1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 30, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7069 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Labour minister's involvement in alleged political interference.

Mr. Sihota –– 7070

Mr. Harcourt

Polar 8. Mr. Bruce –– 7071

Labour minister's involvement in alleged political interference.

Mr. Sihota –– 7071

Future of Princess Marguerite. Mr. B.R. Smith –– 7072

Committee of Supply: Minister of Solicitor-General estimates. (Hon. Mr. Ree)

On vote 67: minister's office –– 7072

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Miller

Mr. Davidson

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Guno

Mr. Perry

Mr. Loenen

Mr. Sihota

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Jones

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have a very special guest in

Senator David Roberti from California. He is the President of the

California State Senate, which means he leads the Democratic Party

majority in that body. I'm pleased to say that I had a very good

meeting with the senator this morning, at which time we discussed

opportunities that exist for us to cooperatively work on trade issues

and environmental issues.

Senator Roberti is accompanied in

the gallery by Mr. Tom Kemp, president of the Certified General

Accountants' Association, and Mr. Bill Caulfield, the association's

executive director. The senator was the guest speaker today at the

association's annual luncheon for MLAs, and I know that many members

enjoyed listening and participating and hearing the message about the

importance of closer relations between British Columbia and California.

We are indebted to the association for bringing Senator Roberti here,

and I would ask all members to bid welcome to these visitors to our

House.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Speaker and members

of the Legislature, I'm extremely proud today to have the opportunity

of introducing three residents of the lower Island who are here for a

very particular purpose: to ask us to recognize the Amyotrophic Lateral

Sclerosis Society — the ALS Society — better known as the society

formed to deal with the problems of Lou Gehrig's disease. This society

is a national non-profit organization founded ten years ago. They raise

money to provide research and patient services and to create awareness.

Each year there is a national ALS week, May 29 to June 3 this year,

culminating in a national flower day on June 3.

There is a

strong correlation between ALS and retired naval people. In fact, the

incidence of ALS among that group is 50 times higher than the national

average. For this reason, the Naval Officers' Association of Vancouver

Island have adopted ALS as their major cause. There will be 160

volunteers from this organization at various shopping centres on June 3

selling cornflowers as the national emblem of the society.

Mr.

Speaker, we have in our presence today Mr. Ken Gibbs from the Naval

Officers' Association of Vancouver Island and a member of the society.

Mr. Gibbs is a victim of this disease and has volunteered himself in

the interest of pursuing further research on the subject. He's

accompanied by Mr. Peter Chance, past president of the Naval Officers'

Association of Vancouver Island, and Mr. Walter Ashford, president of

the Victoria

chapter of the ALS Society. I know all members of the

House join me in applauding the efforts of these gentlemen in the

interests of that issue.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Speaker, there are members of Greenpeace represented

in the gallery today. Today, on board the vessel Vega in the Inner Harbour,

they held a news conference and released a copy of their report "Dire Straits:

Pollution in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, Canada." They then

took this very important report and presented it to the acting Minister of Environment

and also to myself. On behalf of the House, I want to thank them for this excellent

work and valuable research resource on this vital issue. They are Brian Killeen,

who is the toxics campaigner for this area; Bob Lyons, who is the author of

the report; Randy Thomas, Trudy Richards and Gordon MacDonald. Also, the skipper

of the Vega is present.

HON. S. HAGEN :

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure today that I welcome

to the House the chairman of the board of Kwantlen College, Mr. Ken

Williams; board members George Preston, Andy Milne and Roy Jacques; and

the president, Ms. Adrienne MacLaughlin. I know that especially the

members from Surrey, Richmond, Delta and Langley, together with all

members of the House, will join me in bidding them welcome.

MR. LONG :

Mr. Speaker, today in the House we have a delegation from the

municipality of Powell River: Mayor Don Lockstead, who is a former

member of this House; Ald. Arnold Carlson; Ald. Sandy Tremblay; Vic

Petersen, administrator; and Ken Needham, treasurer. I would like this

House to make them very welcome.

MR. ROSE : On behalf

of our side, I too would like to join in the welcome to Mayor Lockstead

and his delegation and to say, in case anybody has forgotten, that

Mayor Lockstead was the predecessor of the present incumbent from

Powell River. He might even be his successor, for all I know. In any

event, regardless of whether he is or not, would you please welcome the

delegation from Powell River.

MR. ROGERS : As May

winds down, so does the month of motorcycle awareness proclaimed by the

cabinet at the beginning of May. Today marked what I believe is going

to be an annual event, when the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists and the

Association for Injured Motorcyclists bring their machines to Victoria

and offer rides to members of the press and this chamber. On behalf of

the members on our side of the House I would like to welcome all of

them. There are too many to read out all their names today, but I'd

like to thank them for making the time available to come and make more

members aware of motorcycling and motorcyclists and some of the events

that they're involved in.

I was somewhat disappointed, Mr.

Speaker, that your parade wasn't in a soft-tail Harley today. The fact

that you took the opportunity to ride with your robes on really gives

some indication to the House.

I would like to welcome these members, and on their behalf — they have asked me to do this — I would like to thank the members of the chamber who

[ Page 7070 ]

took the opportunity to ride with them at lunchtime today.

MR. LOVICK :

We on this side would like to add to that expression of gratitude to

the members of the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists. We certainly

enjoyed the experience. I want to congratulate them on the wisdom of

making the two members for Nanaimo lead the parade.

[2:15]

MR. RABBITT :

On behalf of the member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan), I

would ask the House to join me in greeting 13 grade 8 and grade 9

students from Cedars Christian School, accompanied by their teacher

Mrs. Kibble. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

MR. PERRY :

I'd just like to second, on our behalf, the welcome of the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) to members of the ALS Society. I think

they struggle with an incredibly difficult disease, and they represent

a lot of other people with various other relatively rare diseases

facing the same challenges. It's particularly nice to have them in the

House with us today.

MRS. McCARTHY : Our Minister of

Finance has already introduced Mr. Ken Gibbs in his capacity as a

tireless worker with the disease that has been brought to our attention

today and to many families, unfortunately, throughout this province. I

would like to say that Ken Gibbs was one of the guiding lights for Beautiful British Columbia magazine. Beautiful British Columbia

was brought to its success through some of his efforts over many years.

I think this House owes him a great deal of gratitude, because that

magazine is still one of the very best tourist magazines and promoters

for British Columbia. I would just like the House to recognize his work

in that regard.

Oral Questions

LABOUR MINISTERS INVOLVEMENT IN

ALLEGED POLITICAL INTERFERENCE

MR. SIHOTA :

A question to the Premier. Does the Premier condone the Minister of

Labour's (Hon. L Hanson'

s) decision to remain silent as his top

officials lied about a matter of political interference, when the

minister knew all along that the official was lying?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I'm very satisfied that the Minister of Labour quietly gathered all the

information, including that made available to him by the ombudsman, and

took the appropriate action. All things have been done properly, we're

certainly very pleased with the way it's been dealt with, and I commend

the minister for that.

MR. SIHOTA : The Premier says

things were done "properly." Does the Premier consider it proper that

the Minister of Labour would sit during the course of a press

conference, knowing that his official was telling a lie, and not take

any steps at that point to correct the lie?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Unlike the socialist NDP, I don't try to put myself in everybody's head

as to what they might be thinking at a particular time. I'm satisfied

with the way it's been dealt with.

MR. SIHOTA : The minister said in Hansard

on May 25, 1989, that the official involved was lying. To quote him

directly: "I guess that would equate to lying." It's a lie. It raises

questions as to the standard of conduct that the Premier would expect

from ministers. There's an increasing concern about the blind spot the

Premier has with respect to moral and ethical issues and demands on

ministers. The question to the Premier is this: could he advise this

House what action he intends to take, in light of his minister's

improper conduct?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I am not

prepared to give comment on the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew's

opinion, because I have too often questioned that opinion and am not

about to start commenting on that opinion now.

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. The Minister of Consumer Services has

confessed that he allowed a public official to make a public lie to

cover up a political scandal. The minister has admitted that he is a

party to this deception. Is the Premier now prepared to ask for the

minister's resignation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I said previously that the minister, during those weeks and months, gathered all of the information — didn't run off making wild charges, such as the NDP tends to do, but gathered all of the information —

and once having received all of the information, including the report

from the ombudsman, made the decisions necessary to address it as the

people would wish to see it addressed. And I'm proud of the job the

minister has done.

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Speaker, the

Premier knows there was reason enough to fire his minister last year,

when the first suggestion of his role in the cover-up became apparent.

Does the Premier not agree that by refusing to ask for the resignation

of his minister, the Premier is now giving his public approval to this

act of gross public deception?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : The only deception comes from the NDP.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, when the former Attorney-General became aware of

representations made by Mr. Poole to Mr. Hick, he immediately notified

the RCMP. When the ombudsman became aware of what had transpired, he in

his report called it political interference. Could the Premier tell

this House what

[ Page

7071 ]

his view is of the communication between Mr. Poole

and Mr. Hick? Does he disagree with the ombudsman that it was political

interference? Does he disagree with the former Attorney-General that it

was a matter worthy of criminal investigation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : The matter has been dealt with.

MR. SIHOTA :

It hasn't been dealt with. This is a matter of political interference.

This is a matter involving people in the Premier's office. This is a

matter involving the Premier's friends, This is a matter involving the

Premier's former campaign manager. This is a matter which the ombudsman

concluded was a situation of political interference. This is a matter

of public deception on the part of the Minister of Labour. My question

to the Premier is this: does the Premier, again, agree with the conduct

of his Minister of Labour and Consumer Services in remaining silent

through that pivotal press conference?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

This is a matter of the NDP trying to get a cheap political headline

two years or a year and a half after the matter has been thoroughly

dealt with. This is a matter of cheap political headlining by the NDP.

MR. HARCOURT :

This is a matter of a cover-up in the Premier's office. That's what it

is. It's a matter of the kind of public morality that the people of

British Columbia expect. Is the Premier prepared to say, as he did

outside the House, that this whole cover-up, involving his principal

secretary, involving friends very close to him, involving what was seen

by the ombudsman and the ex-Attorney-General as important enough for

criminal investigations and a condemnation of this minister's conduct,

is no big deal to the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

It's hardly a matter of cover-up when the two people concerned or

mentioned are no longer here, but that's how the NDP reads it for their

reasons.

POLAR 8

MR- BRUCE :

A few weeks ago the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew castigated the

Premier for his diplomatic approach to Ottawa's uncertain position

regarding the Polar 8 icebreaker. I am not interested in headlines; I'm

only interested in the well-being of the citizens of Vancouver Island

and British Columbia. Through this diplomatic approach, can the Premier

tell me and the people of Vancouver Island and British Columbia where

we stand with the Vancouver Island gas pipeline project and the Polar 8

project?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I too recall the irrational tirade from the member

for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew on that particular topic. We have always said we

would approach this quietly and rationally, as we did; and we have done so very

effectively. Only yesterday I received a letter from Benoit Bouchard confirming

that they have now received the necessary design from the B.C. contractor, and

the initial difficulties they had with respect to contract definition have been

overcome; and that the Prime Minister and the government are committed to constructing

the Polar 8 in British Columbia. The working people — certainly those who are

depending on this for employment — in constituencies like Esquimalt can be grateful

for the quiet, rational approach the government took in resolving this problem.

MR. SIHOTA :

The Premier ignored the fact that that letter was written at the

request of Dave Barrett, but I'll provide the Premier with a copy of

the letter.

I want to return to....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA : I'll provide him with a copy of the letter.

LABOUR MINISTER'S INVOLVEMENT IN

ALLEGED POLITICAL INTERFERENCE

MR. SIHOTA :

I want to get back to matters of ethics and morality in government and

the approach that the Premier is taking with respect to his Minister of

Labour (Hon. L. Hanson). It raises questions as to the standard of

conduct that is expected from his ministers.

Has the

Premier discussed this matter again with the Minister of Labour, since

it became a matter of public note, and has he asked for his resignation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to take all the time that you want to give in

question period to repeat what has been said time and time again. If we

have five minutes remaining in question period, I'm pleased to occupy

the five minutes. As a matter of fact, I can occupy the whole of the

five minutes right now and save the same question from being asked

again and again, and my having to give the same answer again.

I said earlier, I'm very pleased with the way the minister has handled

it. He took all of the necessary steps in keeping with what I think

people wanted to see done — and what had to be done — with

regard to this matter. So I'm fully supportive of the minister in what

he has done. He listened to all of the people, to all of the

information that was provided to him, including the information made

available through the ombudsman's report. The Minister of Labour and I

discuss many things from time to time, and we will continue to discuss

many things from time to time. I'm very satisfied with....

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Would you stand up and ask that question? I can't hear you.

[ Page 7072 ]

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased with the action of the minister in this whole situation, and I have every confidence in him.

FUTURE OF PRINCESS MARGUERITE

MR. B.R. SMITH :

I have a question for the beneficent Minister of Finance in his

capacity as the minister in charge of what remains of B.C. Steamships.

There was a very good

article in the Times-Colonist

on May 26 announcing the expansion plans of B.C. Steamships and their

new lines, which I think shows that it was an excellent piece of

privatization. But in that

article the managing director, Mr. Wesberg,

announced that the Princess Marguerite

may not be in service after this year. He said: "Stena's plans for her

run only until the fall.... Then, who knows? Anything is possible. She

won't disappear. She'll stay in Victoria. Maybe as a museum and

restaurant." I want to ask the minister, who I recall is an old Maggie fan: will he fight to keep the Maggie on that run for some more seasons and not consign her to the role of the Queen Mary just yet?

[2:30]

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I'm delighted to have the opportunity to explain the government's view

on this important matter. The fact of the matter is that the Maggie

has been a focal point of the tourism attraction industry in greater

Victoria for many years, as the member for Oak Bay, being a key

participant in that exercise, well knows.

I know I speak

for all the representatives from the greater Victoria area in

encouraging the owners that the vessel should continue to be operated.

It certainly has been a useful device in increasing the volume of

tourism traffic that comes to the lower Island area, and as a

consequence of the expansion of the service that is now provided by

virtue of the privatization initiative — which, once again, was initiated by the member for Oak Bay, and has proved to be extremely successful, I might add —

we've considerably expanded the capabilities of the line to serve an

ever-growing tourism volume. As a consequence of these measures I, like

the hon. member for Oak Bay, was a little bit confused by the alleged

statements by the principals.

As a consequence of that, I'm

pleased to advise the House and the member from Oak Bay that there have

been staff discussions on that subject within recent hours and that we

will be attempting to determine exactly what the alleged speaker had in

mind when he made the comments that were in the local print media.

Obviously these kinds of things come at us out of the blue and

therefore do require us to monitor them, and before reporting on the

matter in any detail or depth, I think it's incumbent upon all of us to

have the facts so that we know exactly what the possible remedies might

be.

I can assure the House that we're very serious about

maintaining this service, and we'll do everything we can to ensure the

vessel stays in service.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

On vote 67: minister's office, $248,681 (continued).

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned debate earlier today, I had posed a

question to the Solicitor-General concerning the longest hearing in the

history of the Motor Carrier Commission, to investigate the activities

of United Parcel Service and its application for expanding its terms of

reference in the province of British Columbia as well as in Canada. I

posed the question directly about whether the Motor Carrier Commission

took into consideration the testimony delivered to that particular

hearing suggesting that the activities of that particular company had

not, in fact, been as exemplary as they ought, and whether the customs

brokerage licence had been revoked by the federal government.

At the same time as that was happening in the federal government, the provincial authority — the Motor Carrier Commission —

was granting a licence. The minister said two things in answer to that

question. The first was that perhaps the commission didn't have all the

evidence that I have alluded to. I can assure him that they did have

that evidence. That was brought before the commission.

The second part of the answer that disturbs me somewhat — thus I'm repeating all this for the minister's benefit now —

is that as he saw it, the Motor Carrier Commission functioned

independently of him to the point apparently where this issue is not

one he feels the need to respond to. That seems to be a very

significant admission: namely, that in the name of the independent

operation of that commission, the minister and this government thereby

seem to be disclaiming any responsibility for the activities of that

commission.

What we're talking about very specifically in

this application is the whole question of deregulation and its impact.

I would therefore implore this minister to take a look at that decision

and to consider whether what the Motor Carrier Commission did was

not — or perhaps was, in fact — in the best interests of the

people of this province. I would ask the minister to consider giving us

that assurance and conducting that investigation.

HON. MR. REE : Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to criticize — or otherwise —

the decisions of the Motor Carrier Commission. It is an independent

body. I would address the Motor Carrier Commission if it did not follow

the policies of the government, but it would be after the event and not

before.

In the specific case mentioned and brought up by the member — the United Parcel Service application — I am informed that there is an appeal in process at

[ Page 7073 ]

the present. I will not make any further comment on it.

MR. LOVICK :

I hope the minister isn't suggesting that this is a sub judice argument

or something, therefore he can't say anything for fear he would

prejudice the case. You can't have it both ways, Mr. Minister. On the

one hand you're disclaiming responsibility for it and saying that it's

an independent commission. On the other hand you're saying that you

can't make a comment, because you might prejudice the case. The two

can't go together; they're contradictory. You can't do that. That

argument simply won't work.

I see your brow is furrowing,

Mr. Premier, in consternation. I'm delighted to see that. I'm delighted

to know that you're paying attention. That's a good sign.

The

case I'm arguing is that it seems, on the face of the evidence, that

the Motor Carrier Commission did something that flies in the face of

pretty concrete evidence suggesting there was something wrong with the

behaviour of this company. Otherwise, the customs brokerage licence

would certainly not have been revoked.

I'm asking the

minister to consider asking his officials to get an accounting from the

Motor Carrier Commission of what guided them in that decision, because

as I say, on the face of it, their decision would seem to fly in the

face of the evidence that was presented. That's why the appeal, by the

way, offers some six or seven particular contentions as to the specific

failings of the Motor Carrier Commission.

This is becoming a kind of cause clbre .

This is going to be a very big case and probably a very expensive legal

case. I think the minister responsible for that body, which may involve

people in an extremely expensive lawsuit, ought to pay some attention

to what is going on. I'm asking him if he'll at least ask his officials

in the Motor Carrier Commission to give him a full report on what

happened and on their deliberations and then to share those

deliberations and that information with this chamber. Would the

minister care to respond to that?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries has asked leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Mr. Chairman, it's indeed a pleasure, on behalf of the second member

for Delta (Mr. Davidson) and myself, to introduce 60 grade 11 students

who are here from Delta Secondary School. Would this House please make

them welcome.

HON. MR. REE : I can understand the

Premier's brow furrowing when he listens to the doublespeak of the

member for Nanaimo. As I indicated, the matter is under appeal. The

appeal will be the accounting; I will not make any further comments on

it.

MR. MILLER : They say that silence is golden, but obviously that's not always the case.

have a few questions to the minister regarding the Motor Carrier

Commission and regulation. There were provincial initiatives to

deregulate, along with the federal changes that took place. Maybe the

minister could just give me what the current thinking is from the

ministry in terms of that issue, particularly in the trucking industry.

HON. MR. REE :

It was announced previously that we are not changing the process of

licensing within the ministry. There are some moves federally for

deregulation of the trucking industry. We have streamlined the

application process to speed up the handling of applications, but the

actual process of application, the need for it and regulation for it

have not been changed.

MR. MILLER : When I was the

transport critic in '87, 1 had some dialogue concerning the issue with

the then minister, and it is of concern — as the minister must be aware —

to the trucking industry particularly. At that time the minister gave

me an undertaking that no major deregulation initiatives would be

pursued prior to the issue being referred to an all-party or standing

committee of the House. I'm wondering if you're prepared to make that

same kind of commitment today.

HON. MR. REE : Not at

this time. I am prepared to say that we are not looking at any major

restructuring of the commission or its policies at this time. Certainly

there will be great consultation with those knowledgeable in the

trucking industry before we make any changes.

As for

referring it to a committee of this House, I always appreciate the

value and expertise of members on the committee, but I would feel that

such changes would have a bigger impact on the trucking industry, and

that's the source I would seek the greatest expertise from.

MR. MILLER :

In response to that, I just think, Mr. Minister, that a committee is an

excellent way to investigate a particular issue and to report back to

the House. But that's fine; if you don't want to, we'll.... We're

cognizant that the previous minister responsible was prepared to do

that.

With respect to an application by the truckers on the

Queen Charlotte Islands to become regulated, I wanted to ask you why

they were turned down.

HON. MR. REE : It was not felt

there was any need for regulation on the Queen Charlotte Islands,

because really the only access for truckers to the islands is across on

the ferry. Those on the Prince Rupert side are regulated; the truckers

on the islands just felt the need was not there to create an additional

body of regulation.

MR. MILLER : The truckers — I believe unanimously — thought that it would afford them some

[ Page 7074 ]

protection,

particularly from contractors coming from off-island. As I understand

it, there were meetings with your officials; I talked to them at the

time. It was my belief that there was no particular reason why they

would not be granted regulation; nobody at any time expressed that to

me in any official way.

It appears to me that It became a

political decision rather than a technical one. I can't think of any

particular reason why you would object to those people regulating and

trying to obtain some protection in their operating area. It's quite a

common thing. You said earlier, I believe, that really those shouldn't

be political decisions. Is there some philosophical objection? Why

would you not want to allow those truckers to come together and be

regulated and to hopefully give them a bit more protection in the kind

of business they're in?

[2:45]

HON. MR. REE :

I appreciate the philosophical position the member is coming from,

which is regulation, more regulation and more regulation, because that

is the sole essence of enforcement of the NDP policies and their

platforms. They don't realize that the more regulation you have, the

more police you have. They may not be wearing uniforms, but there is an

expansion of police forces until we eventually get up into Orwell's

book 1984 .

chairman of the Motor Carrier Commission went up and spoke to the

truckers on the Queen Charlotte Islands and came back and recommended

that there would be no appreciable advantage to regulation; that we not

do it. I can't see doing something for no good reason.

MR. MILLER :

Mr. Chairman, while the minister strayed in the philosophy and headed

straight for Orwell, I'm not sure how to respond to that. We have a

group of small business people in my constituency — I hold no particular brief for them; I don't know whether or not they support me —

who, along with most of the rest of the trucking industry in this

province, happen to want regulation of their industry. They see that as

a means of affording some protection to the people who operate in that

industry, some regulation of the business that, in the final analysis,

is good for them as businessmen and is good for the rest of the

province. It maintains a stable transportation industry in trucking.

have seen the results of deregulation. By the minister's own admission,

he is not eager to rush head-long into deregulation, as the federal

government has done. I suspect it's because of the lobby mounted by the

trucking industry, which opposes deregulation. So your little

philosophical argument doesn't hold a heck of a lot of water, Mr.

Minister.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER : To

stand up and make the foolish statement that my raising an issue of

concern to my constituents somehow represents the NDP wanting to have

regulation, regulation, regulation is rather foolish.

Getting

back to the issue, I read the documents that were exchanged. I read the

minutes of the meetings that took place on the Queen Charlotte Islands.

Clearly there was recognition — I don't have them in front of me, so I can't quote them —

that regulation would offer some measure of protection for that group

of business people. Mr. Minister, perhaps you could be more specific In

advising me as to how regulation would not assist them.

HON. MR- REE : As I stated, Mr. Chairman, I see no reason for putting in more regulations if they are not needed.

MR. MILLER : Mr. Minister, would you advise me why they are not needed for that particular group?

HON. MR. REE :

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, based upon the recommendations of the

chairman of the Motor Carrier Commission.... After being there,

discussing with the trucking industry up in the Queen Charlotte

Islands, he could not see any appreciable advantage to regulating the

industry on the Queen Charlotte Islands — the size of it, the nature of it. I just cannot support putting in regulations where they're not needed.

MR. MILLER :

Mr. Chairman, I would just reiterate that I believe that that clearly

was not the case. As I said, I read the minutes and I discussed the

issue extensively with the spokesperson for the truckers. The truckers

had a thorough discussion with the officials and voted to ask to be

regulated. They didn't do it because they didn't think there would any

protection for them; quite the contrary. They sat down and had a fairly

lengthy discussion and arrived at the conclusion with the officials

there that regulation would be beneficial to them. It's afforded to

other people in the industry throughout the province, and I fail to see

how the minister can justify it. He certainly hasn't justified in any

kind of substantive way why that same kind of protection should not be

afforded to the truckers in my constituency on the Queen Charlotte

Islands. What makes them different from anybody else in this province?

MR DAVIDSON :

Mr. Chairman, my question to the minister concerns the tinting of

automobile glass. It is unfortunate that there are members of the

motoring public who have been ticketed for having a tinted rear window,

and I believe the cost of the ticket is around $50. Notwithstanding the

fact that vehicles can be ordered with tinted glass and they can have

tinted material applied to the windows, these people are susceptible to

a traffic ticket which, I must say, at best could be described as

rather an indiscriminate manner in which a police officer can issue

those very tickets.

It's no secret that there are

limousines that travel between the airport and downtown, that are in

service virtually everywhere around the province,

[ Page 7075 ]

that

have tinted glass. If vehicle A is in contravention of the regulations,

then vehicle B is equally in contravention of the regulations.

Similarly, every car that comes in from the United States through our

borders — they number in the thousands — is also in the same category.

I'm

simply saying that if we have police officers who are going to abuse

their authority by selective ticketing of automobiles, then somewhere

along the line those regulations have to be changed. I know the

minister is going to refer to the regulations and talk about vehicles

that have come out factory ordered; yet not a day goes by that there is

not a full-page or almost a full-page ad in either the local morning

paper or the afternoon paper which advertises for tinting of vehicle

windows.

If the regulations prevent this, then these people

must be charged. Every limousine driver must be charged. Every American

tourist that comes in with tinted windows must be charged. Every

vehicle that has the tint on their vehicle front, back or side must be

charged — or, conversely, the regulations must be changed. Mr.

Minister, I am suggesting that all that is required is that the

minister give an undertaking that the regulations will be changed and

that people who have these tinted windows won't have to worry about

indiscriminate ticketing, which, I must say, is virtually all it

amounts to.

HON. MR REE : I'm sympathetic to the

member's comments with respect to the tinting of windows There are

standards for tinting as far as the manufacturing of the cars are

concerned. There are no standards available at the moment with regard

to after-market tinting of windows which goes on in the industry. The

basic requirement is a three-inch tint on the front windshield, the

side windows to be clear, and it's ambiguous as to the rear window at

this time

There seems to be a problem with ambiguity — requirements or standards —

throughout the whole industry in North America. As far as British

Columbia is concerned, I'd be happy to indicate that we will give

active consideration to bringing in appropriate standards of tinting of

windows within British Columbia. I don't know what difficulties we

would entail in policing vehicles coming from outside of British

Columbia, but we would also work towards a standard within Canada.

MR. DAVIDSON : I appreciate the comments by the minister. I'm just wondering if while we're awaiting this process — which unfortunately sometimes becomes rather lengthy —

we could have an undertaking by the Solicitor-General that pending the

outcome of a study or some standardized method of interprovincial and

cross-border regulation, which may take up to two decades, we could

have some assurance from the minister that he will advise the various

police departments that certainly, insofar as the rear window is

concerned, no traffic summons be issued in the meantime. I think this

is only fair.

It's very difficult. For example, I have several letters here from individuals

who have written indicating they have received traffic tickets for after-market

tinted film. But I must say, the after-market tinted film is nowhere as deep

as is the regular tinted film in limousines or in some of the vehicles. Today

we have a situation where virtually every car that comes out onto the market

has dual rear view mirrors. I would suggest that if the minister were to check

the parking lot of members and the parking lot of staff — maybe even his own

staff — he might find that there are several vehicles that would have tinted

windows themselves.

seems rather difficult. If we're going to have tinted-window tickets

issued, members of the Legislature and members working within the

various ministries would find themselves in conflict with the

regulations. Certainly when we have full-page ads like this glaring

advertisement advertising contrary to the regulations, we should take a

reasonable approach. In the meantime, we can simply instruct our police

officers to use just a little bit of common sense and allay these

fears. Certainly, in the meantime, we should refrain from issuing

tickets which are nothing more than pure harassment tickets.

HON. MR REE :

I appreciate the member's comment about having staff check vehicles.

I'm confident that my deputy minister could find an example fairly

simply, if I were to ask him, but I really don't need to direct him to

that. I'm confident that there are many windows — as the member indicated —

that are tinted. Regretfully, I cannot instruct the police not to

adhere to the letter of the law. I can certainly bring the member's

concern and my concern to their attention. I'm sure they'll use their

best judgment in exercising their duties.

MR. CASHORE : I'm not sure that the second member for Delta is finished. He seems to be carrying on there.

First of all, I enjoyed going biking with the minister this afternoon.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE : You didn't go?

HON. MR. REE : You're wrong again.

MR. CASHORE :

Wrong again, yes. I saw that you were well represented there, Mr.

Minister. Members of your staff and some of your colleagues were there.

It was quite an experience, and the motorcycle awareness issue is

something I'd like to deal with from the perspective of commenting on

it, rather than having to spend too much time riding on motorcycles. I

think that era has passed me by.

I would like to go back

for a few brief moments to the issue of the provincial emergency

program. The reason for that is the issuing of the Greenpeace report

"Dire Straits: Pollution in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia,

Canada, " which was released today. I would like to encourage the

minister to get a copy of this report and have his staff review it.

[ Page 7076 ]

think there is outstanding information in it. I haven't had time to

read the entire report yet, but it goes through a legacy of history in

which Georgia Strait has been used as a dumping-ground from a wide

variety of sources.

[3:00]

How does this connect with PEP? It connects with PEP as to what

extent these spills constitute a real urgent emergency in the sense of

the total accumulation of toxins and other forms of pollution being

dumped in the strait. Then there is the more immediate question of

actual instances of spills; obviously the mandate of PEP is to respond

to those situations and to deal with them In the public interest.

There

is something in the report that I find absolutely devastating, which is

stated on page 65. The writer of the report is quoting quite

extensively from Mike Waldichuk in a document that he wrote in 1983,

"Pollution in the Strait of Georgia: A Review." He states that it has

been estimated that there is an annual total oil spillage from all

Canadian sources into the Strait of Georgia and the Juan de Fuca Strait

system of about 22,000 barrels or 3,000 tonnes and an additional 41,000

barrels or 5,600 tonnes from sources in the United States. That's a

total of 8,600 tonnes.

That report goes on to say that the sources of oil input included tankers in transit and at berth, storage tanks....

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Hon. member, I am sorry to interrupt, but I am wondering if this is

completely relevant to the estimates of the Solicitor-General. It would

seem to me that perhaps the points you are making would be much better

solicited under the Environment ministry's portfolio.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, I am leading up to the point that this accumulation does

constitute an emergency. As I said before, it's an emergency in a sense

of a total accumulation, but I am also leading up to spills that have

been reported. I am sure you will see, Mr. Chairman, that it all ties

together.

So the sources, as well as the ones that I've

already mentioned, include pipelines, tank barges, non-oil-transporting

vessels and land sources consisting of coastal refineries, municipal

waste water, urban runoff and marine and land transportation

facilities. We would all assume that most of this spillage is never

reported. It's just the type of thing that goes on, and somehow we have

to find the political will through education and programs that your

government would be involved in to stop the activity that results in

toxic substances being placed in the strait.

The report

goes on to state that while many spills go unreported, there were

several reported to Environment Canada. In 1988, here are some examples

of spills that were reported to Environment Canada.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Hon. member, are you going to get to the point where we bring PEP into

this fairly quickly? I am having great difficulty with the relevancy.

MR. CASHORE :

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am sure you will appreciate that the connection is

that Environment Canada has received reports of these spills. We are

getting on to whether or not PEP has received reports of the same

spills, and what the follow-up was. I am sure you will agree that the

preamble is necessary to set the scene, and the specific question I am

coming to now relates to PEP. I appreciate you keeping us close to our

task, Mr. Chairman.

On January 31 there was a 984-barrel

spill of bunker C in Rosario Strait; on March 23 there was a large

spill of jet fuel in the Fraser River; on March 25 there was a 5,500

litre spill of gasoline in Ladysmith harbour; on July 11 there was a

three-barrel spill of bunker oil at the Alberta Wheat Pool in Burrard

Inlet; on July 18 there was a 1,000-gallon spill of diesel in Dixon

Entrance. On July 26 there was a 2,500-gallon oil No. 2 spill at CFB

Esquimalt harbour. On August 18 there was a 15-barrel spill of bunker

oil at Seaboard Terminal in Burrard Inlet. My question is: are the

spills that are reported to Environment Canada also reported to PEP as

a matter of course?

HON. MR. REE : Mr. Chairman, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. REE :

Sitting in the gallery across from me are 20 adults from the Lucas

Centre in North Vancouver. Some of these people are aspiring new

Canadians — or some of them are new Canadians, possibly — and

about our community, under the auspices of Mrs. Massey. I would ask

this House to give them a warm welcome.

I will apologize to

them in that, since the estimates of the Solicitor-General's ministry

are on the docket here today, I will be unable to meet with them

afterwards. I have asked my ministerial assistant to meet with them and

also to extend to them the best wishes of the members and my office.

To the member's question, I think the answer was yes. What was the question now?

Oh, yes. The answer is yes, we do.

I might mention to the member — I know he is anxious to get to his feet and I am anxious to sit down —

that the report will be obtained and read by the Interministry

Emergency Preparedness Committee, the whole works. They'll look at it

very closely, because the aggregate of all these spills over a period

of time does become a very serious matter environmentally, ecologically

and the rest.

MR. CASHORE : I appreciate that answer and the willingness of your ministry to review this report along with your colleagues.

would like to ask the minister now to outline for the House just what

happens. We have the federal government, the provincial government and

Environment Canal receiving a report of a spill, and we received the

answer that the information is passed on to the provincial emergency

program. I wonder if the

[ Page 7077 ]

minister

would track us through the process, to bring us up to date on exactly

what happens. Maybe he could take one of the spills that I have

referred to as a case in point and advise us of the steps that take

place in terms of the PEP role vis--vis the Environment Canada role

and how these situations are dealt with.

HON. MR. REE :

In many instances we receive the first call on the spill, and we will

notify Environment Canada. Also, Environment Canada will notify us if

it requires a PEP response, such as the oil spill up-Island, where we

have to get various resources out to clean it up.

Generally, on oil spills, Environment Canada or Environment B.C. will go to the industry that has caused the spill — where the industry is known — and

direct them to do the cleanup or whatever else may be required. If

there is no provincial emergency response required, other than ensuring

that the ministries of environment federally and provincially have been

notified, we will take no further action. If action is required by us,

a coordinator of PEP or somebody will be placed on the scene to get a

report and recommendations, and the necessary response — depending upon the size of the emergency — will be made.

MR CASHORE : I would like to ask the minister if he would undertake to review those reported spills on page 66 and report back — I realize that it might not be possible during estimates —

with information on just how those specific situations were dealt with

by PEP and what the juxtaposition was. I think that would be a very

useful set of examples for us in seeing just how the system works. I

would appreciate it if the minister would undertake that.

find the phrase "if it requires a PEP response" interesting. I would

assume that every time Environment Canada notifies PEP of a spill,

there would be a PEP staff person go to that site in person and assess

it from the perspective of the interests of British Columbia. Is that

the case, that there is actually in each of these cases an individual

who goes there to inspect it?

HON. MR. REE : I would

think not, because I don't think we're going to have people running all

over the province just to take a look at it. There are means of

assessment other than having someone actually go and be on the ground.

Friday

afternoon I was aware of what had taken place in Britannia. We had a

good PEP representative up there and arranged for the evacuations and

all contingencies so that everything would be safe. There was one

chance that something might go wrong, and we prepared for that

contingency. The one chance happened and something went wrong, and

there was no major property damage, no injury or loss of life as a

result of this preparation. I considered going to see the area, but I

got a further report at 5 o'clock on Friday evening, and because of the

assessment and the report, there was no need for me to go up.

This,

I think, can be the same with information that PEP receives. It will

make an assessment as to whether they need further information. If they

do, there may be ways of getting it without going on the scene; they

may have sufficient information to make an assessment. Or they may have

to go on the scene. I won't say that a member of PEP goes out to every

report.

MR. CASHORE : Even this one spill with three

barrels that we're talking about could be quite a significant problem

depending on where it is and whether it's a confined space or not. In

the vast majority of the cases that I've cited here, you would need to

have somebody on the scene in order to tell you whether or not further

work needs to be done on it. Are you saying that you decide on

somebody's hearsay whether or not it warrants an intervention on the

part of your staff?

HON. MR. REE : That would depend

on the reliability, competence, experience and the rest of it of

whoever is making the report to us. Yes, there may be times when we

would take it upon that report.

The member asked earlier

whether we would review the spills labelled on page 66; we will do that

and give you a written response. You probably forgot that you'd asked

me that question. But I remember your question, and I'll give you that

undertaking.

MR. CASHORE : I hadn't forgotten. I had it on my list here. I wanted to hear your answer to the question I just asked.

One

other thing on this Greenpeace report here. Under a

section entitled

"Solutions," they mention that government agencies don't really

regulate toxic shipping in the Strait of Georgia. Since his ministry

and the PEP program are often the first line of defence in dealing with

these situations — granted, there's the Chairman's point that there's an interface here with the Ministry of Environment —

could the minister advise the House what the process is for ensuring

that the Ministry of Environment is informed, particularly with regard

to the need to regulate toxic substances within the strait? How do you

make sure that the interface is covered? I'm sure the minister is aware

that a debate has been going on — I don't think we should have the debate now in the House —

on whether PEP should actually be under the Ministry of Environment.

Would the minister describe just how that interface works between his

ministry's PEP program and the Ministry of Environment?

[3:15]

HON. MR. REE :

It's quite simple: regional coordinators, upon being made aware of an

event, are responsible for notifying all parties that may be interested

in the event, whether it be the environment, highways, a mud slide,

forestry. The regional coordinator is there to notify people the minute

he's aware of an event. That's part of his obligations and

responsibilities.

[ Page 7078 ]

MR. CASHORE :

The reason I asked the question is that there's a statement in the

report that government agencies do not actually regulate toxic shipping

in the strait; they merely register amounts of dangerous substances

coming or going. Since the minister is responsible for dealing with

provincial emergencies, does he agree that it's adequate simply to

monitor the coming and going, but no actual regulation is taking place?

HON. MR. REE : I agree it's not adequate. That's why we as a provincial government — and our Premier —

are actively speaking to the federal government and to the states of

Washington, Oregon, California and Alaska to develop certain rules and

regulations with respect to the shipping of these dangerous goods down

our coast and to have some authority and control. It's also why I've

always been a very great supporter of the Mackenzie pipeline, so that

we could limit the tanker traffic off our coast and minimize the

opportunities for major spills like we had at Valdez.

MR. CASHORE : I would take it from the minister's comments that the minister has said regulations will be forthcoming.

HON. MR. REE :

I said we would like to have them. The member is well aware that the

jurisdiction is largely that of the federal government. I would hope

they would have the regulations. I hope that they would give us some

authority over controlling this. But at the moment, it is federal

jurisdiction; it is not provincial jurisdiction. I can make no comment

with respect to regulations. The member knows that, and I don't know

why he would ask such a question in the first place.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, we'll take it from that. As the minister has indicated,

the Premier is vigorously working to see that these regulations are

brought in— in consultation with the federal government — with dispatch. As he well knows, the environment cannot wait on cabinet meetings.

Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to turn now to the question of auto emission

inspections. As the minister knows, several weeks ago I asked him a

question in the House. The report of the task force on exhaust

emissions that was produced by the province of British Columbia, the

GVRD and the federal government pointed out that the amount of carbon

monoxide in the atmosphere has drastically increased in the last 15

years. I asked if the minister had decided to implement compulsory

automobile testing, which would include exhaust emission controls. At

that time it was my understanding that the minister said no. I would

like to ask the minister if that is still his position.

HON. MR. REE :

Mr. Chairman, the answer is still no. However, I have not decided on

compulsory testing, and that's what the "no" refers to; a decision has

not been made. As a result of the report you're talking about, I have

asked my superintendent of motor vehicles to look at the possibility of

checking exhaust emissions on all vehicles that are now required to

have annual and semiannual inspections and to develop the feasibility

of checking the emission inspections for those particular vehicles and

to let me know what the impact is. Those vehicles that require annual

and semiannual inspections are 8,500 kilograms and over. Those are, of

course, your heavier vehicles that per vehicle probably have more

exhaust fumes than other vehicles, because being larger, they consume

more fuel.

With regard to smaller vehicles, I would look to

that possibly in conjunction with the Ministry of Environment. If and

when we bring in compulsory vehicle inspection, possibly the exhaust

emissions could also be part of that inspection. In other words, we're

not sitting on it; we are actively looking at the vehicle inspection

aspect. In fact, as you well know, tomorrow the chairman of the traffic

safety directorate, Mr. Keith Godfrey, will be in place in his office,

and his office will be open for business. One of the matters he's

charged with looking at — as far as traffic safety goes — is bringing in compulsory vehicle inspections throughout the province.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the answer, but we're still left in the dark

with regard to what is going to happen. In view of the fact that this

has come up in the past, would the minister comment on the possibility

of considering roadside inspections?

HON. MR. REE :

The member says he's in the dark. I would anticipate that if the

opposition were the government, they'd turn around and say: "Tomorrow

everybody will be inspected." There will be no facilities available to

inspect people, and it would be a sham. I will not operate that way;

I'll operate in a responsible manner and see that the two go together:

the demand for inspection and the facilities for inspection.

With

regard to roadside inspections commencing July 1 of this year, we will

be having more intensive vehicle inspection on the highways. A lot of

it will be directed to the older vehicles on the highways. It will

involve not only motor vehicle personnel; it will involve the police.

The police aren't always competent to check emissions, but they are

certainly competent to see when a muffler is defective, making a lot of

noise or is loose; the same with our motor vehicle inspectors. As I

say, we will be enhancing that as of July 1 this year. Should the

vehicles appear to be defective, they will be ordered to have them

repaired within 30 days, or failing that, their vehicle licence may be

lifted.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, surely the

minister doesn't see that as being a program that's going to address

the incredible problem we have with regard to hydrocarbons in the lower

mainland. Is the minister suggesting that these roadside inspections

he's referring to, starting July 1, will address the issue of

[ Page 7079 ]

hydrocarbon emissions? I'd like to get you on the record on that.

HON. MR. REE :

No, it will not address it 100 percent. But there are not the

facilities or programs set up for us to say that effective June 1 all

vehicles must be checked for emission control. There aren't the

facilities within the province to check all the vehicles. So a program

would have to be developed.

As a result of the report

you've got, the GVRD, Environment and motor vehicle branch are working

together in a program studying that issue, and they're going to be

coming back with recommendations. Yes, we are actively looking at it.

We are taking some steps now where the means are there. We hope to be

taking further steps along the line.

Certainly it's the

older cars and bigger trucks that have the biggest exhausts. The newer

cars, as you know, have certain built-in catalytic converters — or whatever they're called — to minimize the emissions

do know there are a lot of repair places and muffler places where when

you go in to replace the newer mufflers they will just put in a

straight old manifold or exhaust pipe and muffler and not put the

converter in it. We've got to look at these things. But it's basically

the older cars we've got the problem with and our heavier and bigger

trucks, and those we're doing.

MR. LOVICK : I'm sure

the minister will agree with me that mandatory and compulsory are

synonyms. Is that correct, Mr. Minister? Will you accept that

proposition? Mandatory and compulsory mean the same thing. Is that

right? You can nod if you wish.

HON. MR. REE : The

member for Nanaimo is the authority of the House on grammar, wording,

pronunciation, prose and everything else, so I'll take what he has to

say — whether it's synonymous or not.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The meaning of the two is obviously not identical or they wouldn't need two.

MR. LOVICK : We could have a little fun on that particular debate if we wished, Mr. Chairman.

The reason I asked that question — and it isn't entirely facetious —

is just that I noticed the Solicitor-General bridled at the suggestion

made by my colleague about some kind of compulsory testing.

Curiously

enough, however, we have a press release dated May 1 in which your

colleague the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is quoted as

saying: "The report of the task force will be used to develop a

mandatory inspection and maintenance program for cars and small trucks

in the Greater Vancouver Regional District." Which also, I might add,

sounds like a good definition of comprehensive to me. I note further

that this particular task force is one comprised of a number of

different groups, one of which — surprise, surprise — is the motor vehicle branch under the Ministry of Solicitor General.

The

question I would pose is: are you and your colleague still speaking, or

are you about to chastise him for the position he's taking, which

clearly seems to be different from the one you're taking?

HON. MR. REE :

I'm very disappointed in the member for Nanaimo. With his command of

said. He talks about compulsory and mandatory being synonymous, but I

would suggest what I have informed the member for the great community

of Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) is synonymous with the press

release. If the member wishes to read the Blues.... Should I educate

him on this? It says, "develop a program." That is basically what I was

saying. We are looking at the thing to develop something and take a

look at it. We're not going to put it in place tomorrow.

MR. LOVICK : I have no intention whatsoever of belabouring this particular point, but let me clarify for the minister's sake.

suggested in the House two days after the announcement was made that he

was not supportive of any kind of comprehensive testing system.

HON. MR. REE : I did not.

MR. LOVICK : You did so. I can quote you from Hansard . It's here.

HON. MR. REE : I did not; you read it.

MR. LOVICK : I've read it.

Similarly, a few minutes ago — we can check Hansard —

you bridled at the suggestion made by my colleague about a mandatory

testing system. Instead you obfuscated and waffled around so nobody on

this side of the House could tell what it was you are apparently

committed to.

[3:30]

Now we discover you're apparently enamoured of the process of

looking into a testing system to protect us from emissions. When,

however, my colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam poses the question,

we have to spend ten minutes to get a straight answer. Why did we have

to go through that agony? Surely you could have spelled out very

clearly in a matter of moments, "This is the proposal we are intending

to put forward; this is what my ministry intends to do about the

problem of emissions testing." Unfortunately you didn't; thus we had to

go through this exercise.

HON. MR. REE : Mr.

Chairman, I did exactly that in as few words as possible. When the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) asked me the other day

whether we had made a decision, I used a single two-letter word: no. We

had not made a decision at that time. We have not made the decision at

this time to make it mandatory or anything else. We are certainly

looking at what we're going to do on this, and we are moving to it. The

answer the other

[ Page 7080 ]

day, n as simple, short and concise a method as possible, still stood for that day.

MR. LOVICK :

I hasten to point out, in all sincerity, that I was not about to quote

for the record, but this is too good an opportunity. Let me quote the

lucid answer that we received from the Solicitor-General to my

colleague's question, the second question in the Legislature, which I

defy anybody to interpret: "I think, Mr. Speaker, my answer to that

question — which is put as the first question was put, as a double: do you think what, when or how? —

would be the same as to the first question: no." I don't mean to be

unkind, but if you think that's clear, Mr. Minister, you're asking us

to make a giant leap that would make Debbie Brill look like a piker.

But

that wasn't my reason for standing, Mr. Minister. Instead, I want to

pose a couple of very simple and direct questions under this heading.

Could the minister please clarify for us the policy of commercial

inspection that we now do? That process goes on, of course, for

commercial vehicles. I want to know the status of the inspection

certificate. In other words, when a particular truck driver goes into

an inspection station and has his vehicle — or her vehicle, in some cases — inspected,

that individual is then issued some kind of certificate saying they

have indeed completed that, they pay a fee of, I think, $120 or

something, and that ought to be good for a particular period of time.

Can the minister clarify for me whether that is the case?

HON. MR. REE :

The inspection is basically one year for smaller vehicles, six months

for larger vehicles. The fee charged is commensurate with the weight of

the vehicle, and evidence must be produced at the time of licensing the

vehicle.

MR. LOVICK : Could it happen that an

individual would go to a particular licensed inspection facility and be

told: "You have a problem with the kingpin It'll probably be okay for

about six months. I'll give you your certificate, but you should get it

fixed within a particular period of time"? That individual drives off

down the street, sticker displayed proudly and prominently, and is then

caught in a random check and told: "No, that particular piece of

equipment needs to be fixed right now. We're pulling your vehicle off

the road." In other words, your inspection certificate isn't worth the

price you pay for it. Could that happen?

HON. MR. REE : Yes, that could happen if the party wanted to be a party

to that fraud, you might say, or that misrepresentation of the safety of his

vehicle if his vehicle subsequently became unsafe. If he knew the vehicle was

going to become unsafe and did not get it repaired, he could be placed in that

position. It could also happen that his lights might be good at the time of

the inspection, but when he's stopped after the inspection, one of his headlights

is out. Mind you, they wouldn't take his vehicle off the road unless there

were other glaring faults with the vehicle, but he would be ordered to get his

headlight repaired.

MR. LOVICK :

To judge from the answer, I'm not sure whether I explained the question

clearly enough. I don't think we're dealing with the same question. The

issue concerns the individual who goes to the inspection station, is

told that a certain amount of work or a certain piece of work needs to

be done within a period of, say, six months, and gets the certificate

because the certified mechanic has said, "Yes, effective today your

vehicle is okay." The individual then pulls out of the station and on

the same day is given an official inspection by one of the roving

squads and told: "Your vehicle is defective." If that happens, Mr.

Minister, then we're also telling that self-same individual: "The

inspection certificate you paid for wasn't worth paying for." My

question is, could that happen?

HON. MR. REE : Yes,

this could happen. Maybe the person who did the inspection didn't

follow the guidelines properly; the vehicle is pulled over and might be

taken off the road. Even with all good intentions and the driver not

being a part of any fraud or other untoward act, this could happen. But

I would think the owner of the vehicle would have recourse to the place

that did the original inspection and could say, "Look, you haven't

followed the guidelines. You have caused me a problem. I've lost money,

and I'm going to sue you, " or something like that.

MR. JONES : I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. JONES :

Joining us today in the gallery are 45 bright young minds from Lochdale

Community School in North Burnaby. It's always tremendous to see the

bright young minds from my community, and they are certainly welcome in

the House. I would ask all members in the House to join me in welcoming

those bright young minds.

MR. LOVICK : One is almost

tempted to make the observation that bright young minds are really

noticed around here. That's perhaps a little subtle.

Just

to pursue, if I might, with the minister, do I understand you

correctly, Mr. Solicitor-General, that the remedy the individual to

whom this happens has is a lawsuit or going to talk to the person who

performed the work and saying, "Look, you did me wrong and therefore I

want you to fix it or make some kind of amends"? Is that what you're

saying, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. REE : Yes, that is

part of the remedy; but we also have senior inspectors. The person that

did the original inspection can have his licence withdrawn and things

like this. No, we will not recompense the owner of the vehicle for the

loss; but we will take the action, if necessary, against the

[ Page 7081 ]

original

inspector for not doing his job responsibly. It's up to the owner of

the vehicle to get any arrangement with the inspector.

MR LOVICK :

How then does the Solicitor-General's ministry or the motor vehicle

department learn of the fact that this work, done by an ostensibly

qualified inspector, was inadequate. How do they learn that? Is that

only by a complaint from an individual?

HON. MR. REE :

It can be by a complaint from the individual, but we also would learn

probably at the time the vehicle is stopped and looked at by the

inspector on the highway. The owner is going to say: "Here's my

certificate. I just had my vehicle inspected and I'm told it was

right." The roadside man is going to know too. I would hope that he's

energetic enough and has initiative enough — most of the people in my ministry are — that he would follow up on something like that.

MR. LOVICK :

Okay. I would just leave the question with the minister by saying he is

content, then, that there is no great need for improvement to the

system; that things are working as they ought.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK : Well, the minister is articulating words to the effect that there is always room for improvement.

question is to the minister, very directly. Do you see any need at the

moment to investigate the system and see if this phenomenon that I

describe — and obviously I'm not making it up; it comes from a particular complaint —

is perhaps widespread? Do you have sufficient checks and balances to

protect the consumers, the purchasers of that service, against bad

practices on the part of the certified inspectors? That's all.

HON. MR. REE :

I would hope that there is, but there's always room for inspection in

any system that we have. It should be continually audited, and that is

why we have roadside inspections, and roadside inspections are creating

an audit for those inspection places, the licensed inspectors. It's

part of the audit system. If we come up with deficiencies, then we've

got to look at that to improve upon it. I guess unfortunately — or fortunately — we are all human and we don't have all of the answers all of the time to start with. Events happen that you don't foresee.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REE :

I don't fall within the category of bright young minds because of my

age. I know there may be a few others who because of age also don't

fall within that category. My age excludes me from being young.

Sometimes I wish I were 20 minutes younger.

MR. LOVICK :

Appropriately enough, that comment was addressed to somebody whose grey

locks bespeak his two score years and five, and all that. I couldn't

resist.

Just a couple of other quick questions to the

minister, and then some of my colleagues have some other issues they

want to address.

I'm wondering if I can establish for

clarification's sake with the minister exactly what has finally

happened with the ongoing saga of pilot cars. I notice a smile crossing

the face of your colleague, the superintendent, Mr. Jackman, and that's

because we have been involved in this particular casework for about two

years now. Indeed, I would compliment your staff. They have certainly

been most cooperative in answering my queries and arranging meetings

with the various people affected. I appreciate that cooperation and

help and would like to commend them.

As I understand it,

what has happened is that the policy to effectively change the

regulation whereby the allowable width has been increased somewhat is

given, is fixed, and is not about to be changed. Where you have met the

interests of the industry operators, the pilot car association and

others, where you have responded to the concerns that I've

expressed — and certainly not me alone — is effectively to

stipulate that there are some six or seven roads which are effectively

exempted from the pilot car regulation.

I shouldn't say

"exempted from." The old system still obtains that vehicles over 10

feet 6 inches in width still require a pilot car. That's the

compromise, I take it. Beyond that, we aren't going to talk about any

other changes to the policy for roads other than those specified in

that particular statement. The rules are now that we no longer need

pilot cars for vehicles up to — what is the width now, 12 feet? Is

that about right? It used to be 10 feet 6 inches, and now it's 12 or

something. Anyway, the minister catches my drift; I don't need to read

into the record all the details. Perhaps he can bring us up to date on

that.

HON. MR. REE : I have met with the pilot car

association or the nucleus of the association. I have also met with the

truckers. We have suggested that we pass our comments to each other and

that they get together and try to come down with some recommendations

or to give us a brief on their concerns on where we can improve this

system and on where we may or may not need pilot cars.

With

regard to the width, it's 11.6, not 12. The pilot car people asked us

to look at certain roads, and we have undertaken to go and look at

certain roads where pilot cars weren't required. They suggest that we

may need them there because of the width of bridges or some sort of

thing, or because of the nature of a curve or tunnel, and we've

undertaken to do that. That is the position at the moment; it's a

wait-and-see until they come back to us with some information. We will

be talking to them. I am meeting with truckers and the truckers'

association all the

[ Page 7082 ]

time, and they are keeping me updated on the programs that they are involved in.

[3:45]

MR. LOVICK :

I am delighted to hear that discussions are ongoing and that there is

perhaps room for other changes to the existing policy which, as you

know, has been responded to by large numbers of people, many of whom

have expressed concerns about safety, in rather strong terms in some

cases, as I am sure the minister is familiar with.

Again,

all I can say is that I am very pleased to hear that you are still

listening. I am happy to report that yes, indeed, there has been that

compromise, that X number of roads have been excluded from the new

policy. That's good, and I hope that those ongoing discussions will

entertain the very real and serious concerns that people have about

certain roads in this province beyond the six or seven stipulated,

which in the minds of those who drive them on a regular basis still

pose a hazard and therefore ought to be addressed. I am pleased to hear

that.

I have a couple of other quick questions, if I might,

about the whole area of transportation and the needs of the disabled.

Most of this, of course, was canvassed under the B.C. Transit estimates

and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) responsible

therefore.

One of the areas recommended, however, in those

elaborate briefs and discussion papers about what we could do to make

access easier for disabled individuals had to do with taxicabs. Insofar

as taxicabs and licensing of them come under the regulation of motor

vehicle licensing, I am wondering if the minister has given any thought

to the idea of imposing some requirement whereby a certain number of

taxicabs that come on stream — new licences and so forth — might

be required to be handicapped-accessible. Has any thought been given to

that? It is a recommendation, I believe, in one of those reports on

access for the handicapped. Can you tell me that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR- REE :

I am informed that the Motor Carrier Commission has been actively

looking at this, as well as the city of Vancouver in granting their

licences. I am not aware of any conclusion on this. I am pleased to

note that North Shore Taxi in my riding is now getting vehicles that

can take handicapped — wheelchairs, power lifts and the rest of

it. I commend the organization for that, because this can fill in and

help minimize the demand on the handyDART system.

MR. MILLER :

I don't know if the minister responded to my last query before I had to

leave the House. He could indicate if he did, and I will sit down and

listen to him. No? Well, in that case, I will have to go through some

of the documentation I had to go get. I am again referring the minister

back to the issue of regulating on the Queen Charlotte Islands. Just

for the minister's benefit, I will kind of take him through the steps.

The

truckers there got together. They had a public meeting. Pretty well

every transportation organization on the Charlottes was at the meeting

last August. They had in attendance Lief Bengtsson of the motor carrier

branch and Gerry Morris, chairman of the Motor Carrier Commission,

along with the local RCMP. As a result of those meetings, there was an

exchange of correspondence between the parties.

So here we

have this group of independent businessmen who advertised a meeting to

deal with the issue of regulation of their industry. All the companies

on the Queen Charlotte Islands that are in the transportation business

were represented at the meeting. There was a thorough discussion. They

set about in a very good fashion to discover what the pros and cons of

regulation to their industry meant.

In addition to that

discussion they had with the officials present, they also submitted a

list of questions which were responded to by Mr. Bengtsson on September

16, 1988. A lot of the questions deal with what the impact is of

regulation in terms of, specifically, licence fees, ability to increase

rates and new entrants into the market. Particularly, question number

one on their list was: "Is it possible to have the Queen Charlotte

Islands regulated as a separate zone and not part of the Prince Rupert

area?" The response to that was: "Yes."

Part 1 of the Motor Carrier

Act, regulation exemptions, 1(g), refers to exempting a number of

islands lying between Vancouver Island and the mainland. One can simply

add the Queen Charlotte Island group to that exclusion. This would take

a legislative process. It could quite easily be accomplished.

In conclusion — the final question —

the group of truckers asked this: "The Motor Carrier Commission is set

up to protect the public. In which way does the commission help the

carriers?" The answer is:

"Under

section 36 of the Motor Carrier Act, it is the duty

of the Motor Carrier Commission to regulate motor carriers with the object of

promoting adequate and efficient service and reasonable and just charges for

it and of promoting safety on the public highways, and of fostering sound economic

conditions in the transportation business in the province. The last statement,

I think, would be most applicable to your particular question. When the Motor

Carrier Commission regulates the industry, they attempt to issue the number

of licences required to service an area in a sound business fashion."

That answer from Mr. Bengtsson really does sum up the philosophy behind regulating

the transportation industry. It really has nothing to do with Eric Blair and

any books he might have written, Mr. Minister. It has to do with maintaining

an efficient industry for the benefit of the users of the transportation service

and for the benefit of those in the business.

think, Mr. Minister, that they have made a reasonable case. I think

that they have quite properly followed a number of very sensible steps

in learning about the impact of regulation on their businesses, and

have come to the conclusion — and really I would contend that Mr. Bengtsson's letter seems to bear out their contention — that regulation would be

[ Page 7083 ]

good for the people in the trucking or transportation business on the Queen Charlotte Islands.

the face of that kind of logical, reasonable approach, I really do

believe that it's incumbent on the minister to offer a full explanation

to this group of business people, because I don't think that their

demands are unreasonable at all. I just think that the minister

standing up and saying, "We don't see any particular benefit," doesn't

really deal with the situation they have raised. So I would be pleased

to hear the minister respond, now that I was able to get some documents

and back up the argument I was making before I left.

HON. MR. REE :

As I said, on the recommendations of the chairman, we did not pursue

the order-in-council to regulate the Queen Charlottes as an area. At

the moment, considering the economics of the area and the amount of

freight to be hauled on the highways within the Charlottes, I still

support the proposition that it is not warranted. Should the economy

develop and you end up with a mine or more heavy-duty industry in there

with a fair bit of trucking coming in from outside of the Charlottes,

then I would consider deregulating it as a zone in order to protect the

truckers on the Charlottes from others coming In.

At the

moment, I don't see any particular problem on it. Any trucker now

coming into the Charlottes must be registered on the mainland and is

already registered to Rupert or to any other communication. I can't see

the competition on the Charlottes at this time for the amount of

freight there is. We will always continue to look at it. We will always

monitor on it. We will continue to talk to the industry on the

Charlottes. At this point in time, I have not signed such an

order-in-council or requested it.

MR. MILLER : First

of all, dealing with the last point the minister made that any trucks

coming on have to already be regulated, of course they do. I think the

first question and answer I read dealt with that point. Did the

minister hear what I was saying when I was reading this letter? Were

you aware of what I just read out, in terms of that very point?

Well,

I'll read it again: "Is it possible to have the Queen Charlotte Islands

regulated as a separate zone and not part of the Prince Rupert area?"

The answer is yes. Then it goes on to define the fact that that has

been noted. Item 1(

g) of the Motor Carrier Act regulations refers to

exempting a number of islands lying between Vancouver Island and the

mainland. Clearly the commission has dealt with this type of situation

before. They have a specific regulation to deal with it. Obviously it

probably applies in some other parts of the province. I haven't done

that checking. Maybe the minister could advise me whether there are

parallels in terms of the situation the Charlottes is in. But clearly

these people are faced with competition from off-island.

It seems to me that you could almost make a case, given the mandate of regulation — which, as I read out, is there to promote an efficient industry from the point of view of the users and the owners —

that you have a stronger need to regulate on a place like the Queen

Charlotte Islands. If the minister's contention is that the volume of

business simply doesn't exist to warrant regulation, it would seem to

me that those people are in an even more tenuous position when people

come from the outside to take what limited business there is. In fact,

the arguments you use, I think, you're using wrongly. I think the

arguments you're using really back up the truckers' contention and my

contention that they are probably more in need of the protection that

regulation affords than perhaps truckers in the lower mainland, where

there is a sufficient volume of business to allow more competition.

Would the minister respond to that argument? It seems to me a pretty

valid one.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. REE :

We will have my superintendent of motor vehicles or the chairman of the

commission meet with them again and look it over again. But as far as

I'm concerned, unless there has been some major change, I can't see the

granting of making it a regulated zone. It would be a separate zone, as

your letter said, and that's what I said — I heard your letter.

And it's done by order-in-council under the regulations; that's the

process. There is another area of the province also that is not

regulated — and I have no intention at this point of pursuing having it regulated —

and that's in the Stewart-Atlin area. The Stewart-Atlin area is not

regulated, so there is a parallel between the Charlottes and that area.

I say, we'll look at it again. We'll continue to look at it again.

We'll look at it with an open mind. If the argument is there for it, it

will have it. But at this point, on the former information I had, the

argument is not there. But we'll look for it.

[4:00]

MR. MILLER :

Well, just for clarification, Mr. Minister, I appreciate what you're

saying, if I'm interpreting it correctly: that you're prepared to have

your officials meet again with the people on the Charlottes. I don't

know if they've formed an association; I don't think they have. But

they obviously have come together as a group. You will meet with them

again and revisit the issue, and see if there is sufficient reason to

have the area regulated. Okay. I appreciate that very much.

I just wanted to quickly ask you a couple of questions about — and I don't know whether you were canvassed on this —

the whole question of driver training and the age question in terms of

drivers' licences. I've long held the belief that there should be

mandatory driver training for first-time drivers, young people

particularly. I suppose I should say that I remain to be convinced that

the age should not be increased. I don't know whether your officials

have particular statistics that would support that kind of argument:

both points, whether mandatory driver training would in fact create

safer drivers....

[ Page 7084 ]

Interjection.

MR. MILLER :

Compulsory? Yes. And I believe they are synonymous, Mr. Minister. And

you can also advise me who Eric Blair is, when you get up. You referred

to a book he wrote called 1984 .

those two points. I've seen too many young people of my acquaintance

killed in highway accidents in my area, and I'm sure other members

could stand up and speak about that in their areas as well. Obviously

there is an element, I think, of irresponsibility at times —

speed, alcohol. But it really is devastating to me as a parent who is

now seeing our last child graduate from high school, and two before

that. It really has been devastating to me and to my children to see

some of their friends die in very tragic highway accidents. As a

parent, I think anybody who's raised children feels very strongly about

those things.

I think there should be mandatory driver

training I know in some states they do it through the schools. Whether

that's feasible or practical, or whether there could be some attempt to

introduce some elements of driver training — maybe not the actual vehicle driving —

in classroom situations in the high schools, I don't know. Anything

that could be done to develop better, more responsible drivers is

really worthwhile.

I'm not talking about costs. I don't

know what kind of costs we'd be looking at to do that. I'd refer you to

the statement of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr.

Vant) who said that the Coquihalla saved 18 lives. I'm not suggesting

that seriously, but maybe the minister could advise me whether the

ministry has looked at developing any programs perhaps in conjunction

with the schools and at the issue of the age at which people can

acquire a driver's licence.

HON. MR. REE : I doubt if

anybody in this House is more seriously concerned than I with respect

to the carnage on our highways. It is unacceptable the number of people

we kill and injure out there every year, every day and every minute of

every day.

I appreciate the member's comments about having

his children graduate and having their friends killed at graduation

ceremonies because they haven't got the proper training or the

responsibility for operating the motor vehicles. I appreciate his

comments that driver training could help. I think driver training could

help in a lot of instances, but it's certainly not the end-all.

Unfortunately,

we found that where there was driving training, a certain individual

might need more hours of training to benefit. But because the

compulsory end of driver training said you had to have ten hours, eight

hours or something like that, they had their eight hours and said:

"Look, I've had my eight hours, and I'm entitled to a licence." But

they weren't qualified to drive.

Mr. Chairman, last Friday

we installed the first electronic driver-training machine in my riding

in North Vancouver. As a test, we will have them throughout the whole

lower mainland before the summer is over and in Prince George, Salmon

Arm and Fort St. John, I believe. This machine is to test the new

applicant, the young driver or the new driver for their assessment of

the road, knowledge of the rules and methods of reacting to situations.

It portrays actual road situations. The question is asked, and the

person has four choices to pick the correct answer from. I've looked at

it. It's a great step forward from the written test we had.

What

we have to find out is not about compulsory training, but what

knowledge that person has of the road and of driving at the time we

give the licence. In other words, don't give them a licence because

they've had so many hours of training; give them a licence because

they're competent and capable of driving. That's the criteria we

operate on.

The member talks about age. He's not too

convinced yet that it should be increased or otherwise. Unfortunately,

I don't think some people at age 16 are ready to drive. There are

people at 20 and at 35 who aren't ready to drive. But there are people

at 16 who are ready to drive, and we always look to ourselves at times

as being the ultimate. I got my driver's licence at 15, and I felt I

was quite competent to drive. I think my first year of driving was

quite good. It was later that I had some problems in driving. As a

novice driver, I think I was far safer than when I wasn't quite as much

a novice. My poor father had to suffer a few times, and I have suffered

for my sons. Fortunately, they have never killed or seriously injured

anybody. I never have either, and I hope none of us here in this House

has.

I got the quickest safety driving lesson on July 6

last year when I took over this ministry. I'm very concerned about it,

but I don't think compulsory or mandatory driver training — whichever it is — is the necessary solution to it.

MR. MILLER :

I think there's a world of difference between being able to pass the

test and responsibility. I agree with you that it's not an easy task to

define that, but I suppose like everything else, you tend to think that

education over a period of time does have an impact. In that regard,

perhaps less emphasis on particular driver training.... I don't know

what courses they take now in school. Things keep changing a lot, but

they used to have a course when I went to school that was part of our

physical education — I forget what they called it. Nonetheless, we

learned a fair amount of what you'd call life skills things. I'm sure

there are probably courses now where there could be an element of

responsible driving introduced. But I'll leave it at that for now, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. GUNO : Mr. Chairman, a couple of weeks

ago, maybe longer, I raised during question period to the

Solicitor-General the need to provide condoms to prisoners in the

provincial jails. I did this because I thought it was a very serious

health issue, and there was the chance that the prisons would become

major spawning grounds for the spread of AIDS. The minister replied

rather brusquely to that question, and I want to be able to examine the

reasons for

[ Page 7085 ]

ignoring

the advice of his own experts and one of the top AIDS experts in B.C.

My colleague the member for Point Grey will examine this further.

HON. MR. REE :

Mr. Chairman, the member asked if the government had made a decision,

and my answer was no. My answer now is the same. I'm just curious,

though. I know if I ask the member for Atlin a question, the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam will stand up and say that the members on the

opposition don't have to answer questions; only ministers have to

answer questions. Is it purely for protection against the dreaded

disease of AIDS that the member is suggesting that this report be

adopted?

MR. CHAIRMAN : I don't think we're going to

have to wait for other members to advise you of what the

responsibilities are. I might refer you to any of the recent editions

of Sir Erskine May, which lay out very plainly — and, in fact, even the MacMinn book on parliamentary practice — the responsibilities of a minister during estimates.

MR. PERRY :

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to pursue this issue briefly but in a certain

depth. As I understood the minister's response just now — and I was having a little difficulty hearing it, so he will correct me, I'm sure, if I'm wrong —

it was consistent with his response during question period a few weeks

ago, which was that the government has decided not to provide condoms.

If I misunderstood, maybe you could state the current position before I

go on.

HON. MR. REE : The question was: has the

government decided? I said: "No, the government hasn't made a

decision." That's what it means. I said no.

MR. PERRY :

Mr. Chairman, it's an important distinction, and I'm very relieved to

hear it and encouraged by that. I would like to deal with the situation

in a bit more detail though. I just want to paraphrase first Dr.

Norbert Gilmore, who is the former chairman of the National Advisory

Committee on AIDS. He was the first chairman and served as chairman

until, I guess, late March or early April when he resigned in

frustration, in part with the federal government's response to the AIDS

epidemic and to the recommendations of the National Advisory Committee.

He is a very distinguished immunologist who works at the Royal Victoria

Hospital in Montreal. He's also a professor at the McGill Centre for

Medicine, Ethics and Law.

[4:15]

If I can paraphrase him — I think accurately — he points

out that paradoxically in our society those people who are most at risk

of contacting human immuno-deficiency virus — the AIDS virus —

are not being given the opportunity to protect themselves, and our

society as a whole is thereby is not taking the necessary measures to

protect itself. In the case of the prison system, not only are we not

giving prisoners the same human rights to protect themselves against an

infection which is uniformly fatal but we're not protecting ourselves

as a society from those....

HON. MFL REE : Can you keep going for ten minutes?

MR. PERRY : I think the Chairman has advised that I'm not to answer questions from the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Absolutely, The Chair will insist on it.

MR. PERRY :

With the minister's permission, I'll continue, at the Chair's advice.

But I think this is important material for the minister's attention,

even if he has to read it tomorrow and not listen to it right now. I

think that's a very important point that Dr. Gilmore has made.

Let

me quote also from a report by Dr. Gilmore and Margo Somerville of the

McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, entitled "Human

Immunodeficiency Virus Antibody Testing in Canada, " published by

Health and Welfare Canada this year. There's a paragraph under the

heading "Testing of Persons Incarcerated in Correctional Facilities":

"There

are strong ethical obligations, indeed imperatives, to provide

prisoners with the means necessary to act responsibly, and to protect

themselves and others. This includes ensuring prisoners have free and

infection and transmission, and HIV antibody testing that is voluntary,

and that efforts are made to encourage safe sexual conduct and to

prevent sharing of injection equipment during drug use when such

activities may occur."

They are referring to such activities occurring in prisons.

The

National Advisory Committee on AIDS had reviewed the same situation

earlier and made a recommendation on April 22, 1987 — recommendation 8.1.6.7, in the official jargon — which is that:

"With

respect to inmates in Canadian correctional institutes: (

a) that major

emphasis be placed on the development and distribution of educational

programs for both prisoners and staff; (

b) that immediate action,

including any necessary change in rules or regulations, be taken to

develop and distribute educational programs for all prisoners and staff

correctional facilities...."

Let me also point out that

these are not exclusively recommendations from a narrow-focused

national advisory committee. I don't think it is a narrow-focused

committee; it's wide-based, but some might argue that it represents

only one segment of medical opinion.

Let me cite the

recommendations of the Royal Society of Canada, a very august and

conservative body, which advised the federal government in a report

dated April 27, 1988, in recommendation 27: "We recommend that condoms

be made available for inmates in correctional institutions and for

others who choose not to refrain from sexual behaviours that could

transmit HIV." HIV is the AIDS virus. Recommendation 29 says: "We

recommend that facili-

[ Page 7086 ]

ties for decontaminating needles be made available to inmates in correctional institutions."

point out that I'm talking about not only the need to provide

protection against sexual transmission with condoms but also the need

to protect against intravenous transmission using contaminated needles

in prisons. This need has been recognized worldwide.

quote from a report on the World Health Organization's "Consultation on

Prevention and Control of AIDS in Prisons, " which was a meeting held

in Geneva in November 1987. I am quoting from the Lancet , the most widely circulated medical journal in the world, of November 28, 1987. This has been read all over the world:

"The Consultation concluded that the general principles

of national AIDS control programs should apply equally in prisons as in the

general community. The policies and responsibilities of prison administrations

should be developed in close cooperation with health authorities and be clearly

defined in publicly available guidelines, which include undertakings that:

(1) prison administrations, in close contact collaboration with health administrators,

recognize their responsibility to minimize the chances of transmission of HIV

in prison, and consequently in the general community when prisoners are released;

(2) prisoners should be treated in the same way as other members of the community,

including the same right of access to up-to-date information on AIDS and education

programs designed to minimize spread of the disease, particularly high-risk

sexual behaviour, prostitution and intravenous drug abuse, and the prevention

measures outlined in those programs...."

It goes on to talk about testing, etc.

The same World

Health Organization "Consultation" points out.... This is in the World

Health Organization primary document, not the

article in the Lancet . I would be happy to make copies of these available to the minister and to Hansard for reference

quote from

section D of the World Health Organization Consultation

Report of 1987: "Prison authorities have the responsibility to ensure

the safety of prisoners and staff and to ensure that the risk of HIV

spread within prison is minimized.... Careful consideration should be

given to making condoms available in the interest of disease

prevention." The "Consultation" also recognized that "...within some

lower-security correctional facilities, the practicability of making

sterile needles available is worthy of further study."

could go on; I've got many more documents here. I think, in the

interests of time, I'll spare the minister, but I can pass this on to

him if he wishes It's a report of the third national conference on AIDS

in Australia in August 1988, published by the Australian Government

Publishing Service, and some discussions of the problems in prisons

worldwide.

Let me just point out what we know about the

extent of this problem. In trying to prepare for these debates, I've

attempted to find out what, if any, evidence there is of the prevalence

of HIV or AIDS infection in Canadian prisons now. It emerges that we

know virtually nothing about this, because we have not been very brisk

about testing prisoners either at admission to prisons, at discharge or

even in high-risk groups within prisons. But what do we know from the

rest of the world?

I'll quote from an

article in the same Lancet

edition of November 28, 1987, entitled "AIDS in Prison" by Dr. T.W.

Harding of the University Institute of Legal Medicine in Geneva. "In

Switzerland a cross-sectional study of screening results from five

establishments for adult prisoners showed a prevalence of 11 percent of

seropositives." That means 11 percent of the prisoners were infected

with the AIDS virus, and possibly more were infected but were not

detected by those tests. "In France, 500 consecutive entries were

screened at Fresnes prison, and 12.6 percent were found to be

seropositive." I quote again: "A French prison doctor has calculated

that the rate of seropositivity among prisoners is between 50 and 200

times higher than that of the general population."

That

again makes the point Dr. Norbert Gilmore of the National Advisory

Committee on AIDS makes: prison populations are at least potentially

the highest-risk populations, where the chance of transmission may be

the highest — perhaps not quite so high as among some other

segments of society, but much higher than society at large. Therefore

it is a population where we need to focus attention and not hide from

the problem.

I quote again from this article: "In Italy,

all new entries to prison are tested for anti-HIV, and in Spain at-risk

groups have been screened. The rate of seropositivity in Italian

prisoners was 16.8 percent; in Spanish prisoners" — that's in a special group of prisoners —

"it was nearly 26 percent." Lower figures were achieved in Belgium:

only 1.3 percent; in Luxembourg, 2.1 percent. In some countries the

AIDS virus infection was not found in prisoners.

So we

don't know, in my view, what the situation is in Canadian prisons,

except that we have very good evidence to suggest that the AIDS virus

is present in prisoners in Canadian prisons including, presumably, some

of the British Columbia prisons under the authority of the

Solicitor-General. We have every reason to believe, from sociological

studies of prisons and from the biology of the disease, that the virus

is potentially being transmitted in our prisons now.

I see

the Solicitor-General shaking his head. This is not only the advice of

the recent chairman of the National Advisory Committee on AIDS; it's

the advice of the World Health Organization "Consultation" and of many

people reporting at the last international AIDS conference in

Stockholm. The same message will be repeated next week in Montreal at

the AIDS conference. It's the advice, as I understand it, of our own

Ministry of Health staff. Those in the sexual disease control division,

who have the most relevant expertise, are very worried about the

possibility that prisoners and potentially staff will be infected

within prisons, and that prisoners leaving our correctional facilities

will continue to infect people in the broader community.

think this calls for the most serious possible discussion. It calls for

action as rapidly as one can achieve consensus within the relevant

health profes-

[ Page 7087 ]

sions

and the corrections branch. It is perhaps not even dependent on

consensus, but upon leadership from government. The consequences that

we face for every case of AIDS that we do not prevent are monstrous.

They're monstrous for the patient who is inflicted with a fatal

disease, which imposes suffering for months or years; they're monstrous

for the families involved and they're monstrous in financial terms for

society, since we know that the cost of caring for an AIDS patient is

currently estimated to be in the range of $200,000 over their life and

will go up.

I'd like to hear in more depth from the

Solicitor-General what actions he and his department are taking, and

what coordination he has with the Minister of Health to act responsibly

to deal with this problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The matter has been canvassed very thoroughly,

HON. MR. REE :

I thank the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey for his extensive

comments on the subject matter, which was introduced and explored by

the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno). But then the critic of the ministry is

not as senior as the heir apparent to the Leader of the Opposition, so

I presume that that is why the member for Point Grey commenced and took

over the questioning when the member for Atlin was in the process of

examining the subject matter. Maybe the heir apparent will learn some

of the courtesies in due course.

[4:30]

The member for Point Grey did point out that the different

communities, different countries of the world have different infected

rates as such, and is suggesting that ours are fairly high and fairly

serious and demand immediate attention. The rate in our provincial

institutions is at 0.02 percent, as far as we have been able to

ascertain over the last two years We have had 19 HIV-positive inmates

over the two years, with no confirmed active cases of AIDS during that

period.

I think that the members from that side do not

properly appreciate the provincial institutions under my ministry. They

are not long-term institutions which would give rise to the same types

of practices you might find in an institution where there are longer

periods of incarceration and separation from normal community

activities.

At this point we have given very careful

consideration to the giving out of condoms, but there is not an

institution in Canada that does at this point. There are seven in North

America that do, and the majority of those institutions only provide

them at times of conjugal visits. British Columbia institutions have no

conjugal visits, so there would be no need to provide for that. Inmates

may have temporary absences to visit their spouses, and their spouses

have adequate access to getting the necessary condoms or other

protective devices within their facility, so they need not be given to

the inmate as such.

We do provide active counselling

courses. Education programs are being developed and counselling is

available by the medical staff. The staff of the prisons are being

educated on alternative, shall I say, practices to prevent people from

getting AIDS on methods that are normally transmitted. In other words,

we are suggesting that they look at their lifestyle. We teach them a

lifestyle. We try and counsel them on lifestyles to minimize any

opportunity of transmission of this vicious disease. As I say, we have

given very serious consideration to the matter, and at this point in

time do not in our provincial institutions consider it advisable.

MR. PERRY :

I think there is a misunderstanding of fact that I would like to clear

up. The Solicitor-General just suggested that the prevalence rate of

seropositivity in British Columbia prisons, if I heard accurately, was

0.02 percent.

HON. MR. REE : That was .02 percent.

MR. PERRY : That's the same thing — .02 percent or 0.02 percent.

HON. MR. REE : Not 0.2 percent; 0.02 percent.

MR. PERRY : That's what I think I said.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. I must ask the minister to refrain from answering questions until such time as he has been recognized.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

No, you're not supposed to answer questions until you are recognized,

so if the member from Point Grey wishes to have the minister stand up

and clarify the issue, then he will have to sit down. Otherwise I think

you can proceed. But Hansard

must have some hope of trying to record these matters, and the devices

we have in this chamber aren't such that they can record comments that

are shouted across the floor. So please proceed.

MR. PERRY : I think I got it right: 0.02 percent, and that 19 seropositive

inmates have been identified in British Columbia prisons. My information is

that no prevalence study has been conducted in our prisons, and I presume that

the 19 seropositive individuals were individuals who volunteered for testing

because of their at-risk lifestyle.

I presume — I can only guess —

that the 0.02 percent figure would come from dividing that numerator by

the denominator of prisoners in B.C. correctional institutions. I would

just like to clarify from the minister what exactly is the status of

knowledge about prevalence of HIV infection in our prisons or upon

patients entering or leaving our prisons.

HON. MR. REE :

The member is correct that it came from volunteer information,

questionnaires. To test inmates is illegal, as compulsory testing is

illegal and cannot be forced upon them. So the best informa-

[ Page 7088 ]

tion

we have is by asking the person as they are being admitted to the

institution, and It is the best that we can rely on at the moment.

MR. LOENEN :

I'd just like to briefly comment on a few items related to motor

vehicle branches, in particular the one in my own community, which I'm

a bit more familiar with than some of the other ones. I have

repeatedly, over the two and a half years that I've represented my

constituency, received complaints about the delays in service that

people experience in the motor vehicle branch in Richmond. People have

to wait in line sometimes for two hours on end. Also, in terms of the

hours of operation, it's maybe not a big thing in the total scheme of

things, but when people have to stand in a lineup for two hours and

when they're inconvenienced in getting a very basic service, then to

those constituents, to those people, it is a big thing, I can tell you.

I'd just like to ask the minister whether his ministry has considered

the possibility of more flexible opening hours. It seems to me entirely

reasonable to expect that in the modern day and age we would ensure

that those services cater to the needs of the people out there and

become customer-oriented and customer-friendly.

I notice,

for instance, that our colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith)

has recently announced that the court system is going to sit at night

and on weekends. If the courts and the judges can open up on weekends,

then perhaps the motor vehicle branch should consider opening on

Saturdays, off-hours, evenings and such things, and become more

customer-friendly and more available to people who work during the day

or aren't able to be there between 9 and 5, as the case is now. I'd

like to put in a plea for that, and if the ministry hasn't considered

it, I'd like him to urge his ministers to do that, because it would be

of great benefit to the residents not only of Richmond but throughout

this province. People would be well served by that.

Another

minor thing that I've noticed, Mr. Chairman, is that in private

industry, in stores and you name it, we see that people are treated as

humans That is to say, they don't have to stand in a queue or lineup

for two hours on end for fear of losing their turn, because there is a

number system. You go into an establishment and pick your number, and

you know that when your number is up, you will be served. Well, in the

local motor vehicle branch in Richmond, people have to stay in line for

fear of losing their place, and a simple device such as a numbering

system would make that place far more human. I mean, we treat our

people as though they're cattle: they have to stand in the lineup

there. Giving them a number system would allow them to go and read a

book, do a little shopping, do something else or use their time more

fruitfully rather than have to stand in a lineup.

It's a

very simple request, Mr. Minister, and it seems odd that we have to

take up time in this chamber for such a very basic thing. But I know

that my constituents and many people throughout this province would

welcome it, and it would put a friendly face on government. It would

gain us the gratitude of people throughout this province if we did a

simple thing and made government more responsive to the needs of people

and recognized that people's lives are often very complicated and

complex as it is. If we make it possible to have after-hours, if we get

onside and join the judges and open our facilities on weekends, then

perhaps there will be greater respect for government in general. I

would welcome the minister's response.

HON. MR. REE :

I appreciate the member's calm, cool and impassioned comments.

Commenting on flexible hours, it is certainly a concern that we are

looking at, particularly in a number of instances throughout the

province. There are more than 23 locations in the province where you

may now obtain motor vehicle licensing at government agents' offices.

The possibility of privatization of some of those offices has been

looked at, and that may come about. It's not active at this moment, and

I don't want to put any fear to the employees in these offices that

we're going to come down and privatize them at this point either. But

we have recently had an internal audit of service of the motor vehicle

licence offices in the province, just an independent audit for the

ministry. It has come down that, yes, there are instances of some long

waits and other matters, but they are the exception rather than the

rule, and the conclusion is that the public is being well served by our

motor vehicle licensing offices and the personnel in those offices.

was in to the North Vancouver one last week, as I said earlier, when we

put in the electronic driver-testing machines. There was quite a lineup

there. It wasn't a two-hour lineup, yet there were quite a number of

people. The people were attended to very promptly as they came up.

They

have looked at the number system. It has been used from time to time.

The general public coming into the office are coming in for a number of

reasons other than just getting a driver's licence. It may be a name

change, lost licence, inquiries on testing and getting licensed and a

number of reasons that they come in there. The numbering system will

hold up those with very minimal requirements, while maybe people

getting driver testing are being attended to.

In addition,

by bringing in the electronic driver-testing system, we will have

additional staff, in a sense. While a member of the public is taking

their test, the staff is maybe free to do other things at that time. So

it will provide some additional manpower hours within the driver

licence office.

I was quite pleased with the audit report

that came down with that aspect of my ministry. I was quite proud of

the people and staff. I know there's always room for improvement

everywhere and in every system. If the member has an instance of a

four-hour wait in a specific office, I would appreciate being advised

of the time and that particular office.

[ Page 7089 ]

We'll certainly look at it. No member of the public should have an unreasonable wait like that.

[4:45]

MR. LOENEN :

I appreciate the minister's response and the seriousness with which he

undertook to respond to something that may be considered in the overall

scheme of things as somewhat trivial. I was also pleased to have him

confirm that from now on, government agents throughout the province

will handle the various services that are normally provided through the

motor vehicle branch. But I must remind the minister that that is of

little use to my community, because we do not have a government agent

in Richmond, even though that is a community of some 115,000 people.

They would have to go to New Westminster to find the nearest government

agent. That is of little use to the residents I represent.

heard the minister talk about an audit report and how the audit report

had indicated that the residents and the people of our province are

well served. I can only speak from the experiences that I have in my

own community. I don't know whether those experiences were reflected in

that report. I know I had no input into the report. I was never asked

to make a comment on it. Nobody came to me. I don't know who these

auditors were, whether they were independent or whether they were from

within the ministry. I'd be interested to know.

The

minister ended by saying that if I know of a particular incident where

somebody had to wait four hours.... Well, I have a letter, Mr.

Minister. I don't have it here, but one of my constituents wrote me a

letter with exactly that kind of information, and I would be pleased to

make that available to you.

In terms of your comments that

a numbering system may be difficult to institute because there are a

multiplicity of services provided in an office and people come there

for all kinds of reasons, I realize that. I go in there. I see that.

There may well be three or four different wickets, and there may well

be three or four different lineups. But it is very simple to have a

numbering system at least for each of those lineups. That would remedy

the situation to a large extent, it seems to me.

I'd just

like to close by urging the minister and his staff to seriously

consider whether the situation in Richmond cannot be improved upon. I

think that there is room for improvement there.

MR. SIHOTA :

I want to ask some questions relating to gaming in British Columbia.

There obviously is an agreement in place with Stena Line with respect

to conduct and management of the slot-machine operation on the Stena

Line. Could the minister tell me who has conduct and management of the

machines that are now on this privatized run? Is that the company?

HON. MR. REE :

To conclude the remarks to the member for Richmond, the auditors were

independent. They talked to many citizens coming out of motor vehicle

offices after receiving services there, besides talking to motor

vehicle staff, office staff and managers. They spoke to the people who

were being served and the people who were serving, and came to their

conclusions as a result of this sort of an audit.

Richmond, we anticipate adding to the staff there within this year. I

hope the service will improve, if it has not improved at this point. I

would ask the member to pass on the letter to us, so that we might see

it and I might have my officers of the ministry look into the

particular complaint.

With regard to the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, I believe it's the Ministry of Government

Management Services or the Provincial Secretary ministry that is

responsible for the agreements with the Stena Line as to the actual

policing of the slot-machines within the Gaming Commission.

MR. SIHOTA :

I didn't quite catch that. But as I understand it, other ministries may

be responsible for overseeing the gaming activities on it; it's not the

Gaming Commission that has responsibility as to the slot-machine

operations on the steamship. Am I correct on that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. REE :

Yes, there are a multiplicity of ministries responsible. The terms of

the agreements are not within my ministry, but the actual policing of

the slot-machine operations falls within it.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA : I'll engage the other minister on those aspects of it.

The

report the Gaming Commission did last year said that two types of

casino operations are permitted under

section 190 of the Criminal Code:

those conducted and managed by the government of a province and those

conducted and managed by a "charitable or religious orga