1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 16, Number 21
[ Page 12281 ]
The House met at 10:07 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. A. Petter presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest Land Reserve Act.
Hon. A. Petter: Bill 56, the Forest Land Reserve Act, creates a forest land reserve consisting of designated areas of Crown land, almost one million hectares of privately managed forest land and land which is approved to go into the reserve following a request by the owner. It sets out permitted uses for land in the reserve, and it sets out a process for the removal of private lands, involving a forest land commission and local government, as well as for the repayment of previous tax payments. The commission will also have an advisory role with respect to the removal of Crown land. It maintains the current property tax arrangement for reserve lands and will assist in securing the forestry base for the future of the forest communities in this province.
Bill 56 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. D. Miller: I would ask leave for the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills to sit while the House sits today.
Leave granted.
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi rises on a matter?
D. Mitchell: On a point of order, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: Proceed.
D. Mitchell: Last evening the Premier gave a televised address to the province of British Columbia. I believe that he may have breached an important, well-established parliamentary practice by not making an announcement of major public importance in this Legislature when the House is in session.
The Speaker: Hon. member....
D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I simply wish to briefly raise this point of order and reserve the right to raise it as a point of privilege at a later date. But I seek guidance from the Chair, and perhaps from the Government House Leader, as to what would be the most effective forum for dealing in this House with the details of the revised Vancouver Island land use plan. Is it when discussing the legislation that the minister has just tabled? Would it be during the Premier's estimates?
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.
D. Mitchell: When would we have an opportunity to do that?
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member is rising on a matter which in the Chair's opinion is not valid as a point of order. Reserving the right to raise the matter as a matter of privilege is appropriate, and if the member wishes to do so, we'll deal with the matter at that time. There is no further opportunity to comment on this, hon. member.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES, AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SPORTS AND COMMONWEALTH GAMES
L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, it is extremely difficult to wrap up in three minutes a set of estimates that have gone on over a two-and-a-half-month period and to try and recall everything that was discussed between the many interruptions in the course of those estimates. It would appear that that indecisiveness -- and disorganization, I guess -- in terms of House business is evident not only in this ministry but indeed in the operations of this government.
But let me say that to the best that I can recall, the estimates were a very cordial process. We had very good discussions over a number of issues. One of the issues that was dear to my heart, and certainly to many of my rural constituents, is the policy around a society sharing in casinos that are within a 30-mile radius of their community. The minister has agreed that he would review that policy and how it applies to rural British Columbia. Whether or not communities that are outside that 30-mile radius will be able to share in a society's portion of those casinos is something that we look forward to seeing.
The other major issue within these estimates was the discussions about Government Air and how this government is planning to dispose of that service. Our party supports the initiative of wrapping up the government air services, but there are concerns about the ambulance portion of that service that we still want to address. We look forward to the Health ministry estimates so that we can address those portions of that service.
[10:15]
We had a lengthy discussion on the Commonwealth Games that took place over a number of days -- probably over a period of a month. I want to put on the record in the Legislature what I suggested in the committee: I support the policy the minister put forward which allows government employees to volunteer their time to the Games. The strength of our volunteers will be very important to the success of the games.
K. Jones: This look into the Government Services estimates has been very challenging. It's a vast and complex ministry, providing many services to all aspects of government. In addition, there is the Crown corporation of the B.C. Systems Corporation.
It's hard to put it into a few words, but I'll try to summarize the concerns we brought out through the process of questions over the last month and a half that these estimates have been scattered through. One of the main things that came to our attention is that the ministry doesn't seem to be well informed about recommendations to improve their operations. They indicated a lack of knowledge of the Peat Marwick report that made recommendations on the operations of the ministry back in
[ Page 12282 ]
1992. The comptroller general's study of purchasing practices was completed last year. There were recommendations from studies done on government air services and air ambulance services that have taken a long time to be implemented, and the studies that have been presented are rather chastising.
There appears to be a lack of openness, in particular into the finances of the Commonwealth Games, and there's a very slow response on the part of the ministry to freedom-of-information requests.
There seems to be a lack of policy direction. For example, the minister doesn't seem to know the basic government management policy manual, which is the guide for the entire operations of the government, particularly that section regarding the operation of the ministry.
Also, there does not appear to be a value-for-money audit process in place. There isn't substantial monitoring in place for the ministry to know on an ongoing basis just where their funds are and whether they're achieving their intended purposes. When we're talking about a budget of $86 million, plus another $119 million that is administered on behalf of other ministries, we're looking at a very, very large budget and a lot of expenditures on behalf of the taxpayers.
One area that seems to be well-mooted and propagandized as a big showpiece of this ministry is the Buy Smart program, which is to assist purchasers in simplifying the purchasing process. It has been given lots of publicity over the last two years as a project that's now in place and ready to go. When we get right down to the nitty-gritty of it, it's really only a pilot project. It doesn't even have the next stage of funding or implementation process started. It has been tried with a small number of businesses, but when you look at the total field of the businesses to be included, at the rate it's going, it doesn't look like it would even get underway for the next ten years. A great deal of computer programming is required for this, and the government has indicated that they're going to be doing it in-house. Yet there is no program started to do that work, so it's going to be an extended period before anything can get done in that area.
The Purchasing Commission has serious problems in that there doesn't seem to be a good knowledge of the government management operating policy and purchasing principles. There's a failure to take into consideration the comptroller general's recommendations to change the purchasing and maintenance practices. We have previously expressed concern about this and about kickbacks to benefit employees. I'd like to know what the minister has been doing in regard to that.
D. Lovick: I wonder if I might have leave to make a brief introduction.
Leave granted.
D. Lovick: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to extend a welcome to a group of senior citizens visiting our province from Lethbridge, Alberta. There's a group of 44 seniors accompanied, I guess, by the tour leader, Ms. Coyne. I would ask my colleagues to please extend them a warm welcome.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't intend to take very long this morning. As my colleagues have reminded the House, we had extensive discussion and debate for many hours over very important issues within my ministry.
First, I would like to pass my thanks to the hundreds of public servants in my ministry who diligently prepared the estimates and background material. I know, having been in cabinet for a number of years now, the hard work that goes into those preparations. The ministry, as you know, is always on line and ready to serve all ministries, and I want to thank all those involved, from the deputy minister on down.
I also want to thank my critics for their constructive suggestions, criticisms and comments, the member for Prince George-Omineca particularly. I thought we had some useful discussions on the issues he mentioned this morning, and I think I've already said to that member that I appreciate his comments about the leave policy that is in place for government employees. I think, quite frankly, that some very unfortunate criticism has been directed at public servants. As you know, if they want to volunteer, it's during their holiday time. The policy is not an unknown one. It's one that's often used in campaigns like the United Way.
I also appreciated the comments of the member for Prince George-Omineca about casinos and gaming, particularly from his perspective of rural British Columbia. That's a useful perspective, particularly for me as a member who comes from the urban communities.
As all members know, I have been given the mandate to review all gaming legislation, including monitoring and possible expansions. It is a very big challenge that we have undertaken. We are about halfway through and are now looking to where we go in terms of public consultation on what the options will be. Other members have mentioned that to me and wish to discuss those issues.
In terms of Government Air, I think it's quite clear. The ads were running last weekend. Government Air is indeed now an asset that is.... We're entertaining proposals; we are proceeding with the wind-down.
In terms of the ministry, since I took office there has basically been a reorganization. We are retooling. It's a ministry that came out of the Provincial Secretary. In many ways it's a traditional ministry, but so many issues we are taking on need modern approaches. We are reorganizing the ministry in a dramatic way with a far more business like approach. That is ongoing, and many of the issues that were raised by members opposite reflected on the reorganization.
I want to close on the Commonwealth Games. We are about to host the world, hon. Speaker; you know that. It is a dramatic event that is about to happen in 58 days. We should take great pride in this event. Major events like this always attract the negative criticisms espoused by some, but I hope that everybody can put those issues aside that.... We work on those issues that have been raised particularly by the Liberal critic, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, in terms of reporting mechanisms for the Games.
I want to report to the House today that the Games are on time, they're on budget, and the corporate fundraising is 100 percent complete. It is in. We are in remarkable financial shape. The facilities are ready, the athletes around the world are ready and the TV crews are ready. As I have said many times, when Her Majesty opens the Games on August 18, with full participation of our aboriginal communities, we fully expect 400 million to 500 million people to be watching.
Whereas Expo was a remarkable event, in terms of the exposure and the legacies we're going to derive from the Games -- now with South Africa coming; we're still not sure if Mr. Mandela will be with us -- we in British Columbia are the focus for so many things. I don't think it's just accident that we are gaining so much notoriety around the world in terms of a place to meet, to participate and to host. We have some of the finest facilities both environmentally and physically, and I think the Commonwealth Games, the second-largest sporting event in the world, being here in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, is a feather in our cap.
[ Page 12283 ]
We will put on the best Games ever. We will make every British Columbian proud. Obviously all my colleagues are invited, as long as they pay for their tickets, as I said before. We fully expect remarkable results from the visitors. My colleague the Minister of Tourism is estimating that tourism revenues will be up by about 8 percent this year. He fully expects about half a billion dollars more in revenue because of this year. Through ten days of being televising on world television, we will attract thousands and thousands of new visitors over the next few years.
I should let you know, hon. Speaker, that we are taking every opportunity with the Games to host the international media. Australian television, for example, is going to be televising 17 hours a day. Clearly there's not enough sports to fill that time, and we are ensuring that all those broadcasters have clips from the rural parts of the province -- such as Revelstoke, Cranbrook, Fort Steele and the Kettle Valley. They'll be seen by millions and millions of people across the world. British Columbia is now an incredible destination spot.
When I was in London with Her Majesty, and the baton, I had the opportunity to meet the leading tour operators in Britain and Europe. The thing that came across to me, which I never fully realized, is that now Canada, and in particular British Columbia, is a key destination spot, but we've only scratched the surface. We are now considered a bargain in Europe. Many Europeans and British people who go to Europe for their holidays are now looking to North America. They are also looking for the experience holiday. The Games is really giving us that opportunity to say: "Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, is a place to go to." We fully expect in the years ahead to have astronomical growth in tourism.
[10:30]
I want to conclude by thanking my critics, all members that participated and my ministry staff. I say to all British Columbians and Canadians that we're going to have a tremendous summer. It will be an event to remember, when 67 Commonwealth countries -- it used to be 66 but South Africa makes it 67 -- and 3,200 athletes and coaches and thousands of visitors will be here in Victoria and British Columbia. With that note, I conclude my remarks.
Hon. D. Miller: I call the estimates debate of the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SKILLS, TRAINING AND LABOUR
(continued)
On vote 49: minister's office, $372,200 (continued).
Hon. D. Miller: I'd like perhaps to test out the House. We have been conducting all of the debates on vote 49, minister's office. I could leave it that way until we come to a conclusion...
An Hon. Member: Yes.
Hon. D. Miller: ...or I could vote on that and put the other motion -- but okay.
The Chair: We will indeed proceed with our standard procedure, namely that we will deal with all ministry estimates under that first vote. Having said that, I recognize the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.
G. Farrell-Collins: While the minister and his staff are getting settled, I think we've essentially gone through all aspects of the minister's office, with the exception of the Workers' Compensation Board, and the areas have been canvassed relatively thoroughly. The area we'd now like to get into is the Workers' Compensation Board. I see the minister has some staff here in order to accommodate that.
I will not be the primary member of caucus asking those questions; rather it will be those who have been out touring the province for about six or seven weeks, meeting with injured workers and employers and various groups. I'm sure the support staff to the minister will have a full briefing on what's been going on, because I know they've been shadowing the members quite carefully. The Workers' Compensation Board have had their staff there, which I think is good. They've had an opportunity to hear what we're hearing and report directly to the minister. That's a very good thing to be doing.
With that, I know the member for Okanagan-Vernon has some questions also, so I will take my leave and let the other members continue with the debate.
L. Hanson: I don't have a whole bunch of questions. To deal with the WCB, one of the difficulties seems to be not that decisions are disputed but that decisions on claims take so long. I will first of all state that the majority of claims are recognized and dealt with, I think, in an expeditious manner. The ones that fall between the cracks are the ones that come to our attention and, of course, cause us some difficulties when dealing with them. It's too bad that a number of workers in the province get into these situations. There is a lack of understanding about the responsibilities of the Workers' Compensation Board. I think there is a misunderstanding that it's an insurance policy for any problem an individual has, whereas it only covers those situations that occur in the workplace.
Could the minister give us some idea of how the system is making out? How much of a backlog is there at the Workers' Compensation Review Board? Has the backlog been growing, or has there been a reduction? How many people do we now have in the workers' adviser section and the employers' adviser section, and what has been happening in those areas? With the background I gave, if the minister can give us some idea of what is going on, I'd appreciate it.
Hon. D. Miller: There were a number of good questions there. I appreciate that the member's initial observation with respect to the mandate of the system is entirely correct. Some of the issues that have been raised publicly are attributable to the fact that of necessity, because the system is funded by employer assessments, a person with a claim clearly has to pass that test; in other words, it must be work-related. In some areas, that becomes quite problematic. For example, trying to establish with some clarity whether a person with a back problem acquired that directly as a result of his or her work experience, of course, really creates some difficulty.
I would also note, for those interested in the system itself, that a series of external audits were conducted by two firms based in the east. Those audits looked at the whole system from a number a points of view, and one of the observations was that our WCB has one of the better appeal systems.
The number of staff at the workers' adviser office is 40, and at the employers' adviser office, the number is 17. I should tell the member that there has been a campaign on behalf of the employers. I've received a good deal of mail asking that there be increased resources for the employers' adviser office. But if one looks at the increases that have been
[ Page 12284 ]
provided over the past number of years, it's clear that there has been an equal increase in resources to both the employers' adviser office and the workers' adviser office. In fact, since about the late eighties, I believe there has been about a 250 percent increase in support to both those offices. I've advised employers who have been writing that I do not plan to allocate additional resources there. There has been a fairly significant increase over that period, and we clearly have to watch our costs.
With respect to the review board, I'm advised that when a claimant is ready to proceed in the lower mainland, it should be possible to obtain a hearing in, say, three to four weeks. As the member will appreciate, it takes a slightly longer period outside the lower mainland, because the panels have to be formed, but that's not bad. It's very clear, though, that there has been a fairly large increase in the administrative workload of the board. There have been questions in this House previously, and items have been reported in the newspaper about dissatisfaction from some of the employees. The administration has taken steps to meet with employees to try to get the operations streamlined. I'm advised by people from the WCB that in fact that is working: there has been an increase in efficiency, which is a trend that we clearly want to continue.
L. Hanson: I've been made aware of one of the difficulties in the system for handling claims. I'm not sure that I have an answer to it, but I want to raise it with the minister. The file -- and I use capital letters when I say The File -- is the single thing that everything else is based on. There are a whole bunch of different departments in the WCB that may call on that file to make some kind of determination. If an individual has a claim or an appeal or whatever, and that file gets shuffled around between those various departments, everything comes to a total halt until the employee's adviser or the employer or whoever needs to deal with the issue can get hold of that file.
I know of one circumstance where the file was being used in another part of WCB -- for a very good and valid reason -- but it totally held up the appeal process, because the file couldn't be accessed by the people who needed it. It seems to be a bit of a bottleneck. I wonder if the minister is aware of that and whether the WCB had done anything or is attempting to do anything to find a solution to that difficulty.
Hon. D. Miller: Again, I appreciate the member's question. It's an issue that has been brought to my attention as well.
Let's go back. I think the member was correct in saying that most claims don't require really getting into the issues we're talking about; they're straightforward, and they're accepted or rejected in a fairly routine way. But when appeals come into play, that creates longer delays.
Currently the issues of payments and claims are computerized -- in other words, there's a computer on every person's desk. But the physical file itself contains a lot of information. The member is right: when it's requested by a particular branch for any reason, it's physically removed, and therefore others who may want access to that file simply have to wait until it's back in its location. I'm also advised that to try to physically put every single piece of information on a computer would result in quite a staggering cost.
I did indicate that the board has taken action with respect to some dissatisfaction about delays at the employee level and at the claimant level. They are getting a better handle on the system and are making it more streamlined. The board and the administration recognize that that is, in my view, one of the significant challenges that the board has to meet, and I think they're taking steps to meet it.
V. Anderson: I realize that the minister's comment.... We've been hearing comments about improvements that have been taking place within the system. Even though that may be true, when you deal with an individual for whom the improvements have not been taking effect, it's a major concern. We wrote the minister recently about a case that we have been dealing with out of our constituency office. The case itself goes back about five years, and we've been dealing with it for two years, pretty well on a monthly, if not weekly, basis. It has had to go back again and again, and to go through the employers, the employees and the employees' support system, as well. We found that the appeals were not done in a way so that the person with the language difficulty could be properly dealt with. When the transcripts were reviewed, they had to be redone. The appeal was won when it was redone. When that was followed up, we found that the files had been lost. But the files were found, and that appeal was won. When we followed that up, the files had been put in the basement and marked as completed. And then we followed it up again; it's still ongoing, and it's still there. That case has not been resolved, and there seems to be no way to get a resolution. Where does one appeal to when this has been ongoing on a regular and continuous basis for over two years? We have a file of our own with the WCB on this particular case that is about that thick at this point. This is but one of many cases there, but it is the most drastic.
Hon. D. Miller: I do appreciate.... I would advise the member, without knowing -- and I don't want to know the names or anything else in this debate here in the House.... People do routinely contact my office and I forward those issues on to the Workers' Compensation Board. There is a somewhat delicate matter that I must be aware of: it would be quite improper for me as the minister responsible for that system to personally intervene in a particular claim. In fact, there's an expressed prohibition; I cannot do that. And beyond that, I'm somewhat handicapped as well, because when acting in my capacity as the MLA in my constituency, I cannot act on behalf of my constituents in a matter involving the WCB. You'll appreciate that that's not a very good position for a member of this Legislature to be in. It's a burden I bear because of this office. The member says he has written to me, and perhaps I have responded. If the response is unsatisfactory, I'm quite prepared to discuss it with the member if the member wishes.
[10:45]
There are two points I would like to make. One is that we do have extensive avenues of appeal. In other words, when people feel they have not been dealt with at any particular stage, they can appeal to the next level. I think it's important that even where those unfortunate incidents happen where files may be misplaced or people feel aggrieved that they haven't been dealt with -- whether it's an issue of language -- there is the opportunity to appeal. That may be cold comfort for someone whose case has dragged on for some number of years. Clearly, the board, given that it's governed by representatives of employers and workers in this province, has a vital interest in having a system that serves the people it's intended to serve.
Just to support my comments of a moment ago, the ombudsman's 1993 annual report took a look at the Workers' Compensation Board. It was noted in that report that:
"In November 1993 WCB reorganized its six claims units in Richmond into seven service delivery areas, each corresponding to a separate geographical area. Claims are now
[ Page 12285 ]
assigned based on the claimant's workplace. Obviously, the reorganization has been effective, since during the last quarter of 1993 there was a significant decrease in delay and communication complaints."
So that's the ombudsperson's look at the system. We're not claiming that it is in fact perfect -- it never will be -- but clearly the efforts that have been made by the board and administration to improve their service delivery have been noted by the ombudsperson. As the member appreciates, I don't want to talk about a particular claim, but if members approach me, I am quite happy to forward those to the board.
V. Anderson: I am quite aware that the minister can't deal with a particular claim. What I'm really raising is the breakdown in process in a case which has broken down at every step of the way. There isn't a step of the way in the last two years that has worked effectively for this particular person. Even though they followed all the rules and regulations and went through every channel possible, it has continually broken down. So we will bring it again to the minister's attention, and hopefully it can be followed up.
K. Jones: I'd like to give the minister an idea of some of the things we are finding out as we tour the province. We have been to six cities. We have been to Richmond and met with the WCB board and with the people in the Richmond area. We have met with people in Nanaimo, Prince George, Kitimat, Terrace and Kamloops. Just this Monday we met with people in Cranbrook, which meant people came from Trail and Kimberley, and from Fernie and Elkford -- the coal areas of the Rockies. All of these people -- management, labour, injured workers and former employees -- keep telling us that the WCB is in a mess. There is no other way of describing it. The whole structure of the WCB, from the top to the bottom -- through adjudication, administration, rehabilitation and appeals process, and even to the victim's compensation process, every aspect of the WCB -- is in terrible shape. This isn't just me speaking; people from all over the province have been making these statements. I would like to know what the minister is prepared to do to bring the major changes that are required to correct this problem.
There are 40-year-old disability claims that haven't been dealt with yet. The president of the corporation hasn't been replaced for three-quarters of a year. That is a very serious problem, and it's affecting the morale of the organization. Six hundred of the 900 employees in the Richmond office tell us that they have a real morale problem in their working environment. They have submitted a petition, which we have submitted to this House. These are serious problems, and I'd like to ask the minister what he is doing to try to address these.
Hon. D. Miller: I don't want to get into a terrific argument, but with all due respect, it is easy to play politics with the issues of the WCB. I'm not going to attack the member, but let me try to put together an argument in response to what the member has just said -- quite a legitimate argument, I believe.
It is easy to play politics with Workers' Compensation Board issues. I would remind the member that we receive almost 200,000 claims every year in this province. I'm happy to report that there was a slight decrease year over year. The vast majority of those 200,000 claims are processed in an efficient manner. People are dealt with, and that is it. We are dealing with a very difficult area here. In many cases there are no simple black-and-white answers, which is why we have a broad system of appeals around the WCB. It may be that people will pursue claims in a relentless manner. I have no quarrel with that. In my former life as a union official, I played an active role supporting people's claim applications. But to describe this system as being a mess and in chaos, which the Liberal opposition has done, shows an utter disregard for the system. Quite frankly -- and I guess we're in a political arena -- that is just a convenient issue that some feel they can parlay for political gain.
Previously when we dealt with the WCB, I talked about how we can measure a system. I understand the anecdotal issues and the very real human suffering that takes places in this province. I have a great deal of feeling for that. But what are the objective tools we have to measure a system? It seems to me the system's efficiency is measured by comparing it to other systems in this country By every objective measurement, this system is one of the best run in this country.
Look at the issue of the funded liability, where British Columbia stands very near the top. If we look across the country, we see that British Columbia is 97 percent funded. Let's make a comparison of a homeowner who has essentially paid off 97 percent of a mortgage. As we go across the country perhaps I can choose provinces that are governed by Liberals to compare that statistic to British Columbia. Compare Quebec at 57 percent funded, after years of Liberal government. We've had an NDP government in Ontario for a couple years, but these unfunded liabilities don't arise last week or the year before; they're built up. Ontario, which had many years of a Liberal government, is only 38 percent funded; New Brunswick is at 72 percent; Nova Scotia at 30 percent; and Newfoundland at 44 percent. From that yardstick you would have to conclude that the system in B.C. is in fact one of the best in Canada; and it is. The only better one is in Saskatchewan -- not to get political -- where they've had a long history of New Democratic Party governments.
Let's look at the employer assessment rates. That's the levy imposed on employers to fund the system. Compare B.C. to other parts of Canada. These are 1992 figures, but nonetheless, at $1.98 per $100 of payroll, British Columbia doesn't look bad compared to Manitoba at $2.15, Ontario at $3.16, Quebec at $2.24, Nova Scotia at $2.13 and Newfoundland at $2.49. Right across the country we see that most other systems have higher assessment rates. The assessment rates indicate an efficient system. In fact, the assessment rate today is lower than it was in 1984.
There are legitimate criticisms of the system. I don't deny that, and I wouldn't pretend for a moment there are not. But to try to describe the system we have here in British Columbia as being a total mess, as being in chaos -- to use the kind of hyperbole I have heard from members opposite -- needs to be challenged, because it is simply not true. As I say, there are problems with the system, and as the minister who is ultimately responsible, they are problems that I have concerns about.
I have talked to the board on two occasions now, and they know my feeling about these issues. They will continue to work with a lot of vigilance to constantly improve the system. This system is here to serve workers who are injured on the job, and it must work for those workers.
K. Jones: The minister has indicated that he has talked to the board about his concerns. Could the minister tell us what he is telling the board of his concerns?
Hon. D. Miller: I am following the advice that the Liberals in Ontario put forward in their review as an
[ Page 12286 ]
opposition party. The Ontario Liberals are proposing that the Ontario WCB be restructured along the same lines as the British Columbia WCB system. So I'm pleased to see that the Ontario Liberals are following the lead of the British Columbia New Democrats in that regard. But the one dictum....
[11:00]
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Chair, the member can get up after I'm finished.
The one dictum being put forward by the Ontario Liberals.... They're saying that what has to happen to make that system work is that it's got to be non-political. They say politics has no place with the WCB. They're saying they should establish a board of governors like we have here in British Columbia to run the system -- and keep the politicians out.
This system was changed. There was a board structure set up a couple of years ago, and those members there are the board. My message to them was simple: "I expect you to run this system." I have every confidence that those eminently qualified men and women will do just that.
K. Jones: The minister states that Ontario, with the NDP, has such a good record. I'd particularly like to draw the attention of the minister to the unfunded liabilities, which are over $12 billion in Ontario. That's under the NDP government in Ontario. If you use the same calculations for the unfunded liabilities in British Columbia that were in use last year -- instead of making the change, a little fudging of the calculations, so it would look a little better -- the true figure is over half a billion dollars in unfunded liabilities here in British Columbia under this administration.
That is not suitable. That is what the people of British Columbia are saying. This is not a political position. This is a position I bring forward, having talked to the people. Maybe you need to talk to the people to find out what's going on out there in British Columbia, what kinds of suffering are going on and what kinds of problems business is faced with.
Does the minister even know that his own operations aren't anywhere near what are established standards? For instance, the time taken between injury and first payment of a claim -- a very fundamental thing; the adjudication process, basically -- for major injuries, serious injuries, class C injuries, which, by the WCB's own documents, are supposed to be done in 24 days, is showing up as taking 70 days. That's in one location, the lower mainland. In Cranbrook it's taking 90 days to get those claims processed. The people in the outlying areas are doing better in some cases and in other cases are not doing as well. But certainly there is a really serious problem in Richmond. The whole bureaucracy in Richmond has literally collapsed in front of everybody; the process is taking twice as long there as in most regional offices. Could the minister explain what he is doing to correct that problem in Richmond?
F. Jackson: I ask leave to make an introduction, hon. Chair.
Leave granted.
F. Jackson: In the gallery with us now are a group of students from Arthur Stevenson Elementary School in my constituency, with the teachers Mrs. Sharpe and Miss Funk. Arthur Stevenson School is a special place for me; it's where my children went to school about 15 years ago. They are a special group of people because they are my friends and neighbours. I would like the House to please make them welcome.
Hon. D. Miller: I have never heard so much unmitigated rubbish in my life. I would ask the member to give consideration to the following point. I would like that member to stand in this House and apologize for the malicious statement he made when he started speaking today. He said that the....
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Let me finish. He said that the discount rate was changed in British Columbia from 23/8 to 3 percent -- he didn't know those figures, but that's what they are. He said it was changed to cover up the unfunded liability. That is an out-and-out lie. Hon. member, the discount rate....
The Chair: Minister, you know full well that that language is not acceptable. I would ask you to please withdraw that remark, and then I will entertain the rest of your comments.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Chair, I apologize, and I do withdraw that statement.
The Chair: Please proceed.
Hon. D. Miller: The discount rate was changed. Let me give the member a comparison of British Columbia's discount rate to those of other provinces -- to the province of Ontario. I would remind the member, because he seemed to miss the point, that Ontario's system is indeed in trouble. They have over $11 billion unfunded liability. Hon. member, they didn't accumulate that last year; they didn't accumulate that the year before. That was built up over a series of years....
An Hon. Member: What happened here?
Hon. D. Miller: I'll deal with the reformed Socred in a moment if he'll stop heckling me, because we can talk about the $100 million under the Socred government. The board had $100 million, and they gave it back to the employers.
But let me get back to Ontario. The board of governors is comprised of respected men and women in this province. Many come from the business community; they are representatives of the B.C. Business Council and people who have experience in business. The board made the decision to change the discount rate to bring it into line with other systems across the country. Members should be aware that the discount rate in Ontario is 3 percent, which is exactly what it is here; the discount rate in Quebec is 3 percent, which is exactly what it is here; the discount rate in Alberta is 31/2 percent. If the Conservatives in Alberta can come up with a discount rate of 31/2 percent -- greater than ours -- and say that that is actuarially sound, then I think the member should stand up and apologize to the board of governors for suggesting that they would somehow change the discount rate to hide the deficit. That is not the case, and the member knows full well that's not the case. He should have the decency to apologize to the men and women who freely put in their time to try to make this system work for British Columbians. I go back and say that any objective test....
[ Page 12287 ]
I wish the member would stop using that kind of hyperbole, which does not do this debate justice. I understand that there are problems in the system. I understand that the member has held meetings around the province, and I commend him and the Liberal Party for doing that, because it is a public issue. But don't come in this House and make these exaggerated claims when there is no basis in fact. If you want to deal with legitimate issues, fair enough; if you want to stand here and make these outrageous statements, these outrageous claims, then you'll get the kind of response you're getting.
Look at the rate of return on investments that we have at the WCB: an increase from 5.5 percent in 1990 to 7.5 percent in 1993. Look at the work that's being done by the board: the number of industrial first aid certifications are up by over 4,000; worksite visits are up by almost 4,000; educational presentations, which are important in trying to reduce the accident rate, are up by a couple of thousand; fatality rates are down; and total workforce injuries are down.
We still have some problems. There's an obligation to have good accident prevention if the system is to work. We've got to have employers able to work with their employees to reduce accidents. That's the best system of all, because you stop the pain and suffering. We can pay people for their lost income or lost wages, but we don't pay for pain and suffering, because it's not a litigious system. Preventing accidents is the best thing we can do.
We have employers that need to pull up their socks, quite frankly. If you have a worksite or a workplace with a high incidence of accidents, then I've got to say that the employer, and to some degree the employees, bear that responsibility. We are working with those employers to try to reduce those rates. We are working with the city of Vancouver, for example, which had the worst injury rate of any employer in this province. Who was the leader of the city of Vancouver? Your current leader. Have you talked to him about those kinds of issues?
Have you really gone into some of the difficult issues in the WCB, or have you simply gone around the province and listened to people with complaints -- I'm not dismissing their complaints; I'm not saying they're not legitimate -- and tried to parlay that into some political issue? I suggest that's exactly what you're doing.
Look at any objective test you want, and this system here is a good system; it is serving the people of this province in a fundamentally good way. Is it perfect? No. Are there people who have legitimate grievances and complaints? Yes, and both we and the board have an obligation to try to deal with them. But let's try to deal on a commonsense basis.
I have just one more statistic with respect to assessment rates. If we have such a chaotic system, if it is in such a mess -- and none of the figures bear that out -- then let's look again at some of the assessment rates. The forest industry has one of the highest rates of injuries, and not just in British Columbia but around the world where there is a forest sector. It's dangerous work. Look at the assessment rates for forestry per $100 of payroll. British Columbia is $6.55 per $100 of payroll. Would the member like to guess what the assessment rate is in Ontario, or has he not bothered to look that deeply into the system? Perhaps with his extensive knowledge, his travels around the province, he's made a bit of a study. I suggest he has not. Let's look at Ontario. In Ontario it is $13.48 -- double our rate.
An Hon. Member: That's another NDP government.
Hon. D. Miller: In Quebec, where they've got a good Liberal government, it's $10.81. In Oregon, which is a timber state south of us, the rates range from $27.30 to $34.82.
I get a little passionate about this, because I think it is nonsense to stand up and make these exaggerated claims. Let's try to deal on the basis of fact in this House, not hyperbole. I think we can made some progress if we do that.
L. Hanson: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
L. Hanson: On behalf of the member for Okanagan West, we have in the precincts today 27 grade 7 students from Shannon Lake Elementary School. They are accompanied by their teacher Ed Tonn, and a number of adult supervisors. Would the House please acknowledge their presence and welcome them.
K. Jones: The minister has not made any effort in this debate to answer the questions that have been asked. All he talks about is defending the status quo, yet at the same time he says there is a problem there. He hasn't indicated what he is doing about that problem, or what the problem is that he has identified. He has criticized the public's input on the problem, and he thinks that quoting stats in other areas will cover up the lack of addressing the serious problem in British Columbia. The minister has to get back to answering the questions about these estimates. What is he doing in his ministry about the WCB? He is accountable for the WCB. What are British Columbians going to get for resolution of the very serious problems identified by every sector that has to deal with the WCB?
[11:15]
The minister cannot hide behind a series of statistics and figures, which happen to be selectively convenient, without addressing the real problem: the real costs to people and employers, the delays to families and the loss of family homes. What is the minister doing about that?
Hon. D. Miller: I indicated fairly extensively that the board has taken some measures. I read from the ombuds report that the independent assessment of the WCB system by the ombudsperson indicated that the board is making serious efforts to address some of the issues that have been raised. The ombudsperson's report is fairly complimentary about the board. I read that into the record. I will continue by reading one further excerpt into the record from the 1993 ombuds report dealing with the issue of complaints that people register about the system:
"In 1993 we continued the effective referral system we established with the WCB in 1990 to address these types of complaints. We refer the complaints to selected board managers and ask the workers to contact our office again if they do not receive a response to their complaint from the board. We are happy to report that few complainants call us back."
I have tried to deal in a substantive way with some of the serious issues regarding the WCB. I have also indicated that I am prepared to deal with the serious issues, and all of us should resist the tendency to resort to hyperbole in dealing with these issues.
K. Jones: Could the minister explain the discount rate he was using earlier?
Hon. D. Miller: I am not an expert in the field, and I am not certain the explanation I may offer is going to do the
[ Page 12288 ]
thing justice, but I will give it an attempt. It's a rate that's used to calculate the present value of future liabilities. It's an accounting system, I guess. When we talk about the liability, we are talking about the financial ability of the board to pay the claims to their completion. It's an actuarial issue. In other words, from an actuarial point of view you have to try to calculate what your future costs will be. You use a discount rate, given the fact that unfortunately, as we all know, the dollar we may have in our pocket today will not be worth the same amount two years from now.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: It has very little to do with this government. It's one of those facts of life.
The discount rate recognizes that future spending power is not as great as current dollars. Therefore, they have to compensate or offset those future declines in the value of current dollars so they can ensure the money will be there to pay the claims that they're responsible for.
A. Warnke: I have a few questions with regard to the WCB. I appreciate some of the problems of getting into the technical aspects of this, but I'll try to put some financial figures to it and ask some straightforward questions about the direction that WCB is going in. One obvious fact does stand out. WCB claim costs have increased from $638 million in 1988 to $994 million in 1993, while the number of claims has remained the same -- approximately 193,000 in 1988 as opposed 195,000 in 1993. As a result, the administrative costs have increased nearly 100 percent between 1988 and 1993. Could the minister give us a brief answer as to the reasons for the increase of claim costs while the number of claims has remained the same?
Hon. D. Miller: There are two areas, and I'm not trying to give particular weight to either one. Under our system we continue to increase the maximum income that we pay our claim on. The member is aware that we pay 75 percent, up to a maximum amount. That figure has constantly been revised, and clearly that results in a higher pay-out to those individuals. Secondly, there has been a tendency for claims to be of a somewhat longer duration. In my view, those are the two areas that contribute to the increased cost.
A. Warnke: In 1994 the WCB raised the insurance rates for employers by 20 percent in 34 of the 62 subclasses. A number of employers who have been before us -- as the member for Surrey-Cloverdale has pointed out, we've been on a bit of a tour -- have some concerns not just that the insurance rates have increased but that they may actually continue to increase, which will affect their business enterprises. Along that line, what assurances can the minister give us as to whether the rates are going to skyrocket or whether there is going to be some cap on them?
Hon. D. Miller: Clearly it's an important issue. The member may have heard some of the numbers I read out earlier. In fact, the WCB in British Columbia compares very favourably with any other province. In some cases our rates are significantly lower than other provinces. We do have a cap to prevent extreme shocks. There is a 20 percent cap. I believe the average increase was about 13 percent across the board this year.
The member is also aware that rates are determined based on the accident rate in a particular industry or subclass. That's really what drives the cost. If the accident rate in a particular area goes up dramatically, that will result in a larger increase. If accident rates are held low.... That is why I was pleased when I read the statistics earlier: we really are doing -- or trying to do -- much more in the area of prevention. That is ultimately the key to controlling costs.
Both the employers and the workers clearly understand the need to have a system that is efficient, that is not an onerous burden and that does not have a large debt load such as some of the others in Canada. Everybody is better off when you have that kind of system. I believe the board members are really dedicated to trying to control those costs.
A. Warnke: The minister has pointed out, generally, that there are some factors which have kept the rates constant, I suppose. But I was just wondering.... He's indicating that there are certain industries where the number of injuries and accidents may be maintained. I suppose, given what I pointed out in my initial question, it might even suggest that certain industries may be more vulnerable or have an increased rate of accidents which are still contributing to the level of claims. This might be too much to ask, but I'm wondering if the minister could detail which industry specifically seems to be contributing to the accidents or maybe even to an increased rate of accidents and injuries in the province.
Hon. D. Miller: My staff may pull out some specific examples, but none come readily to mind in terms of singling out a particular industry. I suppose it's not a terrible thing to say, but it's fairly clear that increased economic activity, which brings more work, results in more claims. We see that there have been a couple of pretty good years in the construction industry after some years of fairly slack time. The sad fact is that when there's more work of that type around, there are more injuries. Similarly, the forest sector has really enjoyed some very good years. I was very pleased to note in yesterday's Globe and Mail, for example, that full-time jobs in British Columbia's forest sector have increased by 7,000 over last year. That's a significant increase in full-time jobs, but it's in an industry that tends to be fairly high-hazard, whether in the manufacturing side or the forest side.
I will read out for the member the subclasses here in terms of their standing, if you like, with respect to the rate of injury. The jobs with the highest rates are described as shake-and-shingle, shipbuilding, boat-building...
An Hon. Member: We don't have to worry about that.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, stay tuned, hon. member.
...meat-cutting heavy construction, building construction, food product manufacturing, construction trades, heavy manufacturing and trucking. All of those -- not completely, but a lot of them -- are the kind of work I've described. The lowest rates tend to be in the retail area, light manufacturing, utilities, gas and electric supply and school boards -- those kinds of things.
There has been an increase in activity, and I think that has contributed to the increased number of accidents.
A. Warnke: Given that a number of employers are concerned that the WCB portion of the payroll costs may actually go up -- certainly as high as 20 percent -- that begs the question as well, I suppose, of whether the average employer assessment....
Interjection.
[ Page 12289 ]
A. Warnke: I don't know what's amusing over there.
Let's put it this way: the average employer assessment was $1.75 per $100 in 1990, and it increased in 1993 to $2.14 per $100. Given that kind of increase.... That's the average employer assessment. But I'm wondering whether contributions are proportionate for industries that seem to have a higher-than-average contribution -- I suppose that's one way to put it -- to accidents. Is the minister confident that industries that have more accidents are contributing proportionately to the overall WCB portion of the costs?
Hon. D. Miller: A couple of points. One is that the subclass itself bears the cost related to that subclass. In other words, we don't cross-subsidize. I know that when the coverage was extended last year, there were some allegations that that was simply a ruse to try to deal with general cost issues. It wasn't, because it's confined to the subclass.
There are currently some arguments in the retail subclass between the very large retail outlets and the smaller ones. The smaller ones feel that they should be in a separate category from the very large retail outlets because of the nature of their activity. It could be driving forklift trucks and that kind of thing. I'm not certain if the board is accepting any appeal on that, but the assessment department will consider suggestions by the Retail Merchants' Association and others who look to creating a new classification for smaller businesses or to making use of the experience-rated assessment program.
[11:30]
The ERA is a new system which was brought in in an attempt to try to provide an incentive, if you like, to a particular subclass. If they reduced their rate of injury, then presumably they would see a decline in their assessment rates and, in that way, the experience rating. That has caused a number of firms to employ professional consultants, who are literally swamping the board with appeals because they want to drive down their assessment rate or experience rate. Currently, the board has put those section 39 applications on hold while they look at developing some policy in terms of how to deal with it. I know that members have raised the issue of administrative costs. You will appreciate that all of these employers using professional consultants -- who go shopping for business, maybe -- has created some administrative difficulties. The board has currently put a hold on that while they attempt to look at the issues of changes in policies and procedures so the ERA system can work.
Finally, the member quoted the average assessment rate in this province as $1.75 in 1990, if I'm not mistaken. I would point out that in 1984 the rate was $2.78, and we are currently at $2.08, so over that decade we are now charging a lower assessment rate than was charged in 1984. When one considers the discount issues that I talked about earlier, I think there's a serious attempt there by the board, and it's reflected in the average assessment rates, which are less than they were a decade ago.
A. Warnke: In his answer the minister also referred to administrative costs and implied that they have increased. Indeed they have; they have dramatically increased. I have some specific numbers, but in general terms administrative costs were just a little over $88 million in 1988, climbing up to $121 million in 1990, and they were close to $186 million in 1993. That's a tremendous increase that has many people concerned. Administrative costs appear on paper to be running up very, very quickly. Indeed, administrative costs now make up about 18 percent of the total income of the WCB. I'm wondering if the minister has actually examined this in detail. In his assessment, where may we make some improvement?
Hon. D. Miller: I don't disagree that administrative costs need to be addressed. Members will know, or should know, or I'll be happy to inform them, that the target this year is for zero increase in administrative costs, or 0.1 percent. That's pretty good, given that the system has been expanded. I think the expansion of the system and some of the issues we've talked about have driven that.
I hope the hon. member will appreciate the argument that one not only needs to look at the absolute dollars that are being spent on administration but needs to look at that in relation to the system -- in other words, to try to bring it to a percentage. We also include -- unlike other systems, by the way -- the $27 million for the prevention division. I've not done the calculation for if we were to take that out, but it's noteworthy that we include that number.
Our administrative costs are among the best in Canada. I don't have the numbers for other systems, but our administrative costs at about 14.5 percent -- which I think in any organization tends to be a pretty good number -- are perhaps not the best, but are among the best in Canada's WCB systems.
The Globe and Mail story that the member refers to, as I hear him talking about 18 percent, is inaccurate. It is not true. The number supplied to me by WCB is 14.4 percent of total revenue. I believe that number is verifiable in the annual report. Administrative costs really need to be looked at in relation to a number; as I said, that's as a percentage of total revenue. But administrative costs as a percentage of all costs, including administration, is 14.4; as a percentage of all other costs, 18.7; and as a percentage of all income, 17.1. I'm happy to supply those numbers, but I do believe they are in the annual report, hon. member.
A. Warnke: I'm wondering, with regard to the expenditures in the WCB now, whether in the area of prevention.... A number of people, both employers and employees, as a matter of fact, have pointed out that what WCB has to concentrate on -- the direction they should go in -- is prevention. That doesn't necessarily mean that you just throw extra money, incidentally, in case anyone is tempted to say that. There needs to be an emphasis on prevention. I believe the minister stated that moments ago.
There's the whole area of ergonomics as well, which looks at the workplace. In the context of the workplace, you look at rhythm and motion and repetitive injuries as a result of those kinds of factors. What proportion of the WCB system is headed toward addressing the areas of prevention and ergonomics? Is it increasing? I would encourage the minister to increase the emphasis. Is the minister intending to increase the emphasis in the coming fiscal years? Just what proportion of the budget is being allocated to these two areas?
Hon. D. Miller: The answer is yes. I talked at an earlier stage about the changing nature of work. I also think it's important, hon. members. In fact, it's an area in which I have a strong interest and intend to do some additional work, because I've seen some numbers that suggest to me that there is a terrible cost. Let's talk not only about those who fall within the WCB but also about those who don't. There's a terrible cost to society of paying people who have sustained injuries a simple compensation model, whether that be the weekly indemnity programs, the wage replacement insurance schemes that exist in a number of workplaces or
[ Page 12290 ]
the kind of social system funding that we apply -- some through my ministry. We pay a staggering cost for people who have sustained injuries and are not able to participate in the workforce. Really, prevention is one of the areas where we can reduce those costs.
The issue of ergonomics has been raised, and in fact it has created some controversy. I know there have been some articles in the newspaper. Some fears have been expressed by employers about the issue of ergonomics. The board is proceeding. There will be an opportunity for a public process. Although it may be a difficult issue for some to deal with, the benefit is that if you can implement those systems in workplaces, you reduce the number of claims. You really reduce your costs.
I guess the trick with all of these kinds of things is that occasionally you have to invest some money in order to make a gain down the road. It's easy enough to understand investing money in a business, and that it's going to pay dividends down the road. But it's harder, I think, to convince people of the direct benefit of making an investment in changing the physical layout of the workplace. Nonetheless, I think the numbers are very clear. I've seen some from Australia, where they have Comcare, which is a slightly different system than we have here. The numbers are real. They lead to significant savings for society.
There will be public hearings on the issue of ergonomics. As well, the board -- as it has historically -- constantly looks at the issue of occupational health and safety regulations. There have been adjustments. There will be adjustments in the future, whether they be with regard to emission standards, appropriate levels of contaminants in a workplace or.... I'm quite familiar with one; I spent too many years running a big chipper in a woodroom, quite frankly. The issue of hearing impairment is a significant issue in the workplace. There's been a lot of very good work done over the last 20 or 30 years.
These are the kinds of emerging issues that I think you will find the board concentrating on.
A. Warnke: The last question I want to address is the question of unfunded liability. Unfunded liability is the dollar figure which shows a difference between the present value of assets and liabilities at a given time. As the WCB benefits are adjusted with the CPI twice yearly, this is a major cost factor as well.
The WCB's fund balance has been rapidly deteriorating or declining, I suppose. From 1986, its fund balance of $326 million declined gradually to -- well, 1991 was the last year where there was a fund balance -- $66.5 million. We find ourselves in 1993 with a $581 million deficit. The WCB's 1993 financial statements show its unfunded liability is $191 million. There's a real concern here, and that's pretty obvious.
One is tempted to respond to the minister's earlier statement by making a comparison with Ontario. For what it's worth, I would be very interested to see it. If the minister could supply that at a later time, I would be most interested to learn where the Ontario Liberal Party stated in explicit terms that they advocate the system as it presently exists in British Columbia. But that's another matter, and that's distracting us from the question of unfunded liability.
[11:45]
I am wondering whether the minister could give us an assessment as to why there appears to be a very rapid deterioration, and tell us what steps he is taking to address this particular problem.
Hon. D. Miller: In trying to explain the issue of the fund balance -- or the unfunded liability or whatever terminology you wish to use -- I indicated that with 97 percent funded, British Columbia is in very good shape. It is also true that if you track any system historically you will find ups and downs. In other words, it would be virtually impossible to maintain 100 percent in every single year. It goes up in some years and down in other years because of the nature of assessments and how they are collected. I also talked about the cap we put on assessments. A very quick and perhaps brutal way to maintain it -- but I'm sure the employers of this province would scream -- is to simply say that we will collect, in every single year, the equivalent of what our actuaries say we need to maintain that fund. That means you would have to take the cap off rate increases, and that would put some employers in a pretty tough position.
I read a list earlier -- not a comprehensive list -- of the worst and the best, if you like, and over $200 million is attributable to those worst employers. In other words, if we look at the change that has taken place because of the accident rate in some of those workplaces, we can really zero in and say: here is the reason we have this problem.
But as I say, the system works over time. It doesn't work in isolation every single year; it's not compartmentalized. The board, the workers and the employers are very cognizant that they each have a vested interest in keeping accidents down and in maintaining a healthy financial situation in the system. That way they're in a good position. They have the flexibility, and they can consider new, emerging issues. We can do what we've done, for example, by extending coverage. We can, as we've done this year in a piece of legislation, now include a better opportunity for occupational disease cases to be applied for. We have the luxury, because we have a well-funded and reasonably well-run system to consider these kinds of additions.
R. Neufeld: I have a few quick questions and some observations on a few issues from my constituency and on one from the constituency of Prince George-Omineca. Just to get it on the record, I wanted to....
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: I don't think so, because he has to go, too. Well, we're trying, Mr. Minister, but we have to get in some time. I guess I could have stood up earlier, but I didn't.
As for the issue of WCB, I just want to put on the record that when your government came to office, WCB was quite a few million dollars in the black. In a short three years, with raising rates by anywhere from 20 percent to 25 percent on average and including a lot more businesses in the assessment, we've come to a $100 million shortfall. There happens to be a problem, and I appreciate what the minister is saying. I'm not saying that it is in total disarray, but there is a problem in the WCB that somehow has to be dealt with. The Liberals talk about all the people who come in to see them. I don't get a lot of people coming in to see me about issues concerning the WCB -- just a few, and usually they're ones that are fairly old.
I do have a question on some of the expenditures of the WCB. If we look at what the WCB is liable for.... I have a situation in my constituency where a person who was intoxicated on the job in a campsite fell off a walkway and, according to the WCB, will incur severe damage. WCB is going to compensate that person. In fact, it is right in the legislation.
[ Page 12291 ]
"Section 16.10(2)(a) of the Rehabilitation Services and Claims Manual states in part: 'If the injury arose in the course of employment and something in the employment relationship had causative significance in producing the injury, it is still one arising out of and in the course of employment, notwithstanding the impairment'."
I compare that to ICBC. If you are impaired and you have an accident, there is no insurance.
I wonder if those aren't some areas that the minister would like to look at to change, or even contemplate changing. I don't think it gives anybody a lot of responsibility. If they can be impaired on the job and still be covered if they hurt themselves, why do they care? I think that some of the responsibility is taken away from some of the workers also. Maybe the minister could comment briefly on that.
Hon. D. Miller: We have a no-fault system. We also have a system in the workplace which I am familiar with -- and I am sure that anybody in workplaces will be familiar with -- that puts a lot of pressure on people to have safe work habits; it's pressure from your fellow workers. There is honesty in the system. If people are irresponsible, they are dealt with in the workplace. We have a no-fault system, because many years ago we adopted the model that took away the individual's right to sue their employer for negligence, in return for which we put a system in that says that if you are injured on the job, the system will deal with that in the appropriate manner.
The place to deal with responsibility is in the workplace. We cannot -- and it would be folly to suggest that we should -- adopt a fault system. In other words, it would be folly to deal with the issue of compensating injured workers on the basis that they somehow contributed to their own circumstances.
R. Neufeld: "Pure folly" is an interesting response from the minister. I guess in ICBC it's pure folly. You don't have any insurance if you have an accident. Is that pure folly? That's government-driven also. We have to get back to some responsibility to all people -- employers and employees. If the minister thinks that you can get intoxicated on the job and it's just fine, then okay.
The member for Prince George-Omineca has a question about a business in his area that is going to be audited, and has no problem with it. But they ask for financial statements. The business has no problem providing all the things that go along with the payroll books: individual earnings, T-4s, synoptics, revenue statements and all those kinds of things. But why the need for financial statements to be included in an audit for the WCB?
Hon. D. Miller: Well, it's very difficult for me to comment on an individual's circumstances. I suggest the individual company pursue that with the board. If there's a lack of satisfaction there, the member is quite welcome to contact me.
R. Neufeld: Maybe we'll get through by 12 and you can quit throwing your pencils around.
I have one more question having to do with fines. How much revenue is generated by the WCB in fines?
Hon. D. Miller: In 1993 assessment penalties were $4.8 million, and there was an additional $1.5 million in prevention penalties.
R. Neufeld: Does the WCB keep track of how much money is paid out due to different types of workplace accidents, such as where seatbelts weren't worn while operating equipment? Is there some record where you keep track of the costs that are paid out on that?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that the types of accidents are tracked. They do track that, but they don't do a corresponding track of the cost associated with a type of accident. Clearly that results in the board putting pressure on employers and workers to deal with a particular type of accident. In other words, growth in a particular type of accident needs some energy put into trying to get those numbers.
R. Neufeld: I have an issue here that I haven't contacted the minister about before. We have a large firm in Fort St. John; the payroll is between $2.3 million and $5.7 million. They were written up in 1991 for an operator not wearing a seatbelt and again in 1993 for an operator on a D-6 cat not wearing a seatbelt. This company has safety programs and meetings in place. They've shown that operators have signed in to indicate that they have been at those safety meetings where it was stressed that you wear your seatbelts, whether on equipment or in vehicles. Although they had some other infractions that they were written up on, they had two seatbelt infractions, and they were assessed a fine of $7,500 on the second infraction.
If you go to the penalty assessments for safety and health infractions, that's a type 3, which means that the risk of injury or disease is high: there has been a fatality or a serious injury or exposure to chemical substances that could result in permanent irreversible injury, illness or death. The company is disputing the $7,500 fine for a second offence in three years for an operator not wearing a seatbelt. It wonders how WCB feels that they can force an operator to wear a seatbelt after they put programs in place and the operators have gone to these programs and signed in. If you get stopped in a car for not having your seatbelt on, you get about a $100 fine or a $75 fine. The carnage on the highways is probably a greater tragedy to all society than a D-6 cat rolling over out in the bush. It just seems quite expensive.
The person who owns this business says that the increases in WCB and suddenly getting hit with a $7,500 fine just seem to be a bit much. He feels that maybe some people in the field are taking advantage of a system where they can apply those kinds of fines. At the same time, there was a well blowout north of Fort Nelson. It was shown that they didn't have the correct equipment on site, yet all that company was written up for was the fact that they didn't have the equipment on site and should get it on site. So there are two different things there. It becomes hard to believe that you would fine someone $7,500 for an operator not wearing a seatbelt.
The Chair: The minister....
Hon. D. Miller: Their House Leader just advised me that they were finished.
The Chair: Excuse me, there is a little confusion regarding whether we are done now or whether we are going to resume committee this afternoon.
Hon. D. Miller: I'll just answer the question, hon. Chair. I must say that I was advised by the House Leader for the Liberals that they in fact had completed their portion.
[ Page 12292 ]
I should just very quickly point out again that it is not the individual field inspector; it must go up through the system. It must be approved by senior people, and there is an appeal mechanism for employers. I guess we all pay the price through our insurance premiums for those drivers who don't wear their seatbelts.
Finally, if there are labour relations issues -- in other words, if an employee is not complying with the safety rules of a particular operation -- it really must be dealt with between the employer and the employee. But I appreciate the concerns that the member has raised.
The Chair: I am going to entertain perhaps a couple of quick questions if we can indeed get out very shortly. Otherwise, it would seem to me that we ought simply pick it up this afternoon. But I understand there is an agreement that we're going to end momentarily.
K. Jones: I'm not sure that we're prepared to just have a short thing.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, your House Leader advised me.
K. Jones: I haven't been advised of that.
Perhaps I could ask one question of the minister. Could the minister tell us how many suicides have occurred while the persons have been in any part of the WCB process?
[12:00]
Hon. D. Miller: No.
K. Jones: I don't know what the minister answered. I asked him how many suicides occurred.
Hon. D. Miller: I do not have that information.
K. Jones: Could the minister obtain that information for us, please?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised by my staff that no, that would not be possible.
D. Mitchell: I have just one quick question. Last night, in the Premier's announcement on television, he indicated that three community skill centres were going to be established on Vancouver Island in conjunction with the Vancouver Island land use plan that has been revisited. We had a chance to canvass community skill centres earlier in this set of estimates with the minister. We did discuss them, but we never discussed the location specifically. The Premier has announced three, but we haven't learned the location of those. As this comes under his ministry, can the minister advise the committee, just before we wrap up these estimates -- I believe we are getting close -- of the location of the three community skill centres on Vancouver Island?
Hon. D. Miller: Not at this time. I believe there was a speculative piece in the newspaper the other day that listed two communities, but it may be that the final decisions with respect to exact locations have not yet been made.
D. Mitchell: I have just one final question, then. The minister has indicated that there will be ten community skill centres and ten next year, for a total of 20. We know that three will be on Vancouver Island. When will the announcements be forthcoming? Will they be made within a matter of days or weeks, or we will simply learn over the course of the next year where they're going to be? There are communities in the province that are anxious to know if they can apply for these community skill centres. Is there a process in place for that?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes. In fact, there will be some announcements coming up fairly soon, I hope. I don't have an exact date. It's a fairly complicated subject, because part of it is the community's ability and willingness, and a number of other factors. But the answer is yes, and I'm pleased to say that there's a great deal of enthusiasm about them. In fact, I said at a recent meeting that if they prove to be as least as popular as the early indications we're getting show, then clearly the government needs to consider expanding the program. Now, that's a bit presumptuous of me, and clearly I don't speak for the Minister of Finance or for Treasury Board.
K. Jones: Could the minister explain to us why he is unable to give us the number of people who have committed suicide while going through the WCB process? Surely the WCB has that information, because it obviously would end a claim or its status.
Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect, it is a very complicated subject. There may be a number of reasons why a person takes their own life. It would be extremely difficult, if not absolutely impossible, to determine whether that was a result of being on workers' compensation or not. Really, with all due respect, it would be virtually impossible for the WCB to maintain that kind of statistical record. In fact, I would caution against getting into this area.
The Chair: Will the member for Surrey-Cloverdale take his seat for just a moment, please. Before I recognize him, I just want to advise the House that it is my understanding that an agreement has been made between the opposition parties and the government regarding these estimates, and that we will be out of these estimates within the next five minutes. I will just point out to the member that indeed he has every right in the world to keep this assembly here as long as he so wishes. However, the moment we start violating and failing to honour those kinds of agreements, we have absolute chaos in this place. I would suggest to all members that we move away from those kinds of agreements with the greatest possible caution, quite frankly, because nobody gains by doing so.
Member for Surrey-Cloverdale, if you have a couple of quick questions, we'll entertain them. But I don't think we ought to go beyond.
K. Jones: Perhaps the Chairman would like to continue at a later time.
The Chair: Shall the vote pass?
K. Jones: The Chairman is saying he wishes to continue, then. I thought I heard from him that he wanted to end now. I'm confused about the direction from the Chair.
The Chair: I'm sorry, member. I'm suggesting that the way to conclude this committee's activity is to pass the particular vote. The appropriate question, then, is whether the vote shall pass. If the member doesn't wish that to happen, then certainly he can register his dissension.
K. Jones: I don't wish that to happen at this point. I wish to continue, as many more points in the area of the WCB that
[ Page 12293 ]
are of concern to the people of British Columbia need to be addressed by the minister. To have this guillotined, as appears to be being attempted, is doing a disservice to the people of British Columbia.
The minister is trying to say that suicide by a person who is frustrated by the WCB process is a delicate situation. You're darned right it's a delicate situation. It needs to be addressed. I constantly have people coming to me who are really upset about the whole frustrating process of dealing with the WCB. There are people who get to the point where suicide is something they contemplate. It's a factor that we and the public need to know about and that the WCB does know about. They have the documentation; they know exactly what's there.
Hon. D. Miller: Certainly the member has expressed his deep concern, and I appreciate that he has done so. Certainly it is a topic I am prepared to take forward to the board for greater discussion. I thank the member for his input.
G. Farrell-Collins: Obviously, as people can tell from the debate this morning, the workers' compensation issue requires the attention of all members of the House. I know that the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca made a statement about a year ago, and I know that he has been working hard on behalf of injured workers, as have members of our caucus. I think that the heated tenor of the debate this morning indicates just how serious this issue is and how real the impact is on people's lives.
I don't think we've managed to solve this issue this morning, nor would we even if we debated it for two weeks. It's something that's going to require the energies of the government, the opposition and particularly individual MLAs from both sides of the House, to continue to work hard to make sure that changes are made in dealing with those issues and in trying to ensure that injured workers are treated fairly and that businesses are also treated equally and fairly. Everyone has an interest in seeing improvements to that system. As good as the minister says it is, there are still opportunities for improvement, and I think all members want to see that happen.
At this point, I think we've probably done as much as we can to bring the issues we've heard about to the attention of the minister. I will certainly be continuing to do that as the weeks progress. With that, I think we've managed to complete the estimates of the minister. If he'd like to move the vote, I think we can move on.
The Chair: The member of West Vancouver-Garibaldi on what point?
D. Mitchell: Regarding the procedure for taking the votes on these estimates, my understanding is that there are two votes: vote 49, the minister's office, a sum of $372,000; and vote 50, the ministry operations, which is a very significant vote in the budget estimates, at more than $1.5 billion. Earlier in this set of estimates, I moved a motion that we should reduce the minister's salary to $1. The reason I did that was that at the time, I didn't think we were achieving the kind of accountability we needed in these estimates. I stand by that motion.
I would like to propose that we stand down vote 49, the minister's office, and simply vote on vote 50, ministry operations. Let that vote continue. Even though I'm a strong believer in legislative accountability, I think we would do well by the taxpayers by standing down vote 49 and not having a minister's office.
The Chair: Hon. member, you made that point by expressing the motion; the matter has been dealt with. Moreover, we have accepted the procedure in terms of dealing with votes 49 and 50. What you're saying is quite out of order. The question before us is vote 49.
Vote 49 approved on division.
Vote 50: ministry operations, $1,556,716,800 -- approved.
Hon. D. Miller: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Miller: I thank the members for their patience and for the outstanding discussion we've just had.
Hon. D. Miller moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:11 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]