, it is a new question. I find it interesting when I look through the contract that I referred to, because perhaps it explains the non-answer by the minister to the last couple of questions -- different questions, I might add.

It says under

schedule A that part of the duties of the contractor, in his press releases and speeches, is to include realistic quotes, for the members must sound like people actually speaking. I just want to ask the minister whether or not Mr. Jeune is writing answers to questions yet. And if so, had he not received the answers to these questions today?

M. de Jong: The question comes to mind: what is the world coming to when an NDP cabinet minister can't go in-house for a good piece of propaganda? What is the world coming to when they have to contract out?

The contract that I'd like to deal with says that Mr. Jeune . . . . It's very specific, between the ministry and Mr. Jeune. It says that he must get approval from the NDP caucus communications before he does anything. The question is very specific, as well, to the minister: why is he violating his own budget vote to provide special communications services to his caucus colleagues?

You will be interested to know that besides being charged with the task of creating realistic quotes that sound like real

[ Page 5575 ]

people . . . . I might say that based on what this gentleman has to work with, he may not be paid enough to carry out that task. [Laughter.] The contract also charges him with reviewing files for the previous three news releases involving the same communities to ensure consistency of information and to avoid duplication of those made-up quotes. It seems like the government doesn't mind making things up, but they do draw the line at repeating them too often . . . . [Laughter.]

Can the minister -- here's his chance -- explain to the House why his ministry is spending money for NDP MLA news releases when every other party in this House has to do that from the basis of its own budget? It's a simple question, Mr. Speaker. Let him answer it now.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's the same answer as before. I'll take the question on notice.

TRANSFER OF

YOUTH PROBATION OFFICERS

TO CHILDREN AND FAMILIES MINISTRY

G. Wilson: Judge Gove was not mandated to examine nor did he investigate probation services in the province of British Columbia. Indeed, in his extensive research the only reference he makes is in volume 2, page 276, in which he makes, at best, a peripheral if not off-the-cuff comment with respect to where those services should be positioned.

On Friday this government intends to move youth probation services to the Ministry for Children and Families. The 36-month investigation process that was supposed to go ahead has been collapsed by the Premier to six months. The movement of those probation services runs contrary to the advice of every front-line service officer and many in the judiciary.

To the Premier: will the Premier commit today not to move on the transfer of youth probation services to the Ministry for Children and Families until such time as there has been a proper investigation with respect to where youth probation services should best reside in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. P. Priddy: Just as someone's child ages before their eyes, I've decided that this cough will last until the House ends. I don't know if that's an incentive for any of you who have to listen to it to get through faster.

In relation to the serious question that the hon. member asked, Judge Gove did not go into it to a great extent, but No. 107 of his 118 recommendations was that youth probation services be one of the services moved from the Attorney General ministry to the new Minister for Children and Families. Cynthia Morton, the transition commissioner, in her report to the Premier reinforced that recommendation and, in point of fact, expanded on that and said that when the youth, justice and social service systems had been integrated in other jurisdictions, the experience had been a positive one.

There are already five provinces in the country who do this, and in the province that has been doing it for the longest length of time, almost half the number of youth who actually reach the court system, as opposed to the rest of the country.

G. Wilson: By way of a supplementary, the reference to the province of Quebec as a comparison is completely specious. It's a completely different system. Furthermore, I would say to the Premier that there was a commitment to a 36-month review and integration period, which was collapsed by the Premier to six months. The system demands that the office and Ministry of Attorney General be independent from political interference or political pressure.

To the Premier: will the Premier acknowledge today that by the movement of youth probation services to the Ministry for Children and Families, it will severely compromise the independence of probation officers who may be required, on the order of a judge, to make reports against their superiors, who will rest within the ministry that they will be moved to?

Hon. G. Clark: We make no such acknowledgment. The issue of creating the Ministry for Children and Families is one which has been debated in British Columbia for several years now. Judge Gove worked on this at great length, with a great amount of debate and public consultation. Members on the opposite side of the House raised the question of the implementation of Judge Gove. We had a longer process, but in the meantime, in the process of implementing Gove, children were falling through the cracks.

I took the decision on behalf of government that we would expedite the process to create one Ministry for Children and Families, with all child-centred programs in government in one ministry to do what Judge Gove recommended, what Cynthia Morton recommended and what members of this House recommended. We are determined to move this ministry forward to protect children, and this is part of that process.

FUNDING OF COMMUNICATIONS

CONSULTANTS FOR GOVERNMENT MLAS

G. Abbott: Paul Jeune isn't the only contractor paid by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs who's working for the NDP caucus. Walk the Talk Communications has a contract with the ministry to research and write news releases and speeches for NDP MLAs. The contract states: "The contractor will work with caucus communications to issue appropriate news releases."

Again to the Minister of Municipal Affairs: why on earth would the Minister of Municipal Affairs be subsidizing NDP caucus communications by paying a contractor to write press releases, something no other member of this Legislature is entitled to?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I guess old Shep needs to be told the answer more than once. I'll take the question on notice.

G. Abbott: I think Shep frequently shows more sense than the members on the other side. At least Shep knows when to roll over. [Laughter.]

[2:30]

Not only did Walk the Talk Communications write press releases for NDP MLAs, but they wrote speeches for them as well. For example, for the opening of the Jim Green Residence in Vancouver, the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant was obviously unable to write her own speech, so Walk the Talk wrote one for her. Can the minister tell us why nobody -- not the member, the NDP caucus staff or even regular ministry staff -- was able to write a speech for the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant?

[ Page 5576 ]

JOB LOSS IN

FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY

J. van Dongen: The Canada West Foundation has recently tabled a study into the food and beverage processing industry in Canada. Based on StatsCan information, the report states that B.C. had the lowest growth of food processing shipments in Canada in the years 1993 to 1996. Growth rates in the three other western provinces were more than double that of British Columbia. In B.C. we have witnessed a massive exodus of food processing jobs.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: can the minister explain why British Columbia, given its strategic position as an exporter, continues to fall behind other provinces in the food and beverage processing industry?

Hon. C. Evans: Firstly let me say thank you for the question. That makes two in two years on the subject of farming. You guys are getting better. Someday you might actually care about these people . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. C. Evans: It's a real question.

An Hon. Member: Let's hear a real answer.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. C. Evans: As the hon. member knows, the province as a whole has seen a 50 percent increase in real growth in five years. However, the food processing sector is trying to swallow the end of the Crow rate, which used to bring grain to this side of the mountain . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. C. Evans: No? It didn't happen, hon. member? You were asleep when it happened?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. C. Evans: The British Columbia processing industry and others, as the hon. member knows -- also the milk industry -- are trying to cope with the ending by the federal government of the Crow rate and the grain transfer subsidy, which used to be an advantage to the processing industry in British Columbia. We will find ways to make up that advantage over time. But the hon. member is absolutely correct: in the short run, capital has followed cheap grain to Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba. It is our job to reverse that trend, in spite of the fact that the federal government didn't care.

J. van Dongen: In a recent meeting, the government staff promoted the NDP mantra of "jobs, jobs, jobs." In response, the agrifood processing representatives said: "Gone, gone, gone."

An Hon. Member: Shame, shame, shame.

J. van Dongen: To paraphrase, the representatives of the agrifood industry said that every indication they have is that jobs will continue to move out of the province and that there is absolutely no indication that this trend is going to reverse. My question to the minister is: why has the government done nothing to stop this serious and continuous loss of jobs from British Columbia?

Hon. C. Evans: As the hon. member knows, there is one province in all of Canada where the number of family farms is on the increase. What is it, hon. member? It's British Columbia. As the hon. member knows, the agrifood sector continues to grow every year, and I know he knows it, because we took him to Quebec last week to tell that to the other ministers of Canada. He has a different line elsewhere in Canada than he has in this room. As the hon. member knows, we go to meeting after meeting -- he and I -- to see to it that that processing sector stays here in British Columbia.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Miller tabled the 1996 annual report of the British Columbia Racing Commission.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt tabled the 1995-96 annual report of the Ministry of Forests.

Hon. D. Streifel: The reports are tabled, and we are about ready to do business. I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. D. Streifel: I didn't want to add to the marathon record of introductions, but my wife Linda is here this afternoon with the partners and spouses. Again, she is travelling with her friend Sidney. I bid the House make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we are debating the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. In this House, I call second reading of Bill 13.

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

(second reading continued)

M. de Jong: To quote that boxing great, Mike Tyson: "Lend me your ear."

Interjection.

M. de Jong: The member for Vancouver-Burrard complained. But I had to write my own speech.

It seems to me that a debate around an issue like this can go in a couple of different directions. There are those who would say: "Look, it's a short bill; it's only a couple of sections contained on one page, really. The bill is short; the debate should be short. We'll just get on with fixing a problem that exists." There is another line, though, that suggests that in a debate like this it is worthwhile to consider why we find ourselves in the present circumstance -- why the government

[ Page 5577 ]

has come before this House, essentially asking members to extricate it from a problem it has created for itself. I do think it's worthwhile, as others have done during the course of this debate, to point out how we find ourselves in these circumstances.

I will say this, also: I would like during the course of this debate to move beyond that very relevant issue to the question of broader reformation of House rules, of electoral rules, and what can be done to improve the relevancy and the credibility of this chamber we call home -- those of us who are MLAs.

I don't know how long the debate is going to last. I think thus far, from what I've heard, it has been a very useful debate. By way of speculating . . . . I've gone to my almanac for guidance, as I often do on these issues, in terms of speculating about the length of the debate. I note that it was on this day in 1964 that the Beatles released their movie and album A Hard Day's Night , and that in 1955 the record "Rock around the Clock" was released by Bill Haley and the Comets. Let us hope that we can deal with this matter more expeditiously than those two titles suggest.

We're in second reading debate. We are considering . . . .

Interjection.

M. de Jong: I just hope the hon. Minister of Education isn't walking around the deck tonight unattended. I really hope that he's got a life preserver tied around him the entire time they're at sea.

Purpose and principle, in second reading debate -- that's what we are charged with addressing at this stage of the discussion on Bill 13. The Attorney General didn't have a great deal to say about those two components of this debate. He didn't have a great deal to say generally about the bill, but I guess I understand that. I hope that others in his caucus will take advantage of the opportunity that this debate affords them to address both why it is that we are engaged in the debate around Bill 13 and, again, the broader issue of electoral reform. I don't know that anyone beyond the Attorney General has demonstrated the willingness or the courage to do that, but I hope they do.

I taunt them somewhat in jest, but also with a serious bent, because it isn't often that we have opportunities in this House to consider something as fundamental as electoral reform. I think -- and others have said this, and I don't want to dwell on this any more than I guess I'll dwell on it -- we're here debating this bill because the government ignored the rules. It's that simple. The government ignored the rules and now has decided that the only way that it can deal with a difficult situation that has arisen as a result is to change those rules. That's why we're here. No amount of denial, of clever obfuscation by the government, can change that fact.

Last night it was ironic, because I was watching television -- and there are so many channels now -- and I came upon one particular program called "The Dukes of Hazzard," which was popular, I think, in the seventies. The particular episode I was watching contained a situation that I think was analogous in a very specific sort of way, which I will draw to your attention shortly through the course of my discourse here. The sheriff in the town, Boss Hogg -- I think he was the mayor, actually -- was caught speeding, travelling down the road in that American state he called home with the boys chasing behind.

He was caught speeding and was issued a ticket. The episode centred around his concern as the mayor of the town in having this ticket issued to him. He went to court and the episode built to where he appeared before the judge he had appointed -- as you might expect on this particular television show -- and the judge asked: "How do you plead?" He said: "I plead not guilty, Your Honour." The judge asked: "How can you plead not guilty? The speed sign was 40 miles an hour; you were caught going 60." Well, the boss had an answer. He had been out the day before and had changed the sign. The speed limit was now 80.

They changed the rules.

[2:45]

It was a humorous anecdote on a television show that, sadly, in my view, has passed to the world of reruns, but that's what we have here: a government that's unable to abide by rules that it created and now seeks to change the rules. In terms of drawing a parallel -- and I do mean this somewhat seriously -- that is an option that British Columbians don't have. They have to follow the law; they have to abide by the rules. We often think of it in terms of the obvious things: the Criminal Code, paying one's taxes or paying one's property taxes.

But I got a letter a number of weeks ago from a young lady in my riding that describes for me -- and I'm going to share it with the House -- the frustration that ordinary British Columbians feel when technicalities are imposed to deny them what they see as their legitimate entitlements -- and they don't get to change the rules.

This is a letter from Erikka Nishimura. I'm going to read parts of it. It's a letter she wrote to the Assistant Deputy Minister of Education. I know that the Education minister, if he's not already aware of this, will want to listen carefully to what she says:

"I graduated from W.J. Mouat Secondary School . . . in 1990 and received a Passport to Education. Dissatisfied with the results I had achieved in three courses, I remained in grade 12 during 1990-91 to upgrade. At the end of that year . . . I was eligible to go to Japan as an exchange student for the year 1991-92. On my return to Abbotsford, I registered for courses at the University College of the Fraser Valley in 1993. After I had completed seven courses in 1994, I decided to redeem my Passport to Education so I could be reimbursed for the fees I had paid."

As I understand it, that is the principle behind the Passport to Education -- that worthy students are entitled to have a portion of their tuition reimbursed if they attend post-secondary education.

"When I asked at the UCFV about doing this, I was informed that it was too late to use the passport and that I should have presented it when I had first registered for courses. I was not told that I could still use the passport to help pay for new courses. Had I been given that information, I would have registered for another semester. Because I did not have the required tuition for additional courses, I decided to go to work. I took advantage of an opportunity to go on active duty with the Canadian Armed Forces.

"In 1996, while I was working out of the country, my mother contacted . . . our MLA for support in trying to achieve some benefit from my Passport to Education" -- which heretofore had not been validated. "After his staff contacted UCFV, my mother was told that there would be no difficulty if she registered me for another course . . . .

When [the university college] applied to the appropriate office of the Ministry of Education for the amount the registrar's office had paid to my mother for me, they were told that my passport had expired in 1995" -- and that the university college would not be reimbursed by the ministry. "As things now stand" -- and here's the nub of it -- "University College of the Fraser Valley states that I owe them $400 and that I am not eligible for further courses there, nor can I receive an official transcript of my marks for transfer credits, until I pay them this amount."

Well, here's the issue. No one disputes that this young lady earned a Passport to Education. No one disputes that she took the courses that were necessary to validate that Passport

[ Page 5578 ]

to Education. No one disputes that she is entitled to a $400 credit, or would have been if the confusion regarding the time of validation had not existed.

She wrote to the deputy minister. I wrote to the deputy minister, as well. This is the response she got from the Assistant Deputy Minister, Mr. Pallan. I won't read the whole letter, but he said, during the course of the letter:

"Of the more than 500,000 passport stamps issued to date, 80 percent have been redeemed. The information provided to your MLA . . . by the University College of the Fraser Valley was incorrect. The college was aware of the stamp years. The stamps were expired and could not be redeemed. We will contact the college to ensure they are precise in the information they provide in the future . . . . While this is an unfortunate situation, reimbursing you for an expired stamp would set an inappropriate precedent and be unfair to students who have already been denied . . . . "

Here's the point. According to the ministry -- and it's arguable, in my view, whether she did -- she technically missed the deadline. The entitlement is there. It's $400 that this student may or may not have. Is there any sympathy? Is there any willingness on the part of that massive bureaucracy, that government, to say: "Wait a minute. There has been a missed deadline here. Let's see what we can do"? No -- out of luck. This lady is out of luck, according to this Minister of Education and his government, and yet they're prepared to deal very dismissively with something that in my view is far more serious.

What kind of message is that? What kind of message are we sending to Erikka when we say to her, on the one hand, "I'm sorry; you don't qualify anymore, on the basis of a technicality; you don't get the money that you earned," and on the other hand, the government says on something as fundamental as appointing an electoral commission: "We can ignore the law, and when we do ignore the law, we'll just come in and rewrite it." There's something to be said for leading by example. And it's something all of us . . . .

I'll give you another example. A gentleman in my riding came to me about six months ago -- it might have been more -- with a story about how he had made a sizeable donation to a particular charity. In this case, the donation was a hockey card collection, but it was of significant value. It was designed to raise money to send a hockey team off to a tournament, to play some games elsewhere in the world -- a noble endeavour, we would all agree. The problem was that there was confusion around the payment of the provincial sales tax on that donation, which ended up being sold at an auction -- not because no one asked, but because the information they received from the ministry was confusing.

I don't blame anyone within the ministry. I think it could have been handled better, but these things happen. Sometimes there is confusion; sometimes the message is miscommunicated. There were personnel on the ground at the auction, but it wasn't dealt with properly. What this volunteer, this person doing nothing more than giving his time to a charity, has been left with is a bill in excess of $30,000 for unpaid sales tax. He has corresponded with the ministry. He has sought relief on the basis that the property, although it perhaps pursuant to the letter of the law passed through his hands . . . .

Therefore, although it is technically possible to attach liability to him, it makes no sense, by any measurement of morality, by any measurement of fairness.

The government hangs its hat again, when it is convenient to do so, on a technicality. There's no second chance for that individual.

The government waves the statute almost mockingly in front of his face, in front of his wallet, and says: "Pay up, mister; pay up." And yet, in almost the same breath, it comes before this House and says: "We deserve a break." That's what the minister is here saying: "We deserve a break because we missed the deadline." It's a double standard that isn't lost on the people who are captured by a government that in every other case pursues them with a zealousness that really is unparalleled, that pursues them to the nth degree when it is convenient to enforce every technical aspect of a law.

It's a case of a government saying: "Don't do as we do; do as we say." I think that's reprehensible, and I think it sends all of the wrong signals to a population that really is looking for some leadership. The examples continue. It's not simply a case of those grand examples that we can all think of, but every day, day in and day out, people have to deal with the bureaucracy and are obligated to follow the rules. When they look in their newspapers, when they look at the debates in the Legislature -- to the extent that they do -- what do they see? They see their government sheepishly excusing itself for not having followed the rules that it put in place.

You've heard other members talk in this debate about the government and how it believes, according to certain members of the cabinet, that it can do anything it wants. As I reviewed some of the legislation we've seen from this government, I thought about how they title bills. This NDP government has been very good at titling bills. We've had employment protection legislation, so-called, that's led to increased unemployment. We've had health care protection bills that have resulted in even longer waiting lists. So the titles are always good; the results are always something far different. Generally, the results of the legislation are opposite to what you read in the title.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: What would Bill 13 be called if it had been sponsored by the Minister of Forests? Well, I think it's clear that the title of this bill would be: "The NDP Government Can Do Anything They Want." That's what the Minister of Forests would call it, because that's what it amounts to. I thought to myself: what would the title of this bill be if the Attorney General's staff had been charged with the task of titling it to reflect what it properly meant, what it properly referred to?

They might title it, "Who's Going to Tell the Premier We've Really Screwed Up?" because that, as well, is what's happened here, and no amount of denial by this government can change that fact. The Finance minister, of course, would call it the balanced representation bill. But, of course, his use of that term is something we have all become accustomed to; the balanced representation bill is something that would be a favourite of his.

If the Premier could name Bill 13, I think he would probably name it the "Tell Me Who's Responsible for This Fiasco So I Can Declare War on Them" bill. That would be the Premier's approach, I think, to a situation that he's not terribly comfortable with.

And, of course, last but not least, I think that the Government House Leader and Health minister would title Bill 13: "If This Were a Health Board in My Ministry, I Would Just Fire the Whole Bunch of You and Be Done With It." That's how she'd deal with it, again showing a callous and cavalier disregard, in my view, for the rule of law and for setting an example that is important for us all -- in particular, for the government and executive branch to show to British Columbians, who don't have the option of coming to this chamber when it is convenient to rewrite the rules that they have broken.

[ Page 5579 ]

Beyond that, we have heard from certain members of the Legislature who have seized upon this as an opportunity to consider what we may do in the way of broader reforms of the electoral laws in this province. I've listened with interest as certain members have contemplated the disparity between urban and rural ridings, the numbers of people that are served, the distances that must be travelled. I think those are all legitimate issues, legitimate matters for this House to be considering.

But I thought -- and I'm surprised, and I hope that members of the government benches will seize upon this as an opportunity -- that we would hear from government members who would take advantage of the opportunity to discuss broader reforms of the electoral process. There is certainly, for example, across British Columbia, a growing sense that the basis upon which all of us sit in this House, a constituency-by-constituency basis . . . . "First past the post," I think, has become the turn of phrase in British Columbia and in and of itself needs to be reviewed.

I'm not advocating any particular model of proportional representation or some of the other models for parliamentary makeups that exist right around the world. What I'm saying is that I'm lending my voice to those who have suggested that this represents an excellent opportunity for us to charge a legislative committee with the task of reviewing what those options are and bringing recommendations back to the House, possibly even to the people of British Columbia for their voice.

[3:00]

It is clear, in my view, that as the weeks and months roll by, British Columbians are increasingly questioning the relevance of this chamber. It's something I have spoken about and that others have spoken about in the past. But even more disturbing than that, when we as legislators and the government as the executive branch within this chamber lose the ability to stand up and be regarded by British Columbians as the voice of leadership, as that component of our society from which solutions to that myriad of problems that we face in British Columbia will derive . . . . When we lose that, we really begin to lose the our raison d'�tre in the first place. That is happening.

At a time when we as a province and as a country are increasingly facing challenges that will test our ability to remain a country -- be they economic challenges, be they the stresses that we associate with our historical and longstanding constitutional debates in this country -- if this chamber isn't to be seen as a source for solutions any longer, as a legitimate instrument by which we can confront those challenges, then we've got a problem.

I heard one of the other members -- I can't remember who it was -- talk about the need to seize the opportunity to begin an examination from the top down, from the bottom up, sideways, end to end, and we really need to consider that. I think we are unnecessarily limiting ourselves in not recognizing that we do have an opportunity. We have an opportunity to say to British Columbians, to ask the question: "Is there a better way, in your view?"

We asked that question on the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. The minister knows that we got a whole range of answers; some, I think, are pleasing to the minister, some perhaps less so. But I think the minister, if he does address the contents of the report -- and I hope he does -- will say that at a minimum, it was valuable to hear what those people had to say.

I think we have come to a point in our history and our political evolution in British Columbia -- maybe not by choice, maybe because events from outside have forced us to this point -- where it is necessary for us to confront these very fundamental questions. It disturbs me greatly to see that there is a reluctance, an unwillingness on the part of the government -- the government in the sense of the executive branch, but also government backbenchers, whose interest in these debates I will only say appears to be fleeting -- to consider these fundamental questions and offer some solutions.

That's something we on the opposition side hear about often from government: "Where are your solutions? Where are your suggestions for the better way?" Well, we are making them. We are endeavouring to entice members of the government benches to enter into that debate. But the Attorney General spoke for five or ten minutes, if that, and we have heard nary a word from a government that I think, prior to their being elected to government, prided themselves on being open to new ideas.

We can quarrel, and I have my own views about how effective this government has been in administering the affairs of this province. For a whole host of reasons, as you know, I have suggested in the past that it has been far from effective. But I think one can say, if you trace the history of the New Democratic Party, that at a minimum they have tried, historically, to present themselves as a source of new ideas. Where has that gone? Where have the members of the NDP gone? Has the well dried up? Is there no longer the willingness to consider, in every sense of the word, how we can make British Columbia work better -- how we can make government work better?

Apparently, that is the case. Apparently, something has happened between those days when certain members of the government sat on the opposition side and called out for a new, fresh approach -- called out for government leadership that said: "Let there be no sacred cows.

Let us consider, from every possible perspective, how we can change government to make it work better for British Columbians." Now they sit silent, resigned -- resigned, I think, to the notion that this is the way it will be, because this is the system that landed us in office, and perhaps we will tinker with it through the electoral commission process in a way that will enhance our chances to be re-elected. It's unfortunate that that element of partisanship has been permitted to creep into this, insofar as the numbers are concerned.

Where is that freshness of ideas? It does not exist on the government side, and people are disappointed. People are legitimately asking themselves: "If there is no prospect of change, if there is no prospect of improvement, where do we look?" We all suffer as publicly elected officials when our credibility, our legitimacy, as the source of some of those solutions really disappears.

There have been, in my view, two components to the debate that we've heard today. One, of course, is those circumstances that have led to our needing to debate Bill 13. Let there be no mistake: we have spent this day on this bill because the government didn't do its job -- pure and simple. There was a deadline; the government failed to meet it. It didn't consult; it didn't do the things that the legislation required it to do, and that is why we have spent the day debating this bill. People should understand that, and I think they do.

If it were an isolated incident, it would be perhaps easily forgiven, but it's not. When you factor that in with the treatment people like Erikka Nishimura get when they seek the same compassion -- the same sense of decency, fairness -- from the government and they are turned down, you begin to understand why people regard what is happening in

govern-

[ Page 5580 ]

ment with a very jaundiced eye. The word "hypocrisy" is increasingly creeping into their vocabulary when they describe what is happening in Victoria.

To the extent that this has not been a pleasant experience for members of the government to hear their foibles repeated over and over during the course of four, six, eight or ten hours of debate . . . . I suppose it hasn't been pleasant. But they have no one to blame but themselves. Far from remaining silent, I would have hoped that they would have taken the opportunity, at least, to see something positive arise out of this error that they have made -- out of this problem -- and that is to speak to the issue of broader electoral reform. They've chosen not to do that. We on the opposition side will continue to make those positive suggestions throughout the course of this debate.

L. Reid: We're here today debating Bill 13, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 1997. As my hon. colleague from Matsqui suggested, we're here because the government missed the mark. They knew full well what the expectation was: that indeed this commission would be struck. They knew what the time lines were. They chose not to proceed as the expectation would allow -- an interesting message to send to members of this chamber and, frankly, an interesting message to send to British Columbians.

This is about correcting a mistake this afternoon. It is an oversight this government willingly entered into, in my view. What were they thinking -- that somehow they didn't need to follow the rules of this chamber, of this province? The expectation of British Columbians, of taxpayers, is that they will indeed follow the rules; they will indeed make sure they are law-abiding citizens.

This was legislation that required this government to act; they willingly chose not to act. I think that sends a very dangerous message. I mean, I come to this debate as a teacher. This is not the message I want for young people in this province or for their parents. It's a concern to me that somehow they can disregard what is required and come in with backfill, with a piece of legislation that's going to correct a problem that would have been easily handled had they arrived at the appropriate conclusion -- that they were responsible for meeting that deadline.

I can't imagine why they believe that they were exempt from that. Certainly the hon. minister has given no indication that he has a rational explanation for the oversight.

I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that as well as being a teacher, I come to this as a school administrator. In all my years, I have heard many creative excuses -- frankly, probably written by parents opposite -- as to why their children were not available on a particular day. I have yet . . . . I look forward to hearing the creative response from this minister responsible.

There has to be some rationale. I don't understand today why this government would believe they are above the law in this sense, so I wait and trust that the minister, when he concludes his remarks, will acknowledge the reason. When these individuals were in opposition, they were ever vigilant, so I'm not convinced that this slipped by them. I'm not convinced of that notion for a moment. The expectation was clear and, frankly, was disregarded -- not a reasonable move for this government to have made.

As legislators, I think we understand that this is something that is simply not on. I know that this side of the House has a clear understanding of that. The public expectation, I believe, is that the government will follow its own rules. And that's where we come to the creative explanation that I trust will be before us in a very short space of time. They chose not to, and yet have not provided a reasonable explanation to the House. This piece of legislation, Bill 13, is the solution. It's the only solution left to them, because they chose not to act in a timely manner.

I await with some interest the actual explanation for this. I can't imagine . . . . But again, I will pose the question: does this government believe that it's exempt, that it doesn't have to meet requirements, meet deadlines, meet the expectation of its own legislation? I believe taxpayers in this province, as effective citizenry, believe that they have obligations when it comes to obeying the laws of this land, the laws of this province. This, again, is not a reasonable message to convey.

It seems to me that there is lots of notice built into this bill. New

section 5(2) says: "A new commission must be appointed during the first session of the Legislature following every second general election following the appointment of the first commission." It seems to me that no matter what parliament, every government will have five years' notice. They will know that this expectation must be met.

I trust that this will be the only time we have this debate in this Legislature, because again, I don't see it as being defensible. I don't believe that it is appropriate not to meet the requirement that they themselves set. I think it's just bizarre that they wouldn't believe that they had to follow the rules, obey the laws of the land, similar to every other British Columbian.

I do agree with my colleagues who have spoken, when they talked about a lack of confidence in this place. People need to have a high regard for parliamentary process. They need to understand that this is a professional place, that people come to this with the right intentions, to bring good law to British Columbians -- not to overmanage people's lives but to have laws that clearly set out circumstances, clearly set out repercussions, if any, so that people can be communicated with in an honest, straightforward, forthright manner. We as official opposition members have that expectation of the Legislature.

We believe that fundamentally -- that democracy can work. But it only works if people understand that it's a trust relationship between those elected and those who elect them. That's the fundamental relationship.

It's alarming to me when that relationship is disregarded: "You, average British Columbian, must obey the laws of the land, but this government as legislators -- no, those same laws don't apply to us." You can't send a mixed message and expect to have any credibility. So again, I look forward to the minister's response, because it will indeed be intriguing to me to see how he has managed to extricate himself from this mistake, from this oversight.

It is an issue of integrity, and when issues of this nature arise, it does tarnish every member of the Legislature. Because the public at large lumps together all politicians. Very few of them make distinctions. They say: "Another politician behaving in a hypocritical way." I don't appreciate that. I do the job to the best of my ability; I don't appreciate others who disregard that and somehow suggest that it doesn't matter.

[3:15]

The major intent of this enabling piece of legislation will be to craft the electoral redistribution commission to look at the number of seats in this Legislature and probably look to increase the numbers. Certainly the option is to move from 75 seats to 81 seats. The principle of representation by population is a fundamental issue for all legislators, and it's certainly an

[ Page 5581 ]

issue we take very seriously on this side of the House. It's an issue where indeed the relationship that I spoke of earlier in terms of trust between those elected and those who elect them is manifest around this province. Everyone has the right to expect reasonable representation, and they have the right to expect an MLA appointment, if you will, to be close to where they live, so they can have access to government.

So when this commission recommends an additional number of seats, that will come back to this House for debate. At that time I think we will have a very interesting discussion in terms of whether or not that's a fair and accurate report -- or indeed whether or not we can be convinced that it's free of any type of political interference.

Again, my colleagues referenced earlier the times when that process has been interfered with to create some very interesting ridings around this province. We trust that this commission, once it's struck, will rectify some of those issues and come back to this House so that taxpayers around this province can believe it was a useful exercise, not just another report put on another shelf to craft more government to invade people's lives in greater ways than is currently the process.

We need to ensure that government is seen as being something that's credible. Lots of folks around this province have issues around that. They have some real concerns about the relevance of this place; there are some real concerns around the Commonwealth about the role of government. Any parliamentary conference discusses the role of government. What should it be? What do people expect from government? I, for one, believe they expect honesty, forthright behaviour, immediate action, some reasonable understanding of how the process works. We need to make sure that those are always the principles that we have uppermost in our minds, because this is about crafting good citizenry.

At the end of the day, I believe that any legislator understands the necessity for citizens to understand their responsibilities in society, for obeying the laws of the land, for giving something back to their community, for being responsible at election time. All of those kinds of aspirations and expectations are built into the discussion this afternoon. Because I think they're vital when we talk about representation, about who the representative might be, what the riding might look like and how we expect the citizenry to be involved in that process. Those are issues, when we talk about electoral reform, that I know we as official opposition will revisit many, many times.

I would certainly submit that the principles of electoral redistribution are worthy of our support, that indeed it is about providing better representation for the individuals who live in this province. We are a burgeoning province in terms of population. My riding alone has grown by thousands of people over the last number of years and will continue to grow. The lower mainland of this province will continue to grow. We need to come to grips with how best to put in place electoral representation for those individuals.

It is, for me, a very serious issue. This government has often been fond of saying that they can do anything they want. I want them to follow the rules, to obey the laws of the land -- particularly when they structure those laws themselves and then ignore them. I have some serious difficulties around that.

I don't wish to see what I've seen today in terms of arbitrary behaviour, selective behaviour, cherry-picking: "Well, we'll make sure we comply with this, but we won't necessarily comply with that." Where's the accountability in that? Where's the fairness? Where's the leadership? Those are issues that I think need to be addressed. Frankly, where is the regard for this chamber? Seventy-five members in this House deserve an honest answer when it comes to the reason for this oversight, for this mistake.

Now that the minister is present, I am looking for the explanation as to why this requirement was not met. I believe it's an important question, and I trust that the minister in his response will answer that question. As I noted earlier, these individuals were ever vigilant in opposition. What happened? What went wrong? I await the minister's response.

B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to stand and speak to Bill 13, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 1997. I do have to take a moment, though, to comment on why this bill is here before us today to speak for or against it. It's like déj� vu. Last session, in 1996, this same government had the opportunity to appoint an Electoral Boundaries Commission, with Bill 19. This didn't happen because this very same government doesn't pay attention to the very rules they make themselves. I have to ask myself the question: why is it that this government doesn't seem to care?

Why is it that they feel they can ignore their own legislation? The only answer that I could come up with was a statement that this government itself made: "Governments can do anything they want." To me, that speaks volumes.

As my colleagues have stated before me, this bill essentially forgives the government the error of its ways. Now we have Bill 13, 1997, which correctly allows the government to appoint an Electoral Boundaries Commission. When it passes, it will hopefully be allowed to do the job that it was intended to do.

We have a government that can do anything it wants to, and we have seen that time and time again. It makes it very difficult for us on this side of the House to take seriously anything that they say they will do for the people of this province.

The real issue is the need to have this bill here in the first place. It is legislation that should have been taken into consideration before its time had expired. I'm talking about Bill 19 in 1996. We will all agree that there is a need to have a commission. There are many reasons why this bill should be passed, and I have every intention of supporting this bill. I support reform of our electoral boundaries, as do my colleagues that have spoken before me.

I feel it is important that we on the opposition side make sure that this government is well aware why we have great difficulty believing that their intentions are of the highest order. When Bill 13, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 1997, is passed, we on this side of the House are hopeful that this government will actually appoint an Electoral Boundaries Commission.

If this government does appoint the commission, as they said they will, then this House can begin to restore some faith in government. The faith today is sorely lacking in this province because of this government's past actions of saying one thing and doing another.

We must find a way to distribute our electoral boundaries to make sure that all parts of the province feel that they are being equally treated and served. What we see today is the northern part of the province feeling neglected, and their voices are not being listened to. They feel very strongly that those who live in the southern part of the province should not

[ Page 5582 ]

dictate what the north should do. They want a say in what is happening in their area of the province, in things that affect their lives and livelihoods. I hope that this government will show them that they are listening to them and not just saying that they are.

With that, I will close and hope that the members opposite have listened closely to the concerns that we have put forward on this side of the House.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to participate in second reading debate of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act. Certainly a lot of good comments have been made by my colleagues with respect to this bill. The history given by the critic was, I think, very important to have on the record. The term he used, of "a troubled history," was quite appropriate. In that regard, I just want to add to his comments my personal disappointment in how the matter was handled by the Attorney General and the government.

I was particularly disappointed that there was no apparent response to the comments made by the Opposition House Leader on March 24, the last day of the first session. After the second election, as set out in the bill, I would have expected some kind of response from the government at that time -- certainly an indication that there was a problem and that it would be dealt with. Further to that, the opposition was put in the position of having to write a letter to the Attorney General on March 27, and that letter was also ignored.

Given the seriousness of the issue, and all of the comments that have been made with respect to the fundamental rights of people's vote in a democracy, it was disturbing to me that there was no response by the Attorney General to the March 27, 1997, letter from the opposition critic.

It wasn't until legal action was actually taken and a proceeding was initiated in the B.C. Supreme Court that something happened. Even then, there was no response, as I understand it, to the tabling of the action, but about a week later the government did table this bill; the bill was tabled on April 10. I find that sequence of events as it evolved quite disturbing. It's one thing for the government to make an oversight for whatever reason -- I'm not going to try to judge why it happened -- but certainly, after the issue had been raised a number of times, I would have thought that there would have been some specific acknowledgment and response and action taken.

Some of my constituents have waited a long time for the review of the boundaries of the riding that they are in. They have been waiting since the last Electoral Boundaries Commission, when the Chilliwack version of Gracie's Finger was set up. The boundaries as they are now set up simply cannot be explained in any other way.

I just want to describe my constituency briefly. It's called the constituency of Abbotsford. It includes the eastern half of the city of Abbotsford, but it also includes a number of other smaller, local areas, including the Chilliwack River valley, the Columbia Valley, the district of Yarrow and Cultus Lake. All of these areas are smaller areas, somewhat different in terms of their local government organization. Yarrow is part of the city of Chilliwack.

Cultus Lake is a provincial park, yet at the same time is owned by the district of Chilliwack, and it has its own form of local government through its Cultus Lake park board. Chilliwack River valley and the Columbia Valley are both unorganized territory and part of the Fraser Valley regional district.

These people have waited a long time for the opportunity to comment to a commission on the boundaries that were set up in 1991 -- earlier than that, actually, but prior to the 1991 election. They would have been really concerned that this bill be tabled or that this action be taken to give them the opportunity to have a review, which was their right under the law. Certainly right from the very first meeting I had with them, they were asking me about the boundaries. They're very concerned about that, so they're looking forward to this bill passing.

They're looking forward to the boundary review commission being set up. Hopefully, it will be a fruitful process for everyone, and we'll have a truly independent review done and all of the relevant considerations taken to protect the interests of the people in these smaller areas. All of their shopping, all of their business and all of their connections are with the city of Chilliwack, and they want to be able to express that to the commission. I'm pleased that this bill is here. On the other hand, as I've said, I'm very disappointed in the process by which it got here.

[3:30]

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: Before I recognize the Attorney General, whose remarks will close debate on second reading, I just want to table a report, by agreement. I have the honour to table a report of the office of the auditor general of British Columbia: "Members' Office Mail: Liberal Caucus, January 1997 Provincewide Mailing."

I now recognize the hon. Attorney General on Bill 13.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Much has been said about this issue, and much has been made of the sequence of events as this bill came to the House and was introduced in the House. I'm not going to dwell on any of those details, except to say that when I received the letter from the member for Richmond-Steveston, I, of course, had to look at the issue and consider my response. As I was in the process of doing that, the writ was issued. As a result, in fact, I have said very little on this issue, as the matter is, theoretically speaking, still before the courts; the writ is before the courts.

However, let me just say two things. First, some interesting ideas have been presented before the House by several members in terms of the general reform that can or should or even may take place, and I am sure that those ideas would be looked at in any future general review of this legislation. Second, I got the distinct impression that there was an implication in some of the remarks -- and I would stand corrected if I'm wrong -- that because the process would now be one year late, somehow the process and the work of the commission might have less integrity and less credibility.

If anyone has that notion, I want to disabuse them of that. There was no question that this should have been done in the last session of this Legislature. It wasn't done. We attempted to rectify the error at the earliest possible time, and I'm delighted that this bill has now concluding second reading. I move second reading of Bill 13.

Motion approved.

Bill 13, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 1997, 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 5583 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call second reading of Bill 34.

MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

(second reading)

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the bill now be read a second time. Obviously I wish to discuss the purpose of this bill in more detail. I made some introductory remarks at the time this bill was introduced. In principles this bill is intended to minimize the incidence of high-speed pursuits by police in the province and to provide consistent and clear guidelines for those who enter into pursuits. As we have witnessed over the last several weeks and months, in fact, there have been several incidents.

There have been some high-profile incidents in the more recent past which highlighted this issue and made it urgent for us to deal with the issue. I can indicate to the House that my ministry is currently, in fact, holding discussions with the B.C. chiefs of police to ultimately develop regulations so that we can append those high-speed chase guidelines to this legislation once it's passed.

Section 122 of the Motor Vehicle Act currently permits police to violate certain traffic rules, allowing them to speed and to ignore traffic lights in the interests of pursuing a known or suspected offender. However, the circumstances in which such pursuits may occur is not clarified in the act. Consequently, individual police forces and the RCMP have developed guidelines and standards for their members to follow. However, these guidelines are inconsistent and, in some cases, in need of improvement. New regulations will provide consistent and clear guidelines to protect both police officers and the public.

I anticipate that the new regulations will provide better guidelines for the exercise of discretion by police officers, resulting in few high-speed pursuits, and that the new standards will require the expanded use of lights and sirens on vehicles during pursuits. As I've said, meetings with the chiefs of police to develop these guidelines are already underway.

This bill also increases the minimum fine for causing a police pursuit from $300 to $500, reflecting the severity of the offence and providing a deterrent to those who may cause a high-speed pursuit. On its own, $500 doesn't appear to be a very high amount. I want everyone to know that that is the minimum amount. Obviously the courts have the discretion to provide for higher fines in particular cases. And in circumstances where pursuits ensue and injuries or accidents happen, obviously courts will have the jurisdiction to provide further penalties if other charges are pursued with respect to those incidents.

Police will still be able to react quickly and effectively in emergency situations, but they will also have to ensure that their actions do not risk public safety unnecessarily.

R. Coleman: I'm pleased to enter into the second reading debate this afternoon on this bill because I've had some personal experiences with this particular issue, and I'd like to relate them to the Legislature today and then pass some opinions back to the minister with regards to it.

First of all, I must state with regards to the legislation that I find it somewhat lacking in a number of areas. I'm pleased that we'll be discussing regulations on some things to do with this particular legislation at a later time. The fact of the matter is that the penalty

section of this will need some beefing up with regards to certain people that would be affected by high-speed chases.

I'd like to go back to May 21, 1977. I remember May 21, 1977, vividly because I was sitting in a police car, a 1977 Ford LTD -- actually, the only air-conditioned police car on the detachment in Alberta that I was posted to at the time. I turned on my emergency equipment to go after a vehicle, just to pull it over for running a red light, and the vehicle took off. The thing that, first of all, people should understand in the case of a police officer is that there's a snap decision that is made by the particular officer at the time to decide to engage in a pursuit or not.

All the nice things that we say a police officer should take into consideration -- a plethora of things -- when they're making this decision are often not that easy. The decision to pursue was made because the person took off.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

Back in those days, there were specific guidelines for police chases, and there are still specific guidelines. The specific guidelines at that time indicated that all emergency equipment would be activated in order that the chase could take place. This particular chase went through a small residential area and then headed out into the country. When you end up in a police chase, what happens is that everybody gets involved.

You have a dispatcher at the detachment -- or, in the case of this situation, you trip a repeater to a larger area so that you can actually communicate with a number of police cars within a particular enforcement area, so that they can back you up with regards to the chase.

You have parallel chases taking place where you have a police car heading down another road to try to break off one area or another in order to control the pattern of the person that's being chased. In this particular case -- and I want to relate a couple of stories -- the chase took place on a highway, on paved roads, and moved off paved roads onto a muddy road.

The vehicle that was being chased was basically a souped-up 4-by-4 with large balloon tires that was able to cut through the mud where it had rained that evening. My police car was not so lucky. I had the opportunity to enjoy, at about 100 miles an hour, what it's like to see a police car roll end-on-end twice. It was something that one would not want to repeat, and one would not want to have to go through. It's a difficult situation for the police officer to make the choice at the time.

You know, 40 percent of all police chases end up in accidents. In the case of an accident, it's not always the person who's being pursued that the accident has occurred with. Sometimes it can be an innocent party, sometimes it can be a fixed object, and sometimes it can be the policeman himself.

Here's the next thing that happens with regard to something like this. After the chase was over, I crawled out of the police car, fortunately only with what I thought were minor head injuries and probably a damaged neck and what have you -- the reason for the twitch I make every once in a while. The fact of the matter was that after the chase, I got out of the car and was unable to communicate, because the radio wouldn't work.

You have to appreciate that I had members out looking for me. I obviously needed to get to the hospital, so that's where I went with a passing motorist. Incidentally, the vehicle did not stop. I went to the hospital and I was treated. My colleagues and my family were worried about me because nobody knew where I was until they found me at the hospital, and they sent a member, finally, to find out.

But that transition period of the ten- or 15-mile distance while I was going to the hospital caused a lot of grief to a lot of

[ Page 5584 ]

people. It made me recognize that the one thing that's very important here is to realize how the job of a policeman and how the decisions that are made by policemen every day affect families and affect their everyday lives.

Unfortunately, the individual being chased was found -- unfortunately, because in this particular case we had a driving pattern where somebody continued to carry on that pattern. Thirty days later I was called to a single-vehicle rollover accident where there was a fatality, and the individual that I was chasing that night and his vehicle were the ones that I found in a ditch. It was a case where if maybe he had been caught that night, maybe we could have turned the driving pattern around; maybe we couldn't have. Those are the types of balances we have to make when we engage in a chase.

That one there would be what we would probably call a low-risk chase or a lower-risk chase, because we really didn't know whether a serious crime had been committed.

I was involved in another one a few years later. Actually, I was involved in a number of them over the years, but this one in particular disturbed me. At that time, I entered into another chase. It was on the No. 1 Highway. The No. 1 Highway, in the summertime in Alberta, is one of the busiest roads there is, and it was only two lanes at that time.

This individual car took off after a robbery where there was a gun involved, and a chase ensued. The chase went through a number of jurisdictions and a number of areas, and went on for an extended period of time -- close to an hour -- when I finally was able to push the car off the road. The individuals got out of the vehicle and ran.

Obviously, knowing they were armed, I had a number of choices, and my first choice was a warning shot. The warning shot stopped the perpetrators, who then were told to lie on the ground and were arrested. The biggest shock of that particular one was that the perpetrators were 14 years old. And when I have a perpetrator 14 years old who's committed an armed robbery, who's driving a full-sized car at a high speed on a major highway, it's pretty scary.

One of the things that we don't address when we deal with legislation like this is the fact that we have high-speed chases taking place in our communities in vehicles that are being driven by people who are not necessarily going to be affected by a fine. They are people who are not necessarily going to be affected by anything but some other form of discipline. One of the biggest areas, policemen will tell you, is the joyride, a stolen vehicle. That's taking place in our communities, and they're juveniles. Some of them are very, very young.

There was an incident a year or so ago in the Fraser Valley where one of the drivers in a high-speed chase on a regular basis -- on two different occasions -- was ten years old and had a habit of continuing to do this. We also have a situation now where we have younger people who do this when they take the vehicle.

I think when we deal with this legislation we have to recognize that there have to be some penalties within our legislation and within these regulations to deal with these particular people. My biggest concern would be that we take a look at the juvenile side of this issue. First of all, this is where we have a lot of drivers who are driving a vehicle at a high speed, putting police at risk, putting communities at risk. They have to be stopped because (

a) they're going to continue to do it and (

b) they have to have some impact from what we do when we catch them.

[3:45]

One of the things I'd like to see, first of all, is the removal of certain privileges from the juvenile if they're involved in a high-speed chase and caught by police. The first thing I would do is remove all privileges or all entitlement to a driver's licence until they're at least 18 years of age. Even at that point, I'd want to be assured that they had some form of formal driver training before we gave them one. I think it's ridiculous that this goes on and that these young people are left out there to basically cause this risk within the community.

I've seen fatalities come out of high-speed chases, and fatalities are not good for anybody. The decision that police have to make is often so difficult because they have to make that decision at a point in time when they're doing it so quickly that they're trying to decide what's best for the public, what's best for public safety and, frankly, probably what's best for them.

When pursuing a vehicle, the most dangerous and deadly aspect of police work for officers, suspects and innocent citizens, in my opinion, is the fact that the chase is taking place to begin with. The fact that you have a vehicle driving at speeds of 100 to 150 kilometres per hour in an area where maybe the speed limit is designed to be 50 kilometres per hour is obviously something like a time bomb waiting to explode.

The other difficulty we have within the police community in the province is the lack of some form of consistent communication between police organizations. All police forces, as the minister said, have some guidelines with regards to high-speed chases, but there is a difficulty when moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction on the lower mainland because the radio systems oftentimes don't match. We have to get to some standardized communication control of our policing system, particularly in areas like the lower mainland where that effect takes place.

Like I said earlier, about 40 percent of all police chases end in accidents. According to a 1996 study of 800 police agencies, one in four chases ends up in injury. So if you take a look at that . . . . These are U.S. numbers. Canadian numbers are not kept in the same detail, but it's still applicable because the jurisdictions are somewhat of the same spread.

The interesting thing is that a number of them also end up in death. During the 1980s, nearly 300 people lost their lives in high-speed chases. That's a toll that we have to get control of. The balance that we have to come up with is where public safety comes into it and where the decision-making process is.

Clearly the national trend is to reduce driving pursuits to the point where we can reduce this danger to public safety. It is a nationwide initiative we see in a number of states in the United States, and it's also an initiative we've seen in a number of provinces in Canada. I think we should laud ourselves for making these decisions today to move forward and to try to come to grips with this particular issue.

There's a growing awareness that high-speed chases can create risks that run counter to police basic purposes. The basic purpose of police is protecting the public good, protecting us -- bad versus evil, if you wish to say it. The RCMP's motto is: "Maintain the right." But in maintaining the right, they don't want to be injuring and hurting public safety, so they have this incredible balance that they have to deal with.

The progressive trend nationwide in police pursuit is to largely limit instances in which police are trying to apprehend suspects to violent crimes. These are crimes where the decision sometimes is made. If it's a runaway from a break-and-enter where it's a property crime and there's no real life at risk

[ Page 5585 ]

or what have you, if there's not an opportunity for somebody to get hurt as a result of that person getting away . . . . That's the one decision we have to make. But if we have a situation where somebody has killed two people and is now getting away armed, we have to do the pursuit. The likelihood in that particular situation would be that somebody else is going to get hurt regardless, and therefore we have to make the decision to do the apprehension at the appropriate time.

As a policeman, if you're choosing someone who has just shot somebody versus somebody who has done property damage, that's a quick, snap decision. That's the decision we ask them to make every day, and we ask them to make those decisions on everything they do, in actual fact. A policeman on the street is a social worker. He or she is also an enforcer, a judge and oftentimes a jury. I mean, they have to make decisions on things that you and I would like to take months to look at before we even address them or worry about them.

The decision to initiate pursuit must be based on the pursuing officer's conclusions that the immediate danger to the officer and the public created by the pursuit is less than the danger to the public should the suspect remain at large. That's a definition I wrote down for myself, and that definition is there because if we could live by those tenets and try to determine systems and regulations that apply to them, it would be beneficial to all.

There's another thing we have to remember when we look at police chases. I want to take it back to the personal perspective of looking at a police chase from the standpoint of the decision. As the public, we like to criticize the decision to enter into the chase. If you've ever had your adrenalin and your emotions popped -- like that! -- it's an incredible feeling, and when you enter into a police chase, that's what happens. You have this adrenalin-packed decision-making process that you have to make immediately, and everybody gets involved. Like I said earlier, you have the dispatcher and all the rest of them involved.

There are some suggestions -- and in some of the major centres in the United States, this has actually been applied -- that when a police chase takes place, a supervisor immediately goes to the communications room and makes a determination about the continuation or the stopping of the chase. That's actually not a bad recommendation.

The reason it's not a bad recommendation is because the guy on the street is into it now. He has made the decision to pursue, and he's into the pursuit. At that point, it's almost like the hunter versus the hunted, and it's a very tough decision to take to cut the chase off. If somebody was there and had the ability to look at and assess the situation from a calmer perspective than the people who are involved in the actual incident, that would sometimes be beneficial.

The biggest thing I want to touch on, in addition to that, is with regard to the bill itself. As we look at it as we go along, I think it's very critical to deal with the juvenile issue. When we get into debate in committee on this particular bill, we are going to have to have some discussion on that issue. If we don't, the public will realize that all we've done is put in place a piece of legislation that hasn't accomplished what in this case is the public good.

I've had a number of situations where I've seen the damage that has been done to lives, to people, to individuals. I saw the outflow of an accident that I had to investigate after a police chase where an individual was left a paraplegic for the rest of his life, that individual being a 15-year-old boy. That was the outcropping of a high-speed chase. I've seen the damage to public property where an impaired driver, operating a large cement hauler on the No. 1 Highway, decided for some reason that he was going to go across the province at a high rate of speed.

When a roadblock was set up, he literally drove right through a brand-new Pontiac police car and nailed it, right side by side, where two members had been sitting not minutes before.

I've seen the reaction of the public when a chase doesn't turn out the right way, and I felt for members who had to answer for decisions when those chases didn't turn out the right way. I've seen the hurt that goes on in the public, and I think it's very important that we as a Legislature should recognize with this legislation that we have an opportunity we shouldn't pass up, by making sure that it works for everybody.

This particular piece of legislation, although it's only two pages, is very important to a number of situations that occur within the police community with regard to putting some taps and controls on things that can help them. I don't think we should look at this legislation as something that we're imposing on police organizations because we're punishing them. We have to look at it as a piece of legislation that we're bringing through this Legislature to increase awareness and to assist them in approving their own policies and in getting it all together on the same page, so they can work together.

It's important that we also recognize that as we go through this legislation, this is only one piece of police work that needs to be addressed by this Legislature. We have to recognize the men and women on the streets who are working the shift work and are having to deal with all the things and emotional stress that go with that particular job. The high-speed chases are part of police work. We also have the domestic disputes where members are very much at risk and all the other ills that they deal with.

I would like to say in this House as we go through this bill that, to me, it's important that we also seize this as an opportunity in which we can stand up, congratulate and praise the people who protect our public safety. Those people are out there on the front lines, making those decisions. We, as a Legislature, can assist them. We can assist them by helping set some direction, but the reality of the matter is that the assistance has to be given with some understanding of the pressure they're under and of the time frame they have to make decisions in.

I often find it very difficult to read in the newspaper about somebody who has judged a decision by a member of any police force -- somebody who wasn't there at the time and wasn't there to make the decision. It's very difficult for these people to make these decisions and these calls. It's easy to spend three months reviewing what happened, taking statements from people, looking at the skid marks and all the things that go along with any accident with regard to a high-speed chase or any other incident, and criticize. At the same time as we go through that criticism, though, let's remember that these people are out there protecting our public safety, and they're very important to us.

I could go on and tell a few more anecdotal stories with regard to chases, but I really don't think that is necessary. I think we should recognize -- and I want the House to recognize -- the importance of this legislation from the standpoint of being complete. We should make sure that the fines and the enforcement side for the adult side as well as the juvenile side are absolute and that they have repercussions for the people who are committing these offences.

They don't put just the policeman at risk; they put the family at risk. If a policeman is injured or dies on the job, the

[ Page 5586 ]

family gets hurt. If the individual who is driving the car hurts or kills somebody or themselves, somebody else is affected. We have to recognize the people side of this particular industry.

I will support this piece of legislation. I will, in committee stage, be making an amendment to increase some penalties and will enter into a discussion with regard to how we should be handling the people we aren't touching, in my opinion, on the face of this legislation. That's very critical. I believe that the opportunity is here, and I look forward to it. I look forward to working with my colleagues and with the minister to make sure it works.

J. Dalton: It's certainly a privilege for me to follow my colleague, who, of course, has front-line experience. We must keep in mind as we debate the issues coming out of this bill and when we get to the committee stage, as my colleague has commented . . . . I know that the Attorney General has listened intently, and I know he's very sincere in his concern about the overall issue of high-speed chases, even though high-speed is sometimes perhaps a misnomer.

Sometimes chases are initiated that obviously result in high-speed pursuits on occasion. Sometimes those chases don't even continue in and of themselves, but you still have a panic situation, particularly with young drivers. I recognize, and my colleague has also pointed out, that the police are in a very difficult position, because they have to enforce the law.

There are, unfortunately, too many situations, and I'll be referring to that in a few moments, where young drivers, car thieves or whatever they may be, precipitate very dangerous situations. The police have a very difficult job. Do they enforce the law by catching the perpetrators, or do they pay attention, as all police do, to the overall issue of public safety? ICBC is screaming about the accelerated costs of car wrecks and car thefts.

There are many issues that Bill 34 raises, but before I get to the actual bill, I want to talk through some of the history leading up to this, starting with the Oppal report. Justice Wally Oppal tabled his report almost three years ago, and high-risk policing is in

chapter H of his report. He deals with police pursuits. If the members of the House wish to review the Oppal commission, pages H19, H20 and H21 address the issue of high-speed pursuits.

[4:00]

Justice Oppal goes into some of the background that has resulted in his findings and recommendations, and he refers to 1992 information coming from both the RCMP and municipal police forces. In 1992 there were 700 reported pursuits; 40 percent ended in collisions -- and my colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove made reference to that. Of the reported pursuits, 15 percent resulted in injury -- 1992 is fairly typical -- and unfortunately there were three fatalities and 130 injuries resulting from those 700 pursuits. Also, over 80 percent of police pursuits result from impaired driving, stolen vehicles and dangerous driving. So those are the three biggies that result in police pursuits.

Justice Oppal goes on to indicate that the 700 reported incidents that he made reference to in 1992 . . . . Those are probably underreported, and that's because of inconsistent reporting policies of the municipal police and RCMP. For example, Justice Oppal cites that one department had little specific procedure for police pursuits, while another department had a policy that permitted pursuits for any reason, even minor offences. So over the years we've obviously gone through a state whereby there's virtually little guidance to either the RCMP or municipal forces as to how to conduct themselves when the potential for a high-speed pursuit exists.

Back in 1993, the Attorney General at the time accepted some guidelines. These were actually endorsed on February 8, 1993. These are also referred to in Justice Oppal's report. I won't bother getting into those guidelines, because I think that we can recognize that even though we may have had guidelines in place over the years, they really have not properly addressed the issues coming out of the Oppal commission that I have just commented on.

Justice Oppal then gets to the important things: recommendation 207. I wish to read into the record the recommendations Justice Oppal has made. There are five in number: (

a) criteria for initiating and continuing police pursuits, (

b) alternatives to pursuits, (

c) cautions about hazardous pursuit techniques, (

d) criteria and procedures for abandoning pursuits and (

e) definition of supervisory control over pursuits. That is the essence of the Oppal commission as it dealt with high-risk and high-speed pursuits.

It was 1994 when Justice Oppal made those recommendations, and I might even back the clock up a little further, if I may. On February 10, 1993, I had occasion to give a presentation to the Oppal commission when it came to West Vancouver. I remember the day well, not because I made a presentation but because the lawyer presenting right after me was the lawyer for Daniel Possee -- or the late Daniel Possee we'd have to say, unfortunately. His father Derek had to hire a lawyer, because his son was shot and killed in a police incident in North Vancouver.

I just want to make a couple of references to things that I suggested to Justice Oppal should be dealt with. I had my research staff go back to the late eighties to examine the stats on high-speed pursuits and the sometimes resulting casualties. In the five years from 1985 to 1989, 17 people in this province were killed and 323 injured; 18 percent of those killed and 9 percent of those injured were innocent parties. My colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove gave reference to the very fact that unfortunately in some of these situations, innocent third parties are drawn into the action.

I'll just briefly relate this one, because I remember it very vividly from law school, and I did give reference to it in my submission. A case that went to the Supreme Court of Canada involved the death of two nurses who were innocently waiting at a bus stop, when they were struck and killed by a vehicle that was being driven by a sixteen-year-old car thief. This was in York, in the suburbs of Toronto. What led up to the pursuit itself was that the police received the information that there was a reported stolen vehicle in the area, and they actually spotted the vehicle.

They put on their siren, indicating that the car should pull over. The sixteen-year-old panicked, hit the accelerator and took off, and they pursued the vehicle through the crowded streets of York. There were two officers in the car, and the passenger officer pulled out his service revolver with the intention of shooting out the rear tire of the car they were pursuing. Unfortunately, his arm was jiggled when he squeezed the trigger, and the bullet ricocheted off the back window frame and struck the young driver in the back of the neck.

Needless to say, he lost control of the vehicle; it left the roadway and killed the two nurses. That blossomed, as you might expect, into a major lawsuit involving the employer, the police officer and, of course, the sixteen-year-old.

The main issue that the Supreme Court of Canada had to deal with was the liability of the officer who discharged his

[ Page 5587 ]

weapon in those circumstances. In a 3-to-2 split, the Supreme Court of Canada said that there was no negligence on the part of the officer for that particular incident. I'm just citing that because it has vividly remained in my mind over the years as to the very serious tragedies that sometimes come out of high-speed pursuits.

This is an ongoing problem, and it's not getting any better. I've done some further research, and it's unfortunately very simple to do the research these days. All you need to do is go through the newspapers, in a far too frequent situation, and find cases where innocent parties and pursuing parties and others are being killed and injured. I think we all have to recognize that car thefts are up, particularly with young offenders. Impaired driving is still a very huge problem in this society, and it's a very huge problem for the police.

Of course, when we use the highways and byways we all know that there are more people than ever who seem to feel that driving like an idiot is acceptable, including driving too close and changing lanes without signalling or warning. Running stop signs and red lights is epidemic.

The Attorney General will of course be very familiar with the very unfortunate case in Kamloops of March 1995, when two teens -- two innocent parties -- were killed by an RCMP vehicle that was pursuing another vehicle. It was reported that the RCMP vehicle was going about 125 to 140 kilometres per hour at the time, and he had no lights or siren going. In August 1995 a youth driving a stolen jeep was killed; he was forced off the road by a pursuing police vehicle. In November 1996 a Mission mother was killed when a pursued stolen car slammed into her car.

In April 1997 two young people in Surrey, a 12- and a 13-year-old driving a stolen car, were both injured when their car ran a light and hit a taxi. Happily, I gather that no other parties were injured in that particular case. In April 1997 a Surrey mother was killed by a stolen car driver, who was a 20-year-old fleeing the police.

There was another death in that same month of April, just three months ago -- and I believe my colleague who will be speaking next, the member for Parksville-Qualicum, will be addressing this one -- when a Parksville youth was killed on a rural road when his car, which was being pursued, struck a security gate. Unfortunately, the force of the impact literally sliced the car horizontally, and of course, he got sliced in half at the same time.

In May of 1997, on a highway that I'm quite familiar with -- Highway 20, leading to Bella Coola, outside of Williams Lake -- a 17-year-old car thief was pursued by the RCMP. While he was driving at a high rate of speed on Highway 20, he tried to avoid a spike belt, lost control and was killed in that accident; his female passenger was injured. Also in May 1997, a Chilliwack teen was injured in a stolen car pursuit. In June, just last month in Victoria, two Victoria police officers and a driver of a vehicle that was being pursued were injured.

We must not forget that police are at very high risk. My colleague described the one where he went end-to-end twice over, and he was very lucky, of course, to walk away from that one. Also in June of 1997, another death occurred. A 21-year-old passenger was killed in Vancouver, when the 19-year-old car thief was being pursued at 12:30 in the afternoon in a school zone. Maybe some people will accuse me of making some editorial comment by the example. Needless to say, that one sparked a great deal of controversy, just given the very fact that the police were pursuing in a school zone at 12:30 p.m. during the school year.

So what do we have? We have seven deaths in 1996. The average is roughly three to four, so in 1996 we had some true carnage on the highways. Obviously that's just to set the stage for the importance of Bill 34, which we are now dealing with. I think the important thing -- I know the Attorney General will listen intently when we get to committee stage -- is how the various regulations and the guidelines should be set up. This enabling bill, the amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act, basically addresses two things.

Number one, it increases the penalty from $300 to $500 for those who flee from the police. I think my colleague who made reference to that may be indicating in an amendment that perhaps that should be increased. Certainly I think we all have to recognize that those who choose to leave the scene -- being pursued by a police car -- are not only breaking the law but putting innocent third parties at very real risk. They're also putting themselves at risk, they're indirectly putting their families at risk, and certainly they're putting the police at risk.

Just to give reference in my remarks . . . . Recently we've had two high school students killed. Sure, they were car thieves, but the unfortunate consequence is that in the last month or two we've had two high school students killed -- one in Parksville and one in Williams Lake. We have to be very vigilant in how we set up the regulations and how we address the overall issue.

The other thing that the act does is amend sections 122 and 210, whereby -- through order-in-council -- new regulations, or certainly different regulations, will be imposed. To conclude, I am pleased that the Attorney General has brought this forward to the House. Perhaps it could have been done earlier. I've just gone over the facts and figures of the last few years, and this is not just a current problem, but it does seem to be getting worse.

As legislators, we have a very real responsibility to put law into place so that the police will have proper guidelines, the public will have more assurance that safety issues will be addressed -- and a very clear message is sent to people who choose to violate the law, whether that be through stolen vehicles, impaired driving or just driving like idiots, as I said earlier. We have to send a message to those people that this sort of conduct is not acceptable.

[4:15]

I might just add one thing. I would certainly endorse my colleague's remark about the young offender driving a stolen vehicle. If he or she does not have a driver's licence, I would certainly endorse a minimum age of 18 before qualifying for a licence -- and then make sure you have a young driver's course or some other proper driving course to demonstrate that you have some interest in the safety of driving and are not just running around through the streets. If the person has a licence and is 16 or over with a valid licence, I would say that the court should come down very heavily on those people and lift that licence for five years or more, depending on the circumstances.

We have to send a message to the perpetrators. We have to assist the police with proper guidelines, and we have to give credit to the police, who are in a very awkward situation. We must also address the very significant issue of third-party public safety.

P. Reitsma: I too rise to speak in endorsement of second reading of this particular bill. I was particularly impressed with the comments of my colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove. He speaks out of personal experience, and it's also a bit of personal experience as far as I'm concerned. My brother, although he lives in the old country, the Netherlands, has been a policeman for some 19 years. Holland, with so

[ Page 5588 ]

many people and being not too big, is about the size of Vancouver Island, and, of course, the police are motorized -- with motorcycles, as well. I have talked to him about pursuits and speeding, and let me assure you that speeding on a motorcycle is a bit more dangerous, although the outcome is often the same as in a police car.

This is not going to bring back the life of Ryan Bjork, whose life came to a very abrupt end on April 25 when he slammed a stolen taxi into a locked steel gate on that particular morning. Speeds reached 120 kilometres during the ten-minute chase, which happened early in the morning -- about 1 o'clock. If there is any cause to be thankful, it is that it happened at 1 a.m. and not at 1 p.m. It's not going to bring back his life. But in all seriousness, I hope that the accidents and situations, as outlined by my colleagues, will assist the police and indeed send a message to the perpetrators that this cannot be tolerated.

The minister indicated that $500 is not a maximum; $30 is minimum. I too would like to see discussion on the amount being higher, although I appreciate that the courts, of course, have that opportunity. I appreciate that the new regulations will apply to any emergency vehicle engaging in high-speed chases or violating other traffic rules. I appreciate that the new rules will cover all the aspects of pursuits, including the circumstances under which pursuits can be initiated, the use of lights and sirens during pursuits, how and when pursuits should be abandoned. I think that is very important, as well.

Perhaps there comes a time of no return. Perhaps under certain circumstances and through proper training, just before that time arrives, it should be abandoned. I note that it will apply to all RCMP and municipal police officers, as well.

When this unfortunate accident happened in Parksville with Ryan Bjork, I believe an inquest was held. However, I asked the minister -- and regrettably it has not happened -- if the minister would consider an inquiry. The coroner recommended no inquiry. I know that the minister had an opportunity to have an inquiry. Not to lay blame, let me assure the minister, but as has been mentioned eloquently by my colleagues, perhaps an inquiry would bring out the reasons why this happened. It might assist policemen, as those in authority are so often blamed -- as my hon. colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove mentioned.

Comments are made; accusations are made by people who weren't even there, who read reports in the newspaper. The best captains generally seem to stay ashore, as they say. It would have been a good opportunity to bring everything out and assist our policemen as well. In almost every case, police generally do a good job but also do a very difficult job. They have to make the decisions. If people are put in the same position to make decisions . . . . At least I know that the law officers are trained.

I would have liked to have seen an inquiry not only to assist the police but at the same time to have sent a message to the perpetrators and also to have sent a message to those young people. You and I and everyone else have gone through the young stages -- with wild hair, as well, I suppose; I guess with more hair than brains, as they often say. It happens to all of us. But sometimes tragic circumstances and accidents like this stop us for a moment in time and make us realize that life is so very precious. Sometimes it takes accidents -- and calamities in general -- to make us think, for us to appreciate life. So I would have liked to have seen that.

Be that as it may, I support the bill. I support the intent. I think it's a very good start. It's what we asked for; it's what people asked for. I think it will ultimately send a message to the perpetrators, and it will assist the police, as well.

K. Krueger: In dealing with this legislation, we all realize that we are taking on a tremendously sobering responsibility, and I applaud the AG for his willingness to take on such a tough task.

I am extremely cautious in making comments about it, because it's a tremendously delicate balancing: first, of the concern for the potential victims of high-speed car chases and crashes that occur in them; and second, of the concern for possible victims of those who are trying to outrun the law and the kinds of people the police have to apprehend in this manner; and also concern for respect for the law in British Columbia. We know that if the police aren't able to apprehend violators, then they are encouraged in their activities and they are potentially going to have victims, one way or the other.

On the one hand, I'm sure we seek not to tie the policemen's hands any more than we possibly have to in their obligations to fulfil their duties and apprehend criminals. On the other, we know that we as government have a responsibility to make these determinations so far as is practical and set rules for policemen to some extent, because the risks are so huge and the responsibility so large that those decisions clearly cannot rest on the shoulders of single individuals. So we have to come to grips with this question.

I think we all know, and it's a fact, that car theft is on the rise in British Columbia, particularly car theft by juveniles. In areas where it really gets rolling, it becomes a tremendous problem. There's a huge problem, for example, in Williams Lake, which may seem an unlikely place. But from Williams Lake and on out Highway 20, there's a huge incidence, particularly of juveniles stealing vehicles -- often brand-new vehicles -- and literally going out to antagonize the police and encourage them to engage in high-speed chases. It cannot be tolerated, and it must be dealt with.

Impaired driving and dangerous driving are activities frequently engaged in by individuals who are quite prepared to take risks with their lives and with their potential victims' lives, and to compound their terrible behaviour by indulging in a stupid risk, such as trying to outrun the police.

Society wants those people apprehended and dealt with. I certainly do. I think everyone here does -- and all of our constituents. We come down to the decision that our colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove spoke of earlier -- a lonely policeman in his car having to decide when to engage and when to break off. If we don't make the right decision, then we have failed, because we exacerbate the problem and increase the criminals' propensity to try to evade the law and go ahead with their irresponsible behaviour.

On the other side of the coin is the growing list of tragedies. My colleague listed quite a few of them. Of course, one that's very near to my heart and the heart of everyone in Kamloops is the terrible tragedy which happened there when two beautiful young people lost their lives: a young couple who had recently graduated from high school, had their whole lives in front of them and had very loving families.

An RCMP officer was seeking to apprehend an individual who had a substantial lead on him, and he knew that that individual would have a much greater chance of outrunning him if he activated his emergency equipment earlier. He no doubt believed that the oncoming driver had seen him. Other drivers had seen the police car and knew it was coming at a high rate of speed. But depending on the experience and the particular circumstance, not every driver is going to realize that this type of activity is underway, and people make what they think at the moment to be a normal driving decision. In

[ Page 5589 ]

that case, the young people turned across the path of a police car approaching at a higher speed than they realized, and the result was shattered lives.

Young people lost their lives, their families have gone through agony -- a very public agony in this case -- and the lives of the policeman and his family have been shattered. He has gone through tremendous trauma over it, and I wish to be on record as saying that the community and I, having seen a great deal of the circumstances of that case, don't believe we have the right to lay it at the feet of the police constable. He was doing what he perceived to be his duty at the time.

As I say, we have shared as a community in the awful agony of the outcome of that incident. I think the one person who probably hasn't felt touched by it much is the person the police officer was pursuing, who got away scot-free and who may have never even realized that he was the reason that all of that happened because someone had reported him as a violator -- apparently with good cause. But the police officer's lights weren't engaged. He doubtless didn't know he was being pursued, and presumably he never stopped and was never dealt with. What a striking travesty that is!

So I applaud the Attorney General's decision to come to grips with this issue. I also applaud his decision to consult with police forces before new regulations are set in place. Clearly they have tremendously important input to give. The whole process of how policemen are dealt with after an incident occurs is also something that I would like the AG to have a very thorough look at.

I trust that the consultation with police forces will be very thorough, because, as I say, it's a very delicate balance, and the regulations which come out of the process must balance a concern for the potential victims of those people who are being chased as well as the potential victims of a motor vehicle crash that could ensue from the chases.

I'm somewhat anxious about the timing of the decision on new regulations vis-�-vis the timing of repealing

section 122(2) and (3), because if there's any sort of slip-up there, we may find the police somewhat disempowered. The Attorney General's shaking his head, and I trust him. I trust that that won't be allowed to happen and that there'll be extreme care in that regard.

[4:30]

I think that we should deal very severely with car thieves and people who try to outrun police -- very severely indeed. It's so difficult to catch them, and once they're caught and we know they have those propensities, society must be protected from them. I think that we must always look from the point of view of loss prevention rather than continually trying to pick up the pieces after horrible things have happened.

I really like my colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove's recommendation that juveniles who are caught in these activities should know in advance that they will suffer through loss of their opportunity to get driving privileges for a good, long time -- I would suggest until they reach the age of adulthood or later. Perhaps we could extend that to those juveniles who ride with joyriders, because very often it's a group decision and a team effort.

I also think it's tremendously important that we equip police forces adequately and that there are enough policemen on the road that the member who is trying to pull over a vehicle can have confidence that there are going to be other members up ahead who can lay down the spike belts and are out there with the equipment and manpower to deal with the issue.

When it comes right down to it, we in the opposition believe that the three principal priority programs of the government of this province -- be it an NDP government or a Liberal government -- are health care, education and public safety. So once again I applaud the Attorney General for having the courage to deal with this issue. I look forward to seeing it dealt with very well, and I thank you for this opportunity to make these remarks.

G. Plant: I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in this debate. I suppose I'm doubly pleased, in a way, that I'm getting to rise twice in one day to speak to two different bills -- a new way of moving with the proper dispatch, perhaps, through the public business.

To become fairly serious fairly quickly, we have before us a bill which deals with a situation that seems to me to be unutterably poignant -- a situation of a police officer who, in the course of his or her duties, comes upon someone who is committing an offence -- stealing a car, joyriding or something like that -- and who, in an important moment of personal decision, decides that it is necessary to give chase to the vehicle and its passengers in order to prevent the continuation of an offence or the commission of a new offence. From that moment on, all too often things happen which are beyond control and result in tragedy. Oftentimes it is the particular tragedy of innocent bystanders.

It seems to me that that is a terribly tragic irony of and consequence of some law enforcement activities, and, of course, too often the tragedy is the accident or injury, or death even, of the police officers involved in the incident and also the offenders, who are really the people who caused the whole problem to arise in the first place.

So what can the law do to deal with that very, very difficult situation? The Motor Vehicle Act has provisions in it which give certain privileges, if I can call them that, to the drivers of emergency vehicles. The drivers of emergency vehicles, which include police vehicles, have the power in certain circumstances to exceed the speed limits, to run stop signs and red lights, and to disregard other rules of the road in order to go about their business.

In the act as it now stands, there are constraints on the exercise of those privileges. The Motor Vehicle Act says that the driver of an emergency vehicle must not exercise these privileges unless that driver is doing some things. Those things include sounding an audible signal bell -- or a siren or a whistle -- and showing a flashing red light. It may be necessary that the person operating the vehicle be a peace officer in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law or be engaged in some other important police duty. So there are some rules in the statute books of British Columbia that deal with these situations.

But as the Attorney General is all too aware and as my colleagues have said during the course of their remarks this afternoon, it seems that too often the existing guidelines don't work. The existing rules are not striking the right balance: the balance that needs to be struck between, on the one hand, the important need to ensure that accidents, injury and death do not result from the disproportionate exercise of emergency powers -- that's one-half of the balance -- with the other half of the balance.

The other half of the balance is the need to ensure that there is the necessary level of respect for the law, that young people and others realize that there will be consequences if they steal automobiles, if they joyride. We need to strike that balance, and we need to recognize that there is a need for a balance.

[ Page 5590 ]

The Attorney General has been moved to obtain the assistance of the government, I suppose, to bring this bill before the House, because he is as aware of the personal tragedies that have formed part of our recent history as is anybody. I know that he has a strong sense, as do all of us here, that we should try to make the rules better and to prevent these tragedies from occurring.

I hope that the Attorney General, as he proceeds down the path of reform, will also be mindful of the other competing concerns: the need to ensure that public safety is maintained and enhanced. I'm confident that the Attorney General understands that need and will be mindful of it when he goes about the consultation process which this bill mandates.

So that's the balance. I think it's an important balance to be struck, and I agree that the current law does not strike that balance in a satisfactory way. At least, it doesn't seem to be working from the perception of members of the public, and I don't think that anyone in this House is of the view that the current regime is working adequately.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The challenge, of course, is that we're here debating a principle of a bill, and we understand how the Attorney General perceives and has stated the principle of that bill. I think we are all in agreement on what the principle of the bill is, but in fact it's difficult to find that principle in the text of the bill, because the text of the bill is simply language which enables a process to take place. The bill does not set out new guidelines or new rules governing police chases and high-speed chases.

What we have is a bill that, upon its enactment and proclamation, will presumably, at one and the same time, remove the existing guidelines and replace them with new ones. That will be the result of a consultation process that the Attorney General has spoken about in his remarks introducing this bill in second reading -- a consultation process which, as I understand it