1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 20, Number 22
[ Page 15195 ]
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
Clerk of the House: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Prayers.
HEALTH AUTHORITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
Hon. P. Ramsey presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Authorities Amendment Act, 1995.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, this bill makes a number of amendments to the existing Health Authorities Act, and I'll be discussing those amendments in detail in second reading of the bill. In the meantime, I want to draw the attention of members to a number of key provisions. The Health Authorities Act is being amended to ensure that all residents of British Columbia are able to participate in health decision-making, no matter how much money they earn, where they live, or what their background is. Greater and fuller participation of citizens is an important feature in the better management of B.C.'s health system. Participation from community leaders, health care providers and knowledgable, dedicated volunteers at the community and regional levels is essential for better health care management.
The amendments in this act will ensure that health care providers and aboriginal groups are represented on regional health boards and community health councils, and that boards and councils have their full complement of representatives. The amendments will also protect the quality health care currently provided by tertiary facilities and allow regional representation on regional health boards that serve British Columbians from outside their regions.
The new boards and councils are taking on the responsibility for delivering health services in the most cost-effective manner possible. These amendments will help save costs and streamline the transfer process when existing societies voluntarily transfer their facilities to the new regional health boards and community health councils.
These amendments are important; they will significantly contribute to achieving our government's goal of better managing our health services and improving health care for all British Columbians.
Bill 40 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.
F. Gingell: I wish to table in the House a petition signed by many constituents of Delta South:
"We, the undersigned, wish to register our profound opposition to recent changes made in the Adoption Act regulations without public discussion. Your petitioners respectfully request, in the spirit of open government and in the best interests of the children of British Columbia, the honourable House pass legislation to reinstate the previous regulations governing the adoption of infants and children, at least until the public's interests have been fully considered."
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In Section A this morning, the committee will consider the estimates of the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour. In the House, I call committee stage on Bill 24.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1995
The House in committee on Bill 24; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.
On section 1.
J. Tyabji: We'd just like to put on the record that we see this as an improvement to the existing act, and we congratulate the Attorney General on it.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
J. Tyabji: Section 2, section 25(2), reads: "An appeal or application for leave to appeal referred to in subsection (1) shall be removed from the inactive appeal list when a justice grants leave to the appellant or the applicant to proceed with the appeal or application for leave to appeal." One question that we have is: rather than it going before a justice, was there any consideration given to it being by the consent of both parties in consultation with the registrar, so it doesn't have to go back before a judge?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The parties may have this discussion, and they may agree; but you need the court to actually effect the order. It requires that the justice do that.
J. Tyabji: Perhaps the Attorney General could correct me on this. It's my understanding that when something is before the Court of Appeal, if you have the consent of both parties in consultation with the registrar, an appeal that normally could be considered abandoned or that would be eligible to be dismissed as abandoned can actually stay active. If there's going to be a provision such as there is in section 25(1) -- and I would like to put on the record that we see subsection (1) as an excellent improvement to the existing system; it's going to save a lot of tax dollars -- then subsection (2) would also save money if it could be by the consent of both parties. In the event of it being something where an appeal has been filed and for whatever reason has been left outstanding, if it does get placed on that list, it could be taken off if both parties consent. Then you don't have to go back before a judge. We think that would be a little bit better. In the event of one party not consenting, we can see that you would then want to get a judge involved; but with the consent of both parties, there's really no reason to have to put it on a roster for a hearing.
[ Page 15196 ]
[10:15]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I just want to make sure that I understand what the member is asking us to consider, which I hadn't considered before this exchange. That is, if both parties wish the appeal to die, that simply happens by them appearing or notifying the registrar of that intent, and thus they avoid the need to appear in court to have the order actually effected. So the member is not talking about the 180-day issue; she's talking about the issue in subsection (2). Is that correct? I think I need a little more from the member on this, given that we haven't had an opportunity to consider the notion that she's advancing.
J. Tyabji: It's actually the reverse. As the provisions of subsection (1) say: "If a certificate of readiness is not filed in accordance with the rules within one year...the registrar shall (a) place the appeal...on the inactive appeal list...and (b) mail notice of the action taken...to the following persons...(i) each counsel of record;" -- so plaintiff, defendant -- "(ii) each unrepresented appellant or respondent...." That's excellent; that's what should be done.
In the event of both parties receiving notice and saying, "Actually, by consent, we would like to extend the time for the appeal, because we're working on it," or, "We don't have enough money"-- whatever it is -- rather than having to go before a judge to argue for that, they could extend that time by consent of both parties. This recognizes that the laws of natural justice prevail and that everybody has a right to a fair hearing, provided that one of those parties is not the Crown, because the Crown can't be left on the hook for a long time. But certainly in a civil proceeding there could be an instance where both parties would like to extend it, and they don't really want to bother the justice system with it. That's what we're talking about.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I now have a better understanding of what the member is asking for, and it's actually something that isn't part of this. The member is asking for yet another amendment, in effect, to the act, which isn't contained in any way in this section. What this really does is to try to deal with inactive appeals at the end of a six-month period. The member makes a point which I have not considered and which is clearly not part of this. The best I can do at this stage -- because it would take some thought, some discussion and some drafting -- is to take the member's idea and proposal, discuss it with my officials and see whether or not appropriate amendments can be made at another occasion.
J. Tyabji: I should restate that we're not talking about Crown cases; we're talking about a civil matter -- small business and those kinds of things where someone might want redress.
M. de Jong: On the same question, I think the member's suggestion has some merit. If the Attorney General is going to examine it, though, I think he will have to differentiate between extending the time for filing documents and for leaves to appeal, because there is obviously a difference.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I absolutely agree, and that's only one of a number of issues, I think, which would flow from the suggestion. I think it's appropriate that members make suggestions about improvements to law, and if they work and they're supported generally, then we have an obligation to make those improvements. I'll certainly look at it.
Sections 2 and 3 approved.
On section 4.
M. de Jong: I wonder if the Attorney General can indicate to the House whether or not he is aware if section 4 will affect, in any way, the compellability of a counsellor as a witness in proceedings. Are we creating some manner of statutory privilege here?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's fair to say that the member's point is valid, assuming that the question turns into a statement that there is added compellability with this. If you're going to move into mediation, which I would assume all members in this House would think is a good thing to do, you have to create a statutory regime around it, and that's one of the effects.
M. de Jong: Is it the Attorney General's understanding, then, that in a matrimonial action where there is reference made to family court counselling -- either by consent or by reference from a court.... One of the concerns that often arises is whether, as the parties are asked to bare their souls, they are truly doing so on a without-prejudice basis vis-a-vis that counsellor? Can parties now, on the basis of this section, proceed to that exercise and through that exercise, confident that the counsellor they are dealing with is not going to end up on the witness stand disclosing the information that he or she has received?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is absolutely. It's essential that that occur. The counsellor, the mediator, cannot and should not be called to provide testimony one way or another following that process.
M. de Jong: Then is there any magic or significance to be attached to the words "family court counsellor," and is that a restrictive definition of a particular person within a particular ministry, or is it someone so designated, even by the parties -- that this is our counsellor?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: "Family court counsellor" is a defined term in the act.
G. Wilson: I just want to make sure that I understand exactly what it is that we are doing here. As I understand the existing statute, it reads that where a family court counsellor has evidence or information that was provided in confidence to that family court counsellor, that counsellor cannot be compelled to disclose that information by a court or through a court in which there is a public record to be kept -- if I understand the existing act. And what this is saying is that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act cannot be brought to bear to force that disclosure of information.
I guess where I come into this is on the question of consent. If I'm right so far -- and I see nodding on the other side, so I think I am.... If information has been provided.... Let me give you a case scenario, because it might be easier for me to explain my concern. If a court orders a family court
[ Page 15197 ]
counsellor to bring parties together with respect to a family relations question, that then proceeds to full trial. I understand that the court cannot compel that court counsellor to provide information that is, in fact, provided in confidence, unless there is consent. But the family court counsellor presumably cannot consent to that information without the consent of both parties. Or is it only one of the two parties who was involved in the provision of that information?
It would seem to me that there are two ways in which this could be problematic. One is that there could be consent provided by the court counsellors themselves, which I think might violate this act. Secondly, one of the two parties may seek to get that information on the court record because it eventually will improve their position in court. If the minister can explain if this blocks that through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, then that would be most interesting.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, in fact, this does block that from happening. If both parties give consent to the counsellor to provide the information that the family court counsellor has learned from both parties, then obviously either party could provide that information to the court as well. But if either party says no, then the counsellor cannot -- and, in fact, wouldn't -- provide that information to the court. The parties would. It would be direct information rather than indirect, in any event, if there was consent.
So as I understand this, if there's no consent to divulging information, then despite the FOI legislation or anything else, the family court counsellor cannot be compelled to divulge.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
G. Wilson: This is interesting information, because it actually speaks to a case file that we have in front of us now, where, in fact, the judge compelled such evidence to be brought forward in court. I find that it seems to be a contravention of what we're looking at here. We need to look at the detail of that, because there may be some reason.
But then, what is the penalty for disclosure of that information? Presumably, if there's a failure.... If you're prohibited from disclosing and if the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, through this addition, even strengthens that, then there has to be some penalty attached to that disclosure.
An Hon. Member: By a family court counsellor?
G. Wilson: By a family court counsellor.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There's no specific penalty provision in this legislation for that kind of disclosure -- the illegal disclosure. There may be Offence Act provisions. But I think there would be contempt issues to be raised as well. I'm sure that the affected party's lawyer would very quickly use the contempt opportunities they may have. But there are no specific offence provisions in here. That wouldn't be right.
G. Wilson: My last question, then.... This is by way of a separate case file, where a lawyer subpoenas the notes of a family court counsellor and those notes include information that is confidential and is provided only on a confidential basis. Is that lawyer then provided an opportunity to cross-examine on the basis of the information in those notes, given that, through the cross-examination, that confidential material becomes a part of the court record?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Those notes should not be divulged to that lawyer. I think I'll put it more strongly: those notes cannot be divulged to that lawyer. Those are confidential, and this section guarantees that.
M. de Jong: My sense is that the section was developed with respect to its interplay with the Freedom of Information Act. We have begun a discussion that relates to the implications in court in terms of compellability of witnesses and compellability of documents. If we are creating a form of statutory privilege or altering the rules of compellability for certain individuals, I wonder, in retrospect, whether that is something that should be laid out more specifically in something like the Evidence Act.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There may be some other issues that we need to consider, but what we're doing here in this amendment is making sure that the protection already afforded in the Family Relations Act of non-compellability of the family court counsellor is guaranteed, given the introduction and proclamation of the freedom-of-information legislation, so that no one can use that legislation to circumvent the Family Relations Act. That's really all we're trying to do here.
The member raises other questions that have to do with the Evidence Act that are not part of this and have not been considered as part of this. But again, like I always do with comments from members, I will ask staff to take the point and consider it and see whether there is some merit to the issue being raised.
J. Tyabji: I think I know the answer to this, but I'll ask it, anyway: under subsection (5), with the time limit that's provided for there.... Could the Attorney General give an example of where it would be useful to have that statute of limitations, I suppose, on the use of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act?
[10:30]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member may have known the answer to the question before she asked it, but I didn't. This has to do with the standard archival procedures in government: 100 years for personal information and 50 years for non-personal information.
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
G. Wilson: I have a very quick question about that because it seems to be consistent with what we've already been discussing. My concern has to do more with subsections 44(2) and 44(3) of the act. Does this mean that under no circumstances will there be a provision for claims for freedom of information, despite the fact that there are provisions within those sections of the existing act? In other words, is the minister saying that we're going to nail this door firmly shut, that at no time are you going to be...despite what you may find within subsection 44(2)?
[ Page 15198 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes; an absolute yes.
Sections 5 and 6 approved.
On section 7.
L. Fox: Could the Attorney General give me some rationale on the need for this particular section? Could the Attorney General give me some rationale as to why he's bringing this amendment forward?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think all members, counsellors and school board officials are familiar with the onerous task that we all have of filling out the forms twice a year under the Financial Disclosure Act. It was felt that the once-a-year filing would be sufficient, so as not to be doing it in July as well as in January of each year, which is when I think we do it.
L. Fox: As I read it, this goes beyond the elected official, to the employee. In my view, this is something new. That's one question. Second, in subsection 7(b)(5) one would have to ask what kind of authority this legislation would carry if an individual has not filed once they've left the office. What authority would the Attorney General, or this legislation, have under subsection (b)(5) to force that disclosure once the employee has left?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The employees, as well as the officials, have always had to file -- well, since the act was changed some 20 years ago, or whenever it was -- and the employees who ceased employment have always had to file when they leave. There's a fine of up to $10,000 for failure to do that. What we're now simply saying is that those employees also are affected by not needing to file in July.
I'm just looking at the wording in the Financial Disclosure Act. In section 2(5) we have essentially the same wording, with the same effect, in the existing act, as we will have by substituting the new wording. "December 31, 1974" comes out, and there are some other wording changes. But its effect, I say to the member, is that there is no real effect; it's just better and more current wording.
Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.
On section 10.
J. Tyabji: With respect to section 103 of the Labour Relations Code being removed from the provisions for a mediator-arbitrator and a settlement, determination or decision under this section, why was section 103 removed? I see that section 103 is entitled "Share of cost of grievance recommendations," and it talks about collective agreements and differences that evolve under that. I'm wondering why that has been rewritten, if some practice that has occurred since the Labour Code came in has forced that, and what it actually means to the implications of the Labour Code.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This amendment clarifies or corrects, in effect, an oversight that occurred at the time of the drafting of the Labour Relations Code, so that under section 103 -- I want to make sure I get this right; I haven't been dealing with the Labour Code for some time now -- if parties write into their collective agreement the provisions of this arbitration process, then the one-third, one-third financing arrangement will apply, as I understand it. Because of the oversight in drafting it initially, that didn't happen.
J. Tyabji: I'm trying to catch up to this; it's such a big code. As I see it, it's the consensual mediation-arbitration section which is now removing section 103 from the provisions of section 105. I'm not sure if the Attorney General is saying that the reason for that is a cost provision. I guess I can't read that into it. I was just wondering why section 103 has been removed, since it's talking specifically about collective agreements and the one-third funding formula.
It almost appears to me -- and I'm not familiar enough; I'm not a labour lawyer -- that section 103 is being removed from the mediation-arbitration section of the code. I don't know what the implications of that would be for the resolution of a dispute. Maybe the Attorney General could explain that in some detail. There's no reference in section 103 to mediation or arbitration, and it would almost seem like the one-third provision for funding is going to apply without going to that model.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to try this again, now that I have a copy of the Labour Relations Code in front of me. Section 103 provides an opportunity for the share of grievance costs if the collective agreement contains the following provisions. Under section 105, if the parties request the director to appoint a mediator-arbitrator, following that there isn't a sharing of the costs on the one-third basis that occurs in section 103. That wasn't contained in the provision. If this happens, the costs are borne by the parties themselves. That's what everybody had understood the original intention to be, but it doesn't say that.
J. Tyabji: To get this straight, there's no sharing of costs by the province under section 105, and under section 103 there is. You want to take section 103 out of section 105(10) just to make it perfectly clear that the province picks up one-third of the costs. Great. Thanks.
Sections 10 to 16 inclusive approved.
On section 17.
D. Symons: I just want to make a very brief comment on sections 17 through 24, dealing with motor fuel, because they go together. It's a subject that the motor carriers in this province have been after for quite a long time, and I'm very pleased to see that the minister has addressed this problem. They are very pleased. I had reports back from them, thanking the minister for the fact that he has addressed their issues finally.
Sections 17 to 24 inclusive approved.
On section 25.
G. Wilson: On section 25, the Gulf Islands minimum parcel size validation, one of the concerns I have is the retroactivity question. There are some concerns there. Every time you bring in a retroactivity provision that impacts on community planning matters and parcel size, that's a concern. If the minister could explain the retroactivity provision and what the effect is likely to be, we might clean that up.
[ Page 15199 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, the nature of amendments to MEVA, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act, which we deal with virtually every session -- at least, I can remember them in most of the sessions that I've been here -- is that they are, by definition, retroactive. You're enabling and validating something that happened previously. What's happened in this situation, again as I understand it -- and I may need to be more precise in this, but in general terms -- is that there have been effectively two legislative schemes governing minimum lot size in the affected area, which includes part of the member's riding, part of my riding and other Gulf Islands. It goes back to 1969. Ten-acre minimum lot sizes were established by regulation, and then regional districts, for the most part, would also pass bylaws establishing minimum lot sizes.
The understanding that everybody had, and the way everybody operated, was that the bylaw was the law. The minimum lot size was, in fact, determined by bylaw. Because of the regulatory provision that existed all these years since '69, cabinet had to then remove the effect of the regulation from that bylaw area, once the bylaw was passed, because the bylaw was intended to deal with minimum lot sizes where no bylaws existed. Once a bylaw was passed, then cabinet was supposed to have removed the governance by the regulation to allow the bylaw to be in place.
This occurred on many occasions between '69 and 1978, but in 1978 the cabinet, for some reason, quit taking this step of removing the effect of the regulation. So we have had a potential situation of having two minimum lot sizes in some areas -- the one set by bylaw and the one set by regulation. What we're simply doing through this is validating the effect of the bylaw going back all of these years so that the bylaw, which everybody believed to govern the minimum lot size in any event, is in fact the appropriate law with respect to the lot size in this area.
[10:45]
G. Wilson: Two questions come out of that. One, where there is no bylaw in effect, but in some areas there are.... They're not even proper community plans, actually. They're like a community.... I'm trying to think; Savary Island is an example of what I'm talking about here. I don't quite know what you would call them. They're not quite community plans; they're not bylaws. They've got a subdivision on the island which would make East Vancouver look less dense, even though they haven't built on that, and there is a lot of violation in terms of rights-of-way -- highway rights-of-way -- all those kinds of things.
My concern is that if you put this regulation in place, with its retroactivity clause going back to what the original island plan was, you're going to find a considerable amount of land use conflict with established rights-of-way -- in some instances, gazetted roadways where those lot sizes have in fact been placed over top of what should be public access.
I wonder if the minister has thought that one through. Maybe Savary is just a particularly unusual example of this. I know that the Highways ministry and I have spent many hours, as I have with the community association on Savary Island, to try and work out a tailor-made kind of design on this.
What effectively is there in writing, if I can just summarize what I'm saying.... What exists in terms of the community plan -- because there is no particular bylaw in place -- what exists on paper has little or no reality to what exists on the ground. Do you know what I'm saying? So this is a problem. I don't know if the minister could suggest whether this rectifies that or whether it is going to compound that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The only way this amendment would apply to the Savary Island situation -- and I have some similar messes in my constituency -- would be if, in fact.... No, let me just start that again to make sure that I get it right. If there was a bylaw in place by the Powell River Regional District -- if, in fact, the regional district had passed a minimum lot size bylaw at any time historically for Savary Island -- then that minimum size that the bylaw regulates will govern. They may have said two acres; they may have said any number of acres. Whatever they said is, in fact, the minimum lot size for the whole island or part of it, or however they've done it.
If the regional district has not declared minimum lot sizes for Savary Island or a part of Savary Island, then the ten-acre minimum applies. That is not changed by this, because that has been the law since 1969. It's always been the case that if there is no bylaw, the ten-acre minimum applies; if there is a bylaw, the bylaw applies. Through negligence on the part of the government -- I'll just say that -- there was a failure to effect the appropriate order-in-council to take off the yoke of the regulation when the bylaw passed. That's all it does. It won't change anything in practical terms on Savary Island or anywhere else.
Sections 25 to 33 inclusive approved.
On section 34.
L. Reid: I understand that the new section 34 amending section 95 of the Workers Compensation Act.... I'm simply seeking some clarification. What it appears to suggest.... Certainly all of us have the scenario existing in our constituency offices today that we often receive information directly from the Workers' Compensation Board on behalf of our constituents. It seems to me that this precludes that activity. Would the minister kindly comment?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Can the member be more precise about "precludes that activity"? It's an activity that the member might be engaged in, and I want to be precise about what she says.
L. Reid: The new 34 (1.1) says: "If information in a claim file, or in any other material pertaining to the claim of an injured or disabled worker, is disclosed for the purposes of this Act by an officer or employee of the board to a person other than the worker, that person shall not disclose the information...." That's the section I'm referring to. What I'm suggesting is that oftentimes I as the MLA, and certainly other MLAs in this chamber, have received information directly from an employee of the Workers' Compensation Board on behalf of a constituent. I'm seeking clarification on whether or not that activity will continue to be permissible under this new amendment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I understand that this won't change or make any difference to the relationship that MLAs
[ Page 15200 ]
-- or advocates, for that matter -- have with the injured worker or with the board with respect to that information. This deals simply with information that could be used as part of the appeal process later on, so there's not an inappropriate sharing of information that could impact inappropriately on the appeal process.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's clarification, but in terms of extending the discussion, would the scenario ever arise where an MLA would be asked to participate in an appeal process? Does this allow for that scenario?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In representing the worker at an appeal hearing, the MLA would need the worker's consent to divulge any information the MLA might have. Without that consent, you couldn't divulge it.
L. Reid: To summarize, then, I am hearing the minister say that the status quo will be maintained -- that the same provisions of constituent consent for the MLA to become involved remain in place and that this does not alter that relationship.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This deals with ensuring that the paper -- the material, the file -- isn't disclosed to the employer. When receiving the information in the file in respect of the appeal, the employer doesn't disclose it further. The disclosure is limited to the question at hand in the appeal, and disclosure beyond that or for some other purpose -- some retributive purpose, perhaps -- is not allowed.
L. Reid: I thank the minister for that clarification. What I'm hearing him say is that the individuals that the worker would ask to be involved...the status quo around that arrangement is maintained, but it puts on additional conditions for other people who may be asked to participate in the appeal process. Can I ask the minister to confirm?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In general, the answer is yes.
G. Wilson: I pick up on the questions from the member for Richmond East, but beyond the MLA portion. It would seem to me that one of the problems we might find with this -- and I don't know if this actually takes care of it -- is where information may be provided to a lawyer by subpoena in the process of litigation. That information might then be used as part of a court action, without full disclosure of the information -- i.e., the documents wouldn't be filed in court. But the information contained within that material may in fact be entered as evidence, and that effectively becomes part of the public record. This is a similar question to what I was asking about before. I am concerned that there may be an end run around this legislation if you can get information by subpoena which then, through the introduction of evidence into court, provides public record of information that should remain confidential, and I wonder if this deals with that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: With the disclosure rules in court, both parties would know about the information that one lawyer might want to bring to the court. If there was a feeling that that information should not be disclosed, then it would be up to the judge to decide whether or not that information was relevant and required for the proceedings. That's where the decision would be made.
G. Wilson: But there's nothing to prevent the lawyer, as the plaintiff, from effectively subpoenaing that information. There's nothing to stop that information flow going through to the principal litigant, even though that might be the Crown. Once that information is out, it's out. I'm assuming that the laws that prohibit the disclosure, that suggest here an officer or employee of the board.... Once that's been given, the person shall not disclose except.... I'm assuming that what the minister is saying is that even if that information is provided through discovery process, through subpoena, through whatever the process might be, that information cannot, without either the order of the court or the consent of both parties, be used. Is that right?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the situation that the member described, the employer would already have the information. What is barred is the employer using that information for purposes other than the appeal. It therefore can't be disseminated beyond that process.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Oh, if there's a court order, then.... I guess the other point to make is that this rarely gets into the court process, given the appeal process in the WCB structure. This is where it occurs: in the appeal process. Both parties have the information's disclosure, but what's prohibited is the use of that material by a party.... In effect, it's to prevent the employer from using the information that is made available to them -- to effectively defend himself or herself -- for some other purpose, including maybe finding a way of firing the employee because they learned something from this record.
Sections 34 and 35 approved.
On section 36.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I believe this is in Orders of the Day now, and I move the amendment standing in my name, to section 36, which is to have section 12 deemed to have come into force on June 1, 1995 -- and be retroactive to that date.
[SECTION 36, in the proposed section 36 by adding the following subsection:
(4) Section 12 is deemed to have come into force on June 1, 1995 and is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect on and after that date.]
Amendment approved.
Section 36 as amended approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
[11:00]
Bill 24, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1995, reported complete with amendment.
[ Page 15201 ]
Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: With leave, now.
Leave granted.
Bill 24, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1995, read a third time and passed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 13.
MINERAL TENURE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
The House in committee on Bill 13; R. Kasper in the chair.
Hon. A. Edwards: I just want to introduce the staff who are with me: Bruce McRae, ADM for minerals; and Denis Lieutard, chief gold commissioner for B.C.
On section 1.
D. Jarvis: I talked to the minister, and it's interesting to see Mr. Lieutard. His name will be brought up many times during this morning's situation, I believe.
In second reading I supported Bill 13, Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, 1995, subject to further investigation at committee stage. I can appreciate -- especially in the first part of section 1 of the act -- that there are a lot of new definitions of "mineral" that will benefit development of the industrial mining industry in British Columbia, and I believe it's welcome.
However, there have been very deep concerns expressed about the rest of the proposed amendments. For the love of me, I don't really know why some of these have been brought forward, because it certainly doesn't show that the ministry has taken on an advocate's position as far as the miners in British Columbia are concerned. Every group of miners in British Columbia that I've talked to -- whether it be B.C.-Yukon Mines, the B.C. Mining Association, the eastern mining association or various individuals throughout -- feels there are aspects of this bill that are detrimental to the future of mining in this province and to their attitude.
Why the minister would go along with something like this, I have no idea. Surely she knows -- maybe her ministry doesn't know or the staff below her doesn't know -- that everything is perception in this world. The miners out there and the groups that are controlling the mining associations all feel that the perception is that government is trying to handcuff them, overregulate them, and not provide them with any compensation whatsoever. This compensation aspect keeps cropping up in every paragraph of this bill. I see the minister smiling about it, but as I said, it's perception out there. Of anyone who comes from a mining area, she should know that the mining industry is frightened about what this socialist government is trying to do with regard to mining. In every paragraph you see this creeping socialism of no compensation, and it goes on and on.
On that premise I can start off by saying that I would like to know in section 1.... I would like to ask the minister what her interpretation -- and there again there's a concern over regulation -- is of mining activity: "...means any activity related to...." Can the minister give me an explanation what that means to her?
May I add that my thoughts on this are that it seems that the government wants the privilege of saying where and how any exploration activity takes place in this province, and I don't think that is what the minister means. If she doesn't mean that, would she clarify it? If she does mean that, then the answer is what I said before: that the government is interfering with exploration in this province.
Hon. A. Edwards: I'm not sure if there was a question there. If we're referring to mining activity, there is no change.
D. Jarvis: Would the minister tell me, then.... Does her interpretation of this mean that they're asking where and how exploration activity should take place? Do they want to direct it to any specific area? Or are they prepared to allow a prospector to prospect in any area?
Hon. A. Edwards: This government has acted to give certainty to the industry as to where they can explore and mine in this province. We have taken the bull by the horns, so to speak, on protected areas. We have said we will have 12 percent in this province; we will reach that goal. Any area outside the protected areas will be open for mining exploration and activity on the basis of environmentally acceptable rules.
D. Jarvis: I sort of jumped ahead here. I'm not sure if any other members in the House have questions on this first section. As far as I'm concerned, when we discuss section 1(a) and (b) on the "mineral" definition, I'm satisfied with that. But I don't know if any other members take exception to that section 1(a) and (b) with regard to the definition of "mineral."
W. Hurd: Just a brief request of the minister with respect to section 1, which seeks to redefine the term "mineral." I wonder if she could describe for the committee the representations that the ministry may have received with respect to this redefinition of the term "mineral." I mean, is this a section of the bill that is reflective of a desire by the industry to see the redefinition go ahead? Or is it an initiative of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources?
Hon. A. Edwards: This reflects an ongoing problem that we had in government when we came to office, where there was great confusion over rock. In other words, if you had dimension stone, it would be managed by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. But if you were using that same rock for construction purposes, it would be under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Lands. This created some significant problems.
What we've done here is to try and clarify that very specifically. So when somebody wants to go and do dimension rock, they don't have to go through a whole process of convincing the Ministry of Lands that it's not their business that they want to do dimension rock, and we will administer it. Or if they simply want to pull out some rock for riprap, they go to the Ministry of Lands. It has been a discussion of some considerable length. It has arisen out of a number of disputatious situations, I guess we could call them. We hope that this will work to make it much easier for those who want to extract rock, either for simple construction purposes or to make it into a product that has a greater value, such as dimension stone.
[ Page 15202 ]
R. Neufeld: The minister claimed that the changes in section 1 actually didn't change anything in the act. So it amazes me that we have amendments if we're not changing anything in the act. There's obviously some things that are being changed in the act.
I want to go down to subsection (e), "bulk sample." I'm certainly not an authority on mining, and I don't pretend to be. But I have some information from some organizations that tell me the explanation of bulk sample may not be complete and that possibly the words "mineral title or Crown grant" should be in the paragraph. Otherwise, provisions dealing with the bulk sample may not apply to Crown grants. Maybe the minister could clarify that for me a bit, please.
Hon. A. Edwards: Crown grants are fee simple interest, and they're not regulated under this act.
R. Neufeld: That's fine for that; I appreciate that.
Secondly, mining activity. The member from the Liberal Party brought up mining activity. The minister says that it changes nothing as to what's in the present act, yet when I read the present act, which I have here, it doesn't state it this way. Maybe the minister could tell us: what's the need for the change in the wording? What's the need for defining "talus rock," "private land," "mining activity," "hand pan," "dimension stone," "construction purpose" and "bulk sample"? I mean, they're all new definitions to the act. If they're not changing the act at all, it absolutely amazes me that we'd want to add anything to the act. That just doesn't make sense. You don't have to be a miner to understand that one.
Hon. A. Edwards: I believe what I said must have been misunderstood. I didn't mean that there are no changes in this bill. What I meant was that the definition of mining activity has not changed from the previous bill. The wording has changed; the definition has not changed. What we attempted to do by putting mining activity into the definition section was to preclude having to say throughout the rest of the act all the time, "exploring, developing, mining" -- the actual extraction. So what this does is define mining activity within the act itself so that when we refer to mining activity, a reader can refer back to the definitions and know what is being talked about without us having to describe all mining activity throughout the act.
[11:15]
G. Wilson: It's always nice to see the opposition working together in trying to sort out this thing, and I think it's going to be a long debate. I have some questions that are very similar to those of my friend and colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour and also those from my friend and colleague from Peace River North.
These changes in definition are not inconsequential at all. I think what I heard the minister say is that it's going to change the nature of administration on activities from the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and provide authority and jurisdiction to the Ministry of Lands. I think I heard her say that. If I didn't hear her say that, then she should clarify it.
One of the things I'm quite interested in is the fact that they talk about.... The definition of "construction purpose," for example, talks about: "...(a) the building or maintenance of a road, railway bed, runway, berm, dam, impoundment, breakwater, dyke, levee, foundation, rock wall and other similar thing, and (b) the providing of fill and riprap." Well, we're talking about the whole quarrying industry here, number one; we're talking about the gravel industry, number two; we're talking about the granite industry in this area, number three, which in my riding is an extremely important part of what's going on. And I can tell you that there is a lot of concern among gravel operators with respect to the acquisition of and maintenance of licences to get in and operate gravel operations.
Similarly, with respect to the provision on granite and the development of granite for dimension stone, which I think would fit under here -- because it is cut or split on two or more sides, and it is often used for facing stone, and so on.... It seems that this definition is now going to provide a change in the manner by which regulation can come down and affect that industry. I think the minister needs to be absolutely specific on this question, because a lot of people are very concerned. A lot of gravel operators right now are pretty unhappy with this government about the way it is managing its tenure. Can the minister tell us what the significance is in terms of its administration? What did she mean when she said that it may be better managed through Crown Lands?
Hon. A. Edwards: I certainly wouldn't like to be heard to say that Crown Lands could administer better than our ministry. The point was that people frequently used to find themselves in a situation where they would have to get two tenures. They had to get tenures through the Mineral Tenure Act and through the Crown land tenure act. Now they do not need to do that, because that is what this amendment does. It allows them to determine what the purpose of the extraction will be at a quarry, and if they are going to extract for dimension stone, they will get a tenure under our ministry. If they continue to want to extract for construction purposes, they will get a tenure under Crown Lands.
This deals with the tenure part of it, so when you go out and want to extract some stone from Crown land, you have to get a tenure to do it. This determines which ministry will do it, so people are not caught in the situation where they are going to be asked to get two and will have to deal with two ministries and the consequent confusion that has arisen on several occasions.
G. Wilson: The logical thing would have been to eliminate one of the tenures and put this all into one ministry. It seems illogical to decide that we are going to divide up the tenure between two ministries and split the purpose into dimension stone and matter for construction purposes. Most dimension stone, as it is defined here, is a rock or stone product that is cut or split on two or more sides and includes, without limitation, tiles, facing stone, crushed rock that is reconstituted into building stone, headstones, monument statues and ornamental furnishings. All these are construction matters. It doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't you just simply include it all under one ministry? Believe me, I firmly believe we should be integrating ministries to go to a much more streamlined process for approval. But construction purposes are included, and I would think that if you are going to reconstitute it into building stone, that is surely a construction purpose. It makes no sense to split it into two, unless there is going to be a different regulatory authority put on it and unless the procedures in terms of approval, inspection and all
[ Page 15203 ]
those other kinds of things are going to be amended to provide a different set of regulations to govern those industries. It seems to me that this makes some sense at that point, but I don't hear the minister telling us what that's going to be.
Hon. A. Edwards: It's a very interesting thing. It arises from somebody coming in and complaining because they have to have Mines tenure and they have to have Lands tenure, and they want to know why we don't get things straightened out. When you begin to examine why it is not all in the Ministry of Mines, and why we don't let Mines manage all these extractive activities, you have to draw a line somewhere or else we could have jurisdiction over all the surface, I suppose. There has to be a line somewhere, unless it is determined that.... Maybe this next point will explain why, as well as any way I can explain it.
The next point is that what we try to do within the Ministry of Mines is deal with the activities that have a certain degree of risk, activities that require exploration and long-term activity before the development of a product and that in fact have a certain degree of rarity. There is a different approach to how you do them than if you were removing soil or moving topsoil into somebody's garden. Even gravel used to be considered to be relatively available and not a rare commodity. The Ministry of Mines would deal with these things that have to be dealt with on the basis that there is a significant amount of risk involved in finding them, extracting them and selling them. But where it comes down to the kinds of surface products that are less rare, and you have to deal frequently with planning and the kind of activity that municipalities and the Lands ministry do, those types of activities would be under the jurisdiction of the Lands ministry.
We have tried to draw a line. This is a line that moves more jurisdiction into our area than there used to be: dimension stone used to be under the Crown Lands ministry, but then, of course, it became confusing because we do the inspection for health and safety. This is part of a whole protocol that we've worked at to try and eliminate the confusion, and to try and say what kind of planning you can do under the Land Act for extracting surface materials that don't have the high-risk kind of stuff that we do in the Mines ministry. So it's an attempt to draw that line so that people will not only understand, they'll be used to it. In practical terms that will give us all the best opportunity to be efficient and effective.
G. Wilson: Where does limestone fit into this definition?
Hon. A. Edwards: Limestone is considered a mineral.
G. Wilson: If limestone is considered a mineral, it just shows how.... I think the minister probably knows, as well as I do, what the primary uses of limestone are. With the limestone operations in my riding, for example, on Texada Island, much of the rock that comes from those operations is used for breakwaters and ripraps, and so on and so forth. Much of it goes into the construction and making of cement, which, of course, is used in the construction industry. It seems to me that this is one example of where this so-called line doesn't function particularly well. I'm assuming, then, that the operations on Texada are going to continue to fall under the Mines ministry, whereas the adjacent gravel operations are now going to fall under the Ministry of Lands. Is that right?
Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Chair, I've just been informed of about six other complications that come into this: the issue of fee simple land, the issue of the previous definition of limestone as a material.... This is our fourth session, and it has taken this long to get even this far in determining a better way for people to be able to deal with their tenure. There are a number of things involved in it, but limestone generally has been considered to be a mineral, and it is a mineral. In order to prevent anyone who wants to mine limestone from having to have two Crown tenures, it will be tenured under this act, the Mineral Tenure Act.
G. Wilson: I just had one more question and then I'll yield. As I understand it, the operations on Texada Island, as an example -- they're the ones I'm most familiar with -- would be licensed under the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, but the adjacent gravel operations -- even though I think in one case you've got the same company operating -- would be licensed under the Ministry of Lands. Am I right in saying that?
Hon. A. Edwards: In principle, that is correct, but I have to tell you that sometimes there are historical situations where the tenure is held in a different way, and then that tenure holds. What this act will do is say that when people apply for tenure now, they will get a limestone tenure under the Mineral Tenure Act, and they would get a tenure in order to produce gravel under the Land Act.
R. Neufeld: Thank you for that last explanation, because I understood it to be the exact opposite: that the tenure for gravel pits would come under the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources from now on. Actually, I see some difficulties with not being able.... Maybe the minister could explain why we cannot go back to the people who already have gravel operations, and why they would not be changed. She talked about some of the tenures being different. Can you explain why you wouldn't do that?
Hon. A. Edwards: Did you understand me to say that sand and gravel were under the Mineral Tenure Act? That's not so. The tenure part of sand and gravel is under the Land Act, but not minerals. If you want to do limestone, for example, you would apply for tenure under the Mineral Tenure Act, and you would apply for a gravel and sand tenure under the Land Act.
[11:30]
R. Neufeld: That's from this point forward?
Hon. A. Edwards: Yes. That's always been the way for sand and gravel. The difficulties were more with dimension stone or those kinds of other minerals. People found themselves having to get a Land Act tenure as well, even though they were extracting them and had to follow our procedures for getting to the production of their mineral.
R. Neufeld: Okay. I'm learning some of this here, so bear with me, hon. minister. Then tell me why.... People in my constituency who have sand and gravel operations have some real difficulties, because the health and safety rules of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources apply to people who are mining gravel. There are some real problems with the WCB inspecting and the mine inspector inspecting. The mine inspector will put a work order against an opera-
[ Page 15204 ]
tion, and it's pretty tough to find out who you go to, where you go and how you deal with those things. Is there some relief in this area?
Hon. A. Edwards: I believe it's a matter of practicality. We do inspections for any hole in the ground which you extract from -- except I wouldn't include topsoil. I don't think that's included at all. Certainly for sand and gravel we have done the inspections for health and safety historically, and we continue to do that.
R. Neufeld: I agree that you have some responsibilities for inspecting what they're digging out of the ground. But when you get down to crushing and all those operations that go along with it, and all the safety aspects, there's a different set of rules that apply than what WCB would have. Those are the problems that some of the operators are having.
Hon. A. Edwards: We do the health and safety at the extraction site; if it gets to a processing part, it goes to WCB. We have lots of areas in which we interact with other ministries and other agencies, but as far as the tenure is concerned, which is the subject of this act, the tenure for dimension stone will be under the Mineral Tenure Act, and the tenure for sand and gravel will be under the Land Act.
R. Neufeld: I have one last point for the minister. The extraction and the processing happens, in my constituency, at the same place. It's taken out of the bank by a loader and put into a crusher. That's where the problem comes in, because then WCB does not have the authority to inspect the gravel crushing plant. What happens is that mine health and safety branch inspects everything on that site. It has to meet those inspection rules, and they're fairly rigid. I'm not saying that we should relax them, but they are much more strict than what WCB would have. Then as soon as this person gets to the edge of his tenure, all of a sudden WCB comes in and tells him something different. What happens is that one division is telling this person one thing, another division is saying another thing, and the poor person -- man or woman -- who's running this gravel pit is in the middle, wondering just what they should do.
Maybe we could simplify it in acts like this. Why would it be so difficult to have WCB -- you could put this into the act -- inspect all those facilities, including the crushing operation and the whole of it, instead of having the health and safety part of it apply to that?
Hon. A. Edwards: You certainly illustrate a point. This operation will go on under a Crown land tenure. It will be inspected for health and safety, as to the extraction, by our ministry and as to the processing by the Workers' Compensation Board. This is certainly a matter where we try and make it work as well as we can. What we've done in this act, and what's relevant in this bill, is that we have found some resolution, we hope, for the problems of differences of tenure, of overlapping requirements or of more than one window. We try to deal with those things in our discussions of the Mines Act, the health of the mining code and so on, but as far as tenure is concerned, this is what we have done here.
D. Streifel: I ask for leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
D. Streifel: On behalf of the Deputy Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House teachers and students from three elementary schools in Washington State. We have Ms. M. Manier, a teacher at Simpson Elementary, and her students from Montesano, Washington. We have Ms. L. Brown from Chimacum Elementary in Chimacum, Washington, and we have Mr. B. Burnett and his students from Franklin Elementary in Port Angeles, Washington. I bid the House make our American visitors welcome.
W. Hurd: I just have the overwhelming sense here that what we're potentially dealing with is a recipe for some chaos. I'm holding a copy of the Crown Land Policy Summary from this spring, 1995, and it indicates that quarry materials -- meaning earth, soil, peat, marl, sand, gravel, rock, riprap and stone products -- will be under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and that since the proclamation of the Mineral Tenure Act of August 1988, administration of mineral substance, including limestone, marble, slate, clay, bentonite, volcanic ash, etc., will be under the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.
That's fair enough, but according to the Crown Land Policy Summary, under section 2.4 it indicates that such tenures that have been shifted to the Ministry of Energy and Mines may remain under the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks until they expire. In other words, we're going to end up with some tenures that, by virtue of the fact that they're not being grandfathered, will continue to be administered under the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and some others that may shift over upon reapplication.
It seems that whether the minister wants it or not, we're going to have two sets of ministries involved in the administration of these types of materials, just by virtue of the fact that the tenures won't automatically transfer over with the jurisdiction the ministry is adopting. I just wonder why in the world, if this is designed to streamline the definitions, the tenures wouldn't transfer to each ministry, and why they would continue to remain -- at least, they do according to the Crown lands policy -- with the appropriate ministry until they expire. Is there any rationale for that? I can certainly see the potential for existing tenure holders who are dealing with the Ministry of Lands not to be aware of the fact that when the tenure expires, they are going to be dealing with a different ministry.
J. Pullinger: I would like to ask leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. Pullinger: It is my pleasure today to welcome 17 students and the adults accompanying them. Pardon me if I don't get the names pronounced quite right: Mr. Myhre, Mrs. Duishuis, Mrs. Weirsma and Mrs. Croswell are accompanying them. We've had a very good visit, and they've had a good tour of the Legislature. They've had some great questions and some good ideas, so I look forward to them being future voting constituents one of these days and providing those good ideas to government. So would the House please help me make them very welcome today.
Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Chair, the member certainly sees the difficulties that we've been operating under. What we're
[ Page 15205 ]
trying to do is move to a system that does not have this sort of double vision, if you like. Tenure holders are welcome to change their tenure early, before their current tenure expires, if they choose, but many of them, we believe, will not choose to do that, because what we're dealing with is the tenure. There are other parts of jurisdiction that may make a greater difference to them. If they choose to change their tenure, they are welcome to do that, but as I said before, there are some people who will hold a tenure -- they used to have to hold two tenures -- who may choose not to dabble in those tenures that they have gone to some trouble to get. But they certainly have the opportunity to change the tenure to suit the new approach that we have.
W. Hurd: Fair enough. I understand that applications for quarry materials will now be under the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, but according to the Crown land policy, it applies to quarry operations not located on a mineral claim under the Mineral Tenure Act. Does that mean that if someone has a mineral tenure and is also involved in a quarry operation, they will continue to have the quarry operation administered by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources? The Crown land policy seems to stipulate that if the quarry operation is incremental to an existing mineral tenure, then jurisdiction will continue to reside with the Ministry of Energy and Mines.
Am I reading the Crown land policy incorrectly, or is that what may happen? The only operation which will fall specifically within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks is a quarry-only operation that is extracting earth, soil, peat, etc., but if the operator is doing that in conjunction with a mineral claim, it continues to fall under the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I fail to see how that can possibly streamline operations.
Hon. A. Edwards: We're certainly getting into the whole bill, aren't we? Anyway, there is a provision in the act, there is allowance for someone who is mining on a mining claim to quarry on that property for his or her own use. If someone needs some building stone, if you like, in order to do some mining activity, and they do that on their own mining claim, they don't need to go and get a Lands tenure in order to do that.
G. Wilson: With the greatest respect to the minister, I think that Bill 13, from our perspective, anyway, is an extremely contentious piece of legislation. I don't think there should be any doubt that there's going to be a very long, very detailed and very protracted debate on it. I think the minister should be aware of that.
The reason I raise this question of tenure and the distinction between tenure on Crown land and through the Mining Act is that under the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, in terms of the process for approval of a mine.... It's quite different from the process for tenure and approval through the Ministry of Lands.
For example, within the Crown land approval process and with the established set of regulations that accompany that, there are means by which applicants can proceed with far less regulatory control than under this particular ministry. But the public involvement through referral and process of referral in the Crown lands is far greater than it is under this ministry. So the reason I have some concern is that I know -- and the minister knows that I know, because we actually sat and talked about it some time ago -- there are currently existing tenures approved under the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources that do not have approval under the Ministry of Lands. These are contentious in the community because they are very close to settled areas. The only reason they haven't proceeded is that they have difficulty getting the approval through the Ministry of Lands, because that process is going to require greater public referral.
When this act comes in, they no longer are going to have to get approval from the Ministry of Lands. They're going to be able to proceed directly through this ministry. The public aren't going to take kindly to that, because the process is less involving of local government and of local community input in terms of referral and those sorts of things. That is a fact. The minister needs to be aware of it. I would like to hear what the minister intends to do to try to counter that problem.
The Chair: The minister on section 1. I should note that the Chair has allowed a great deal of latitude in the discussion on section 1, because there are other sections in the bill that do deal specifically with some of the issues raised by hon. members. Hon. minister, carry on.
[11:45]
Hon. A. Edwards: Thank you, hon. Chair. I certainly find it surprising that the member thinks this particular section of the bill is contentious. We have been working up to this session to try to solve this problem, as I said, for the people who have had significant difficulties with it, who have been trying to get tenures to do dimension stone for example -- and they have to get tenures from us, from Lands and through a number of processes. What this does is attempt to deal with the quarrying of dimension stone and building stone, which will generally not have the kind of controversy around it that gravel pits have, certainly. They will be moved more into the process where, in fact, the referral process is different.
I agree with you that if the land use planning process goes into a decision of land use and where you put a gravel pit, there will be a significant amount of public process. It ends up in more public process. We don't have people demanding public process for most of our activities for mineral tenure. It just doesn't happen that way. Normally, they're further from the settled areas. If you had any idea of the numbers, you'd understand that that's the case.
This is an attempt to move people who want to run a quarry for dimension stone or something like that into our process. I don't believe that you're going to find that the amount of public process that we do is inadequate at all. If you're talking about public process for gravel pits, that is something that goes with municipal law, with Crown lands tenure and so on. What we're doing with this bill is moving dimension stone into our tenuring process. As far as we can understand from the demands we have from the public -- and it's a broad, general cross-section -- from discussions we have had with all parts of the mining industry and from the people who advise us from our advisory council, this is something that would be an improvement to the current situation.
G. Wilson: I am talking specifically about the definitions here. We're not straying from that, and I think the Chair
[ Page 15206 ]
would recognize that. In terms of the minister suggesting that there isn't public demand on the question of mineral tenures generally, maybe the minister missed the debate on the Tatshenshini and the copper mine that was proposed there. If you want to talk about public debate....
This issue on dimension stone is a really important one, because the change in public process and the way that definition provides for it will create controversy if those operations exist within or adjacent to residential areas or areas where there is residential expansion. That is happening. I can tell you that I've got a case in my riding right now that the minister is aware of -- or should be aware of, because there has been a lot of communication on it. That definition is going to have an effect. The way it's defined provides for this ministry to essentially allow that operation to go ahead without the level of public consultation and public process that is afforded under the ministry of Crown lands. That's my point. The minister hasn't satisfied my concern on that.
On the other matter of private land, I'd like the minister to tell us the position of this minister with respect to this definition in terms of Indian reserve land and how that falls under the notion.... Clearly it's not fee simple, but I notice that there is no distinction or definition with respect to Indian reserve land or those lands that are currently under active claim.
Hon. A. Edwards: I'll answer the last question first. If it's Indian reserve land, it is not Crown provincial. This is for Crown provincial. I think that as to the issue of public process with what we do, we have more public process at the level of development than at the level of tenure. When you're talking about activities that go on on Crown land under Lands tenures, you're right; there will be much more public process at the tenuring stage. The tenuring stage has less public process in our process, but we have public involvement -- significant and extensive, I believe -- at the development stage.
G. Wilson: That is something we can explore in a later section of the bill, and we will. I want to come back, though, to my question. I'm fully aware that Indian reserve land is under federal tenure. My question wasn't so much about who holds tenure; I know who holds tenure. My question is with respect to this bill. There's a noted lack of definition on the question of private land. The reason it's important is that there's a section later in this bill that talks about prior claim. What I need to know is what the minister's position is with respect to the definitions of private land for either Indian reserve land or land that is currently under active claim. Is it considered part of alienated lands, is it deemed to be alienated lands or is it deemed to be lands that are Crown lands for the purposes of this definition?
Hon. A. Edwards: I think it would clarify it again if I remind the member that what we're talking about is tenure to a mineral. It's not a land tenure. I have probably not been careful with my words, as well. What we do is not give rights to land in that sense. What we are giving rights to is the mineral on or below the land. On your question related to land rights, if you look at section 9 of the Mineral Tenure Act, you will discover the phrase: "Land on which a free miner may enter." It is very clear there. Right of entry is very clearly laid out in section 9.
G. Wilson: I guess I didn't make myself clear, and I apologize if I didn't. I'm not talking about tenure on the surface of the land. This government is about to enter into an agreement with the Nisga'a that gives them the rights to minerals above and below the ground. It is the position of this government that they have a right to those because it is part of their comprehensive claim. Right? That's what I'm talking about. If we're talking about a definition of private land that deals with land owned fee simple in terms of tenure rights, those rights are generally not given to people in the province, but they have been, and there is a precedent for the provision of those rights, certainly in the case of the Nisga'a.
In the definition of private land, I'm curious to know why there is an absolute absence of definition with respect to those lands that are currently under active claim. The reason I raise it now, under definitions, is that in a later section of the bill it says -- and I haven't got it right in front of me, but we'll get to that later -- that a person who has a licence on that land may in fact have to relinquish their right if there is deemed to be a prior valid claim. That talks about the aboriginal land issue directly. I'm curious to know whether the land that is under active claim is deemed to be alienated, or is it deemed to be Crown land in this definition?
Hon. A. Edwards: I'm sure we will canvass this again when we get there, but the prior right referred to in this act refers to prior right under this act, which is a mineral right and not a land right.
G. Wilson: It's like we're playing ping-pong on two different tables. I hear what you're saying. I never get the ball back and neither do you. You know what I'm saying?
I note the hour, and I wonder if on that point of confusion it might be a point to suggest that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. A. Edwards moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 10:17 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SKILLS, TRAINING AND LABOUR
(continued)
[ Page 15207 ]
On vote 49: minister's office, $407,230 (continued).
The Chair: We've already had introductory discussion, so the floor is open for debate.
G. Farrell-Collins: Those wonderful opening comments have slipped my mind, so I don't recall that they actually occurred, but I understand that they have. I will review Hansard when we get there, I suppose. I want to dive right in if I can and ask the minister some questions about the progress of some of the things that he's instituted at the Workers' Compensation Board.
First of all, I would like to congratulate him on taking some action at the Workers' Compensation Board to try and improve the status of the organization. I know he will stand up and tell us how wonderful everything is, because he did that last year and the year before, and the minister before him did the same. But I think that in the last 12 months the minister has come to the realization that there are things at Workers' Compensation Board that do need to be addressed. I was pleased to see the report that was put out by the minister, which was done by Patrick O'Callaghan and Judi Korbin, on the governance structure, and I guess my first question to the minister is: to what extent does he intend to follow the recommendations that were brought forward in this report for trying to correct what has become a dysfunctional governance structure at the Workers' Compensation Board?
Hon. D. Miller: Well, I have learned in the short time I've been in the ministry that it is easy to play politics around WCB issues, but much harder to try to resolve some of those issues.
I appreciate the comments of the member with respect to the Korbin-O'Callaghan report. The main conclusion of the report, apart from the recommendations, was that while everyone agreed in 1989 -- I think it was -- that the new governance structure was desirable, the time wasn't taken during the initial implementation of that system to ensure that the right things were done so that it would work properly. The difficulty, if you like, is that the system traditionally has been one where some adversarial relationship exists between employers and workers on the basis that the employers pay the assessments and the workers rely on the system to protect them in the event of accidents or other situations. The problem in bringing together both of those parties on a board of governors has been that, to some degree, the governors' table has ended up being almost like a bargaining table.
The recommendations of the report are in fact to encourage a more corporate approach to the system while not taking away from some of the feelings that are held by both parties. The report makes a number of recommendations in terms of how the authors think that might be achieved.
I was quite pleased with the report. We have had some discussions with business organizations and labour organizations about that. There is, in a general way, some recognition of the recommendations. I would anticipate that the board of governors will in fact take those recommendations as theirs. It's my desire that they take ownership of those recommendations dealing with the operations of the board and work towards trying to overcome some of those problems that have plagued that operation. That's not just peculiar to here. I think the same situation -- in fact a much worse situation -- developed in Ontario.
The system is important to both employers and workers. There are common interests, and we are working with all parties to try to move things forward. It's not so much to get things back on track, although I think it went off the rails a little bit. One shouldn't conclude it was totally dysfunctional, because I think the board in many respects has operated quite well and has dealt with issues like deregulations in the operation. I think the latest annual report and the budget and management policies adopted this year are headed in the right direction. The board has a lot to be proud of. People need to dedicate themselves to making sure the system works.
L. Hanson: I also thank the ministry for a copy of that report, as I spent some time looking at it. I suspect that while there were some recommendations in the report, the underlying thought behind the report was that if parties of goodwill came together at the board table, they could resolve their own issues. I think that's what the minister said too -- that he was looking to the board to resolve that. I think it's unfortunate that for some reason -- and I guess laying blame doesn't help that situation -- all the members of the board lost sight of the football. The employers' organizations, in exchange for protection from liability for injured workers, and the workers, in giving that up, got some protective rights that the two parties should have recognized. We hoped that they would have recognized those responsibilities when they were trying to deal with the issues. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened, and while I agree with the minister that it isn't totally dysfunctional, the cases that we hear of -- again, I have to say that the cases we hear of are probably the exceptions rather than the rule -- have some pretty bizarre circumstances. That doesn't mean that the system isn't working to a certain degree. I sincerely hope that the situation will be rectified as a result of that report, if people take a new look at their responsibilities and accept them in the light that they were given, as opposed to the controversial nature that has developed in that board.
I have cases by the hundreds -- and I'm sure the minister has too -- with that difficulty. I don't think it does any good to discuss and complain about them in this arena. I think we want the system to work from both perspectives, and I hope that it will, quite honestly.
Hon. D. Miller: Again, I said that it's easy to be a critic, but I appreciate that the discussion here is a good one. For example, the board is representative. It has a representative, as the former Minister of Labour is aware, where names are provided by various organizations -- the Business Council of B.C., the B.C. Federation of Labour and the Coalition of B.C. Businesses. I've always operated on the basis that if you are represented -- bearing in mind what the member for Okanagan-Vernon has just said -- and have an opportunity to be part of the governing structure, then surely that carries with it an equal obligation not to go outside the governing system to be a local critic. I am somewhat troubled by the propensity of some.... The coalition, for example, gave a name to me, and I appointed that individual to the board. Yet when there were issues that members of the coalition didn't like, they went to the press. My advice to them has always been: "Look, you have it both ways, and I think that's a bit unfair. You have to stick to the governance structure and deal with your problems there. To have the luxury of being a critic and being part of the system at the same time is a bit like having your cake and eating it too."
[ Page 15208 ]
The WCB deals with very difficult issues. I explained last year that there will always be a measure of dissatisfaction from people who have sustained injuries. This is due to the very nature of the system, which is, if you like, an insurance system. The screen that an individual has to go through is to prove to the satisfaction of the board that in fact the injury was sustained on the job and that there are no mitigating factors.
Typically, with respect to, say, back injuries, assessments conclude that while the individuals do have impairments or injuries, frequently there is a prior history of back trouble. In other words, the claimant is unable to establish in a clear enough way that the injury was sustained on the job. But you still have a person who is unhappy and who has an injury or medical condition that they've had to deal with. I get a lot of those letters, as I'm sure the former minister did, and I guess we have to say that the system has to deal with them. We do have a significant appeal level within the system -- probably the best in Canada, or at least comparable. There are many opportunities to appeal decisions made by the board.
My own view is that we need to get beyond that. I have a great interest in looking at the broader issues. To that end, I was very pleased to participate in the funding of the disability institute in Port Alberni, in the North Island campus of the community college. They are doing what I think is pioneer work, which is going to pay huge dividends in the future.
[10:30]
If you look across the country at the problem we face, dealing with people who have incurred injuries or disabilities, there is a staggering public cost. I'm not certain that people really appreciate the cost. An individual employer might not want to take back into the workforce people who are not 100 percent, who may have a disability of one kind or another. The employer may not want to incur the cost of making adjustments in the workplace to accommodate such individuals. Typically, if these individuals can't find gainful employment, they end up being supported by one or another element of our social safety net in Canada. Thank goodness we've got that social safety net, but the costs have been identified in the $40 billion range for all Canadians to pay for people who have disabilities or injuries.
The issues of the future are how we can look at a more broadly based system where, regardless of where injuries were sustained, we recognize that individuals primarily want the opportunity to contribute not only to their own welfare, in terms of having work, but also as members of our society. I think those are the emerging issues that we are going to have to deal with in a much more broad way than we have heretofore.
I think this is just an emerging field; I don't have all the answers. We've started by funding this institute. It's been recognized.... At the opening last year -- I think it was in October -- there were representatives from the Federal Republic of Germany. In fact, there is an ongoing relationship there in terms of the type of system they run. There was also a representative from Australia and one from the United States. It's a quiet little secret, unfortunately, that through this institute British Columbia is really doing some pioneering work and could be in the forefront of developing this new, more broadly based approach to the problems of people who have disabilities and of integrating those people back into the workplace. Similarly, under my ministry we've established the office for disability issues here in Victoria, looking at how we can overcome some of the barriers that people with disabilities face, with the objective of allowing people to be reintegrated into the workforce. It's a huge field, and one that I think deserves a great deal of work.
G. Farrell-Collins: I think we're all glad to see any area where we can try to ensure that injured workers get a better deal, get back into the workforce in careers they'll find rewarding as soon as possible and carry on with their lives. I think we're all glad to see that type of thing.
The minister has made a couple of references, and I don't know if he's trying to bait me for a debate. He's made comments about playing politics with the Workers' Compensation Board. I don't want to get into that either, because I don't think that's the goal. But I do want to touch on it just slightly, because it's interesting to note that we put in, on advice from staff within Workers' Compensation Board itself, a request looking at some areas where they felt there were some problems with the expenses and with some of the management and accountability procedures. We were quite shocked to find what came back.
I think the minister was probably as shocked as anyone, because once the freedom-of-information request went in, a month later the minister acted on the substance of those freedom-of-information requests, and it was about a month after that that we actually got the documents. I guess that's the process by which it flows, but we actually got our documents five minutes before the office closed on December 23, after having put the request in some time earlier.
That's, I suppose, the politics of the freedom-of-information process, and there's no need to get into that. I can understand the strategy behind it, but it didn't make the contents of that package of documents any less damning. I want to touch on that, because it seems that once a sustained focus was put on this issue, it tended to bring to light to a greater extent some of the divisions that already existed at the upper echelons of the Workers' Compensation Board -- at least at the board level. They then became a little more public. It also focused some public attention on the Workers' Compensation Board.
The minister knows as well as anyone, having been in this business for a little while, that we can come into these estimates year after year and talk about the Workers' Compensation Board until the cows come home, which we've done in the past, and nothing gets done. But once you can focus some public attention and public outrage -- if it's justified -- on an issue, then there's pressure on the minister, whether it's this minister, the last minister, the one before him or the ones in the future. Once public pressure starts to be there, action tends to be taken. I am not saying that's the only reason action was taken in this case, but, as I said earlier, I congratulate the minister on commissioning the Korbin-O'Callaghan review of the governance model for workers' compensation. I think there are some very good recommendations there. I will get into the details of some of the things that we found through those information requests, but I'd like to look a little more at the general overview.
One of the recommendations in the Korbin-O'Callaghan report was that a significant portion of the board be replaced. There was a need for fresh blood there. There was a need to start over again. No names were given, obviously, but a good portion -- I believe it was 30 to 50 percent of the board --
[ Page 15209 ]
should be replaced with new appointments, and limits should be placed on those appointments. That's obviously something that doesn't fall within the purview of the board to decide themselves. That's something which falls squarely on the shoulders of the minister.
Can the minister tell us if he intends to follow through on those recommendation? Is he looking at the 30 to 50 percent range or beyond that? I feel that if we're asking the board to accept the findings of this review, as the minister said, and hoping that they'll take these recommendations upon themselves and implement them, it would be good to deal with that issue first. We should get new board people and get a fresh start, rather than have the minister's partially dysfunctional board implement these recommendations. Are we going to see those changes soon, and if so, what sort of proportion are we looking at?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm aware of the attempts by the provincial Liberals to deal with WCB. I want to be charitable here and avoid starting an argument, but I think they've been fairly amateurish -- even to the extent of the report that was done by the Liberal caucus, which was simply borrowed lock, stock and barrel from Ontario. I'm a bit concerned about the direction that was indicated by that report, because it seems clear that should there be a Liberal government elected in British Columbia, we would see a Liberal government order a reduction in the benefits paid to injured workers. That came in loud and clear, both in Ontario and in the report here. I hardly think that's the solution to the problem, but we'll let other people judge that.
In some respects, I also think that our government bringing in freedom-of-information legislation, which was long overdue in this province, has created a bit of a false illusion. In some sense, we've made the opposition's job too easy. In some respects, its job has been reduced to -- in their view at least -- trying to be an effective critic by simply writing to get information, making the information public and attempting to portray themselves as the champions of whatever it is they happen to be onto at the moment, simply because they've been giving information to the public. But that's fair enough. That's politics, too, I guess, and we are elected as politicians.
I'm also a bit curious, actually, that the member would suggest that while it's okay for the Liberal caucus or the Liberal critic to simply request, under FOI, some information and release it to the public.... I do recall the Liberal critics occasionally standing up in the House and saying, "I have a secret FOI document," as though they've uncovered something startling. I think the main point is this: some of the things that I'm unhappy about -- and clearly my critic seems to share that -- have been the norm around the WCB.
People talk about Connie Munro; let's talk about it. I was as completely dissatisfied with it as anyone else, and I took steps to deal with it. Complaining that I dealt with it before you could release the information and try to score political points is.... I don't know if the member thinks we had some complicated strategy, but this just seems normal business to me. Complaining about anybody using information that's freely available seems to be a bit of a contradiction, but what the hell. Pardon me, hon. Chair.
When I go back and review some of the things that happened prior to freedom of information, it's pretty clear to me that many of these issues weren't debated because the public simply wasn't aware of them. Your own director of something or other, Ms. Kirk, I think her name is, did work at the WCB. She was probably familiar with a lot of the things that happened at that time when there was no freedom of information. I seem to recall that she benefited from a fairly generous increase in her salary during the time she was on the board. I have not heard any Liberals publicly complain about that. Maybe that's self-interest; maybe it's not. I don't know.
Mr. Grant McMillan, who I understand is the principal adviser to the Liberal caucus on WCB issues....
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: That's my information. If that's not true, perhaps the member might want to deal with that, but I've been informed that Mr. McMillan is the principal adviser on WCB issues to the Liberal caucus.
When I looked at some freedom-of-information information, lo and behold, I discovered that Mr. McMillan was running around being a very active, vocal public critic -- including, I might add, requesting that Connie Munro be fired because she was paid this generous allowance. Indeed, when he departed the board, I believe he walked away with close to a quarter of a million dollars in his back pocket in what I could only describe as a fairly generous severance allowance. Again, I note that the Liberal caucus hasn't raised that as an issue that they have some concern about. If that's a conflict of interest, if in fact they're simply not raising that because these are their friends, insiders and advisers.... I guess I'll have to leave it to others to judge.
I've also pointed out that while I don't hold anything against Mr. Jim Nielsen, he managed to get appointed by the previous Social Credit government as board chair -- for two years, I think. Then he quit and got two years' severance pay. So you can see the kind of culture that existed historically.
While I'm quite prepared to take responsibility for issues that are under my ministry now, I don't really think.... I'm quite prepared to clean up messes that are created, but we must remind ourselves that between 1975 and 1986 there was a Social Credit government in power. Presumably they were aware of all these issues. So while I do appreciate the public service attitude of my hon. critic on the Liberal side, which is commendable indeed, I think one needs to bring all the information out on the table if we're going to have a good debate.
[10:45]
The suggestion in the report of a 30 percent to 50 percent change in the governors is one that I am certainly paying attention to. There will be some changes. At this point, I don't want to alarm anybody; we're not looking at radical change. In fact, in some respects we're looking at the normal kind of change that takes place as members' terms expire and the various organizations that do make recommendations to me on who should be board members offer new names for my consideration. I don't have a particular plan, for example, to say that I want to reach the 30 percent target or 50 percent target by such-and-such a date. But the report does also suggest quite strongly that it needs to be considered as a piece. In other words, you can't just pull some recommendations out and ignore others. If in fact if you are going to deal with the issue of governance, you really have to deal with the report as one report. We intend to follow that advice.
[ Page 15210 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: I can tell the minister that he would probably be quite surprised to find out who all the advisers were to the Liberal caucus on what's going on at the Workers' Compensation Board, but I can tell him it's certainly not limited to any one individual, nor would any one individual be providing a preponderance of that advice or information.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: No, what I am saying is that Mr. McMillan is an adviser, as are a wide variety of other people, and I wouldn't even call him an adviser. I'd call him one of the contacts that any critic would have in the normal process of being a critic. To say that any one person is an adviser or a....
N. Lortie: Squealer.
G. Farrell-Collins: The NDP backbencher is saying that anybody who comes to the opposition with a concern or a complaint is a squealer. I think that's an unfortunate attitude to take; I doubt it's one the minister himself condones. With regard to the Workers' Compensation Board, there are literally close to 50 people on my Rolodex who provide advice, input and comment and who can be called upon to bounce ideas off. To put anybody as being a principal adviser, including Mr. McMillan, is simply incorrect. I think the minister is aware of that, although I'm sure he has fun saying it.
The concern I have, and I want to come back to the review.... I don't want to blame all the problems at the Workers' Compensation Board on this minister, because he hasn't been in the position long enough to be responsible for most of the stuff. If we want to get into Connie Munro's contract, which we probably will, this wasn't negotiated under the term of this government. It was under the previous government. Responsibility lies in a wide variety of places, but with Ms. Munro's contract most importantly, responsibility -- moral responsibility -- lies squarely on her own shoulders.
I think there's a level of.... I'm trying to put it mildly, but I can't tell you how angry I was when I saw the $63,000 payment for nothing, because somebody had taken advantage of a contract provision that was designed to make a move more amenable. I think for her to accept that money -- not just accept it but to go out and seek it and hunt it down and send the cheque back because it included income tax deductions, is unconscionable. For someone who has made a career of advocating on behalf of injured workers to accept that payment -- to seek out that payment, more importantly -- is a real black mark on an otherwise noble career. I think that the blame rests with the chair and certainly with the people who negotiated the contract, but more importantly I think it lies on the shoulders of Ms. Munro, who should simply have said that she wasn't entitled to the $63,000, and let it stay at that. Certainly nobody forced the cheque on her; in fact, it was the other way around. We can get into that, and I would probably like to.
[F. Garden in the chair.]
I want to come back to the minister's comments about the board. If the minister is going to leave it up to the board to adopt these recommendations themselves and put them into the board governance process, then I come back to my earlier comment that I think it's appropriate that those changes to the board be made quickly. I don't think the minister should worry about offending the various parties. I think some accountability has to come into force here. The board does operate and run the Workers' Compensation Board at arm's length for the minister, but in the end they are accountable to the minister.
This report, while praising the workers' compensation institution in British Columbia, is fairly damning of the people who have been sitting around the board table without specifically naming any one individual. I think that the minister would be wise -- and I would urge the minister to make those replacements as soon as possible so we can get back on track -- as the minister said -- to ensure that these recommendations are adopted in their entirety, as best as possible, and that they come into force at the board, so we can start to have some leadership at the top from the board instead of a playground atmosphere, which we see if one reads between the lines through this report and certainly if one is aware at all of what takes place at those board meetings. I would urge the minister to act proactively on that, and I think the sooner the better.
Hon. D. Miller: I'd hardly describe it as a playground atmosphere, but the member can use his own description. I'm interested and rather curious about the issue of moral responsibility. It's an interesting comment, because what I've tried to suggest earlier is that, while it's easy enough to be a critic, it's much more difficult to accept responsibility and get on with trying to deal with sometimes very difficult problems. It strikes me as a bit inconsistent and, in fact, as just blatant politics, when the member would stand and talk about the moral responsibility that he feels Ms. Munro has with respect to a payment made to her, yet has never uttered one solitary word of criticism to the principal adviser to the Liberal caucus, Mr. McMillan, who in fact received a rather larger -- by the ordinary person's standards -- severance package.
The member should clarify his position. Is it simply politics? It's good politics, in the member's view, to attack Ms. Munro and claim that she has failed to live up to his version of moral responsibility and at the same time remain absolutely silent on Mr. McMillan, because he relies on Mr. McMillan for his advice on how to criticize the board. Is the member prepared to stand and say, with equal fervour, that Mr. McMillan did not exercise his moral responsibility because he accepted a generous severance package? It seems to me that there is a bit of a double standard.
My own view is that you can't operate on the basis of a double standard. I've not tried to characterize individuals as lacking in moral responsibility; I think that is entirely wrong. In fact, I've defended Ms. Munro, as others in the business community have, for the soundness of her judgments with respect to her role as chief appeal commissioner. I think it is somewhat hypocritical to want to single out one individual and not be prepared to discuss others simply because of the politics of convenience. So I would be interested in any comments the member has. I'd be delighted if he would stand right now and say the same thing about Mr. McMillan -- and perhaps some of the others -- that he has said about Ms. Munro. I'd be happy to share the list of the severance....
G. Farrell-Collins: I'd love to see it.
[ Page 15211 ]
Hon. D. Miller: Well, the member has it, actually. So let's not be too selective here, otherwise some might accuse you of just playing politics. And if that's the exercise, then it is hard to have a serious discussion.
I am aware of the issues around the board, believe me. I have worked very hard in terms of trying to deal with WCB issues. I think the WCB is a very, very important institution in this province. It is absolutely essential that the public -- the people who rely or may have to rely on that system -- have a reasonable degree of confidence that the system is there to serve their interests. Believe me, that applies on both sides; whether it's employers or employees. It is such a vital system to people in this province that it must work. All of my energies have been directed, right from the beginning, at trying to get the board itself to accept responsibility for their actions. That has not always been easy.
As I say, people like to be critics. I remember Rafe Mair going on some tilt about Ray Marquis when I appointed Ray Marquis at the request of employers' groups. Someone -- I'm not sure who did this, actually, but I think it was kind of malicious -- for some reason sent Mr. Mair some information that Mr. Marquis had been involved with a company that had once been charged for a violation under WCB. I don't know if there's a company in B.C. that hasn't been charged at one time or another, simply because of the nature of the system. Mr. Mair went on a tirade against Mr. Marquis, saying: "How could this person be fit to be a member of the board?" Much to my dismay, no one rose to Mr. Marquis' defence. I did. I went to the press and said: "This is patent nonsense." I was happy to do it; I'm always happy to accept responsibility. The buck stops with me. I've never tried to shed any responsibility. But if the board is going to work overtime and do the job it was appointed to do, then two things need to happen. The board has to understand that they have responsibility. If issues come up that are of public importance, whether they're easy to deal with or tough to deal with, the board members have to deal with them. They have to say loud and clear to the public: "It is our responsibility, and we're going to deal with it." They have to be answerable.
I appreciate what the member tried to say earlier, that in some sense, by drawing attention to these issues, you force the board to deal with it. The member was referring to Ms. Munro's salary issue. Perhaps that's true. But to the degree that it is possible, every time politicians get this overwhelming or compelling urge to go out and criticize the WCB, they should stop and think for a moment. They should think about whether the perceived gain in terms of politics is worth the negative consequences of playing politics around board issues. There has, and this is absolutely true.... This is a very, very large organization. It has an influence over many people's lives. Historically, even though we've not traditionally had frequent changes of governing parties in British Columbia, it has been dealt with on a purely political basis. I think that's unfortunate. I think that's the root cause of the problems around the WCB. The stability of management has been undermined. I think that the frequent changes at the board level over the years have been unfortunate.
I think we have an excellent president in Mr. Parker. What I am trying to do is shield that board from the politics, force the governors to deal with their responsibilities and develop within that organization the expertise and ability that you would expect any large company to have. One example is the ability to produce natural heirs, if you like, for the president and CEO -- people who understand the system, much like, if you want to make an analogy with government, the deputy minister. The job of deputy minister is fairly unique in our system and most often -- not exclusively, but most often -- those deputy jobs are filled by people who have dedicated themselves to a career in the civil service. Over time they gain a wealth of experience in terms of administrative issues and indeed political issues. They know how to make the system work and operate effectively. That's really the kind of culture we want to develop at the WCB. I think we will be better off if that happens.
I understand the temptation. No doubt when I was.... In fact, I was never the Labour critic, so I can't recall. I don't think I was ever publicly critical about the WCB. But it is a temptation, and I appreciate that we're in a political game here. I don't think the Liberals have been too outrageous, and the Reform have been fairly quiet. I think it's important that you resist the temptation to go for the politics all the time. If you understand the system, I think you'll appreciate what I'm suggesting.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like to thank the minister for the lecture about the value and importance of the Workers' Compensation Board. I'd encourage him to come and spend a day in my constituency office, and he'll perhaps realize the role -- if he doesn't already -- that WCB plays in the lives of workers and small businesses in particular. I'm sure he does....
Hon. D. Miller: Moral responsibility -- are you going to address the issue of moral responsibility?
[11:00]
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister will have many hours to get up and speak, and I'll be more than glad to let him do that. Perhaps he can let me finish my process of deliberations also.
It's a bit much, though, to be lectured by the New Democrats about playing politics with the Workers' Compensation Board. Any New Democrat -- I don't care if he was a Labour critic or not -- has been in this House long enough to know some of the outrageous things that were said and done by his colleagues over the last 20 years with regard to the Workers' Compensation Board, not the least of which was the Connie Munro column. I recall her chastising the senior executives at Workers' Compensation Board for the luxury automobiles they drove. The one thing in all the research into this contract that really got me the most was seeing the Vancouver Sun article with Connie Munro chastising the senior executives of Workers' Compensation Board for driving luxury automobiles when injured workers were going without in the province of B.C. Then I turn around, within two years of her appointment, and read her E-mail begging for a new luxury car that was three centimetres smaller so it would fit in her garage.
N. Lortie: Begging?
G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, it was begging, actually. The member should read the E-mails. I'll get them for him, and then maybe he'll be as outraged as I was -- shocked, actually.
The minister can stand up in his calm manner and talk about playing politics with WCB and encouraging politicians to think twice about playing politics with the Workers' Compensation Board, but I suggest he go into the microfiche file at
[ Page 15212 ]
the library some afternoon, if he's got a spare moment, and look through the history of the New Democratic caucus on this matter. Perhaps he'll be far less sanctimonious and his lectures far shorter.
I want to say to the minister, however, that if there are severance packages out there at Workers' Compensation, Hydro, ICBC or within the Crown corporations, agencies and the government sector that are outrageous, then they're outrageous. I don't care who they are. I don't care if they are Liberal, Tory, NDP, Socred or Reform -- you name it. If they are there, then they should be chastised. If Mr. McMillan got a severance package that was out of line from what other people were getting, out of line from what the average person would think is within line, then he should be chastised for that, too. I don't care who he is, quite frankly.
Interjection.
The Chair: Through the Chair. It looks like it's....
G. Farrell-Collins: The Chair can chastise somebody, but perhaps it should be the backbencher who's interjecting. I seem to be following the rules fairly accurately.
The Chair: Just a moment. Could we get to the point where both sides address the Chair? Also, keep the heckling to a minimum, please.
N. Lortie: On a point of order, I kind of resent the implication in "backbencher," which the hon. member keeps calling me. We're all hon. members in this House, and we're all equal members. Just because you're a government critic, that doesn't make you any more important in the scheme of things than I am in my position as a government member.
The Chair: Please address the Chair. I understand your point, and it's well taken, but it's not a point of order. Carry on.
G. Farrell-Collins: Something seems to be burning that member up. Somehow it's an insult to be referred to as a backbencher -- absolutely not. We're all backbenchers, except for those members who sit on the government side in the executive council. I certainly don't mean that in a derogatory manner at all. Perhaps other people have referred to him in that way, and he feels nervous about it, but certainly it's not anything that he should be shy of. In fact, it's something he should be proud of. I don't intend any derogatory nature in that comment at all.
If the member is encouraging me to ask questions in question period, I suggest he wait. There's still a little while left in this session, and I'm sure that a number of issues will come before the House concerning Workers' Compensation Board before the end of the session. He should just sit tight, and history will unfold as it does.
I do want to come back, though, to some of the comments by the minister. We can play politics right here in this room with the Workers' Compensation Board and these types of comments, but I'm trying not to do that. I do think the minister deserves some credit for some of the things he's done. I wish the former minister had been as open and willing to deal with problems when he came across them, by whatever means. I think if he had been more proactive in listening to what the opposition says, what the third parties out there in the wilderness say -- not necessarily within the confines of this chamber....
L. Reid: And what the back bench says.
G. Farrell-Collins: Actually, that's a good point. The member for Richmond East said: "What the back bench says." There are some vocal New Democrat caucus members who are advocating changes and improvements to the Workers' Compensation Board. I had hoped the previous minister would listen to them, but I think the current minister is starting to.
I want to get into three areas with the Workers' Compensation Board. We've talked a little bit about the board structure, and I think the minister should act quickly to deal with the board, to make the changes that need to be made so that they can get on with adopting the recommendations that are here. I would ask for a commitment from the minister, though. If the changes don't seem to be working their way into the Workers' Compensation Board and if the recommendations of the Korbin-O'Callaghan report don't find their way into the board's operations, can the minister commit to us that he will ensure that that happens if the board doesn't take those recommendations on its own?
Hon. D. Miller: I think I've demonstrated, up to date, and I appreciate the comments. We did get into a little bit of a political exchange here, and I guess that goes with the turf. But I think that even the member acknowledged the steps I've taken to get a handle on some of those issues, and I intend to continue in the style that I've practised up to now.
Really, I was trying to make the point, you know.... I think this is a fair point, and if it's politics, it's politics. We dealt with a statement that said somebody lacked moral integrity -- or whatever the language was -- with respect to a payment. I just think that's carrying it a bit too far. I pointed out that the member had failed to, in terms of evenness, be critical of people who, one might argue, were in relatively the same circumstance. Surely the member subscribes to the notion that you shouldn't be able to have your cake and eat it too, that you shouldn't be the recipient of largesse and then feel you have the absolute right to go out and suggest that anybody else who has done that is somehow wrong.
I fail to understand that. I fail to understand, for example, that the member still isn't very clear with respect to Mr. McMillan, who I continue to insist is the principal adviser to the Liberal caucus on WCB issues. But he did have some rather moderate, subdued language there. I don't know, am I missing something here? When Mr. McMillan says in the press, as he did in December, that Ms. Munro should pay the money back or lose her job, what am I to think of that? Does the member think that Mr. McMillan, having received a fairly hefty severance allowance...? I mean, how many people walk away with over $200,000 in their back pocket?
G. Farrell-Collins: In this government, a lot.
Hon. D. Miller: Not the people I spend my life working with.
G. Farrell-Collins: A lot of the people you got jobs for, then.
[ Page 15213 ]
Hon. D. Miller: Fair enough. I guess by the same token there are lots of things I read about in the newspaper, and I wonder sometimes. I read about people who make over a million dollars a year, and I wonder what impact that has on the working poor. I try to juxtapose those kinds of issues when I deal with the many issues that I think are important.
For example, we raised the minimum wage in British Columbia. It's now $6.50 an hour, and it's going up to $7 an hour, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I'm constantly baffled by the critics who suggest that somehow that's wrong, somehow that's such a horrible wrong in our society. And yet when we read about somebody who makes a million dollars a year, I guess we figure that's a mark of success. These are the kinds of issues -- if you want to talk about a cohesive society, not one that is polarized and that could have the seeds of division in it -- you have to pay attention to.
If you're recruiting senior executives for positions which entail a lot of responsibility, then you're going to have to pay the kinds of salaries and attach the kinds of conditions that generally become the norm. But surely there should be some control over some of the excesses. I guess it's always debatable; you can always find somebody who's making more than you might think is desirable or has a severance package that is higher than you think is desirable. I didn't start this game. When certain things were drawn to my attention, I took action. All I'm suggesting is that those who are being critics -- I know there are some sayings about those things.... But like I say, I don't think you can be at the trough and then, when it suits your purposes, pull your head away and start complaining about other people who have been at the trough, too. The system doesn't work if you do that. You lose credibility when you do that.
Anyway, I'm not playing any games or politics with the WCB. I'm trying to make sure that that system is run to serve the interests of the people it is intended to serve. I've taken certain steps to date, and I'll continue to take steps to achieve that end. I want to say that it has not all been negative. I think the board has in fact had some good achievements. They tend to be overshadowed by the criticism that appears in the press.
The members both talked about letters; I get letters, too. In fact, many Liberals and Social Crediters -- sorry, Reformers.... My apologies. Social Credit is over here in the Liberal caucus now.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's worrisome, isn't it?
Hon. D. Miller: It may be worrisome, but it might be more worrisome to the Liberals than it is to me. Time will tell there. I think you have some winners coming on board. If there's anything I can do to help encourage them, give me a call any day of the week, whether it be Mr. Dirks or.... What are some of the other names that are sort of coming to the fore now?
An Hon. Member: Bill Vander Zalm.
Hon. D. Miller: No, there was another one.
An Hon. Member: Duane Crandall.
Hon. D. Miller: Oh, Mr. Crandall. Now there's...
The Chair: Through the Chair, please. I know we're all enjoying this, but I think we're straying a wee bit off the question here. If we could get back to the question....
Hon. D. Miller: We probably are. But it's interesting how there is very little principle and political ideology.... Isn't it interesting how some people think that they're climbing on the ship that might take them back to where they were. Somehow they kind of like the life -- you know what I mean? Yes, they're hopping on board now. But we'll have more to say about that, no doubt, in another forum. This isn't the appropriate forum for that, and I apologize for straying into that. I was a bit carried away.
Just to reiterate, there have been some issues there. We've tried to deal with them in a forthright way. It hasn't always been easy, and I don't suggest it will be a bed of roses in moving forward. Nonetheless, I know where I think things should be going, and I'll make some efforts to make sure they get to where I think they should be.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister would be surprised at the number of New Democrats who are jumping on board, having been dismayed with the activities of the current government, and who would like to see a change.
An Hon. Member: Name names.
G. Farrell-Collins: Anne Beer, for one.
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll get my list for the front-bench member for Delta North, and he can have a look at it.
N. Lortie: First string.
G. Farrell-Collins: First string from Delta North, popping up with pride.
But I want to come back to some of the comments of the minister and address them, then get into some substantive issues. He makes reference to Mr. McMillan, who receives his severance package. If the severance package was above and beyond what others at Workers' Compensation Board received, then as an individual, yes, he should be chastised. If, as a group, people at Workers' Compensation Board have negotiated some sort of contract where they receive severance packages that are above and beyond what's in the private sector -- or, for that matter, above and beyond what the general public thinks is reasonable or is reasonable to get people into those jobs -- then as a group they should be chastised. We should look at fixing that. If there's something out of line there, then we should look at fixing it, and I'd be one of the first to say so. But I don't want the minister to be able to compare the two, unless he can tell me that one or more of the individuals he waved in front of me had something abnormal in the severance packages of their contracts. But I think if the minister is honest with himself, he will recall reading through Ms. Munro's contract, and he will recall reading through the correspondence that followed and the debate and discussion that took place within Workers' Compensation Board of the interpretation of a fairly innocuous clause.
[11:15]
[ Page 15214 ]
My understanding of this clause is sections 6 and 7 of her contract. Section 6 said more or less that she received $25,000. There was $25,000 given to Ken Dye when he moved out to pay for moving expenses, the cost of selling his house and all those sorts of items. That was the upper limit. There was a clause in Connie's contract that stated she would receive an equivalent amount, up to $25,000, in order to achieve the parity that was intended to exist between the chief appeals commissioner and the CEO.
That was a strange enough clause on its own, but that's not the one that really got me going. It was the clause that followed. There was a discussion about Mr. Dye having his expenses paid in a country club or tennis club, which amounted to $140 a month or something like that. There were other discussions about all these little benefits and extras. Then it said that as a principle, benefits that accrued to the CEO should accrue to the chief appeals commissioner. I think that's straightforward. If he gets an education benefit, then she should have an equivalent one. If he gets some country club or tennis club membership, then she should get something equivalent. I think that's a reasonable clause in a contract.
It was the way Ms. Munro aggressively pursued the interpretation of that section of the contract that I think is most discouraging and is where the moral black mark comes into play. It was the aggressive nature of her suing, once she found out that Mr. Dye had accumulated.... I'm sure it was a bit of a scandal in Workers' Compensation Board when it was found out. If you read between the lines of the memos, you can see the $63,000 tab that was run up on Mr. Dye's house in Ottawa, his flying back and forth, phones calls, etc. When they realized that clause was still in place and this money was still racking up, it seems like there was a bit of outrage at Workers' Compensation Board. A stop was put to the situation fairly quickly, and some other accommodation was entered into.
I wish it hadn't gone forward. I think most people would agree, and I'm sure the minister does, too. It was a bit of a lavish benefit ran amok. But to then have Ms. Munro interpret that fairly innocuous clause in her contract in such a manner to say: "Hey, he gets $63,088; I should get the same, and here's my argument why. Let's talk to legal counsel; let's bring the people in here; let's get an interpretation. And by the way, when I get it, I don't want any deductions taken off. I want to have the whole whack. I don't want UIC or income tax taken off; I want cash." I think it's really unnerving to read through that.
I think the minister should be a little careful in comparing the two, unless he wants to correct me by saying that somehow in Mr. McMillan's agreement it was outside the normal process. If the normal process is a problem, then yes, it has to be dealt with, and I hope it is being dealt with. To compare the two is unfair and perhaps less than accurate.
I do want to get into some things that I think are of significance, quite frankly. We talked a bit about the board structure and some changes there. I know that there are human resources problems at Workers' Compensation Board, as the minister has said. We're heading into a difficult period of time. It looks like there's the possibility of a strike at Workers' Compensation Board. I'm not saying that's likely at all, but if it's a possibility, it's a symptom. There have been a series of morale and human relations problems at Workers' Compensation Board over a long period of time. I'm wondering if the minister has taken any steps -- or his deputy in his new role, for which he has my deepest sympathy, about heading up the Workers' Compensation Board to try and address that, if there are some programs in place, if people have been brought in and if there's anything in place to try and improve the human resources and morale at Worker's Compensation Board.
Hon. D. Miller: In terms of trying to respond to several of the comments the member made. Even I, in past years, used to listen to Mr. Dye's critiques of federal budgets and think: how appalling; look at all the things they're doing wrong. So we're constantly surprised.
Let me put it this way: it's nice and easy to be selective. I think all of us give in to that temptation from time to time. But let me make the following assumption, and I think I'm dead right. As I said, a lot of the information that is now freely available is available for one reason and one reason only: this government brought in freedom-of-information legislation. I have my own difficulties with freedom-of-information legislation.
Not long ago I had a conversation with someone about the fact that our society is probably one of the most open and free societies in the world. While citizens may disagree with governments for reasons good or bad, in terms of their own individual protection as members of our society, they probably live in the best place in the world. The state does not in any way try to inordinately intrude on people's lives. Information is generally available from elected people who are accountable; we have to go back and face the electorate. I think that's good.
I do worry that FOI, which should be available to ensure that the state does not intrude unnecessarily in people's lives or ensure that individuals in our society can obtain information that's relevant and important, is being used in the initial first blush as a political vehicle. Fair enough; that's the price you pay if you want to make those kinds of changes. But don't ever kid yourself.
We can talk till the cows come home about Connie Munro. I've said it all, I've said it all. I took action quite some time ago: last April -- the year previous -- with respect to the car and in December with respect to the allowance. My views are absolutely clear on that. The board has been told to take action, and they have taken action. What has happened in the past, happened in the past. I don't apologize for it.
I think, hon. member, you have come very dangerously close.... In fact, I think a reading of Hansard will portray you as an apologist for what has happened in the past. Your statement that if the severance were in line with the norm, then that's okay, is a bit surprising. It's a bit shocking.
I'll say this: if there was freedom of information at the time that pension was paid out and you had been the critic, you would have seized that information and you would have tried to make political hay on that information about Mr. McMillan. Regardless of whether that was the norm or anything else, you would have been trying your darnedest to make political hay.
All I'm suggesting, hon. member, is that that's pretty easy to do. In fact, we've made it a heck of a lot easier for you to do, because the information is now available. I anticipate, with respect to question period, that there will be times when you have received information under that process that I'm not
[ Page 15215 ]
aware of. You'll get up, and you might even get a story about it. You might score political points about it. But don't ever kid yourself, don't ever think that you're a crusader with respect to those kinds of issues.
Your failure to stand in this House and absolutely condemn, with the same fervour that you've condemned Ms. Munro, your own chief adviser on WCB issues, I think stands as a startling confirmation of the point that I have just made.
L. Reid: Which is inaccurate at best.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm disappointed, hon. member, because I know that outside the realm of politics, you'd probably agree with me.
L. Reid: Only when you're being truthful.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Chair, I don't know where that comment falls in, but perhaps you might like to deal with it, because I will survive in politics only on my own good name and my reputation. My reputation is, I think, that of a person who is truthful -- whether you like it or you don't like it. Anybody who wants to accuse me, or suggest in any way that I am not truthful, I think has slighted me, hon. Chair. To the degree that that's important to me and to my reputation, I'd suggest, hon. Chair, that it be dealt with.
The Chair: I'm sure the member for Richmond East didn't mean to impugn the minister as being untruthful. I presume that she had no intention of presuming that the minister was being untruthful.
G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order I don't believe the record shows any comments made by the member for Richmond East. Therefore they can't be withdrawn.
The Chair: There was a comment made that was loud enough for not only the minister to hear it but for the Chair to hear it. I don't know whether it will appear in Hansard or not, but certainly it was enough to come to the attention of those in this room. As the Chair of this committee, I'm asking the member for Richmond East.... I'm sure she had no intention of impugning the character of the minister.
L. Reid: Absolutely not.
The Chair: Thank you very much, member. Now we can continue.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not going to rise to the minister's bait, because I've made my comments clear, and I think anybody who is reading Hansard will find that the characterization of my comments by the minister doesn't reflect what I actually said. That's fine, but I think the facts stand for themselves. I've said it, and I stand by what I've said. If he's unclear on what I said -- I realize he was reading clippings when I was commenting -- I would suggest that he review the Hansard, and he will find that my statements were quite clear on how I stand on that issue. So there's no need to pursue that to a great extent.
I was asking the minister about plans at the Workers' Compensation Board to improve morale and to improve the human resources situation, and perhaps the minister can expand upon that a little bit.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, morale is something that really does need to be dealt with. There is never any single cause when morale is not what it should be, nor is there any single thing you can do. The board is grappling with the issue of administrative efficiency. If you go back and review some very extensive reports that were commissioned by Mr. Dorsey, who, by the way, I want to express my respect and admiration for.... I think he's a first-class individual who is an extremely hard worker, and I think he made a major contribution to the Workers' Compensation Board system.
But it's very clear when you look at those external audits Mr. Dorsey commissioned by major firms -- one, I think a U.S firm, and one a Canadian firm; I can't recall the names of the firms -- they're kind of difficult reading. But if you wade through them, you'll see that the roots of our current administrative issues started some years ago. Mr. Parker, I think, is taking some very good steps to try to deal with those administrative issues. I think that has been one of the issues that has contributed to the morale issue. In other words, when you have a smoothly functioning organization, both in terms of how it works internally and in terms of how it meets the needs of clients, I think everybody feels a bit better.
There are efforts being made to improve administrative efficiency and to improve the operation of the board and its delivery of services. Without specifying exactly what they are here, I can say that management is cognizant of the morale issues and is taking steps in a variety of ways to try to deal with that. I think it is difficult; it's a very large organization. When things get into a certain malaise, you don't turn around overnight. But I'm satisfied we've got a management team there that understands these issues and is working towards trying to improve. We'll see; time will obviously tell. I don't expect miracles. I don't expect absolutely quick turnarounds, but I think things will improve. I think they're on the right track.
[11:30]
For whatever reason, there have not been major issues -- press-type issues -- in the last little while. Things have been quiet; I think that's good. I think it allows people to concentrate on the task at hand rather that being diverted. I think it requires constant attention and encouragement. It's heading in the right direction, and I'm confident things will improve.
G. Farrell-Collins: I certainly wish the board all the luck and all the good success possible with their endeavour to improve the morale and the human resources situation at Workers' Compensation Board. The minister said that he wasn't going to get into specifics. I'd prefer that he would and that he would give us some indication of what some of the things are, unless there is some overriding reason why he can't. I'd like to know what some of the things the board is doing are so we can see that there really are things taking place there. Are there a few things that he can tell us about? Is there some reason he can explain to us why that information shouldn't come forward today?
Hon. D. Miller: I didn't bring a list of the measures that are being taken or the attempts being taken internally to deal with that. No doubt there is one, and I'll see if I can get some
[ Page 15216 ]
information out of the administration on that point. I don't how important the member feels it is -- whether he wants it in a timely way or whether he's content to wait until I get it.
Essentially -- and I tried to link that in my answer -- the ability of the organization to operate in an effective manner has a direct bearing on morale issues. You don't create and improve morale by, for example, simply calling meetings with people and saying, "Tell us why you're unhappy," or by having feel-good sessions. You improve morale as you improve the overall operation. I think those efforts are really the ones that are being concentrated on at the present time.
With respect to absolute specifics, if the member wants me to get that, I could suggest that he might want to talk to Mr. Parker, who, I'm sure, would be happy to talk to him about that. I'd be happy to be the conduit if you like, but I'm not certain it's absolutely necessary. Someone has advised me that I now have an obligation to move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:34 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]