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
Afternoon Sitting (Part 1)
Volume 20, Number 23
[ Page 15217 ]
The House met at 2:08 p.m.
The Speaker: I would just like to take a second to thank the Deputy Speaker for serving the House during my absence. And I would as well like to thank all members for their cooperation, and I'm sure it was very much appreciated. Anyway, it's nice to be back, hon. members.
D. Lovick: I want you to know that this welcome from me to you probably comes with more passion than from anybody; nice to see you back, Mr. Speaker.
On your behalf, I would like to make a couple of introductions. First, I want to welcome a group of students with their teacher who are here from Bothell, Washington, from Woodmore Elementary School: Ms. C. Elsemore, their teacher, and a group of students here visiting with us today. I hope the House will make them welcome.
I understand as well that there are two other groups of visitors from the United States who are perhaps in the precincts: Ms. Hendrick from Satsop Elementary School in Satsop, Washington, and Ms. D. Allaway from Glenwood Elementary in Glenwood, Washington, visiting with students. Again, I would ask my colleagues to join me, please, in making our American guests feel welcome.
J. Pullinger: It is my real pleasure today to welcome to the House three people: two students from Cowichan Secondary School and their instructor. What's really special about them being here today is that they are here because they have won the national championship of the automotive troubleshooting competition. That, of course, is where you have a car with all sorts of problems and you fix it, which is just amazing to most of us. These two young men have won the national championship, and they are going on shortly to compete in the international championship. I would ask the House to welcome today Ryan Devoe from my colleague's constituency, Todd Wratten from mine, and their instructor, Mr. Tom Gavaghan. Would you please welcome them to the House, and in that welcome wish them the very best in the international championship.
The Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party.
J. Weisgerber: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Not wanting to be one to ever question the word of the Deputy Speaker, but indeed, there are many of us here who are delighted to see you back in your chair.
It's a real pleasure for me today, on behalf of the member for Okanagan West as well as myself, to introduce to the House the former Premier, Rita Johnston, who has joined us on the floor today. Joining Rita today are two former members of her staff. They're in the gallery. Would you also extend a warm welcome to Marguerite Leach, a former executive assistant, and Phyl Reynolds, who was Rita's constituency assistant.
Hon. P. Priddy: It's my pleasure to welcome and introduce to the Legislature today a woman who, as they would say in her province, comes from away. When I lived and worked in Nova Scotia and was active in the community and not thinking about politics, I did ask about women who were active in the community and who were good role models for women who wanted to be active and wanted to make a difference. At a soccer game my son was playing at one day, someone said to me: "You should meet the mother of one of the other soccer players." Indeed, Alexa McDonough is a woman who has been an excellent model for both women and men in Nova Scotia, both in the community and in politics. I would ask the House to please make welcome the Nova Scotia member from the riding of Halifax Fairview, Alexa McDonough.
L. Reid: I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming 50 grade 10 students who are visiting today from R.C. Palmer Jr. Secondary School in the riding of Richmond East. They are accompanied by their teachers: Larry Nelson, Scott Ferguson, Sylvia Grafton and Valerie Whyte.
I would also like the House to recognize the presence in the galleries today of a dear friend of mine, Karen Legeer, who is actually a constituent of my dear colleague from Surrey-White Rock. I would ask the House to please make her welcome.
R. Kasper: I too would like to congratulate Ryan Devoe of Mill Bay and Tom Wratten and, in particular, their instructor Tom Gavaghan. This is Tom's second team of students that he has managed to assist in reaching the national championship in this motor troubleshooting event. I would ask the House to join me in wishing them every success at the internationals.
F. Gingell: On behalf of the member for Saanich North and the Islands, I wish to recognize a group in the gallery that are officially known as the Australian Rotary Group Study Exchange. They're all from New South Wales and Queensland. Their team leader is Richard Crandon. Other members are Greg Yeates, Mark Trotter, Des Lacy and Lew Verney. They are accompanied by hosts Jack MacAulay and Lorne Harris of the Sidney -- that's Sidney in British Columbia -- Rotary Club. I ask all members to join me in making them welcome.
[2:15]
R. Neufeld: Welcome back, Mr. Speaker. It's not too often that I have the opportunity to introduce someone in the House from my constituency of Peace River North, but it's my pleasure today to introduce Dorene Callison, a constituent in Peace River North who also works with me in my constituency office. She's in the gallery today, and I'd like members to make her welcome.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'd like the House to make welcome somebody who is here from even further away than North Peace River. We have a visitor with us from the town of Zhukovsky in Russia. This is a town near Moscow, I understand. Our visitor is Mr. Alexander Kiritchenko. Mr. Kiritchenko is the head of the consumer market department in the mayor's office in Zhukovsky. He's participating in an internship program called Research and Training for Reform, which is administered by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. This internship program will have Mr. Kiritchenko spend two months in Canada. He's currently in the Ministry of Attorney General, studying the British Columbia system of preparing laws and regulations....
[ Page 15218 ]
Interjections.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We need all the help we can get.
Hon. Speaker, he's accompanied in the gallery today by legislative counsel officer Ken Chutskoff.
J. Dalton: I have two visitors to introduce. First, a lifelong friend, literally: Bruce Campbell, who, by the way, is not related to our leader, but I'm sure he wouldn't mind being. Bruce is a constituent of the Minister of Forests, and sitting next to Bruce is a constituent of mine, Mr. Mark Reder. Mark is an employee of the British consulate, and is over here to talk about fast ferries. So would the House please make them both welcome.
D. Mitchell: I'd like to make an introduction as well. Hon. Speaker, just to help update you on what has been going on in B.C. politics while you were out of the province, I'd like to introduce to our precincts a visitor who has been here over the last day or so. Mr. Greg Lyle has returned from Ontario, where he was helping the Ontario Conservative Party with their provincial election campaign, which concluded today. Mr. Lyle, who has been in the precincts over the last day or so was here to report to the Liberal Party....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
D. Mitchell: Apparently Mr. Lyle was here to help the leader of the Liberal Party draft his telegram of congratulations for the election today on behalf of the leader of the Liberal Party, although it is to the Conservative Party in Ontario, hon. Speaker -- you figure it out.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. As all hon. members know, the purpose of introductions is simply for that purpose and not for any other opportunities to make speeches.
The hon. Administrator will be entering the precincts momentarily, and I ask hon. members to please keep their seats.
His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.
Law Clerk:
Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1995
Grains and Oilseeds Revenue Protection Plan Trust Fund Act
Grazing Enhancement Special Account Act
Securities Amendment Act, 1995
Mountain Resort Associations Act
Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act, 1995
Real Estate Amendment Act, 1995
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1995
Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1995
Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1995
Tobacco Sales Amendment Act, 1995
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1995
Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 1995
Vancouver Stock Exchange Amendment Act, 1995
Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 1995
Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator does assent to these bills.
His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.
Hon. D. Miller presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Royal Roads University Act.
Hon. D. Miller: This act establishes Royal Roads University, a degree-granting institution that will ensure that British Columbians have the skills necessary to compete in a global economy. The purposes of the university as set out in the act are: to offer certificate, diploma and degree programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels in solely the applied and professional fields; to provide continuing education in response to the needs of the local community; and to maintain teaching excellence and research activities that support the university's programs in response to the labour market needs of British Columbians.
The act provides for a corporate governance model to enable the institution to respond quickly to changing industry and community needs. The governance model includes a board of governors, the president, who is the chief executive officer of the university, the program and research council, and the academic council. The board of governors and the president will have the duties and powers of the board of governors and the senate under the University Act. The program and research council will advise the board, and the academic council will advise the president.
Hon. Speaker, I'm not sure if the bill was drafted by our friend from Russia, but I move that Bill 49 be read for a first time.
Bill 49 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.
ELECTRICITY SALES TO U.S.
D. Jarvis: According to the 1994 report of B.C. Hydro, over the past five years B.C. has received $95 million to $172 million from electricity sales in the U.S.A. The bungling of the Minister of Employment is throwing that in jeopardy now. Bonneville Power has responded to the minister's bluster by threatening B.C.'s access to their transmission lines. My question is to the Minister of Employment. During Tuesday's press
[ Page 15219 ]
conference, why did the minister forget to inform British Columbians that annual electricity sales in excess of $100 million were now being threatened by Bonneville Power?
Hon. G. Clark: Actually, Mr. Speaker, the member is incorrect. For 30 years, Bonneville Power has restricted access to the American marketplace. Now, as a result of deregulation, and as a result of B.C. Hydro joining the deregulated utilities of the Pacific Northwest, we are going to have access for the first time to export surplus power to the United States. That's good news for jobs in British Columbia; it's good news for development. What has happened is that Mr. Peterson has responded by saying that rather than give the control of our reservoirs to Bonneville when they want to store water during the fish flush, when they have to pump water through uneconomically in the United States, now Powerex can buy the power on the open market at very cheap prices, store the water ourselves, take back control of our reservoirs, and export in the United States when the price is higher. That gives us more control than we've had in the past. It means we'll make more money on export sales in the future.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
D. Jarvis: Yes, supplemental. But first of all, we have to get that power down to the United States, and they control the transmission lines. In any event, we wouldn't be in this mess if the NDP didn't try to spend the $250 million that they didn't have. According to the B.C. Energy Council, Bonneville Power controls 80 percent of the transmission lines in Washington State, as I said. So we risk losing transmission line access to western United States power. My question to the Energy and Mines minister....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
D. Jarvis: What plans does the minister have for selling excess Columbia Treaty power to the United States, in the absence of commercial agreements with the U.S.A.?
Hon. A. Edwards: Again, I remind the member that any Columbia River Treaty power we have begins to come back in 1998 and works in then. We have a considerable amount of time to make arrangements for dealing with that power. Under the agreement, we arranged that it can either come back or be sold in the U.S. We expect that whenever we do reach agreement, it will be the same agreement -- the same outcome.
COLUMBIA RIVER NEGOTIATIONS WITH BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION
W. Hurd: A question to the Minister of Employment and Investment. With each passing day it's becoming obvious that the Minister of Employment and Investment is floundering in his get-tough, Rambo policy with Bonneville Power. At his press conference this week, the minister assured British Columbians that we wouldn't lose a dime by killing the storage agreements with Bonneville. But his hand-picked president of Powerex, Ken Peterson, has warned that Hydro stands to lose $5 million in revenues. It's a wash, at best. As the member for North Vancouver-Seymour said, we could lose long-term energy contracts in the United States. Will the minister put a cork in the rhetoric, fire his NDP negotiators and make sure that the power comes back to British Columbia in 1998, as it is required to do under the Columbia River downstream benefits treaty?
Hon. G. Clark: We don't have to make sure the power comes back as it is required to do in the treaty; it is required to do that under the treaty. Bonneville Power is required to build a transmission line for about $150 million (U.S.) through the American Okanogan Valley, at great environmental consequences, all to provide power to the United States. The power comes back, the asset is still ours and it's worth billions of dollars to British Columbia. The challenge is to maximize the benefits for British Columbia, and if the members think that we should now roll over to Bonneville and allow them to dictate to us the terms, they're wrong. I don't believe British Columbians want us to roll over.
[2:30]
I can tell you what Ken Peterson said. Ken Peterson, the CEO of Powerex and not an NDP hack, has worked in this industry for many years. He has said he was misquoted and misrepresented with respect to what he said. I want to read it. It says: "It is no disadvantage to British Columbia initially or otherwise to cancel these storage agreements with the BPA. Powerex...."
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Would the minister please wind up his statement.
Interjections.
Hon. G. Clark: I just want to quote Mr. Peterson: "Powerex will take the opportunity to earn greater revenue by buying energy in the spring when prices are low and reselling that energy when prices are considerably higher in the fall and winter."
The Speaker: Supplemental, member?
W. Hurd: All I can say is that pride and vanity come before a fall, and it appears that British Columbians are going to be the fall guys in this. The minister is now telling us he wants to bypass Bonneville and deal directly with the U.S. State Department like some international diplomat. Let's get real here. The federal government is Bonneville's biggest creditor, and they are all Republicans, not Democrats. Will the minister fire his handpicked negotiators and hire some real experts to ensure that the downstream benefits are returned on schedule in 1998, or is this minister determined to put his bruised ego ahead of the interests of British Columbians?
Hon. G. Clark: I think it's reprehensible that day in and day out in this House the members of the Liberal Party attack individuals working on behalf of British Columbia, experts in the field and people who cannot stand in this House and defend themselves. We have an outstanding team, and everybody knows we negotiated a good deal with Bonneville Power. Even Bonneville Power admits we negotiated a good deal with Bonneville Power, and that's the argument they're
[ Page 15220 ]
making in trying to renege on the deal. They can't renege on an international treaty. We have all the cards in this case, we have all the stroke, and it would be ridiculous and irresponsible for the government of British Columbia to crawl on its belly and suckhole to Bonneville Power when we have all the cards, when it's our power and our reservoirs, and that power returns to British Columbia. We're not going to shortchange future generations for short-term benefit. We're going to maximize the interests of British Columbians in the future.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
LEGISLATIVE PRECINCTS STUDY
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the minister responsible for BCBC. The legislative precincts study recommended sweeping improvements that would involve considerable capital expense. Can the minister confirm that the decision has been made to ignore all of the recommendations in that study until after the next election? And can the minister tell us who made the decision not to implement the recommendations of the study?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'll take that question on notice and get back to the Legislature.
The Speaker: The question is taken on notice, hon. member. Do you have another question?
J. Weisgerber: I have a new question for the minister. Is the minister responsible aware that a memo was sent out from BCBC indicating that Chris Chilton was the one who made the decision not to go ahead with improvements to the legislative precincts? My question is: in addition to renovating his own offices, why in the world would Chris Chilton be making decisions like that regarding the precincts that we are in here today?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to Mr. Chilton, two removable walls were removed. The cost of renovations was no more than $2,500. The Ministry of Health is paying rent on the previously empty space that's now being used in the cabinet planning secretariat by Mr. Chilton.
The rest of the question I'll take on notice and get back to the member.
TSATSU SHORES DEVELOPMENT
F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, as bulldozers moved dirt yesterday, the Tsawwassen Indian band announced on TV -- and my question is to the Minister of Environment -- their intention to proceed with the Tsatsu Shores development without agreement from Delta to supply water or provide sewage disposal services. Chief Sharon Bowcott stated they will dig artesian wells and truck the sewage out. My office is swamped with phone calls and letters, raising serious concerns about the process and the environmental propriety of this development. Does the minister share my concerns and those of the citizens of Delta, and has her ministry contacted the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to make sure these concerns are known to federal officials?
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I'll take that question on notice and get back to the member.
The Speaker: The question is taken on notice, hon. member. Have you further questions?
TSATSU SHORES DEVELOPMENT AND ABORIGINAL GAMING POLICY
F. Gingell: My supplemental question is to the Minister of Government Services.
The Speaker: A different question, hon. member?
F. Gingell: It is a different question; if everyone listens, they will discover that.
In the same news clip, Chief Sharon Bowcott expressed disdain for local government, and stated an intention to proceed with other development on their reserve if they so decide. One of the options she mentioned was a casino. Does the Minister of Government Services...? Seeing that the chief sits on the aboriginal gaming implementation committee, can the minister explain why a member of his committee has made statements so directly contrary to his clearly enunciated public policy commitments?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me remind the members of this Legislature and the people of British Columbia that in the context of gaming one law applies to all British Columbians. Let me restate that there will be no Las Vegas-style casinos allowed in British Columbia. Let me further say to you that there is a final announcement on gaming direction yet to come.
FAMILY MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS ENFORCEMENT
R. Neufeld: My question is for the Attorney General. In April the government proclaimed an amendment to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act that allowed a notice of attachment to be issued against anyone who was not in arrears but who had missed payment some time in the past. That's like giving a credit card company the right to garnishee the wages of anyone who has ever missed a payment. If the person is making their maintenance payments and is not in arrears, why should they have an attachment placed against them?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member will recall that we had this debate when the legislative changes were made -- I believe it was in the 1994 session -- and that was the proper place for the debate. The member's position lost during that debate, and the government's position prevailed.
The Speaker: Supplemental, member.
R. Neufeld: Again I say that in April this government proclaimed the change. The notice of attachment costs the payer a fee of $35, and it is in force for five years with little chance of removal. It should be a measure of last resort aimed at chronic delinquents, not an unfair burden to those who are meeting their maintenance payments. Will the government now commit that no one who is current in their maintenance payments will have an attachment placed against them?
[ Page 15221 ]
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Please proceed, minister.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The family maintenance enforcement program is designed to ensure that women and children are looked after financially as best we possibly can. We need that particular enforcement provision. The answer is no to the member's question.
CLOSURE OF OAK STREET BRIDGE
D. Symons: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The closure of two lanes of the Oak Street Bridge for three months begins this Saturday. B.C. Transit was not notified until April 7 of the ministry's intention to close two lanes -- not enough time to arrange for more buses. Why wasn't more lead time given to B.C. Transit so that sufficient public transit could have been in place to give commuters an attractive alternative to the frustration of exhaust fumes caused by these long delays?
Hon. J. Pement: Again I will say that the bridge is being closed to two lanes because of major repairs to be done to the bridge. I believe that it is important that we have a good infrastructure for our citizens to access. We had discussions with B.C. Transit with regard to bus services; they are putting new buses on. We have the Jack Bell Foundation, which is working well towards van-pooling. We have shown and are publicizing routes. We are putting out pamphlets. We are on the radio talking to people with regard to the closure. We know it's going to be difficult for the commuter. Nevertheless, we have a system that we have to keep in repair, and I'm pleased that we have the funding to do so.
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.
Hon. C. Gabelmann tabled the annual report for 1994-95 of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia.
K. Jones: I ask leave to table a petition.
Leave granted.
K. Jones: I table this petition on behalf of 90 petitioners from the lower mainland. The petition is:
"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 previous regulations governing the adoption of infants and children, at least until the public's interests have been fully considered."
Hon. G. Clark: Just to inform the House a little, we plan to do three reports of estimates, I believe, before we move into breaking into Committee of Supply and the various bills. So first of all, I'd like to call the report or wrap-up of the Ministry of Finance estimates.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS
J. Weisgerber: We did indeed debate the estimates of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations yesterday, and one of the areas where we were certainly disappointed in our ability to get a good, clear rationale was the whole area of the reporting in the estimates of the $250 million from the Columbia downstream benefits. It was clear to us, and clear from the material available, that the minister had been advised by the comptroller general and the auditor general, and in a split opinion from Peat Marwick, that the money shouldn't have been handled as revenue. The comptroller general suggested that it should have been applied against debt; the auditor general took a somewhat different position and suggested that the money should have been recorded as income in the years in which it was earned, starting in 1998.
It was pretty obvious that the minister had simply continued to look and shop until such time as she could find someone who could give at least a qualified approval of her plan to take the $250 million into revenue. As events have proven, it was a mistake; it was a bad decision taken by the Minister of Finance. It is a decision that has had serious repercussions for the people of the Kootenays -- the people who might be affected by the expenditure of that money -- and has led in large measure, I believe, to the collapse of the agreement on the sale of the downstream benefits.
Despite a fairly lengthy debate on that issue in estimates, we were unable to get a satisfactory answer from the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations on the rationale for that decision -- one of the worst decisions, I think, that we have seen made by a Finance minister in a number of years in this House.
[2:45]
D. Mitchell: I'd just like to echo the words of the leader of Reform B.C. to indicate that the minister didn't really satisfactorily explain to us in her estimates review how that mistake could have been made. It might only be a bit more than 1 percent of the total $20 billion budget that she bears responsibility for, but it would have been far more refreshing for this Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations to admit that she had made a mistake, and to simply admit to the people of British Columbia that a significant error of a quarter of a billion dollars of accounting for revenue had been made in her budget. It was a mistake, and now we may have to scramble -- we don't know. The minister has told us that everything is under control. That's great, but wouldn't it be refreshing if she admitted the error?
One other issue that the minister wasn't very forthcoming on -- and I wish she had been -- deals with the privatization plans of the government with respect to B.C. Rail, which her ministry has undertaken some reports on. I wish she had been more forthcoming on that as well.
F. Gingell: With the B.C. Securities Commission in transition, and with the Public Accounts Committee most recently
[ Page 15222 ]
dealing with the issues of debt management and hedging, pension funds and unfunded liabilities, we were able to deal with the estimates in about six hours.
We touched on a number of technical matters and inquired into the progress of the Public Service Employee Relations Commission, long term disability issues and pay equity. We discussed goal-setting, program outcome measurement, student loans and the progress of the corporate accounting system.
We also talked about consistency in financial reporting practices. I think everyone in this House is aware of my concern about, and disagreement with, the accounting treatment in this year's budget of the then anticipated $250 million payment for a portion of the Columbia River downstream benefits.
For me, it is a second-or third-year accounting exam question. Of course, I used to teach CGA students. Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you that the minister got a zero. This issue won't come up, because the deal has collapsed. The minister was upset that I would suggest that they had probably realized that the certain qualification of the auditor general of the public accounts for the year 1995-96 would not come out until after the next provincial election, when it will be too late for the people of British Columbia to have confirmation of this piece of fiscal flimflammery.
To close, the minister and I do agree on one issue: the fine quality of personnel who work in her ministry. I wish to compliment them, and I also wish to compliment the minister on the commitment and energy that she brings to her role as minister.
Hon. E. Cull: I spent this morning in my other portfolio and had the opportunity to announce another acquisition to the Lower Mainland Nature Legacy. I mention this because there is a very strong connection between what we're doing in the environment and what we're doing in the economy. I think the whole point of our debate around the Finance estimates was not to deal with the Ministry of Finance in isolation, with just the bits and pieces of the ministry -- whether we're looking at human relations or public service pension plans -- but to look at the role that the ministry plays in supporting our government's strong goal of a healthy economy.
As I said in the estimates debate, our priority has been to ensure a strong economy, one that keeps creating jobs. Our first step and the major responsibility of the Minister of Finance has been to put our fiscal house in order. We have done that. We have eliminated the deficit of $2.4 billion one year ahead of schedule. We have cut the rate of growth of spending so that on a per capita basis it has been reduced for the third year in a row. We have frozen taxes for three years -- we're in the second year of that. We have worked with the business community to put in place a debt management plan that transcends partisan politics, as the member of the board of trade said when he transmitted the recommendations to me. That's something that should move beyond partisan politics, but if adopted by this government, it will ensure that British Columbia continues to have the lowest debt in Canada, and the lowest debt-servicing charges in Canada. It's already beginning to pay off in the two confirmations that we've had of our credit rating from bond-rating agencies. Two of the agencies have reported confirming our credit rating, and I expect confirmation from the other two very shortly.
As the opposition critic has implied in his closing remarks, we had a very civilized debate for most of the six hours we spent on this. I think it's to the credit of the critic that the debate went quickly and that we stayed on the issues for the most part. There are two issues that I want to mention, two things that surprised me in terms of the debate -- not so much the issues, but the way in which the issues were raised.
The first is that the only tax matters the opposition critic raised were about those taxes that affect large corporations and the wealthiest British Columbians. I find that somewhat strange or...
An Hon. Member: Revealing.
Hon. E. Cull: ...revealing, as one of my colleagues says, because British Columbians do feel that they are bearing a tax load, and they want tax relief. But the only comments that the opposition critic brought up were to question the corporation capital tax, and the marginal tax rate for those British Columbians earning in excess of $80,000 a year.
I actually did something unusual in the estimates debates: I caught the member a little off guard by turning some questions around and asking him some questions. I asked him what his party would do if they were to eliminate the corporation capital tax, and the answer I got back was that maybe there's something we could do with some small increase in consumer taxes. The consumer taxes are, of course, the provincial sales tax.
F. Gingell: Read the Blues, read the Blues.
Interjections.
Hon. E. Cull: I've looked at the Blues, hon. member. The member is suggesting....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order. Order, hon. minister. Hon. members, it is most unparliamentary to speak....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! Hon. members, unless the Chair is addressed, it is most inappropriate to be speaking in any event, but certainly so from your chair. I would ask the hon. members to respect parliamentary procedure in that regard.
Hon. E. Cull: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I have obviously hit a nerve over there with respect to what they would do to deal with these taxes. You can't eliminate $330 million worth of tax and say that you will balance the budget and provide more services, without finding some place to take them. The discussion yesterday was revealing in the mention of consumption taxes, and $330 million would be a 1 percent increase in the PST.
The other interesting aspect of the tax debate revolved around school taxes. The member did not in any way address the fact that their commitment of eliminating the school taxes from property tax would involve a massive shift from business to families. The fact that they raised no other tax issues and no other issues of concern to the ordinary families in this
[ Page 15223 ]
province, who are struggling and feeling that they go from paycheque to paycheque, is very revealing with respect to the agenda of this particular party.
The second issue that surprised me wasn't the topic. I had fully expected that we would debate at length the $250 million of Columbia River downstream benefits. What surprised me was the approach that was taken in the end. Let me state again for the record that all revenue in a budget is an estimate, and no matter what happens with respect to resource payments, sales tax revenue, income tax revenue or lumber stumpage, we fully intend to balance our budget and to stay on track with our fiscal plan, as we have each and every year of our budget when things unforeseen came up.
What was curious about the debate we had was that the opposition critic made it very clear that what he would do in the case of competing opinions is select the opinion of the auditor general, not the comptroller general, in this case. As I have pointed out -- and maybe he doesn't know this, not being a minister of the Crown -- this would have required a Treasury Board decision to overrule it. It is unfortunate when you have a situation where a political committee is overriding the office of the comptroller general. I made it very clear yesterday that despite the differences of opinion that exist among the accountants, I have full confidence in our comptroller general and intend to continue taking his advice.
As I said, the ministry estimate debates had many details in them, but it really all comes down to what the best plan is for supporting our strong economy. We have the best economy in Canada. How do we keep it? You could keep it the way the opposition suggests, which is to cut services, cut the wages of the people who provide those services and cut taxes to those who need help the least, or you can select a plan that says it is time to continue to invest in our province, to have confidence in our future, to invest in training of our people and in our natural resources, to create more protected wilderness and to ensure that we have the necessary economic infrastructure to keep a healthy economy. I found the debate very interesting. It made the choice very clear.
The Speaker: Thank you, minister. That concludes the reports on Finance, hon. members.
Hon. G. Clark: I call wrap-up on the Transportation and Highways estimates.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
L. Hanson: I participated in the debate regarding the Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates. We spent a lot of time on the minister's Crown corporation responsibilities, and although the motor vehicle branch is not a Crown corporation, we spent a lot of time on that. I suspect the main reason was that we learned very quickly that we should have had the Minister of Employment and Investment there if we wanted to learn what was going to happen in Highways in British Columbia next year. The minister was pleased to announce that there was about $400 million being spent on capital projects, although it was almost impossible to elicit any specifics about what that $400 million might have been spent on. I suppose when we see the bureaucracy being created at Highway Constructors and in the highway financing authority, probably that's where we should have directed our questions to get the answers we were looking for.
[3:00]
We were disappointed to learn that the renovation project this year, where they pick up the pavement, refurbish it and lay it down again, has dropped to 300 kilometres from 500 kilometres last year. That's very disappointing. As a matter of fact, we suspect that those people who have invested the money in equipment to provide that service to British Columbia will be looking to move to other jurisdictions.
But I have to compliment the minister for, as far as she was able, being very candid with the answers we were given. Hopefully, next year we can combine the two ministries, so we might know more about what is going on in Highways when we ask questions.
D. Mitchell: I know the Minister of Transportation and Highways tries hard to do a job under very challenging circumstances. I'd just like to take this opportunity, after the estimates review debate, to remind her that in her capacity as minister responsible for B.C. Rail.... That is an equally important part of her responsibilities. This is a very successful, profitable Crown corporation, and I'd like to encourage the minister to try to pursue her responsibility to this Legislature for that particular Crown corporation to the same degree she attempts to show for the ministry she bears responsibility for, and to be more forthcoming about questions dealing with the potential privatization of that Crown corporation. If, in fact, she or her government colleagues are seriously considering that, that's nothing to be ashamed of. The minister should be encouraged though, I think, to be much more forthcoming and to end any of the uncertainty associated with this question in our province.
D. Symons: I also would like to compliment the minister at least for the cordial relationship we had with each other during the estimates. I wouldn't say that we always agreed on things; certainly not. But the minister was quite willing to answer questions when she was able. As mentioned by one of the other speakers, the problem was that so much of this seems to be decided outside of her ministry.
I also had some great concerns about rehabilitation underspending. Rehabilitation can add years and years to work and prolong the time before a major rebuild of a project is needed. There was a study done a few years ago called Good Roads Cost Less. It seems to be the definitive study on the need for rehabilitation. We are spending $138 million this year on rehab projects, whereas that study would indicate that we would need to do over $200 million simply to restore or keep the infrastructure we currently have. We are losing infrastructure year by year, and each year that we put that off by underspending, we're making a larger and larger deficit of highway infrastructure that's going to have to be made up by some government in the future.
Spending in the ministry has been reduced by this government; but the spending has been reduced on the roads, not in the streamlined delivery of service and management. I'm disappointed to see, as another member mentioned also, the reduction in the hot-in-place. This hot-in-place process is a
[ Page 15224 ]
very cost-effective way of bringing about rehabilitation of roads and extending the useful life of a given road. As mentioned, it was 450 lane-kilometres last year, down to 300 this year, and that 450 was down from the year before that. So we can certainly see a downward direction in looking after the infrastructure we already have. I hardly see the point of building more roads, more highways, if we can't look after the ones we currently have and keep them in good shape. But that seems to be where we're going.
I will compliment the minister on the fact that the ministry is now looking at the design-build process as a way of cutting corners in the expense of having projects take place, where you have a design and a build in one contract, rather than have it separated and then have the interactions that cause more costs -- in going between the designers and the builders of the project. So that's a plus, and I would like to see more of it. I have not seen any indication of more of those coming down the line, but I hope that's just the beginning of a long series of those approaches to putting bids out on projects.
I was also concerned that we hadn't heard of a couple of projects that I think are long overdue. They have been around the mill for quite a period of time, and I think those in the Surrey-Delta region have been looking forward to hearing that the perimeter road that's long overdue is being given more attention than is currently being given by the ministry. Also, of course, those on the North Shore are dying to hear when that Lions Gate Bridge project is going to be announced, what sort of crossing it will be and when it will be. So that's something else that's overdue that should come forth.
Tied in with that is the idea that the ministry is moving more into a process called value engineering in its giving of bids. I think that's a move in the right direction, and I would commend the ministry for looking at that approach where they might be able, through cooperation between the ministry and the contractor, to save a bit of money if the contractor is able to devise ways of giving the same product at a lesser price.
Another topic that came up was the idea of 16-foot-wide vehicles on the lanes, particularly in the Peace River area. They have a project going on right now, and I would agree with the member for Peace River South, who suggested that possibly for the Peace River -- being a unique area of the province east of the Rocky Mountains -- there could be different rules for people in that area. Sixteen-foot-wides may be available for transport on the highways there, whereas it would not necessarily be suitable in the rest of the province. I would suggest that the minister might look at the fact that we do have a unique situation in the Peace River area, and that deserves special consideration.
I dealt for a while with the Island Highway project, particularly the fact that the Island Highway is being downsized. When this project was announced, we heard time and time again that they were going to set up Highway Constructors Ltd. to see that it was done by union labour and that it would be on time and on budget. In effect, we have heard that it's neither of those. Certainly the minister has admitted that it's not on time. They have postponed a few of the projects by a year or so; some of them were already a year behind, anyway. Also, the minister uses the term that it's on budget when indeed they had to reduce the scope of the project in order to stay within their budget.
The Speaker: The hon. minister concludes.
Hon. J. Pement: I have to say that we certainly canvassed a wide scope of issues, and in some cases I think we were all over the map with regard to the different projects. I thank the members for their concern and interest in a particularly important part of British Columbia, the transportation system. I must remind members that our ministry has been working towards a consultative approach of careful planning and developing so that we have an integrated transportation system, and so that this system will support and sustain our economic growth. I think that's particularly important to our province -- also that we have a safe system as a whole.
Interestingly enough, for the last two years we have had a number of major projects on the go; overall, around $2 billion worth of major projects, from the Vancouver Island Highway through to projects in the lower mainland, Okanagan and the regions. This year alone we will be spending $400 million on upgrading our system. In terms of the future projects that we will be announcing, that has been really important towards alleviating some of the congestion in some of the high-growth areas. I again want to say to the members that these announcements will be made. They will know what the projects are as soon as our budgets are finalized with regard to the capital projects. Those capital projects are done through the Transportation Financing Authority. It's one that some members seem to have difficulty understanding, but I think it's fairly clear that this authority is allowing us to do these projects over a given time, and it will ensure that we do meet the goals we're looking at.
We have 42,000 kilometres of highways, 2,700 bridges and 19 ferries in British Columbia, so we have quite a system. This year we will be spending $375 million on maintenance alone in this province, and $142 million-plus on rehabilitation projects. I think that's pretty significant in terms of sustaining our system and meeting the economic growth of this province. It's outstanding, when considering what's happening in other provinces in Canada.
With regard to the Vancouver Island Highway project, it's really interesting to note that there will be 226 jobs on that system by the end of this construction season. Over 90 percent of those jobs are on the Island, and I think it's commendable that this government has worked on a program to ensure that there is local hire. HCL is helping to ensure that on many of these projects we have local hire, apprenticeship training and an opportunity for everyone to access these jobs. Again, I think it's commendable that this government has set up a program to do so.
In the area of motor vehicles, we are going to look at some major changes in British Columbia to drivers' responsibilities, to traffic safety initiatives that we'll be speaking on in the House under the acts that have been introduced and, of course, also to the ministry itself in that particular section. The changes will be made in their whole technology computing systems. There is a major undertaking in that particular department with regard to upgrading their system so that they're more effective and working effectively with the Crown and ICBC in order to deliver a better system for the people of British Columbia. Again, I commend our government for assisting us with the funding so we can do so.
I think that on the whole, our government and my ministry have been working diligently to ensure that British Columbians are going to get to work, to school, to recreation and to medical care. I look forward to working with my staff for the
[ Page 15225 ]
next while with regard to meeting the needs of British Columbians and the goals of this ministry, and I thank the members for their participation.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
The Speaker: First will be the member for Okanagan.... Omineca.... Prince George-Omineca.
L. Fox: It's good to have you back, even though you occasionally have difficulty remembering which riding I'm in.
Let me first say that I am very thankful to the minister for his participation and cooperation throughout the estimates. I think we canvassed a very wide variety of issues and all aspects of the education portfolio. We certainly discussed the issues of portable classrooms, the process of capital improvements and some of the criteria that were used in order to decide priorities. I think there were some differences of opinion, however, over what was the number one priority in terms of qualifying. It still seems to me that politics plays too great a role in the school approval process. However, I'm sure -- as it was then, it will be today -- that the minister will disagree with that.
One of the key issues that was debated at some length by virtually all of those who took part in the estimates was where we were going with education. In my limited time here, I'm not going to be able to address too much of that, but it seems to me, as I travel around the province and my own constituency, that there are grave concerns that we don't have enough choices within our existing school system. We have a problem. Oftentimes our educational level is brought down to the lowest common denominator rather than placing more emphasis on traditional learning and teaching values. Those concerns are prevalent; we see those concerns coming not just from parents but from teachers, administrators and students. Proof of the problem is in the statistics, and the statistics are on the record.
I also wanted to just mention in this wrap-up the contribution of the member for Chilliwack, who spent some time talking about his concerns about violence in the schools, particularly in his riding. He made some good points, and those points are available for all members and for the audience to look up in the Blues.
With those few comments -- I see that my time is about to run out -- I would like to thank the minister for this very cordial and often very straightforward debate. Even though we differed in terms of some of the issues that we talked about, I think we had a very good debate on them.
[3:15]
L. Stephens: I too would like to extend my welcome-back sentiments to the Speaker; it is good to have him back in the chair, and I'm sure all members are pleased that he has returned to us.
I would also like to express my appreciation to the Minister of Education and his staff for their forthrightness and patience during these fairly lengthy Education debates this time.
During those estimates it was generally agreed that for students today and in the future, education must bring about a fundamental change in the skills, attitudes and values that are needed to ensure a prosperous future for all of our citizens. Statistics show that education has become the most obvious dividing line in the Canadian job market.
During the debates, we talked about the number of students graduating from high school in British Columbia. The fact is that the number of students graduating is falling; the graduation rate is now below 70 percent. Put another way, 30 percent of B.C. students are not graduating, while a decade ago 80.9 percent of the class of 1982 graduated.
Also, the number of portables in the province has gone from 1,800 to the current estimate of about 2,850. This represents an increase of 37 percent. School construction accounts for less than 20 percent of the billions of dollars of debt that have been added in these last few years. By cutting back on other priorities, such as bureaucratic growth or fast-tracking the Island Highway, the government could have built more schools and still could have accumulated less debt.
In April, independent contractors commissioned a report that concluded that the government had approved 106 school projects worth a total of $509.6 million since the fair-wage policy was adopted, but that they could have saved between $35 million and $65 million if that fair-wage policy had not been applied. These dollars could have built an additional 1,660 classrooms in this province.
Today, as we speak, the education of students in Delta School District is under a cloud because of the breakdown in contract talks between support staff and the school board. This is no way to run an education system, where the education of the students may be lost or put on hold during a labour strike. This simply reinforces the official opposition's position that education must be an essential service.
The Korbin commission also considered the issue of school board amalgamation. It concluded that further review of the boundaries and the scope and number of school districts should be undertaken by a special commission. The Minister of Education this year, rather than going ahead with the amalgamated school districts that he had initiated a study on and decided to cancel that.... The minister must know that the time for study is over and that we really have to get on with amalgamating some of these school boards.
The parents, the business community, other social agencies and the general public are calling for increased affordability and accountability in relation to the cost efficiencies, effectiveness and standards of performance in educational outcome. Really, there are many things missing. One of those is choices for the parents, teachers and students in the kinds of schools, programs and methods of instruction available to students today in British Columbia. Also, the flexibility that local school boards and local schools need for local initiatives, innovation and responsiveness to community needs -- these have to be increased. Local autonomy for school boards needs to be heightened. The increased targeting that Bill 23, which was debated in committee stage in this House last night.... This particular bill will do more to impede local autonomy and local initiatives than any other bill that's been presented in this House.
We need incentives for performance in the schools. Districts that achieve significant learning gains over previous years' results should receive some kind of bonus or incentive for them to continue with rewarding success. Also, local
[ Page 15226 ]
schools and the school boards require clear and well-advised action on setting standards of academic and educational achievement. It is also important that schools and school districts have the flexibility to address local goals and objectives. Deregulation also is a major consideration.
I just want to say in closing, quite simply, that the government doesn't have its priorities straight. The education system is not there to be manipulated. It's there for the students, and the government must once again be reminded of that.
The Speaker: The minister concludes.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Let me say at the outset that we have in British Columbia a very good education system that this government is in the process of making even better. The basic mission is to provide an equal opportunity for an equal start in life for all children and youth. There are about 600,000 students in about 1,750 schools, served by about 35,000 teachers and 25,000 support staff. It's this government's clear view that this is best accomplished through a publicly funded, publicly administered education system.
We had a good debate in estimates on a wide variety of issues -- lots of views exchanged. I'm going to be limiting my comments here primarily to the big picture, if you will, on how this government's agenda is improving education in British Columbia. To succeed in that mission, the education system must provide quality. It must provide standards -- high standards. It must provide accountability for students, parents and the community. We must have a curriculum that is relevant. Let me briefly outline what we're doing in each of those areas.
In relevance, we are shifting to applied academics to meet more of the needs of a greater proportion of students in our classrooms. We're implementing new curricula, starting this September. Over the next three years, we will introduce a completely new curriculum for the entire core of the overall curricula for the system. This year, in career and personal planning, we're introducing the program or course on career and personal planning for grades 8 through 12, which is going to help young men and women make choices and help better prepare them for the world of work or the world of post-secondary study, once they leave our care.
In the process of rolling out those new curricula, we are updating and embedding current knowledge and current technology -- particularly information technology -- within those curricula, and we are insisting on high rigour throughout. We may be changing the focus, but the rigour will be just as high.
We have started the process of putting out what are called integrated resource packages, which allow a teacher about to teach new curricula a complete set of supports all in one place: knowing what the outcomes are, what some suggested teaching and testing methods are, and what resources are available. For the very first time, this will be available in one place for all courses as they are rolled out.
With respect to standards, parents and students have a right to high standards, a right to expect the best. Parents want to see their children actually master the material they are presented with, not simply move from grade to grade. We have introduced new reporting and grading systems that are more responsive to parental and student need. We have highly qualified teachers -- highly qualified educators -- and the ministry supports, on an ongoing basis, professional development.
In accountability, I've mentioned the improved reports to parents, but we will also continue to participate in provincial, interprovincial and international testing. We will also be issuing district reports in which the performance of a district can be made clear to parents and other members of the public who want to obtain that, and we are participating with all Ministers of Education in issuing a national education report by the end of this year so that students and parents will be able to see how B.C. compares across the country.
In all of those ways, we are improving the education system in the province. In order to do that, of course, funding is required. For four years in a row we have increased funding in our budgets -- this year by 3.3 percent. Even though we are seeing growth rates of 12,000 to 14,000 a year, we have been able to maintain full funding for every new student that has come into our system -- the only province in Canada that has been able to do that. At the same time, on the capital side, over four budgets, $1.7 billion has gone into capital construction. We have gone further to meet the needs of the system than any previous government.
We have been preparing and having a space ready for those 12,000 to 14,000 new students each year, and contrary to what the member opposite said earlier, we are actually making progress -- that is to say modest reductions -- in the number of portables in the system from four years ago.
We are, then, delivering on the improvements in education in exactly the same way that we said we would in the report to parents in November 1993. But just providing the high-quality curriculum, the standards, the accountability and the relevance is not enough. We also have to provide the funding; I've spoken to that. We have also made the funding fairer, with a new distribution system that the system has applauded.
We also have to have equity amongst career choices. As I've said, we're shifting to applied academics, and we're looking to reinvigorate the vocational and apprenticeship side -- through Skills Now, partially. We're recognizing talent with respect to that with apprenticeships for the first time.
It is also vitally important to have equality of opportunity. This is one area where we have profound differences with the opposition Liberals. We believe in a high-quality system for all students, and we oppose charter schools, which would provide a higher level of education for some students while others get by with less. We will not permit a two-tier education system to be established in British Columbia.
I would like to thank the member for Langley, the Education critic for the official opposition, and the member for Prince George-Omineca, the critic for the Reform caucus, and all other members of the House who engaged in a very worthwhile debate through the estimates.
[3:30]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 16, Class Proceedings Act.
The Speaker: There is still Committee A.
[ Page 15227 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: My apologies; I thought that was called at 2:30 p.m. In Committee A, I call the estimates of the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour.
CLASS PROCEEDINGS ACT
The House in committee on Bill 16; D. Lovick in the chair.
On section 1.
L. Fox: I'll just take a minute or two, because I think one of the members of the official opposition had to run down and get his bill.
One of the questions I had on this act.... I'm not sure where the appropriate spot to ask this is, but I thought I would ask it in this section, because there might be some need for clarification within the definitions section. It seems to me that this act is going to draw a question given that there's lots of other legislation that contains clauses that protect the government from any actions against it. In this class-action legislation, the government is exposed to actions contained within this legislation. The question that I would have to ask is: which legislation would take precedence in that kind of situation? Is there a need to address that in this section of the act?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Unless the government has some legislative provision in another statute that one way or another prevents a suit, the government is -- except for that -- open to suit. It doesn't matter whether it's a suit from an individual or a group of individuals operating in combination. Whatever opportunity is available to an individual in terms of suing the government is available to a group of individuals combining into a class.
L. Fox: In simple terms, then, the other legislation takes precedence over this legislation.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, because this act doesn't open up any new avenues, other than establishing a procedure for combining together.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
J. Dalton: The first question I have is: why is it that, under subsection (1), the class of persons must be resident in the province?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the basic answer is that this is a piece of legislation designed to assist British Columbians; so if there is a class of people who have a cause for action, in order for the case to take place in British Columbia, one of them has to be resident here. It could be that the majority of the group doesn't live here, but one would have to.
J. Dalton: My reading of subsection (1) is that the class must be resident in British Columbia. That class could be two or more.
The other question I'll direct to the Attorney at this time is: is it possible that the member who may commence the proceeding could be a non-resident of British Columbia and everyone else could be a resident of the province?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member will have noted, I am sure, in his review of the legislation that in section 6(2), there is a provision which requires that the class of residents must be divided. In other words, the British Columbians are in one group and the non-British Columbians are in another, in terms of a subdivision of the group.
J. Dalton: Well, I must confess I don't understand why you could not have a class of persons none of whom are resident in British Columbia. Let's take a situation. Let's take a truckload of Americans on a tour of British Columbia, and they're all involved in a traffic accident. Is the Attorney telling us that that truckload of Americans would not be permitted to take a class action in this province for a motor vehicle accident that occurred in this province? Where would they take the action?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The simple answer to that is, while the member may want to argue that we should enable non-British Columbians to sue by way of class action when there are no British Columbians who would be party to the suit, we have chosen to make this legislation available to British Columbians. If a busload of California tourists have a cause for action, they will have to pursue that cause in the old-fashioned, traditional way.
J. Dalton: Well, that's the answer I expected I was going to get, and it would seem to defeat the whole purpose of this act, whereby we can get a collection of people together and cut down on the costs of court and the tying up of the courts. The Attorney has told us the very thing that's going to defeat that purpose. This hypothetical truckload of Americans would have to take individual actions in the courts of British Columbia, dealing with a motor vehicle accident in which they're all involved -- one accident. Let's extend it further. Let's say that they ran into a busload of British Columbians. I'm sorry, Attorney, but I have a great deal of trouble understanding why you are starting off an action, which has a lot of merit, and clouding the picture with something that quite frankly doesn't make sense.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member makes a suggestion that I think is not without merit. The decision was to make this available to British Columbians. On the surface of it, with two or three minutes' chance to discuss it here, there's a legitimate argument being made. My suggestion would be that we get on with this and we look to improving the legislation if it needs improvement, by this or other suggestions, in the next session of the Legislature.
J. Dalton: Well, we're breaking new ground here. It's new ground that we would like to applaud the Attorney and his government for breaking. But it is going to be very difficult to applaud and set out a new ground when the Attorney has just told us this very moment that this act may have flaws -- we're only on the second section -- and that he might be back later to amend it. I'm sorry; I'm entirely uncomfortable with that.
I'll just repeat it once more. I cannot understand why the class must be residents of British Columbia, because the Attorney has quite rightly directed our attention to section 6(2), whereby you could have a class of residents and persons who are non-resident. Well, I'm just suggesting the obvious -- that you could have an entire class of non-residents. There's
[ Page 15228 ]
no reason why under this act you should prohibit access to a collective proceeding by non-British Columbians. The only alternative is to take individual actions.
Let me ask my next question, then. It was actually going to come up under section 3, but I'll ask it now. We have joinder of actions in the rules of court of the province, and the joinder could be of non-residents. What is the difference between that joining of actions of non-residents and allowing non-residents in a qualified action -- a cause of action arising in this province -- to take action accordingly?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As I indicated to the member, he may well be making an excellent point. If it were a simple matter of doing a House floor amendment, I would be very happy to consider it. But it isn't, because we have the subclass issues to deal with, and there would be a significant amount of legislative redrafting to accomplish this aim.
I think we're making excellent progress by enabling British Columbians, to begin with, to have this right for the first time. I've said this for many years in this Legislature. No bill, no matter how carefully considered or how well drafted, is ever going to be writ in stone, because we can always improve everything. We should always be looking at legislation with that in mind. We are making a start here. We are enabling non-residents to join in a suit. We are designing this for British Columbians. Should a decision be made in the future to enable an entirely non-resident class action to commence, then that's something we'll consider in the future.
J. Dalton: I have just one more point on this. Given that your consultation document, hon. Attorney, refers often -- and rightly so -- to the Ontario experience, because they've had an act since '92, and it's a jurisdiction that is a useful one to compare.... I suppose we might even want to make an aside and say we could compare the results of today's election in Ontario to what might happen here.
An Hon. Member: You mean the Liberals' free fall there.
J. Dalton: I wouldn't even bother touching that remark, given that we know the government of the day has fallen over the cliff and disappeared.
Has the Ontario act any reference in it to non-residents gaining initial access to a class proceeding? Is it also exclusive to the residents of that province?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Ontario legislation does not have a subclass or non-resident component to it. We have the subclass component, which makes the organization and pursuit of a class-action initiative easier. They don't have that; they simply say that.... They're silent on the question. They don't have a subclass process; that's why it developed this way.
I'm not quarrelling with the member; the member may well be right. For me to stand up here and say that I'm always right and the member is always wrong would be crazy and stupid and wrong. I'm just saying that we've made a decision to organize our act slightly differently from the Ontario act, and we've organized the subclass process.... If, on reflection in the future, we decide that a group that is entirely composed of non-residents should be able to take advantage of this, I'm certainly open to it. But it's not possible on the floor of the House this late in the session to do the kind of changes that would enable that.
I'm simply saying that it's an open question. We've taken a slightly different approach from Ontario on this question, and that's why.
Sections 2 and 3 approved.
[3:45]
On section 4.
J. Dalton: Section 4 deals with the number of persons, whether they be resident or otherwise, of course, who could apply for certification. I made comments in second reading about the issue of numerosity, which, of course, has been addressed by the Ontario Law Reform Commission when they were examining their proposed legislation. It was the advice of the Ontario Law Reform Commission that there had to be numerous members before a class action was appropriate. I quote from the Ontario Law Reform Commission report: "Although no minimum number of class members has been fixed by the courts in other Commonwealth jurisdictions, the courts have been reluctant to allow a class action to proceed where the class consists of a handful of members." The report goes on to say: "Where there are only a few claimants who can control their own litigation, class action procedure makes little sense." Would the Attorney agree with that advice? Or would he care to comment at least?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The debate in second reading was interesting, because the member for West Vancouver-Capilano questioned the ability of two or more to join together.... He suggested somehow -- he didn't say this, but suggested somehow -- that the number should be multitudes. I thought the member for Matsqui quite appropriately made the point that this legislation should be available to small groups of people. For example, two individuals in a motor vehicle accident who have cause for action may wish to join together rather than proceed separately. I think that's an appropriate thing to do, given the principle here of people joining together to reduce the number of cases that have to be followed and to enable them to more easily afford what they're doing.
J. Dalton: The other issue I'd like to address in section 4 is commonality. As we see in section 4(1)(c), "common issues" is a phrase that is used. In the consultation document that the Attorney circulated in May last year, there was a proposal that the claim or defences of the class members raise common issues. The proposed legislation does not state that the common question should dominate. This is the issue that has been flagged: whether the commonality issue is properly addressed by simply using the phrase "common issues" in the legislation rather than "common questions," which I think is a little more pointed and will help the court.
Keeping in mind that the judges who are going to be faced with this for the first time will have no guidance from jurisprudence of this province.... They will have guidance from Ontario and other places, but there have been relatively few certifications, as the Attorney knows. In fact, in his closing
[ Page 15229 ]
in second reading, he commented on the point that I made: there were only five out of 11 certifications as of 1994 in Ontario.
So we have very little to go on, and we don't want to go on the American experience, I don't think. As I read out in second reading, some of the interesting class actions they have down there, including all Americans.... I don't know who they were suing; perhaps they were suing Bosnia or something. I cannot think of how a class action could escalate to that level. We have to try and get some understanding of this issue of commonality and whether "common issues" is satisfactory, or whether we should extend it.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: What we've done with this commonality question, if I can call it that, is draw from the Ontario experience. A case in Ontario, the Abdool case, spoke to it. What we have suggested here in section 4(1) is that common issues don't necessarily have to predominate; they may or they may not. In section 4(2) the court has to consider a series of issues. In susbsection 4(2)(a) it has to consider: "whether questions of fact or law common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members." So what we've done there is.... In section 4(1)(c) we have taken advantage of the experience with the Ontario law, which was not clear on that issue, and we have expressed some clarity. So are the common issues dominating? That's one of the factors that gets considered.
M. de Jong: In section 4 there is an enumeration of the factors that the court is going to take account of before making the determination of class certification. One of the things that doesn't appear is an indication that there will be a measurement against possible prejudice. I look at section 4(1)(d), and it says: "a class proceeding would be the preferable procedure for the fair and efficient resolution of the common issues...." We can all think of circumstances where one of the litigants -- perhaps a defendant, a plaintiff or a member of a supposed group -- would be in some way prejudiced. I'm not sure how you would include a reference to that in the section. I don't think you would want to, say, preclude a class certification in the event of prejudice, because that might preclude it in almost every case; but perhaps in the event of undue prejudice resulting.... It would be a very subjective test, as many of these tests are, but I wonder if the Attorney General gave any thought to the inclusion of that as part of the test.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not entirely clear what the member wants to achieve here. That issue, the issue of prejudice, is not contained in any of the other legislation that we borrowed heavily from, or even the legislation we didn't borrow heavily from. It's just not there. It seems to me that the issue of prejudice, if it arises, is one that the court would determine in any event. If I understand clearly what the member is saying, the short answer is no, there was no consideration to putting a subsection of that kind in.
M. de Jong: That may be the answer. The answer may be that the legislation chooses to rely on the inherent jurisdiction of the court to consider those points. That is an argument that I suspect the courts will hear when there are applications for certification. They will certainly hear it from defendants who might be involved in other actions with other plaintiffs.
The next question I have relating to section 4 is on 4(1)(e). I make two observations with respect to section 4(1)(e)(i). These again are very subjective terms. When you're determining who a representative plaintiff would be.... Would they "fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class"? And I presume that a body of law will evolve around that in determining just what that means. It's a difficult concept to define legislatively.
I have more concern, if you call it that, about section 4(1)(e)(ii), which is talking about producing a plan for the proceeding, and I would like to know what manner of plan we are talking about. Did the ministry consider producing a draft practice directive as part of this legislative package -- something that litigants could look to right from the outset to know and understand what their obligations are in presenting their application to the court? What kind of plan are the courts going to be looking for from plaintiffs who want to be representative plaintiffs?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The rules committee isn't likely to produce a model plan. The member knows that in the rules of court there are other requirements in other situations where the management of a case has to be laid out. My expectation is that there will be a bit of trial and error in the early going, and that a pattern will evolve following several of these cases proceeding.
M. de Jong: I'll leave that suggestion with the Attorney General. As a means of minimizing the trial and error, it may be worthwhile to circulate a draft practice directive that could deal with some of these issues. The courts are going to be presented with a mishmash of documents, and it's going to take some time to work these things out.
With respect to subsection (1)(e)(iii) -- and I think I referred to this during second reading debate -- I would like to hear the Attorney General's thoughts on how he would anticipate a court would deal with this balance between conflicting interests within the group. This can work itself out in any number of ways, but whenever there is litigation involving more than one plaintiff there are going to be conflicting views and conflicting interests, even insofar as settlement is concerned. The ability of plaintiffs to finance the litigation will determine how aggressive they intend to be. I know there are provisions for cost-sharing and what not, but a court is ultimately going to be confronted with submissions from various plaintiffs that say, "I have these means," and they don't match the means of the person who wants to be the representative plaintiff. How does the Attorney General anticipate that is going to work itself out?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I hope the answer to that is found in section 35, which requires that the settlement be approved by the court. So that would be the remedy if there were a variance of interests or a need for a different payment schedule for different individuals. The court has the jurisdiction to make sure that happens.
M. de Jong: That certainly speaks to the issue at the tail end of the process. The court won't have the benefit of that information at the time the application for certification is made. It's something the court is going to have to contend with, and perhaps the Attorney General has thoughts.... Maybe I'm making too much of the issue; maybe it's something the courts should be dismissive about. In terms of inter-
[ Page 15230 ]
preting legislation, as we go through this legislation I am mindful of the recent decisions whereby, much to my concern, the courts have decided they are now going to look at debates in the Legislature for what the intention of government was insofar as some of these measures are concerned.
With those words of caution, I suppose the Attorney General may want to give us his thoughts.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In terms of that point, I used to argue -- especially in my old role as a Labour critic and whatever -- that the Labour Relations Board should take into account what the Minister of Labour said when he introduced a particular section, because it used to work in our favour sometimes. Quite often what would happen is that the minister would misspeak himself, and that would serve as a useful opportunity in the hearing as well. Having been on this side of the House in this job now, I would caution the courts against ever putting too much emphasis on what we say in respect to some of these bills, because we do a lot of them, and sometimes we aren't as clear in our minds about the details as our officials who have done the real work are.
Now, that wasn't the member's question. The member's question really relates to whether or not we should define these issues here in the legislation or allow the case law to develop. Our view was that it would be very difficult to define; it would be better to let the courts, through case law, evolve rules around this issue. It's a judgment call, but we felt it was very difficult to do within the legislation -- and that's consistent, again, with other jurisdictions.
[4:00]
L. Fox: Just a few brief questions, and I hope the Attorney General will bear with me, not being a lawyer.
Section 4(1)(c) -- and the official opposition critic touched on this -- suggests that class members can be joined together whether or not common issues predominate. I guess the concern I have is whether or not that may not prejudice some cases in terms of some of the plaintiffs or some of the defendants. It would seem to me that indeed there may be a situation where a plaintiff is in extremely different circumstances, perhaps a lot more severely damaged, but could be forced to be part of a class. One would question whether or not that wouldn't prejudice his or her case.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The legislation is designed to allow the court to consider the individual differences that some members of the class may have, so that the court can consider those differences in adjudicating the case. I hope that speaks to the concern the member has.
L. Fox: Just one more question around the plan. Not knowing what a plan is, I guess the only question I would have -- and it makes reference to it in 4(1)(e)(ii).... I'm assuming here that the court or a judge is going to review the plan prior to the action starting. I guess that would lead me to wonder whether, in that assessment, part of it wouldn't be whether or not this action had an opportunity to succeed. Or would it just be how the overall structure of it was going to function?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There's a specific prohibition against the court deciding on the merits of the case. They have to make sure that in fact this is an appropriate case for a class-action certification. They can't decide that it isn't because the merits aren't there; that's something they can't do.
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
M. de Jong: My questions relate to subsections (4) and (5); I just want to clarify.... Subsection (4) suggests that once the application for certification has been commenced and that process has been served on all the persons who are parties and all the persons who are involved in the style of proceedings, all other parties then.... All of those other parties are then compelled to file their own affidavits. I presume that that means defendants as well, and I'm wondering why that subsection is directive in the way that it is, compelling the filing of an affidavit by, perhaps, a defendant who isn't going to take issue with the application.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I wonder if this would answer the member's question. The certification process proceeds by way of affidavit; it doesn't proceed by way of discussion in the court -- viva voce, I think, as the Latin has it. So there has to be.... The only way the court will know what the response is, one way or the other, is by way of affidavit.
M. de Jong: One of the ways.... I suppose if a defendant received material affidavit notice of motion from the plaintiff or plaintiffs, presumably -- and this was something that was discussed earlier this morning -- he would have the option to say: "I consent. I consent to your being the representative plaintiff, and, this being a class action, I consent with the form of order you're seeking."
If I go a little bit further, to subsection (5)(c), I'll perhaps signal to the Attorney General my concern about the section. During second reading debate I commented that there were some sections in this bill that I thought were intruding into the field of litigation, where the court was becoming involved in the litigious process, and I think subsection (5)(c) is one of those sections. I think it might provide some explanation for why all parties are being asked to file affidavits, because subsection (5)(c) says "provide the person's best information on the number of members in the proposed class." That would compel a defendant to provide some very specific information. So the first thing is that the defendant is compelled to file affidavit material, and as part of that affidavit material, he is required to provide information to the plaintiffs. Maybe we'll start there. That's my understanding of what's happening here.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In many cases, perhaps in most, the defendant is going to be the person who knows best what the number of plaintiffs may be. For example, if the suit is against B.C. Hydro, B.C. Hydro will know better than the plaintiff how many customers it has who may be affected by the particular issue. That enables the court to better assess the questions it has to decide in terms of the certification.
M. de Jong: I'm not arguing that from an efficacy point of view; from the court's point of view, it probably makes good
[ Page 15231 ]
sense. But if we go back to a situation where we're not always going to be dealing with institutional-type defendants, you begin to wonder about the propriety of asking defendants to advise the court who else should be suing them. That's really what the court.... The B.C. Hydro example is a good one when we're talking about, perhaps, thousands of people, but I suggest to the Attorney General that if he were being sued, the last thing he -- or I -- would want to do at the first appearance in court is say to the judge: "Oh yes, and these are the other people who should be suing me." In effect, that asks you to reveal in an affidavit who the other prospective plaintiffs are, that's what the defendant in this case is going to be doing.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is an opt-out class-action process, so all of the other plaintiffs would be involved in any event, unless they opt out. If the people, the others, fit the characteristics of the class, then they are in, unless they opt out. Given that, all we're asking is the best information. If you don't get it right, it doesn't matter; you just provide the best information as to the number of people who may have a similar cause.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
J. Dalton: The Attorney General referred us to this earlier when I raised the issue of residents and non-residents, so maybe we can present this scenario. Under section 6 it is possible to have a subclass of non-residents -- and we have to have to a class of residents, because we don't have an action if we don't. Is it conceivable that the resident class could all opt out of the action once it's underway and that we will end up with what I'd hoped for in the first place: a subclass of non-residents, all in a class, proceeding? Then I'd be happy.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member should be a lawyer. He's already thinking of loopholes. The member may have discovered the way in which to achieve his aim; I don't know. But that's what legal training is for: to find these picky little details through which you can slip.
J. Dalton: Even though there may have been a note of frivolity in my question, let's get to the serious aspect of it. If that scenario is possible, would the court allow a class proceeding to proceed when there are no longer any residents of British Columbia as plaintiffs in that action?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The court can always vary the certification, so it would be a question for the court to determine. When I look at the 11 cases that have proceeded in two years in Ontario, we're not talking about.... This is not going to be a very common occurrence. The answer is that the courts have the jurisdiction to make a variation if they choose.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
J. Dalton: Just one question: is this section patterned after the Ontario statute?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Both the Ontario Law Reform Commission report and the Ontario legislation are the source of this.
Section 7 approved.
On section 8.
M. de Jong: I have two questions with respect to subsection (g), and I think this is addressed later in the legislation. With respect to sub-subsection 8(1)(g), if an individual misses the deadline for opting in and they find that they are otherwise running afoul of the standard limitation provisions, have they lost their right of action?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If they miss the deadline for opting in, they wouldn't be able to be party to the class action. But they don't lose their right to take an independent suit forward.
M. de Jong: Assuming that their individual right has not extended past the individual limitation of action -- and that's my second question for clarification -- can the claim of a plaintiff whose personal limitation period has expired...? Can the right of action be revived by the commencement of a class action? Can they revive their right of claim by opting into a group with a representative plaintiff who still has a right of action?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Limitation Act would apply against each person individually, and you can't take advantage of the class action to vary the Limitation Act's impact on you as an individual.
Sections 8 to 11 inclusive approved.
On section 12.
J. Dalton: I have a concern about section 12, and it's not just my concern; the B.C. section of the Canadian Bar Association has commented at some length on this provision, which deals with management. My colleague from Matsqui has also made some comments about court management and other aspects of it.
I'll read the position -- or the comment, at least -- of the B.C. section of the Canadian Bar Association on this. It's not very long. They say: "While courts have always asserted their right to govern their own proceedings, we think the open-ended language of section..." -- and in this case it's section 12; of course, they didn't have the section number when they were making the comments -- "of the proposed act to be imprudent." They then go on to state what the wording is, which is basically the same wording that we see in front of us. Then they conclude: "Such an unlimited discretionary power granted to the court is not necessary, and could conceivably result in inconsistent judgements or orders that are at odds with the Rules of Court."
Is that a fair comment? Again, what I'm trying to flag here is whether we are inviting the very problems that carefully drafted legislation would avoid, or at least restrict somewhat.
[4:15]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's important in class-action proceedings that the plaintiffs who aren't there, and who aren't the representative plaintiff, have the protection of the court. That requires the legislation to give the court additional
[ Page 15232 ]
authority. I recognize what the CBA has said about that; it's our best judgment that this authority to the court is the best way to ensure that the protection is afforded to people who aren't there or represented directly in the action.
M. de Jong: At the risk of incurring the wrath of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, I'll tell the Attorney General what my concern with this section is. It relates to the business of law. This whole statute is centred around a genuine desire, I think, to decrease the cost of litigation. The business of law generally entails telling the client what the cost of litigation is going to be. The problem with such broad discretionary powers, especially in the formative days when this statute is on the books and being utilized, is that there really won't be a way to anticipate what provisions.... Will there be viva voce evidence? Will we do much of this on the basis of affidavit evidence? Will the discretion be utilized to vary the questions relating to the compellability of witnesses, and to costs? These are all things.... It is going to be very difficult for the representative plaintiff's lawyer to advise the plaintiff, and for the representative plaintiff to advise others in the class, just what the costs are going to be in proceeding with one of these actions, because they really won't know what the procedure is.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I guess my first response is that I would expect that many, if not most, of these cases will be on a contingency basis, which I think would eliminate that question. If they're not, there may be some difficulty in predicting -- particularly in the early going -- with some accuracy. It's fair to say that lawyers can't always predict to their clients what a particular case is going to cost.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Nail it on your wall.
The lawyer in the early going, talking to a client about whether to proceed, is going to have a hard time predicting how many days' trial it's going to take. You may be more likely to predict the amount of research time, but can't anticipate what all of the arguments are going to be until you're into it. There's disclosure and whatever, and then you begin to get a sense of the costs. I don't practise law, obviously, but I assume that is always a question -- what it's going to cost. In the early going it will be less clear than it will be in the later going, and I acknowledge that.
Section 12 approved.
On section 13.
M. de Jong: A simple question: does this mean that individuals who don't want to be part of the class run the risk of having their action stayed unilaterally?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I may not have caught the question. If the member is asking about someone who has opted out and the class action is stayed, that opted-out individual doesn't lose their right to proceed independently.
M. de Jong: That's one scenario, and I appreciate the Attorney General's answer. This also seems to contemplate, though, a circumstance where there may be an individual plaintiff who has never been a member of the class and has commenced a separate action, but who empowers the court to say: "I am going to hear this as a class action, and I'm going to stay any other actions relating to this issue or this circumstance."
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I hope that the appeals section would address the question, in section 36(2). If a representative plaintiff does not appeal, then any member of the class or subclass may appeal.
M. de Jong: The Attorney General is correct. That mechanism exists. I just want to verify that the court -- dealing with a class action over there and an individual action over here -- would be empowered to stay the individual action.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes, as long as we're understanding each other: that we're talking about an independent action that is related to the class proceeding -- not part of it, but related. It's the same issue that's being litigated. The answer is yes, as long as we understand what the question was. I think we do.
M. de Jong: That is my understanding. The second part of that question, then, is: if I am the individual plaintiff whose action has been stayed on a matter related and similar to an existing class action, is the effect of that stay to remove my right of action? Or do I now have the option to join the class action?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Again, I want to make sure we've got the question right, otherwise we may leave the wrong impression with the answer. Is the member asking me that if the entire class action is stayed...?
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No. Okay. That's where I got....
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Then the member should tell me what he's talking about in terms of a stay.
M. de Jong: Let us take this scenario, where there is a class action that is proceeding along normally; there are, however, other individual actions taking place separate and apart from it. This section suggests to me that the court hearing the class action could say -- I think the Attorney General gets the point of the question now -- for whatever reason: "I'm imposing a stay on the individual actions."
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer to that is no. These are not related actions in the scenario the member is describing.
M. de Jong: That's the answer I wanted to hear from the Attorney General, but then I'm not sure what the section does do.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member and I were exchanging.... The discussion was around a class action here, and over here a series of independent actions. What this section deals with is that within the class action there may be a series of issues, some of which, if they're related, can be stayed.
[ Page 15233 ]
Section 13 approved.
On section 14.
J. Dalton: My colleague from Matsqui has made the point on several occasions about the role of the judge and the courts in this ground that we're breaking into. Under sub (3), the judge who hears applications under the previous two subsections need not preside at the trial of the common issues. I don't recall seeing anything in the Attorney General's consultation document, but has there been any discussion about whether a judge should be seized of the action, and is there any experience from other jurisdictions where that may be the provision?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I understand that there is an immense amount of common law on the question of seizure and where the judge is seized of the case, and that common law would apply to this legislation.
Sections 14 and 15 approved.
On section 16.
M. de Jong: This will probably come up for discussion later when we get to the issue of cost. Maybe I'll just signal the Attorney General that I see this as one area where there may be difficulties with the question of cost, where members of the class decide to opt out or opt in. But let us take, from the plaintiff's point of view, a pessimistic approach, where the case seems to be coming off the rails, people start to opt out and the potential exists for a finding of costs against the plaintiffs or the class. It would hardly seem fair if individuals avail themselves of the class provisions, ride the train as far as they want to go and then get off. Then a representative plaintiff is left holding the bag if there is an award of costs against the plaintiff.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There would be a fixed time frame set by the court in which people have the right to opt in or opt out, depending on the circumstances of the case. Following that time period, you're either in or you're out, and there's no changing horses at that point. The answer is that the court will establish an appropriate time frame. People are not likely to be left holding the bag, because the time frame will be established in an appropriate way.
M. de Jong: I read somewhere -- and I don't recall where in the bill -- that the court will entertain applications at just about any stage to either opt in or opt out. Am I correct that it would be at that point that...? If I as a member of the class decided that I wanted to opt out at the last minute, would the issue of costs be considered at that point?
[4:30]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the certification order, it will be clear as to what the time periods are for opting in and opting out. Everybody knows right from the beginning what those are, because it's in the order, so the option for a last-minute opting out wouldn't occur.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: By application it should?
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Is the question: could they apply to opt out, let's say, outside the time frame? I suppose anybody could make an application to do whatever. But does this act provide an opportunity to make an application outside the time frame in order to opt out? The answer to that is no. I don't know where the member read it.
Section 16 approved.
On section 17.
M. de Jong: Just reading my notes, the note I have here for a question is: is there another example that the Attorney General can think of with the onus falling to a defendant to establish why he or she should have the right discover a plaintiff? The section says that if the defendant wants to discover anyone other than the representative plaintiff, he or she has to make application to the court. I suppose my argument to the Attorney General would be that if a notice has gone out to individuals saying that they are invited to join a class that is involved in litigation, and an individual decides to join that class and is now known to be a member of that class, why would the defendant be obligated to apply to discover that individual if they have volunteered themselves to the process? My argument to the Attorney General would be that it is contingent upon them being available to be discovered.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're just looking at the Rules of Court. The procedure exists now -- I just can't quickly find the right section of the Rules of Court -- where in fact there is a discovery available to both parties. It's limited to one each. What we've tried to do with this legislation is mirror that procedure; we're not breaking new ground with that point here. I haven't quite found the rule of court here yet, but I think the member knows the issue.
M. de Jong: I think the Attorney General is correct. The established practice would be that a plaintiff is entitled to discover a defendant, and a defendant is entitled to discover a plaintiff. But in this case we're saying that we're going to have a class of plaintiffs.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think I can better explain this by reference to "Examination of a Corporation," which is rule 27(6). The rule is: "Where a corporation" -- and in a sense that is similar -- "is a party, it shall disclose the name of a person to be examined who is knowledgable concerning the matters in question in the action." So that principle is the one that we've adopted for this legislation. Maybe once we do this section .... I think we have gone past our time.
Section 17 approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
[ Page 15234 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Committee on Bill 9, hon. Speaker.
WATER PROTECTION ACT
The House in committee on Bill 9; D. Lovick in the chair.
On section 1.
M. de Jong: I am referring to subsection 1(3), which contemplates a dispute regarding the determination of a watershed, or whether water emanates from a particular watershed. I'm wondering, in addition to the information contained there, if the minister can offer some advice as to the process that would be undertaken to render that determination.
Hon. E. Cull: I apologize to the member. As we were all getting my staff in here, I was looking for the section, but I missed the question he was asking. It is subsection 1(3). Perhaps he could just clarify.
M. de Jong: I was just querying the minister as to the process that she envisaged being followed in rendering a determination, where a dispute about source and watershed occurs.
Hon. E. Cull: The comptroller, obviously, under this section has the responsibility to make the determination. He would look at the hydrological evidence and make a decision. There is not a specified process in terms of regulation, or set out anywhere, but the comptroller would examine the evidence and, under his or her authority, make the decision.
M. de Jong: I'm wondering, then.... Would it be the minister's expectation, though, that the comptroller would not render a decision without first entertaining submissions from the applicant?
Hon. E. Cull: That would be a reasonable assumption, that submissions from the applicant would be sought.
J. Tyabji: With respect to the different categories of the unlicensed and the licensed registrant, we see throughout the Water Protection Act that there are a number of different categories. As I understand it, some of these have evolved with the unlicensed registrant's use of groundwater. I'm not sure if that's the case, but I was wondering.... First of all, I don't believe the House has met the people who are in the House today. I wouldn't mind meeting them, because I think they're new faces. But after that I'd like to know where the categories evolved from and what the reason is for keeping them that way -- for example, why there would be an unlicensed registrant, as opposed to setting up that category in the registered licence group.
Hon. E. Cull: Again, in the confusion of getting started here, I did neglect to introduce my staff. With me we have Lynn Kriwoken, Gary Robinson on my left and Jim Grieshaber-Otto on my right.
Now, the reason there are two categories is that surface water has been regulated and licensed, so there are licensees related to surface water. But groundwater is not licensed, so we have unlicensed registrants in the groundwater category. That's why there are the two categories.
J. Tyabji: Perhaps it's my own confusion, but when the discussion paper was put out a few years ago under the predecessor to the minister's predecessor, who is now the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, at that time it appeared from the public input -- I guess it was about a two-year process of White Papers -- that they wanted to have licensing of groundwater users, and in addition to that, an inventory made of groundwater to see, firstly, how much was available; secondly, how much was being used historically; and thirdly, I guess, where we were going to go with the use of groundwater and if it was going to be expanding at a certain rate. So in bringing in the Water Protection Act after almost four years, why was the decision made to continue to have a category where people could access groundwater without obtaining a licence, rather than bringing groundwater users into a licence category and having what I would think, anyway, is a more thorough way of tracking their use of groundwater?
Hon. E. Cull: As the member no doubt recalls, there was a very broad and diverse discussion with the release of that particular paper, and a lot of discussion around groundwater in particular, and whether it should be licensed, how and under what circumstances. This legislation represents a first step, and it does not put in a regime for licensing groundwater. We continue to discuss groundwater issues with stakeholders, and we may subsequently take second and third steps to deal with that.
[4:45]
J. Tyabji: When the minister talks about stakeholders with respect to groundwater, are we talking about commercial, industrial and agricultural users, or are we talking about a broader discussion in a continuation of the White Papers that were published three years ago?
Hon. E. Cull: We're talking about a broad discussion with the people of the province who have an interest in this issue -- certainly not just commercial users or those who use it for industrial or agricultural purposes, but also the broader interest of the public in the matter.
J. Tyabji: For my purposes, are the three people who are accompanying the minister today the people who would be administering the Water Protection Act after it's passed? Are they also involved in aquifer management, or are they from a broad background in environment?
Hon. E. Cull: Gary Robinson, who I introduced earlier, is with the water protection branch. The other staff are involved in the policy and legislative end of the decision-making.
J. Tyabji: Could the minister tell me, then, about the unlicensed registrants? Is there going to be within this act a policy that allows people to continue to become registered as unlicensed users of groundwater? Right away, when you see an unlicensed registrant, it's almost a contradiction in terms: if they have registered, why don't they get licensed? Then, of course, we have a licensed registrant, a registered licence and an unlicensed registrant -- just in the definitions section. It would seem to me to be a lot easier to have made a bit more significant step and force people who use groundwater to become licensed.
But since this is a first step and that wasn't the decision taken, is there going to be some sort of control measure so we
[ Page 15235 ]
don't have an unrestricted expansion? Before, as I understand it, people could subscribe more or less at the local level as unlicensed registrants on groundwater. For example, if a community allowed a subdivision, and the subdivision was developed and they had access to groundwater, it was at that level that the decision was made whether or not they would tap in. But it's at the provincial level where a decision -- a policy decision -- is made about whether or not there will be an inventory done of available groundwater.
As I understand it -- and the minister or her staff may have a better idea of this -- it was only a couple of years ago that the first pilot project test was done on inventory in the Gulf Islands for aquifer use to determine how big a base it was, the rate of depletion and the rate of renewal. When I see a category that says an unlicensed registrant will be dealing with groundwater, I guess I'd like to know that in the Water Protection Act there's going to be some serious protection of groundwater, and perhaps even a policy initiative to accompany this section, so that people are protected and we feel like there actually have been some major steps taken on aquifer use and monitoring of aquifers.
Hon. E. Cull: As I said a minute ago, Bill 9 is simply the first step in the process of renewing the province's water legislation in accordance with the 1993 paper, "Stewardship of the Water of British Columbia." As it relates to groundwater, the legislation confirms the ownership of groundwater in the province, which is an important first step to enable better management of the type that the member is discussing. But at this point, it's only going to be regulated to the extent that it can't be removed from the province in bulk supply. So we have to acknowledge the fact that there are people who are removing groundwater, and we want to start to create a system of registration so we have better information about who they are, where they are and what they're doing so that we have an ability -- and this definition enables that ability later on in the legislation -- to then be able to regulate the extent of the removal of groundwater in bulk supply.
J. Tyabji: If I could say two things that I don't see in the definitions section which I think might be helpful -- and perhaps in the next step we can consider that if there is going to be.... Now that we have confirmation that the Crown owns groundwater, it would be a good idea to design a system where the Crown more or less insists that local government tie into a provincial registry, first of all, of how much is available and how much is being used.
And the other definition that's missing from here is the definition of sustainability. The reason I think that's important is that that was the whole issue in the White Paper to begin with. It's a word that is maybe overused in B.C. We could have in here, I think, a formula for sustainability of groundwater, something to the effect -- and I'm the not the expert; you have them sitting with you -- that would say that sustainability is defined as not going beyond the ability of an aquifer to renew itself, not depleting beyond the rate at which an aquifer renews. If that were in here, then I'd have a better assurance that the groundwater was going to be protected. That's something that I put forward for the next step.
In the "major watershed" definition, I note that we're talking about areas that are draining into the Fraser River and its tributaries. Again, we're talking about surface water. Is it understood that the major watersheds include the aquifer drainage systems or the groundwater drainage systems? If it is, would it be possible to put in a friendly amendment that would at least acknowledge that it is not the intent of the bill to have those underground watersheds included in the definition of the major watersheds?
Hon. E. Cull: Let me make a start at this question for the member. The definition of the watersheds do include the aquifers, but there obviously may be situations where aquifers cross the boundaries of watersheds, which is why we need the section that allows the comptroller of water to determine exactly what the boundary is in case of some dispute or there not being clear information as to where it is.
J. Tyabji: I'm having a hard time hearing. It's a big chamber -- two sword-lengths and all that.
Aquifers are understood to be included in major watersheds. Could the minister tell me, for the purposes of practice, whether or not the definitions contained in this act will cross-reference to the Water Act with respect to pollution control or any of the provisions in the Water Act? The Water Protection Act deals primarily with the movement of water, but in the definition of watersheds, there could be some protection of water. In the Water Act currently, there are provisions against pollution and contamination and those kinds of things. Is there any carryover?
Hon. E. Cull: Being mindful that we're dealing with the definition section, I'll just draw the member's attention to subsection (2), which does state that the Water Act definitions have the same meaning in this act.
J. Tyabji: Did the minister say that they have the same meaning as in the Water Act or that they will be applicable in the Water Act?
Hon. E. Cull: Section 1(2) says: "Unless the context requires otherwise, words and expressions used in the Water Act have the same meaning in this Act" -- in Bill 9.
J. Tyabji: Actually, what I was asking was: will the words and definitions in this act apply to the Water Act -- the other way around? The major watersheds as defined here are not defined in this way in the Water Act.
Hon. E. Cull: No, you couldn't take the definitions from this act and have them apply to another act without amending the other act.
J. Tyabji: Could I recommend that we amend the Water Act to allow the definitions for watersheds? The reason I would say that is that since we now know that aquifers are implied in the watersheds, we know the Water Act is one of the ways in which we can prevent industrial contamination of watersheds. The definition of the watersheds that appears in the Water Protection Act is a much better reference than we have in the existing Water Act to protect the watersheds, especially if it includes the aquifers. That would be a recommendation that I would make. With that, I'm finished with the definitions.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
[ Page 15236 ]
J. Tyabji: Going back to the definition of sustainability, which I would have liked to see in section 1, could the minister define the sustainable use of British Columbia's water for the record?
Hon. E. Cull: The use is not defined, but the commonly accepted definition of sustainability from the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development -- the Brundtland report, as it's more commonly known -- is the definition that we would be using. Sustainable use is ensuring that we meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The Brundtland report definition is the definition that we used in terms of sustainability.
J. Tyabji: Would the minister then believe that sustainability could also be defined as not having any net loss over a long period of time if there's a short period of use? That again goes back to aquifers. The reason I'm asking this is that in the United States -- as the minister and I'm sure her staff know -- they had a problem with the Ogallala aquifer: they depleted it at a non-sustainable rate. That's one reason that there's so much pressure for us to provide our water resources to them. I just wouldn't want us to repeat the mistakes that have been made in the United States. I would hope that sustainability means that we will not be depleting it at a non-renewable rate.
Hon. E. Cull: That's certainly the intention.
J. Tyabji: As we go through the act, there are some points that can be raised in debate about the Crown's role in the use of water. If it turns out that the Crown becomes an agent for the licensing of water exports or water use -- and the Crown could also refer to B.C. Hydro and the large-scale water flushing that often goes on to the United States -- I would assume that the Crown could be liable under section 2 of this act. Is the minister's intent, after this act passes, to make sure that section 2 of this act is being applied to Crown agencies such as B.C. Hydro?
Hon. E. Cull: Section 2 is a purpose section, so I'm a little unsure of what the member means when she asks if it will be applied to Crown agencies. The Crown is saying through this legislation that this is the purpose of the legislation; it's the purpose of the government to foster sustainable use of British Columbia's water resources. The government would expect all Crown agencies to support that purpose, but we would expect all organizations and individuals to honour that purpose. Other provisions of the act would provide for the government to take action. You can't take action against the purpose of the legislation.
J. Tyabji: If the minister seems a little bit confused by the question, the reason I asked it is that a couple of years ago when there was a serious drought -- we may face the identical conditions this summer -- B.C. Hydro, which is a Crown agency -- and I think the member for North Vancouver-Seymour was the one yelling about this the loudest that year -- authorized the flushing of Lake Koocanusa to the point where the fish that were stocked from government stocking tanks were killed off because of the river levels that were left.
[5:00]
It would appear to me that in order for the purpose of this act to have any meaning whatsoever, the government would have to be prepared to ensure that activities sanctioned by this government in the past -- by this government, not by a previous government -- would no longer carry on. And just so we don't waste our time debating a bill that the government is not going to enforce on its own Crown agencies, I would want to know that the purpose of this section would introduce a new sustainability provision in the exercise of agencies like B.C. Hydro, which are, in effect, in control of the movement of large reservoir containers of water. We know that Williston Lake has a problem. I would actually welcome the.... The member for North Vancouver-Seymour has more specifics on this than I do. But this section will have very little meaning if the government isn't prepared to take that on for the reservoirs under its control right now.
Hon. E. Cull: I think I understand the member, hon. Chair, but the purpose of the legislation is not a broad, all-encompassing one that seeks to protect from every act and every eventuality the water supply of the province. It is one that is supporting the goal of sustainable management of our water supply by restricting, regulating and in some cases prohibiting the removal of water under certain circumstances, and we get to those in other parts of the act.
It is possible to imagine a situation respecting water that might affect sustainability as you and I have just discussed it. But this act does not intend to be all-encompassing; it intends to deal with the removal of water, the transfer of water, from one watershed to the next. So I think it's more important that we look at what the act says you can and can't do. I can assure the member that with respect to what the act says you can or can't do, it would apply as much to the Crown and its agencies as to non-government agencies.
D. Jarvis: I think what is happening here, or what the member for Okanagan East was referring to, is the fact that in the original Columbia River Treaty, the premise of it was for flood control and for producing electricity. But subsequent to that, after the dams were built, we had extra storage area, and we had an extra supply of water. Most of it was stored in Lake Koocanusa. And if you don't.... Do you understand what Lake Koocanusa is? That's -- I can't think of the expression used for the making up of names....
An Hon. Member: An acronym.
D. Jarvis: An acronym -- Kootenay, Canada and the U.S.A. Okay. Yes, that's it: Koocanusa.
Anyway, that is a separate agreement, and that is water used by this government for storage, and, contrary to the Columbia River Treaty, it's used for flushing fish down the river and for whatever purpose the United States.... That's movement of a large body of water, and that's a side agreement.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Chair, perhaps I should ask you to draw the member's attention to the fact that we're debating the purpose of the act in this section, and this act does not address any of the issues the member is talking about. This is a piece of legislation that deals with the transfer of water
[ Page 15237 ]
between watersheds and bulk removal of water from various sources. It doesn't deal with flows across borders in the sense he's talking about. It doesn't talk about the damming of rivers or watersheds; it's more narrowly focused than that.
The Chair: Before I recognize the member, just a clarification for members, if I might. Perhaps the minister saw my body language before she intervened, because for the last five minutes I have been listening very carefully to questions and saying to myself: "Wait a minute, we're really out of order." I want to remind members that we have had the second reading debate. We as a Legislature have accepted the principle of the bill. The principle of the bill is embedded in the purpose statement. Any discussion of purpose is therefore ipso facto redundant, not necessary and not in order.
Our practice in this Legislature is to allow members some brief opportunity to discuss that, but we don't have a long and protracted debate on the subject. I would suggest that we have already canvassed the point. We have listened to the member's concerns about the purpose and asking for assurances that the purpose of the bill is what it is said to be. Beyond that, I don't think we require any further debate. I am going to ask members to deal with section 2, and then let's get on to the substantive elements of the bill, which are debatable.
D. Jarvis: Thank you for that explanation, Mr. Chairman. That was well put.
I appreciate what the minister is saying -- that the bill deals directly with diverting or extracting large bodies of water from one watershed into another, etc. Can the minister say to me, then, that this bill has nothing to do with large transfers of water across the border into the United States?
Hon. E. Cull: We're dealing with two separate items here. The member is talking about the impoundment of water and its subsequent release. The bill does not address that; it addresses the bulk removal of water out of the province.
J. Tyabji: Two quick questions. The minister may have answered this. Are reservoirs such as Williston Lake or the Arrow Lakes system covered by this bill?
[M. Farnworth in the chair.]
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, the reservoirs are included for the purposes of the act, which are bulk removal and export or diversion into another watershed. So they're covered for those two particular aspects, which the act deals with.
J. Tyabji: Would bulk removal of water include the release of water being held in the reservoir into the river system? Or would that have to be physically removing it by tanker or another method?
Hon. E. Cull: The latter is correct. The simple release of water that has been impounded in a reservoir is not covered by this legislation. It would have to be put in a tanker or somehow captured and bottled to fall under this particular legislation.
J. Tyabji: Would this bill prohibit the diversion of the North Thompson that has been promoted by Multinational Water and Power Inc.?
Hon. E. Cull: Yes, it would, because that would be the diversion of water into another watershed. Again, I guess we're having a fairly broad-ranging discussion here under the purpose of the act.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
M. de Jong: My question to the minister is: are we saying something different here? Are we saying something new? If we aren't, why does the section appear? Is it a restatement of a constitutional certainty, or are we saying something different? There was some discussion about this when the minister's predecessor tabled the bill at the time it was announced. I would like to know the minister's thoughts on the significance of this section appearing in the act.
Hon. E. Cull: The provisions in the Water Protection Act serve to confirm and to clarify that all surface water and groundwater is and always has been vested in the province, insofar as private rights have been established. The bill does not change or extend in any way the position of the province on the question of water ownership; it simply reconfirms it. The present position of the province, as set out in the Water Act, is that the Crown owns all the water resources in British Columbia.
The vesting of the right to use water and streams occurred in 1892. Groundwater was added to the definition of stream in 1960, but I note that the regulation applying the Water Act to groundwater was not enacted. So we're looking here at confirmation and clarification, and not something new.
M. de Jong: I appreciate the minister's remarks that we are dealing with a restatement of an existent constitutional framework. I'm surprised, however, given what we have seen take place insofar as negotiations with aboriginal peoples are concerned, that there would not be a caveat. I'm not suggesting that I would necessarily agree with the caveat, but I'm interested to know whether, in the minister's mind at least, the entrenched rights described in section 3 are subject to anything.
Hon. E. Cull: Well, there's nothing intended in this legislation that would abrogate or derogate from the aboriginal treaty rights of first nations. Those matters are subject to negotiations under the treaty negotiations.
J. Beattie: I would like leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. Beattie: If the members would look to the gallery, they'd see some bright young faces from the Okanagan Valley here today. They come from the member for Okanagan-Boundary's constituency; however, the minister is not in the House today. I'd like to introduce the grade 7 class from Okanagan Falls Elementary. They're accompanied by Mr. Hodson, their teacher, and the vice-principal, Wayne Orenchuk, as well as a number of parents: John Petty, Stu Craig, William McLeod, Lois Baumgartner and Bonnie Kandulski.
I had the opportunity of speaking with these students. They are interested in government. They're particularly inter-
[ Page 15238 ]
ested in the changes to the regulations regarding acquiring a driver's licence. I'm sure they're going to follow this discussion with interest -- it's all about water, and water is very important in the Okanagan.
M. de Jong: We have heard, over the past couple of years or number of years, discussions that relate to negotiations -- nation-to-nation negotiations. We have heard of governmental recognitions of inherent aboriginal rights and aboriginal title. Those are words we have heard from the government. Does it logically follow that that recognition would extend to water rights? If it does -- and I would submit that it does -- can the minister explain why that recognition wouldn't appear in a constitutional statement such as the one entailed in section 3?
Hon. E. Cull: It would be redundant to make this statement in the legislation. The rights of first nations do not have to be carried or put forth in each piece of legislation that the province brings forward. Their constitutional rights have already been established. They would apply, whether or not they're stated here in this particular legislation.
M. de Jong: Quite frankly, I'm a bit surprised at the minister's logic. The province -- the Crown in right of the province of British Columbia -- certainly has well-established, recognized constitutional rights vis-a-vis water. She has pointed out what they are, and she has traced the history. To suggest that aboriginal rights are clear is something of an overstatement. We haven't been through the events of the last two or three weeks and the last number of years because aboriginal rights are clear; they are far from clear.
To say that a statement along the lines of the one I am querying the minister on would be redundant is surprising in the extreme. The redundancy -- and I say that not in a pejorative way -- is the one that exists here now. As the minister has said, it is a restatement of what exists.
It is the question of aboriginal title -- aboriginal claim -- that is very much in the air. Aboriginal peoples, I think, are going to ask the minister and the government where they fall -- not just aboriginal peoples but all British Columbians. Because notwithstanding what the minister has said, their entitlement, their place within this framework, and what the government of the day today intends for them within this framework, is far from clear, and it certainly cannot be considered redundant.
I'd suggest to the minister that there is some obligation on her government, at a time when these negotiations are taking place, in tabling legislation of this sort, to be more forthcoming about what their view of aboriginal entitlements are.
[5:15]
Hon. E. Cull: This is one of these curious circular debates that is occurring right now. The member has just said that it's not clear what the rights are; however, he wants them in the legislation, even though they're not clear. The fact is, the matter of aboriginal entitlement and rights with respect to water will be subject to treaty negotiations, and those matters cannot be spelled out at this point in legislation, because negotiations have not taken place.
The point of redundancy is that it's redundant to say that there are rights and that those rights are subject to negotiation. The section that is in the act with respect to the ownership of water being vested in the province is a necessary clarification with respect to this act. I think that it needs to be stated and that it is important for the other sections in the act.
M. de Jong: Do aboriginal peoples have any rights to waters which section 3 says are vested in the Crown in the right of British Columbia?
Hon. E. Cull: I'm informed by my staff that there are over 700 water licences on Indian reserves right now with respect to water. So they certainly do have some rights with respect to those licences.
M. de Jong: Do they have any inherent rights that extend beyond those licences?
Hon. E. Cull: Those are subject to the treaty negotiation process. That's certainly not a question that could be answered.
M. de Jong: And do I understand that the minister considers it inappropriate to include that in section 3, in terms of the statement? Clearly, by her submissions today, the Crown right -- Crown in the right of British Columbia -- is subject to something. We have provisions in our federal constitution that deal with native entitlements when dealing with division of jurisdictions and entitlement to resources. Do I take from her comments that she believes it would be inappropriate to articulate in the clear terms I think I just heard that the Crown's rights are subject or conditional?
Hon. E. Cull: I'm not sure whether the member is suggesting that we have a non-abrogation clause in each and every statute. If that is what he's suggesting, certainly I'll take it under advisement, but it doesn't seem to be a necessary or a practical recommendation. The legislation does not abrogate first nations' rights that are subject to treaty negotiations, and the details will be sorted out through treaty negotiations.
J. Tyabji: Since the Crown retains all the rights to the water, I would assume that the Crown would then also hold jurisdiction over whether or not there would be any movement of water. I know we're going to get into some of that in a later section. But given section 3, could the province, theoretically, through B.C. Hydro as a Crown agency, divert the North Thompson River?
Hon. E. Cull: No.
J. Tyabji: If the Columbia River Treaty proposal was being made today and hadn't been made 30 years ago, would this act prohibit that agreement?
Hon. E. Cull: My understanding is that the Columbia River Treaty does not divert water between major watersheds. Based on that information, the answer would be no.
J. Tyabji: Would it be possible, then, under this act and under this section, for the Crown to have the ability, for example, to put a dam on the Fraser River?
Hon. E. Cull: This legislation does not deal with dams, so there's nothing in this legislation that would prevent a dam.
[ Page 15239 ]
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
D. Jarvis: With regard to section 4, "B.C. water removal restriction," am I to understand that this bill only applies to removal of water from one watershed to another watershed? What's the difference between transport by a truck or a tunnel from one watershed to another watershed and water running down a stream?
Hon. E. Cull: The bill deals with removal of water from the province or diversion of water between watersheds.
D. Jarvis: As I was referring to earlier, Lake Koocanusa is a storage shed of water, and it's dumped over into the United States. They draw water from it. So that's bulk water that's stored in Canada going down to the United States. Or is this excluded? Does B.C. Hydro have exclusive rights on removal of water where other people don't?
Hon. E. Cull: My understanding -- and the member may know the geography better than I do -- is that Lake Koocanusa is within the Columbia watershed. If that's the case, water moving across the border is not moving from one watershed to another.
D. Jarvis: So this bill does not preclude us exporting water out of one watershed across the border to the United States.
Hon. E. Cull: I'm not really sure whether we're on the section or not, but since we need to get this straight, let's take a minute of it. If a river is flowing across the border with no dams or impoundment or anything -- water is leaving the province and going to the United States -- that is not bulk removal of water, and it is not diversion of water from one watershed to another, so it is not subject to this legislation. In the same case, if a river is dammed and water is impounded behind that dam but released through whatever management is occurring with respect to that dam, and if that water subsequently flows down the river and into the United States, it is neither bulk removal nor diversion of the water into another watershed.
If water was dammed on a river and was then, through some construction, diverted into another watershed, that would be covered. If there was a pipe that diverted that water across the border or into another watershed, that would be removal. If there was a reservoir and someone was putting the water into a tanker truck and trucking it across the border, that would be removal. Those circumstances occur.
But the natural flow of rivers, whether they are dammed or not, moving across the Canada-U.S. border, is not considered to be a bulk removal of water. Otherwise, every stream that flowed back and forth across the border would be covered by this. It would be interesting to see how we would prevent that natural event from occurring, should we even dare to want to do so.
R. Neufeld: I guess where I come from we're talking about the Alberta border and the Northwest Territories border, not the U.S. border, and I'm talking specifically about the oil and gas industry. I can't tell you the exact location, but I know that in the Boundary Lake field, which borders Alberta and B.C., there are water injection programs in the oil and gas industry. There are natural gas fields along the border -- in fact, all the way up to the Northwest Territories border from as far south as where the highway crosses, going to Edmonton from Dawson Creek. All along that Alberta border there's an awful lot of activity in the oil and gas industry.
There is a lot of movement of water in tank trucks back and forth across the border, not for specific sale purposes but rather for water injection or water disposal purposes. There's an awful lot of salt water disposal that goes on. There could be a well in British Columbia, with the same company owning a well in Alberta just a few miles away. Their disposal well happens to be in Alberta, the salt water comes up in British Columbia, and it's taken across the border.
Those things happen on a constant basis in my neck of the woods, and I can see quite a problem arising here when someone all of a sudden twigs onto the fact that we have to start licensing all this stuff. There are issues such as where potable water is hauled from the British Columbia side over to the Alberta side for a drilling project that may happen up in the Northwest Territories-Alberta corner.
I think that this section -- or it could even be the next one -- is going to affect that quite a bit.
Hon. E. Cull: We're definitely off the section here. The matter the member's talking about does come up in subsequent sections, but since we have had a somewhat free-ranging discussion up to now in the hope of expediting the matter, the kinds of operations you're talking about would already have licences to move that water about and use the water in the manner they are, and they would have the opportunity under this legislation to register to continue to do so.
R. Neufeld: Could the minister then tell me which section would apply? Obviously, if I'm on the wrong section, maybe she could advise me which one deals with it.
Hon. E. Cull: Section 10.
J. Tyabji: I want to follow up on the discussion the minister had on section 4 with the member for North Vancouver-Seymour. Just for the record, section 4(1)(a) says: "Except for a registered licence, no licence, approval or permit under the Water Act, whether issued before, on or after the date this section comes into force, confers any right to drill for, divert, extract, use or store water for removal from British Columbia."
I don't understand what the difference is between....
Interjection.
The Chair: Order, please. The member for Matsqui rises on a point of order.
M. de Jong: Sorry for interrupting, hon. Chair. I just want to make sure I haven't lost.... Are we still on section 3? Oh, we're on section 4. I'm sorry.
J. Tyabji: This debate has been moving at lightning speed.
[ Page 15240 ]
With respect to section 4(1)(a), it says we will not confer a right "to drill for, divert, extract, use or store water for removal from British Columbia." I don't know what the difference is between impounding water with an artificial device.... The minister referred to if there had been some construction, and then perhaps the water was removed by tanker.... Well, I don't know what the difference is between constructing a dam which impounds the water -- which is storage -- and then releases it at a rate for agricultural and commercial use in the United States, at an enormous environmental cost to the people of the Kootenays.
[5:30]
The reason we use the example of Lake Koocanusa is that it's a tangible example of removal of water from British Columbia, and although the water might leave British Columbia through a river system, there's no way it would leave in that form. The fact is that it's not a river flowing across the border; it's an artificial lake, where people who live on the lake....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I'm sorry if this is very amusing; I can always stop.
But the fact is that I've just spoken to people from the Kootenays who live on the lakes. Whether they go fishing or they put their boat out at their dock, when they wake up in the morning, it's about half a mile to get to the water. It's just a miserable, muddy mess.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The member for Peace River North is raising some important points. It's not just in the Kootenays where we have this problem. Many of us who waited for this bill.... We were waiting for this bill for a long time from this government. We were hoping that section 4 would start to control the large-scale water removal from British Columbia that's occurring through the system of reservoirs and rivers in this province. And if the minister is telling me that storing water does not include storing it behind a dam for the purpose of pushing it down at the request of the Americans to subsidize their agricultural industry, then I don't see what purpose this bill is. This bill is a marginal improvement on where we are, and this section is almost useless.
Hon. E. Cull: First of all, hon. Chair, this is not the section that prohibits the removal of water; if the member wants to deal with the appropriate section, it is section 5. This section actually deals with the registration.
But let's just have a look at what the member is suggesting. The Columbia River, or any river if it was not dammed, is still going to flow to the United States. That river is still flowing there -- across a border. If what the member is suggesting is that we are making it illegal for water to continue to flow where it will flow in any event, or that we should somehow restrict it because it's been impounded, I find that curious.
While I do accept the fact that there are many problems that the member is appropriately raising with respect to water and flood control and some of the decisions that have been made to dam streams in order to provide for benefits that are environmentally questionable, and while I would probably support the member with respect to her concerns on those issues, this legislation does not deal with that. This legislation has been designed to deal with another issue. I'd be happy to talk to the member about other things that we might do to address some of her concerns, but I can't make this legislation into one-size-fits-all for the problems with respect to water management in the province.
This is a first step; it deals with diversions between watersheds and the bulk export or removal of water out of the province. It does not deal with the fact that for various reasons, governments and agencies have decided to restrict the natural flow of rivers to serve agricultural, economic and industrial purposes, sometimes to the detriment of communities and environment. I'm certainly not downplaying the member's concerns with respect to those issues. As I said, I probably would find a great deal in common with the member's position on those issues. This legislation deals with other matters, and I have to stick to the matters that we have addressed in this legislation -- as much as it might be interesting to explore some of the other concerns the member has.
J. Tyabji: I recognize that section 4 deals with licensing. That's what many of us have been waiting for. For the minister to try to say that some of us are suggesting that we should make it illegal for water to flow in its natural course shows me the height -- with all due respect to the minister as the Minister of Finance -- of ignorance concerning what has been going on environmentally in the Kootenays. All the minister has to do is go and spend a summer there to realize why people were hoping that this section on licensing would prevent the flushing down of artificial lakes -- which have devastated that area -- to streambeds. There have been huge fish kills every time that's been done. It hasn't been done because British Columbians have been benefiting from it; it's been done at the cost of British Columbians.
Those people have been waiting for this act. This section of the act was supposed to make sure that the licences that don't confer those rights include storage in a dam. That's what it is: it's storage; it's not the free flowing of a river. When the minister stands up and says that we're trying to make it illegal for a river to flow its natural course, that's ridiculous. It's not a natural course to put up a huge dam and flood a valley or to get rid of your agricultural sector in order to serve the hydro needs of a treaty. There's been no compensation in that area. It's absolutely ludicrous that this section doesn't have anything to do with licensing that includes the storage of water behind a dam.
The thing that's shocking is that when you read this section.... It doesn't confer any right to store water for removal from British Columbia. That's obviously what we expected it to do: to not allow licences for other purposes, to allow large-scale water diversion or flushing, or whatever you want to call it. It might not be from one watershed to another, but it's still storage, and it's huge devastation on an annual basis. The reason we don't have protection from it is that we didn't have any legislation in place. That's what this bill was supposed to do; that's what this section was supposed to do; and this section clearly doesn't do that. What bothers me is that the minister doesn't even seem to have an understanding of why it's a problem.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
[ Page 15241 ]
Hon. E. Cull: I can hear that the member is very passionate about this, but I have to get her to read the legislation. The legislation, if you look at section 4.... I'm going to read the words out of order. I do it that way to make it sound simpler in English. It says that no licence, approval or permit under the Water Act confers any right to do the things that are listed there, except for a registered licence. This doesn't say you can't do it; it says that no licence, approval or permit allows you to do that, except for a registered licence. The other sections that we're coming to deal with the prohibition. I'd be happy to deal with this as we move on through the legislation.
I have to put on the record that I'm not at any time suggesting that a dammed river is a natural flow of water. I'm simply saying that this legislation does not deal with all of the issues that the member is raising here. The Water Act regulates the flow of water with respect to dams. The Columbia River Treaty, in fact, regulates the flow of water with respect to the one that we're talking about here. That does not in any way deny the concerns that the member has raised. I have been in the Kootenays as recently as two weeks ago, looking at some of these issues, so I'm very familiar with the concerns of the people who live in this area with respect not only to the effect on fish but to the effect on commercial operations and their quality of life.
But as much as the member would like this legislation to deal with that matter, it does not address this issue; it addresses bulk exports, and it addresses the question of diversions between watersheds.
Section 4 approved on division.
On section 5.
M. de Jong: I want to canvass with the minister the issue of the vulnerability of this legislation on the international scene. That was one of the issues that came up and was spoken to in second reading debate. The minister heard the remarks from the various opposition members, and I believe there was general support for the principle of prohibiting bulk water exports. The question that needs to be answered is whether the legislative framework that the government has introduced will accomplish that objective in the face of possible challenges on the international scene.
I'm thinking particularly of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the subsequent NAFTA agreement, and our obligations under the GATT round of treaties. The minister has undoubtedly heard the argument, and her experts with her will have heard the arguments that support the proposition that Canada-U.S. free trade, NAFTA and GATT adversely affect our ability to do what we're proposing to do here with this legislation: to control -- and indeed, to prohibit -- bulk water exports. The argument is made that while goods like raw logs and unprocessed fish are specifically excluded from those international agreements, there is no such exclusion for natural water. Both of the agreements involving Canada and the U.S. extend the GATT concept of national treatment to exports, with the result that Canada has to treat the U.S. no less favourably than Canadians.
I am sure that the minister's staff is also aware of article 22 in the NAFTA and Canada-U.S. free trade agreements, which refers specifically to -- and I'm quoting this, because I do want to be specific -- "waters, including natural waters." I want to ask the minister what her position is with respect to the applicability of those agreements, and whether they impede our ability to do what we're trying to do, insofar as prohibiting the export of water is concerned.
Hon. E. Cull: One of the purposes of this legislation is to make it absolutely clear that the province has a proprietary right with respect to water -- and a duty, I might add, to ensure its protection and its sustainable use. NAFTA left a lot of questions with respect to the protection of British Columbia's water. To date, we've failed to receive any meaningful assurances from the federal government that NAFTA does not include bulk shipments of water. Our government has no intention of letting the federal government, through NAFTA, risk B.C.'s sovereign rights to water. So this legislation is being enacted, in part, to make it very clear that the water does belong to British Columbia and that we have the right and the constitutional authority to manage the water resource in the manner that we are doing it.
M. de Jong: I appreciate what the minister is saying. But I guess my question to her is this: whether the resource is vested in the Crown in right of British Columbia or in right of Canada, does she agree that in either instance we are bound by international obligation? Then I will want in subsequent questioning to ask her how we intend to defend section 5 specifically, in the event of an application pursuant to NAFTA, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement or the GATT.
Hon. E. Cull: The purpose of the legislation is to make it very clear that the proprietary right of the government on water is that it's in the government's jurisdiction; it's a provincial jurisdiction. As I said, we own the water; we have the proprietary right. That is to deal with the investment provisions of NAFTA so it is very clear that there is no investor right in the water; the water is vested in the right of British Columbia.
I can't state more clearly that what we are attempting to do here is exercise our sovereign jurisdiction over our water so that there can be no confusion under NAFTA. There can be no confusion that water is subject to those provisions and can be traded backward and forward like a good across the borders. That would just be unacceptable to the people of this province.
M. de Jong: It's the latter part of the minister's statement that I'm most interested in. I agree with her that that is the objective, but we have already heard arguments from those that say: "Notwithstanding the fact that the resource is vested in the province, the agreements your country has signed preclude you from doing what it is you want to do." The argument goes that because the description of water in tariff heading 22 includes "natural waters," and because both agreements impose obligations respecting trade in "goods," the two agreements -- the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA -- apply to the trading of our water that exists in natural watercourses. That submission is being made. We're being asked to vote on this legislation -- at the moment, section 5. I want to hear the minister defend against that argument.
[5:45]
[ Page 15242 ]
Hon. E. Cull: We're very confident that the sovereign right with respect to water is vested in the province. We are protecting that, and we believe that that will be respected under the GATT and under other international agreements.
M. de Jong: Let's explore that. My reading of those agreements suggests to me that within that ambit, much turns on the definition of the word "goods." My question to the minister is: what is her position on that question? Does our water represent a "good" within the meaning of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement or the NAFTA agreement?
Hon. E. Cull: When the negotiation of NAFTA was underway, we made very strong representation that water should have been explicitly dealt with under the agreement. The federal government failed to seek the exemption we wanted to see made at the time, and they failed to make the protections we were asking for. But we believe that because the federal government failed to take the action that we strongly urged upon them, we then have the responsibility and authority to act as we are acting under this bill, which is to take this right to protect our water, and to assert the ownership of the water here in British Columbia. We do believe that will be respected by international agreements.
M. de Jong: I don't quarrel with anything the minister has said, although my question was fairly specific. Having read those agreements, I am satisfied that much turns on whether or not water is to be considered a good. Is it the minister's position that British Columbia's natural water is a good within the meaning of those agreements?
Hon. E. Cull: I'm actually not interested -- and the government's not interested -- in debating whether it's a good or not. We're interested in making sure that we have the powers and ability in British Columbia to protect our water for sustainable use. Our position is that we have the right to do that, we have the right to take the action that we're taking under this legislation, and that is not a matter that you debate -- whether it's a good or not, it's a provincial resource.
M. de Jong: The legislation means nothing if it's going to be passed on Wednesday and successfully attacked the same day because it violates an international agreement that this country has signed. All I'm asking the minister to do.... I recognize her position; she says that she believes the government has the right...that we are not in contravention.... Well, she hasn't said that. In fact, to this point in the debate she hasn't acknowledged that the legislation we pass in this Legislature must abide by the terms of the international agreement that the country we remain a part of has signed. Maybe we should start there. Does the minister agree that this legislation has to be consistent with the international agreements that Canada has signed?
Hon. E. Cull: I don't believe that the legislation will be passed on Wednesday and overruled shortly thereafter. I have said that we are confident, through the work that we've done on this, that it will be respected under international agreements. It is clear to the government -- and we're making it clear through this legislation -- that bulk water is a provincial resource that belongs to the people of British Columbia; it is not a good for trade.
M. de Jong: I heard someone whisper those adjournment words to me, hon. Chair.
I must confess that I'm a bit puzzled by the exception the minister seems to be taking to this line of questioning. We know that the potential exists for this legislation to come under close international scrutiny. I am presenting to her the arguments that will undoubtedly be made that this agreement is inconsistent with our international obligations. The minister and I can both agree that the sky is green, but if it isn't.... The minister and I can both agree that British Columbia has the inalienable right to prohibit bulk water exports. The minister and I do agree that that's what we want to do. We can both agree further that we have the right to do that, but if we don't, then our deliberations today are for nought. She can stand up each time and say: "I believe we have the right." I am asking some specific questions about the specific terminology of specific agreements that this legislation must be consistent with. I'm going to continue, and I'm going to ask the minister to be very specific in her answers, because it's not a trite point in any way, shape or form.
She knows that the agreements -- both the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the NAFTA agreement -- incorporate the definition of the word "goods" set out in the GATT. It's the GATT that establishes the obligations for nations with respect to products -- the GATT uses the word "products." I'm going to emphasize to the minister that the provisions of GATT are very much at play here. She might perhaps comment on whether she agrees with that preface to my remarks: that this legislation will need to withstand the scrutiny of GATT and must be consistent with our obligations under GATT. Can she advise me whether, in her view, natural water falls within the definition of the word "products" that is included in the GATT agreement?
Hon. E. Cull: If the member is asking me to do a dry run here of the legal arguments with respect to whether or not we can do what we like or whether water is a good or whether, as we assert, it is a provincial resource, I will decline getting into that dry-run debate at this point. In fact, I think it would be imprudent for me to do so, with respect to the arguments that may subsequently have to be made. What I can say is that it is a provincial resource -- it is not a good for trade -- and this act asserts that fact.
M. de Jong: When this minister comes to this House and asks these members to pass legislation, I do not think it's inappropriate for her to be asked to provide some assurance to members that the legislation they're being asked to vote on is consistent with international treaty obligations. For her to suggest otherwise and to suggest that she doesn't want to become embroiled in that kind of debate is, I think, reprehensible. I really do. Now, if the minister, in response to some of these questions, wants to say: "I don't know" -- and in many instances that would be an entirely understandable response -- fair enough. But to suggest that the line of questioning is inappropriate, I just think is shocking. I really do.
The GATT round of agreements incorporates some other international agreement that we are subject to, and it says that terms in the treaty will be afforded their ordinary meaning -- that comes from article 31 of the Vienna convention. The argument can be made that a product is something that is produced. That's a fairly logical definition -- that a product is something that can be produced -- and that for water to become a product, something needs to be done to it. It has to
[ Page 15243 ]
be put in a pipeline; it has to be put on a boat. Can I ask the minister if she believes that that is the exception that will allow this legislation to withstand a challenge under the GATT treaty?
Hon. E. Cull: I know we are getting close to adjournment, but perhaps the member could just repeat the last part of his question.
M. de Jong: Under the GATT treaties, the definition of product.... Well, it's not defined, but other treaties suggest that a product is something that has had something done to it. The question I've asked the minister is: you could say that water in its natural form isn't a product; you could say that water doesn't become a product until it has been put on a boat, or until it has been put in a pipeline -- in the same way that it has been said that oil isn't a product while it's in the ground. It doesn't become a product until it's in a pipeline or on a tanker. Now that would afford the minister, the government, the province of British Columbia an exception under which we can escape the restrictive provisions of GATT. Is the minister saying that that is the exception that her government is availing itself of to escape the GATT definition?
Hon. E. Cull: Going back to the first half of the member's question, which I did hear before -- there was some disturbance over on this side -- let me assure the member that I'm not refusing to deal with the issue. I'm just saying that we are confident of the legal position with respect to the GATT, but I'm not prepared to rehearse a set of legal arguments with the member acting as the lawyer for the...I don't know, not the defence in this case; I guess it's the prosecutor -- for the other side, anyway, whatever.
With respect to the particular question about whether we would be relying on a definition of a good in its natural form versus once it's been put into some kind of container, product or pipeline, that could potentially be part of a line of argument. But we would be relying on broader environmental provisions for our arguments and also with respect to our ownership of this as a provincial resource and not as a good for trade.
[6:00]
With that -- I'm noting the time -- I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker 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. G. Clark: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:30 p.m.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 6:02 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 3:32 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SKILLS, TRAINING AND LABOUR
(continued)
On vote 49: minister's office, $407,230 (continued).
D. Jarvis: I would like to ask the minister about a situation that has arisen for several constituents of mine in regard to the disenfranchising of widows by the WCB for those who got married after a certain date. As soon as they got married, their pensions were cut off.
A short while ago a bill was introduced to amend the act and allow compensation for wives who had married and then subsequently divorced -- to renew their pensions from their first marriages. But there was a specific cutoff date on this situation. Anyone prior to April 17, 1985, was not included. The minister would probably be very familiar with it.
After interviewing a lot of the women, I'm trying to ascertain why this specific date was set up. The only thing I can conclude is that that was the same date that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect, and we're wondering if that was the reason for it. Why would they exclude approximately 100 women who had the misfortune of having their husbands killed? Most of the women I interviewed got married again or were living common law with someone and were taken advantage of by the fact that they did get married. And as soon as the money was gone, the husbands dumped them. Sad and unfortunate as it may be, the common-law husbands or the husbands usually dumped them. Every one of them ended up getting divorced in a short time. It was a sad situation, and it was certainly unfair.
You could fault these women. They may have been foolish or frightened of being a widow and all the rest of it, so they turned around and they got married again. But, as I said, in all those cases it didn't work out properly. They ended up single again. But I don't quite understand why this government used that date for a cutoff. Have they given any consideration to revising that cutoff prior to a court action on this situation, which would cost the government a lot of money?
Hon. D. Miller: At the outset, let's say that this issue is subject to a court challenge. I want to be absolutely clear that I don't want to become involved in that court challenge, and I don't want anything I say to become involved in a court challenge. I can give the member some history as to the government's actions in respect to decisions made in the past. I have said very clearly that it is not our intention to restore those pensions to the people in question.
Some of the salient facts the member might wish to note are that.... He may wish to refer to Hansard and the debate
[ Page 15244 ]
over the original bill. It did restore pensions to some widows who had previously been cut off from their pensions. By the way, I think about 267 pensions were reinstated under the restoration. The cost to the WCB was $108 million. The member will appreciate that the restoration of pensions to an unknown number of persons could have significant economic consequences. The member might want to consider those costs and how they might be borne.
I don't know what the member's position is -- whether or not he is advocating that in fact they should be restored. It's an opinion he may wish to register here. I'm aware that the critic has wisely avoided taking a position on that issue. I think I'll leave it at that.
D. Jarvis: I have read Hansard, and our critic didn't avoid the question. He did answer it. But I find it strange. I appreciate the fact that it costs a lot of money.
Interjection.
D. Jarvis: I'm on my constituents' side.
I find it very hard to comprehend. I appreciate that it would cost, say, $100 million, $200 million or $300 million. I don't know what it would cost exactly. That's a lot of taxpayers' money. The Workers' Compensation Board contracted with these women to look after them in the event that the husband or wife died, whatever the circumstances may be. They put money aside at the time for the future. It was banked in a trust. I have letters on file from different widows who said that that was the case. They had letters from workers' compensation saying that so much was put aside....
Hon. D. Miller: On a point of order, I said at the outset that this is an issue that is before the courts. In trying to give some background, I perhaps was slightly imprudent in saying as much as I did. The member may wish to consider the fact that this is before the courts with respect to the statements he is making now.
The Chair: I thank the hon. minister for clarifying. The minister had said earlier that it was subject to court action. I wasn't sure whether that meant that it was actually in the courts at the present time or coming up.
Hon. D. Miller: A writ has been filed.
The Chair: A writ has been filed. In that case, we should rule that question out of order. I suggest, hon. member, that you take another angle on these estimates.
D. Jarvis: Actually, I was responding because the minister responded to me and threw out a little challenge. I was leading up to that challenge, but I certainly wasn't going to interfere in any way with a pending court case.
I have a question for the minister concerning another unfortunate incident to do with Lynn Duggan, which the minister may or may not be aware of. I will tell you what happened. Lynn Duggan was a twin and due to an unfortunate circumstance she disappeared. Her twin sister, her older sister and her nephew arrived at the apartment looking for her later on. They found what there were of her remains. It's a long and difficult story, and I won't go into the really gruesome part. The only part of the body they have found since then is her skull, which they found up in our riding. This was not too long ago.
As you can appreciate, the twin sister has suffered considerable traumatic illness. What do they call it? Post-traumatic syndrome? A claim was made under that section of the Workers Compensation Act. The board ruled against her on the basis that she wasn't a direct relative. I've written to the Attorney General, and he has tentatively agreed to it. The fact that that ruling, although made to the letter of the law and perhaps correct at the time.... They were contemplating a change in the rules and regulations, and it may be reconsidered at a later date.
I was wondering if the minister could tell me if anything further has been done with regard to legislation -- an order-in-council or something along that line -- which would take this into consideration. This is a very young lady who has.... They're not asking for money; that's the last thing they want. She is unable to work anymore. She has used up all her medical and everything you can possibly think of. She is suffering and needs psychotherapy. In this province, that type of psychotherapy, is unavailable. Their funds are completely exhausted. The parents' funds are completely exhausted. All their pension plans and everything have gone into this. I'm just wondering if the minister could give me an idea as to whether any consideration might be given to this family.
Hon. D. Miller: While I certainly appreciate the really traumatic experience that the member has described, the matter does fall under, I believe, the Criminal Injury Compensation Act, which is not under my jurisdiction but the jurisdiction of the Attorney General.
G. Farrell-Collins: I want to get back to where we left off this morning, which was a discussion of some of the future plans for the Workers' Compensation Board. I have advised the minister that I don't have a long list of questions for the ministry, but I do have a number of questions that one of the members of our research staff communicated to this ministry several months ago -- if I'm not correct, it was around there -- asking for a detailed breakout of the various programs, the number of FTEs, the full-time and contract employees and the amounts associated with those. I am the critic for two ministries, so I'm not sure if it was this minister who responded or if it was the other minister who responded for Employment and Investment, but I believe the response that I received was that those issues could be canvassed in estimates and that the information wasn't available at the time.
[3:45]
Rather than take up hours and hours in this chamber going through that program by program, if the minister could just commit to me sometime within the next several months -- even as late as early fall -- I'd be pleased with a breakdown. I will communicate directly with the minister again, outlining what it is I'm looking for. I don't imagine it should be terribly difficult information to track down, but it is helpful in my understanding of the size and scope of the ministry and what exactly the various programs are intended to achieve. If I can get that commitment, we can save a great deal of time and energy here and have that done at staff level.
Hon. D. Miller: Certainly. I'm not aware of the specifics, but we will make our best efforts to provide the information the member is seeking.
[ Page 15245 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you. I'm glad to have that, and I look forward to getting the information.
I want to come back to the Workers' Compensation Board. There are a number of areas that I wanted to question the minister on: the plans for the future, plans to try and improve the board, its efficiency, its morale and its service. I talked a bit about human resources, and the minister preferred to take that in the context of administrative improvements that are taking place or that would be better discussed in that light.
One area within the administration that I know has been a concern -- certainly to me and the injured workers as I and my constituency assistant deal with them -- is the information flow at the Workers' Compensation Board. I believe there was a somewhat aborted attempt to move to a database as opposed to a paper system. Perhaps the minister can tell me where we are at now and where we are headed in the near future, because I know that the processing of information is somewhat of a problem at Workers' Compensation Board. There are vast quantities of files, and within those files are huge piles of paper. I wonder if the ministry or the Workers' Compensation Board has plans to move to some sort of an electronic storage and retrieval system. If so, what are the plans for that.
Hon. D. Miller: I am advised -- again without reference to absolute detail -- that the new president CO is looking at those issues and is attempting to pilot some areas. I think the view of administration is that as you come into a system that has the problems we talked about earlier, you look for the best approach in attempting to deal with it.
The new president has determined that he would not like to try to take on the entire system at once but rather take a division and attempt to improve the administration in that division -- almost a pilot type of project. That is being done, and hopefully we'll see an improvement that gradually will spread to the entire system.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would suggest that's probably a wise move, and I'm glad to hear there is something.... Does the minister have any idea -- I know it's a detail but I am interested to know -- what system we're looking at and what method we're looking at to put that together and to make it work? Are we well underway? Are we just looking at various systems to try and find one? Have we identified a system that we're going to use? Is there a timetable, where we can come back and see what results have been achieved by that pilot?
Hon. D. Miller: My deputy and I were just agreeing with each other that we're both completely computer illiterate. Nonetheless, WCB is in the final stages of selecting a consultant. They've determined that the Coquitlam centre will be the pilot area. That's all I'm able to offer here. I'd be quite happy to pursue that in terms of passing information through, or facilitating the information flowing directly to the member from the WCB.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm glad to hear that. Is there some time frame that we're looking at to actually have that program in the Coquitlam centre up and operating and a timetable for evaluating the performance, so we have an idea what the next stage might be and when that stage might be kicking in?
Hon. D. Miller: I don't have exact timelines. They obviously want to move ahead soon. They're in the final stages of selecting a contractor. Obviously, the administration and the senior executives want to have staff involved in the process. I think it goes back to the issue of morale in terms of involvement in the system.
I would add my previous response, which was to offer to provide further detail if the member wishes, either directly through my office or through facilitating the information coming directly from the WCB. Just as a matter of course, throughout the estimates debate, if issues do arise where I don't have the kind of detail that people are looking for, we routinely go back and examine that and try to follow up to make sure that people get the information they are seeking.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm glad that's the process under this minister. I don't believe it was the process under the previous minister, because there were lots of unanswered things hanging out there for a long period of time. I'm glad to see that's changed and that there is a new process in place.
I had hoped for more information on this, but perhaps we can get some more information as time goes by, as the minister said. That's something I think is crucial to bringing the administrative portion of the Workers' Compensation Board into this decade. I know we all are sometimes a little timid with the new stuff, but I think it's the way to go with the amount of paper and the number of files that are used at the Workers' Compensation Board. Having that many documents, I'm sure they could cut down vastly just on storage costs alone. Hopefully they wouldn't be as frequently misplaced or misfiled as sometimes is the case. That's a very frustrating thing for a worker and an employer, too, who has a file with Workers' Compensation Board -- and certainly for MLAs who are trying to pursue cases.
I suppose now is as good a time as any to say that I do want to put on the record some of the outstanding people that I have come in contact with at the Workers' Compensation Board over three and a half years. You run into people who are doing their jobs and then you run into people who are really doing their jobs, who put in extra effort, are very committed to deliver good service to injured workers and are committed to rectifying oversights. Those people know who they are. I just want to put on the record how pleased and encouraged I am to find that those people are there. In any organization, it's nice to find the really diligent people who really care about what they've doing, and care about the workers. I just want to say that there are a good number whom I've come into contact with so far at the Workers' Compensation Board. Informally, I want to thank them for their help, as do literally hundreds of injured workers who have benefited from their diligence, their hard work and their knowledge of hopscotching around the various processes and obstructions that are often in place in a large institution like that. I just want to put on the record my appreciation, and the appreciation of other members of our caucus, for their work. They sometimes go unrecognized. They know who they are, and I just want them to know that I am also very thankful.
Some of the things the minister talked a little about were administrative efficiencies and information systems improvements. Is the Workers' Compensation Board doing other things to try to improve the administration at the Workers' Compensation Board, which ultimately will lead to improvements in morale and the human resources climate? If there are, could the minister give me some idea of what those are?
[ Page 15246 ]
Hon. D. Miller: First of all, I want to thank the member for his remarks about the staff. I think it is important that we do recognize -- whether within the WCB or indeed other ministries -- that there are some pretty dedicated people who are committed to their jobs. I know all members receive letters from people who have difficulties, but it is also true that 96 percent of the claims are handled with absolutely no difficulty at all, which is a pretty high level of service. I would also advise the member that we are quite happy to share the current year's business plan with him. If he does not have it, we'll make sure that it's passed on.
I would recommend, in general terms, the 1994 annual report, which at least in highlight form captures many of the initiatives being undertaken. In that respect, on pages 9-11, the report of the president goes through some of the current issues and some of the good news stories as well, I think. For example, the administrative costs are being held at just over 1 percent for 1993-94, despite the fact that there were an additional 10 percent workers and 21 percent employers. So I think the primary focus right now is on service delivery. Obviously that ties in with the entire operation. If you have an administratively efficient operation, your service delivery issues are easy to deal with.
I think there have been some improvements with respect to turn around time and very much a focus on that question. Administrative costs are being held in line, I believe for the second year in a row. The board's objective, I think by 1997, is to be fully funded. I assume that members are aware that in managing a huge portfolio, such as that held by the WCB, an even flow of 100 percent funded on an annual basis or year by year is not necessarily practical. It will fluctuate up and down. But that's an issue that the board always has to be vigilant about: that the costs are held in line and that that unfunded liability never gets out of hand. If it does workers and employers suffer, and you end up as they've ended up in Ontario, where they have a $11 billion or $12 billion unfunded liability and a lot of people running around without really any clear idea of how they're going to deal with it.
The board, in my view.... I will go back to some of the things I said earlier. It's unavoidable to take a statistical measurement, and it may be cold comfort to some employers in British Columbia, but if you look at our assessment rates relative to the rest of Canada, they are on the low side. If you look at our financial position, we're in the top two or three. Statistically, using those as benchmarks, I think the system here in British Columbia ranks as one of the top two or three in Canada. That doesn't mean you can sit back and say that everything's okay. That's not what we are doing. We're aware of some of the issues that are potentially problematic on the administrative side, the funding side, and I think we are dealing appropriately with them.
L. Hanson: I have a couple of questions on WCB and the review board. How long is it taking for a case to be heard once it's ready to be heard? How long does it take to get before the appeal board? I can't help but take this opportunity to....
As a result of the conversation that went on this morning between the minister and the official opposition, I remembered a day when the minister sat in official opposition. Some of the politics that he talked about this morning.... I guess I'm getting old, and my memory must be failing me because I thought he was using some of those in those days. I might just remind the minister that there's going to be a test one day of who governs the province. I know I won't be around, but maybe the minister's confident that he'll be around, though I suspect that he might be sitting on the other side asking some of those same questions from the past.
I find it interesting that when something goes wrong in a ministry -- and it happens to everyone, and I don't care which government it is; it has those problems -- the immediate defence is to say: "Well, those guys did this, so that makes us a great bunch of guys."
Interjection.
L. Hanson: And girls.
I just want to point out to this committee and to the minister, hon. Chair, that one of the reasons politicians are looked at with some cynicism is that reference to: "We can't be too bad because the other guys did this, and that therefore makes up better."
[4:00]
I might just mention to the critic for the official opposition -- and one day he might be in that same position -- just keep these things in mind, please. But my question really is.... I'm pleased to hear the minister talking about a process that will hopefully alleviate the difficulty with the files. While there are a lot of difficulties -- I know there are some difficulties within the board as per the Korbin report and so on -- one of the things that seems to be causing unrest and much unhappiness with the system is the time delay to get something done. Part of that time delay is caused by the system they have for keeping track of records. There are so many different branches of the WCB that a file can circulate for almost a year before it ever alights long enough for somebody to catch up to it.
I'm pleased to hear that the minister is looking at a system to alleviate that difficulty. I don't think that's a fault of anyone; it's just that the system they have leads to that file circulating in limbo for a long time and leads to the frustrations that come with that.
I'd be interested to hear the minister's comments on what the progress is on the time a case takes to be heard -- and I understand different cases take longer to prepare and so on. What is the waiting period at the review board, and what is the waiting period at the actual appeal section of the WCB?
Hon. D. Miller: What can I say? I've received so much political advice here in the last few minutes that it's hard to absorb.
L. Hanson: That was just in response to the advice we got this morning.
Hon. D. Miller: There are some who would argue -- not that I would, particularly -- that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. But not me; I wouldn't. In fact, I always attempt to be consistent. Someone else will have to judge whether the record bears that out. All I was trying to caution on was recognizing the difference between political rhetoric and political reality. All of us, I think, have a propensity to drink a little too much of our own bath water. The trick is not to drink too much.
L. Hanson: I couldn't miss the opportunity to reply.
[ Page 15247 ]
Hon. D. Miller: No, and I'm actually restraining myself, because I've thought of several rejoinders that I think would be quite useful in terms of a good political debate, but I think I'll just try to resist the temptation at this point.
The review board has some improved performance. My staff and I are looking through our books here; we've got these mammoth books which contain a ream of statistics that unfortunately are unavailable at our fingertips. Without having the actual time frames that the member is seeking, my deputy does inform me that when the member was Minister of Labour, he did introduce legislation with respect to statutory limits. I think it was 90 days at the appeal division, and the WCB, as far as I'm aware -- this may not be 100 percent -- are trying to operate within those statutory time limits introduced while you were the Minister of Labour. Again, I apologize for not having statistics, but from my last conversation with Mr. O'Brien from the review board, I think there have been some fairly dramatic improvements in the operation of that.
[J. Pullinger in the chair.]
I think it's also true to say that we have a system that has a myriad of appeal mechanisms. The members will appreciate that every time a case is appealed in one way or another -- whether it's medical or you name it -- it necessitates a hiatus while the system works. If it's in the individual's favour, well that's the end of it. If it's not, presumably the individual then has the opportunity to appeal to a different level. All of that, while it is of great benefit, does stretch out the time. It's amazing that some cases.... If you look at statistics in the annual report, you'll see that there's a list of claims. Some of them go back. Amazingly enough, there are claims still being dealt with that are decades old, where people are trying to appeal or they're dissatisfied.
Someone -- I think it was an MLA -- was anecdotally telling me about someone who phoned him recently and said: "You know, I need to get some information. I had a claim in 19-whenever-it-was..." -- they wanted to use freedom of information -- "...and you know, I knew they didn't treat that right, and I want to use freedom of information to go back to the 1970s to get information so I can launch an appeal." You can't dismiss those rights. They are rights, and they are there for a pretty good reason. These are important areas. Ninety-six percent are handled successfully and with no problem. Of the remaining 4 percent, some present quite a significant problem.
There is no question that in terms of service delivery it has not been as good as I or the public would expect. I think there have been improvements. As I said to the previous member, in questions where I don't have the absolute detail the members are looking for, we will note the questions. They will be recorded in Hansard and my staff will follow up, either directly or through the WCB, to get the information to you.
G. Farrell-Collins: I have a question for the minister in regard to an issue in the retail sector. He may or may not want to comment on it; I hope he can to a certain extent. It concerns the large commercial grocery retailers and the smaller ones, and the request for a severing into two...
An Hon. Member: Three.
G. Farrell-Collins: ...three, rather, of that sector. Can the minister tell me what the status of that is and whether we will likely see something in the future?
Hon. D. Miller: Again, the issue is under appeal. The member is aware that the board did make a decision: it separated the retail sector into three subclasses. The decision that rankled some was the decision to apportion the unfunded costs across those sectors in a way that was objected to by some. That issue is under appeal, and we await the outcome.
G. Farrell-Collins: I take it, then, that the minister is going to let that run its course. Are there no plans at this point to come to some negotiated settlement or agreement on how those should be apportioned? I assume the minister stands by the decision of the Workers' Compensation Board and will wait for the outcome of the appeal.
Hon. D. Miller: The decisions of the board in respect to these matters are not ones that come to me for my approval or disapproval. They are decisions of the board by statute. The only thing I have done with respect to this.... I received a copy of a bulletin distributed by a Mr. Startup, I think his name is, wherein he recommended to his members -- I presume the bulletin went to his members -- that they contact me, as Minister of Labour. He suggested in his bulletin that I should be suitably outraged at a decision made by the board of governors. The board of governors, I would remind members, is comprised of representatives of labour and business in the public interest. I advised Mr. Startup that while I don't mind what he does, I didn't think it was very wise to suggest that people come to me to try to deal with an assessment issue that was, by statute, the responsibility of the board. That will be dealt with under appeal.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the minister can give us a brief overview of the implementation of Bill 63 -- the broadening of the Workers' Compensation Board coverage -- and its effects on the board. Since the legislation has been in place for some time, could he give us an update?
Hon. D. Miller: To the best of my knowledge, the introduction of Bill 63 and the extension of coverage has been handled reasonably well: 13,500 new employers were registered in 1994 as a result of the extended coverage. By the way, there was an increase of 21 percent in employers registered in 1994, and 24,300 in total. About half of that is a result of Bill 63 and less than half the result of increased economic activity in this province, which is very good news. Of course, we all know the pretty good economic history over the last three and a half years: a significant number of new jobs, the province with the lowest debt per capita in Canada and the ability to deal in a fairly good way with the needs of the current and future population with respect to investments in new infrastructure and investments in people.
There were 861 claims received from the new employers, producing a rate of 6.4 claims per 100 registrations, which compares with a boardwide average rate of 143 claims per 100 registrations. Most of the new employers covered were assessed at the rate of 25 cents per $100 of payroll, contrasted again with a boardwide average assessment rate of $2.14 per $100 of payroll. I'm not certain where the adjustment.... Obviously experience has to come in then. The board will then look at the experience with respect to the future assessment rates. There was no impact on the board's unfunded liability as a result of the extension.
I think the board has developed policies for exemptions because of the situation of many small employers -- owner-
[ Page 15248 ]
operators, if you like. There was a need to have a policy regarding exceptions; that has been done and is publicly available. Some of those specific exemptions include professional sports competitors, some domestic workers, and spouses in unincorporated businesses.
So that's a fair amount of information. It seems to have gone relatively well, given the scope of the extension of coverage. One of the concerns that was raised at the time was from the employers who would be covered as a result of Bill 63. They thought it was simply a device to broaden the assessment base to deal with the board's unfunded liability. That was not true. The revenue raised only deals with the new registrations, and there is no cross-subsidization. In other words, the revenue collected from that subclass is not used to cross-subsidize any other of the subclasses.
G. Farrell-Collins: I have a question on the way administrative costs are assessed to the various subclasses. Is it done as a per claim number or on some sort of a schedule? I'm curious how that accounting takes place. There must be overhead which is difficult to assign specifically to any one subclass, if that happens at all. Is the overhead then divided up into some format among the various subclasses?
Hon. D. Miller: No, I think the administrative costs are across subclasses -- or despite the experience of the subclass. I think it's a general administrative cost that's applied and included in the assessment rate for each subclass to cover the administrative costs; it's not a trick or anything. By the way, administrative costs as a percentage of total costs have declined. That's because the size of the business has expanded, if you like.
[4:15]
I had previously written down some figures just for the member's information. Sorry, this is the operating deficit; nonetheless, it kind of illustrates the point. The operating deficit as a percentage of total revenue actually declined by about 6 percent: in 1993 it was 16.2 percent, and in 1994 it was 10.3 percent. That really is an indication of the expansion of the system, partly a result of the new employers but more importantly a result of the expansion of general economic activity in the province. On a statistical basis, administrative costs have been almost frozen for the last two years despite the increase in business activity. The board has done a commendable job with respect to that particular issue.
G. Farrell-Collins: I guess that is the theory behind the critique offered by the new employers who were brought into the Workers' Compensation Board. Despite the low claim rate in their field, they were being assessed an equivalent level of administrative costs as the other sections. Given the much lower number of claims -- which bears out the statistics the minister gave me of 6.4 per 100, although I understand that if you compare on average, there are some large sectors that would draw that average up -- they feel that a result of being folded in with everyone is that they are carrying a disproportionate load of the overhead costs on their sector as opposed to those sectors that have a much higher claim rate, as the minister said, of an average of 143 per 100 job sites.
It is all statistics, and one can question the size of the employers, too, since that would obviously have some bearing on it, but it seems to me that to a certain extent they were correct in their analysis, despite the comments of the minister on the constant or decreasing level of administrative costs. Those new employers are in fact probably bearing a somewhat disproportionate level of the general overhead that would be assessed across the board.
Many of them I have talked to -- some of them being employers and some of them employees -- have said that the insurance plan they had before in their work site was better, in that it protected them 24 hours a day for long-term disability, for lost time and for injuries, all of those. The private program they had in place was cheaper and provided greater benefits than what they are receiving now from the Workers' Compensation Board. Some employers in fact continued with their private program as well as having Workers' Compensation Board coverage, and there is a certain amount of overlap there, but they just feel it's a better service to their employees and that they would have a difficult time -- even if they wanted to, which they don't -- removing that benefit from their employees. They feel that by Bill 63 being assessed almost in a punitive way, they are paying double, or more in some cases. I think there is some credibility to that argument, though to what extent and what the actual numbers are would take a long time to calculate and figure out, but I think there is some legitimacy in that question.
I would like to ask the minister what sort of.... The increase in new employers as a result of Bill 63 was to include basically all employers. Is there any one sector that seems to have come in in large numbers and is taking up a large chunk of those new employers coming on stream? Is there any particular industry or sector where there seems to be a large bulge in new businesses coming on line? Have there been any problems in getting these employers to register? Has there been a lag in that? Have most employers been informed fairly well and up front so that they actually got on stream in time to ensure that their employees are covered as per the act, or has there been some difficulty in pushing that forward? I'll leave it there. I think that is enough questions for this round.
Hon. D. Miller: I am unaware of the particular types of businesses, and I don't have a breakdown of businesses by types of business. With respect to registration, I believe it has been a comprehensive process. There was extensive advertising, and there certainly were a lot of letters from people who had some concerns about it.
But I want to get back to this assessment issue, because I think it's important that we be absolutely clear. There were concerns raised this year as a result of the board's decision, in some subclasses, to exceed a rate cap. It's important that people understand the assessment policy, and particularly important that employers understand it. The 25 cents per $100 of payroll that was attached to the new businesses that were captured by Bill 63 is a bargain, in my view. For 25 cents for every $100 of payroll, your employees are covered in a very comprehensive system. Should injuries arise, those employees have the opportunity to have themselves covered, whether it's wage replacement, rehabilitation -- you name it. There may be private insurance that is comparable, but I doubt that private insurance would be available at a comparable cost.
Secondly, the policy of the board is to have each individual subclass pay for their own experience. What has happened over time is that some subclasses that have had bad experiences or a higher frequency of accidents because of rate caps have not had their assessments adjusted to reflect that.
[ Page 15249 ]
What you end up with when you allow that to continue -- and here's where these new classes might in fact have an argument over time -- is that others could end up paying for those who don't pay for their own experience. So the board's policy, one which I heartily endorse, is that the assessment derived from each subclass should cover not only the current but the future liability costs of the claims experience in that subclass. When we reach that point, I think the board will be on a better footing.
Obviously, individual employers have the opportunity under the experience-rating assessment system, if there is a dramatic improvement in their safety performance, to receive the direct financial benefit of that improved performance. We're not there yet, and that's why they did exceed the cap in some subclasses this year. I think it was 20 percent; perhaps it was 30 percent.
Looking at the statistics book, the member will see those subclasses that are not yet paying their own way and those that are. I would hope that that policy approach is one that members would understand and support.
G. Farrell-Collins: I know the minister stated that there was a comprehensive advertising process to get new employers on board. Has there been any difficulty in getting them? Are there gaps out there that we're still looking to fill, or has it been almost universal that employers have come on board in time? Is there a large compliance problem?
Hon. D. Miller: It may be impossible to know what absolutely universal is. The board's feeling is that they have captured the people under Bill 63; in other words, they have registered. But it's quite conceivable that individual businesses have not registered. I don't think it is a particular problem, and obviously the board doesn't, either. I assume that if they thought it was, there would be some more rigorous attempts to see whether or not people were registering. Nothing has been brought to my attention to suggest that it's a particular problem.
G. Farrell-Collins: I guess we're relying, then, on the advertising and pre-selling of the bill, which probably was February or January of this year or last year; it was a while ago. I heard from a number of people. I guess it's sort of standard, though. At the last minute people panic, and they realize: "I haven't done this." I'm sure the phones rang off the hooks at WCB as it happened.
I was just curious to find out if there is a problem out there. I guess the only way the Workers' Compensation Board will hear about it is if people get injured, show up on the doorstep and then find out they weren't covered, or if employees themselves take note of it. Is there any ongoing public information that takes place with chambers of commerce or business service groups to keep advising them of that? Do we feel that the job is done now, and we'll just wait and see what the fallout is?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that there is ongoing work. Again, I want to say that it has not been identified to me as a particular issue or problem. I think the board, as a matter of course, does employ ongoing advertising not only to employers but to employees with respect to this issue.
G. Farrell-Collins: This is the last area I'd like to canvass. Could the minister give us some indication of the ongoing plans and, perhaps, any new ideas that the board has to improve safety in the workplace? Are there any special projects underway or new innovations that we're looking at?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, primarily in the area of prevention. In fact, if the member refers to the statistics, he'll see that over the last two years -- since I've taken note of the statistics in the annual reports -- there has been an increase in emphasis on preventive measures by the board. In fact, there has been a modest decline in the injury rate. Prevention, it goes without saying, is obviously the chief target, to the extent that if you can create safe workplaces through cooperation with employers and employees, you really will have a material impact on the cost structure and the human suffering that follows workplace accidents. Prevention is a big target, and it appears, looking at the statistics, that there is a correlation between prevention work and reduced accidents.
In respect to the business plan that I indicated I would make available to the member, there is additional information in there in respect to additional measures taken this year on the preventive side.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll look forward to examining the business plan. I'm sure that if I have any questions, the new president will be able to answer them for me. If not, then I'm sure the interim chair would be more than willing to take those phone calls.
I have a colleague who would like to enter into the debate, and we have an agreement that he has about 15 minutes to bring forth the concerns that he has. If others don't have any specific questions, I believe we will then be moving on to the other areas of the minister's responsibility as far as Skills and Training go.
Hon. D. Miller: I'd like to thank my hon. critic for the debate on some of these issues. I want to say that we will try to follow up on all the issues he has raised. If we happen to miss any, I look forward to next year's estimates, where I will be delighted to try to answer any questions the member has.
K. Jones: Is that a prediction that we're going to have another session in the spring? There's obviously no election plan for the spring.
An Hon. Member: It will be after the election.
[4:30]
K. Jones: I guess it will be after.... We'll have a fall election from the sounds of it -- the following fall. It certainly doesn't look like it will be happening in the next while.
I'd like to ask a few questions about some of the more serious problems that people are facing in dealing with the Workers' Compensation Board. There seems to be a real difficulty for persons who have head, back or not really visible injuries. There seems to be some difficulty in getting these addressed. Could the minister give us some indication as to whether there's any change in the policy of how these people are treated, with the new administration?
Hon. D. Miller: No, I did talk earlier about the difficulty of those issues. All of us, particularly as we advance in years, incur wear and tear on our bodies....
[ Page 15250 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: It shows more on some.
Hon. D. Miller: It shows more on some than others, my hon. critic says. Yet in the normal course of events, sometimes it's virtually impossible to tie a specific medical problem to a specific injury. I can speak from personal experience. As a millwright, after crawling around in every nook and cranny that a pulp mill has to offer, I can tell you I don't have the best back in the world, but if I were to try to file a claim with WCB saying that I have a sore or bad back as a result of my work experience, I wouldn't be successful.
I hope the member appreciates that when you have the system that we have, which is supported by assessments on employers, the onus is there to ensure that there is a link between a specific medical issue or medical problem and a specific workplace incident. In the normal course of events, if you're at work and you fall down and break your arm, it's open and shut. There's no question about the event and the injury. Those are part of the 96 percent of the claims that go through without any problem whatsoever.
The so-called soft tissue -- I'm not sure that refers to the head, maybe for some, but the back, at least -- are sometimes difficult, and I think the long-term solution or broader solution to some of those issues is what I talked about earlier. We need to take a broader look and treat or deal with people regardless of where a particular medical condition originated.
Some countries have looked at that. New Zealand, I think, has tried that approach with varying degrees of success. We have started some pilot work specifically looking at that at the disability institute in Port Alberni. It is looking at the issue that even though people do have medical problems, conditions or disabilities, nonetheless there are places for them in the workplace. That is a complicated business, but one that has not been promoted or looked at in a strong enough way. We have done that; I expect that some of the work of that institute will start to pay off and will provide some good statistics to let us move forward in that direction.
K. Jones: It's nice to hear the minister being knowledgable and concerned about the issue, and I think it's very important that we try new approaches to this. We have people who are completely frustrated by the process. They are losing all sense of dignity; they are losing their families, their homes, their health and the feeling that they can ever get back into the employment area. Everything is falling in on them. They end up with a lot of depression, and some suicide cases have occurred. I think the minister is fully aware of the number that have occurred by people who are on workers' compensation, and I understand that it's significant enough to have an investigation done as to why this is occurring.
Has the minister done anything along the lines of holding an investigation into the number of suicides that are occurring by claimants under workers' compensation?
Hon. D. Miller: No, there have not been any efforts in that regard.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us the total number of suicide cases of persons who have had applications or were under Workers' Compensation rehabilitation programs for the last five years?
Hon. D. Miller: With respect, no, I can't. I appreciate the member's concern that for those who sometimes find themselves with an injury and some difficulty in terms of appeals and all the rest of it, there is high a degree of frustration. I do have a lot of empathy for persons in that situation. But I think we must be very, very careful in making assumptions. For example, even though someone who may have been on a claim or denied a claim is suicidal, we should not automatically assume that it's because of some difficulty relative to WCB. I think we have to be very, very sensitive in terms of how we look at those kinds of issues.
With respect to statistics, no, there are none available.
K. Jones: I agree with the minister that we need to be very sensible about these issues. There is probably a fairly simple way of equating that. You could take the provincial average and compare it to the numbers of persons who are under Workers' Compensation administration or even those who have applications in progress. I think applications in progress or under appeal are just as serious as those that are actually going through the process of Workers' Compensation rehabilitation and job programs. There appears to be a much larger percentage than the provincial average in the information I am receiving. Therefore it would warrant at least getting some verification of these figures so that we could start to find out why this is occurring.
I have some ideas as to why this is occurring, just from the frustrating experiences that people describe to me in their dealings with claims. There appears to be a most unusual harassment of some people as they try to go through their claims. I realize that it is not proper to cast aspersions upon all the employees of the Workers' Compensation Board, because I think there are a lot of very, very good and able people doing their jobs. But there are certainly a number who, either through the policies that are set out or through their own approaches to dealing with clients, have caused a great deal of pain and suffering to people who don't deserve that. They are already going through enough pain and suffering without having the bureaucratic system adding to their problems.
Hon. D. Miller: I do appreciate that the member has concerns about a particular issue, but I want to caution the member about making automatic assumptions. Sincerely, I think it is dangerous. The member made a statement about a higher rate of suicide. There is not one shred of evidence and absolutely no statistics to suggest that there is any merit in that statement. I think the member really needs to think very carefully about making statements for which there is absolutely no evidence. There may indeed be a suspicion in his mind, which is fair enough, but I think to suggest that that is the case is not particularly wise.
I appreciated earlier today that the official Liberal critic in his remarks -- and I thank him for his remarks -- praised in a very nice way the staff and employees of the WCB, who I think try their best to do a good job to serve the clients whom they're mandated to serve. I appreciated those remarks, which not only came from the Liberal critic but from the Reform critic as well, the former Minister of Labour.
Obviously it is not the policy of the board to have its employees harass claimants, and I don't think they do. I think there are some difficult and sensitive issues and frustrations that do arise. There's no question about that. We will do our best, and the board will do its best, to try to deal with those in an appropriate manner. If the member has specific information that he thinks is important with respect to this issue, I
[ Page 15251 ]
really would urge the member to contact Mr. Parker, the president of the board, and provide him with any information that he may have. I'm sure that your issues will be treated seriously.
K. Jones: I don't make the statements I just made idly. I have many indications from both our task force tour of the province and my direct contacts with many members of the working force who are currently injured and who have been suffering from long-term disabilities as a result of workplace injuries. I come from a background of having served almost 20 years as a member of the union. I served as the shop steward for much of that time and as a chairman of the safety committee for a couple of years as well.
As you say, it is something you can claim that there are no statistics for, because there hasn't been anybody recording the statistics on it. But the fact is that there is a definite concern, and I would suggest to the minister that he seriously look at gathering those statistics and finding out why that occurs. Just as ICBC tries to resolve the causes of death due to automobile accidents, I think we have to seriously look at what causes death as a result of persons trying to get processed as a result of an industrial accident.
The industrial accident process that workers' compensation was established for was intended to be on a no-fault claim basis so that the worker at any time would be compensated equivalent wages for the time that they were not working and also for the health care treatment and rehabilitation they required to get them back to close to where they were before. It doesn't seem to be occurring for the more complex situations. We have situations such as the one I have here, where the claimant was a diver. He was working on a boat, came up too quickly and was ascertained by the skipper, who was his employer, not to require treatment. Then the next day he was still suffering difficulties and got admitted to hospital, where he was identified as having a problem from the lack of proper depressurization. This ultimately ended up in him having, as the doctors identify it, some brain damage. He did some part-time work, and that was utilized as a means of saying that that's what he was entitled to in wages. There was a settlement made, and that settlement would have given him the back pay he had owing to him for quite some time.
[4:45]
A month later, this person was informed that his claim had been turned down and that he wasn't going to get that money, nor was he going to get the continuance of a training program so that he could set up his own business, which is what he wanted to accomplish. As of this week, this gentleman has been cut off from all funds and is now applying to Social Services so that they will take over and provide funds for him to live. Because of the low amount of funds that he would get from income assistance, he is now faced with probably having to default on his mortgage.
Divers are not low-paid persons. But by the method used of averaging a person's income over the year rather than taking.... What has always been understood by most workers is the fact that they would be paid at the hourly rate they were earning at the time. There seems to be a method used which tries to avoid making the payments that people are justified in having.
This is not the first case I've had; others of a similar vein have been brought to me. It appears that these methods -- reducing the amount of pension or reducing the amount of payment for the determination of the budget for training purposes -- are not the right way to deal with this. This person was told that because he was given a minimum-wage level, there wasn't a sufficient budget for him to be given any training. He was expected to get a minimum-wage job, and that's all he was entitled to. I will leave it at that for the moment and give you a chance to comment.
Hon. D. Miller: In respect to this particular question in the estimates debate around WCB, I think I tried to acknowledge at the outset that by its very nature the system will produce people who are not satisfied for a variety of reasons. I thought the members had some understanding of that. I also indicated that there is an extensive appeal network, and files are never closed. If workers feel that they have not been dealt with, I indicated that.... If the member cares to look at the statistics book, he will see cases that are still there from many years ago.
Hon. member, it's a bit too much to take. Let's start with the Liberal report on the WCB. What does it recommend? It recommends -- let's make sure Hansard is clear on this -- reducing benefits for workers. That's what the Liberal Party here in British Columbia has produced by way of a report on how to "fix the WCB system" -- reduce benefits for workers.
Let's look at who advises the Liberal caucus. The chief adviser to the Liberal caucus is Mr. Grant McMillan, who used to be an employee of the board. I believe he runs a company that probably specializes in acting as employers' agents and, on behalf of employers, putting in appeals on claims, to deny workers their claims. And they're the people who are giving advice to the Liberal caucus.
Let's look at social services. What is the Liberal solution in British Columbia to the issue of the people who unfortunately land on social assistance in British Columbia? Do you know what the solution they're proposing is? Cut them off -- cut them off social assistance. What is their position on minimum wage? In a letter they sent to every lawyer's office in British Columbia seeking corporate donations, the Liberal Party of British Columbia said: "What business can afford to have a minimum wage as high as $6.50 an hour?" We know from statements made by the leader of the Liberal Party that they will cut the minimum wage if elected. They will reduce the minimum wage from its current $6.50 an hour to who knows what.
Believe me, hon. member, I am sensitive to the problems you raise with respect to individual workers. I've been there, I continue to be there as the Minister of Labour, and I read about those cases. I am advised about those cases, and I often feel frustrated because I don't have an answer that will satisfy some of those people. But I will not take advice from Liberals. The only solution they've proposed in terms of some of the social problems we face in this province is to pick on the poor, cut minimum wage, cut Social Services and take advice from those who want to deny workers' claims. It is a little too much to take.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
K. Jones: In an attempt to bring some resolution to the serious problems faced by workers in this province, I've never seen or heard so much political posturing or total stretching
[ Page 15252 ]
and distortion of the facts of a report as that just made. The minister's statements are full of errors. If he would read the report, he might have some actual information to report, but to try to bring a scurrilous attack upon a report that was prepared, not by one adviser -- who wasn't an adviser.... Mr. McMillan was not an adviser to that report, but was only a submitter, as were so many others: workers, disabled workers, union people, former employees of WCB, WCB staff and management, all of whom were consulted. It is most improper that the minister should bring aspersions upon all those persons who honestly brought forward their viewpoints and their concerns about the mess that the WCB was in and still is in.
I have been trying to deal very, very much in a controlled manner with the concerns of the workers, and I am very, very disgusted that the minister should then try to take advantage, trying to sling some political agenda into this debate. I'll sling with you if you want, Mr. Minister, but I am more interested in the interests of the working people in this province. It appears that you're not.
G. Farrell-Collins: The critic for Skills, Training and Labour is on her way. I just left her in her office, and she'll be in here momentarily. I wonder if we could hold for a second until she gets here. I'll go drag her down the hallway if she's halfway.
The Chair: Any further debate from any other source? We'll take a short break.
L. Reid: I'm delighted to participate in the debate this afternoon for the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour, because this is an area that I'm absolutely passionate about. Certainly having been a teacher and school administrator, I often had the opportunity to prepare students for some kind of post-secondary opportunity. What I always found, and what always fascinated me, was that the system tended to be very, very fragmented.
The Liberal caucus is looking for some kind of seamless system that allows students to bring their credits together. It also allows them not to have to repeat or hop through hoops unnecessarily so that the system looks like it's focusing on the student and attempts to focus on the student, as the customer.
Many, many students today don't believe they're served well by post-secondary programs. We will go through the Skills Now components with the minister and, hopefully later on this evening, touch on the college and university components and attempt to bring some closure to the debate.
In terms of a general sense of where the minister is headed, I do believe that this ministry is looking at creating a seamless system. Perhaps the minister could touch on what pins have been put in place, if you will, around a seamless post-secondary system.
Hon. D. Miller: I neglected to mention, and just want to for the record, that assisting me in the previous round of discussions was my assistant deputy minister, Don Cott. I had introduced my deputy, Claude Heywood, and Gary Martin, my ADM, but just for Hansard. Helping me through this today are my deputies, Garry Wouters, Jim Crone of finance, and Tom Austin of programs. We'll try to answer all the questions.
There's an old joke going around: do you ever get caught in a seamless web? I thought it was funny. I got a chuckle out of one of my caucus members, so it can't be that bad.
K. Jones: Yes, but you had to tickle him to do it.
Hon. D. Miller: Yes.
Member, your question is very, very broad, and it invites a lengthy answer.
D. Schreck: Spare us. [Laughter.]
Hon. D. Miller: I note that got a bigger laugh than my joke.
K. Jones: It's nice to have your colleagues supporting you.
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, he must have heard that speech before.
Who can argue with motherhood and apple pie? I can't, and I won't attempt to. I think we are making some pretty good efforts, and I think we've been successful with respect to a "seamless system." It never will be entirely seamless, but the laddering between our K-to-12 system, our college system and our university system is fairly well defined. We do, of course, have a permanent committee on admissions and transfers that works very diligently to ensure that that system is constantly improved. For example, if a student takes a course at a community college, that student can have the understanding that the credits are transferable to a university or even to another college. It's not perfect, but it's integrated fairly well to other systems across the country. In fact, we're moving much more strongly in an even greater direction in that regard.
[5:00]
I've cited this; I think I even cited it in the last estimates. Northwest Community College has a linkage between the applied programs and the high schools in the northwest. The applied technology programs are linked in and are obviously required for admission into the applied technology certificate program at the community college, which in turn is one of the requirements for moving on to the applied degree program at the University of Northern B.C.
Beyond that and more on the European model, people who have a qualified trade, in some trades, are given credits for entering into the certificate program at Northwest Community College. That's a first, not something we normally have in this province, and we are going to expand those kinds of opportunities. I suppose the single system is one thing, but the notion of lifelong learning is more firmly entrenched in our society -- that no matter where they happen to be at the current time, people will have opportunities to acquire further post-secondary training.
Particularly through the use of the innovation fund that we established last year under Skills Now, we have moved and are again moving more in the areas like prior learning assessment, where, without the benefit of a particular certified skill -- whether it's a degree, a certificate, a trades qualification or whatever -- there is an opportunity to assess individuals on their knowledge base and then use that in terms of credits for application or entry into some post-secondary program. The emphasis is there almost in terms of a mandate. The system is working in a reasonably good way to be eternally vigilant with respect to that single system. The member might have some more specific questions.
[ Page 15253 ]
L. Reid: Yes, I do have some more specific questions as we proceed through the estimates debate, and I have probably just one or two more general comments that I would like to place on the record for discussion.
One of the other areas that we have been exploring in some detail is the necessity for partnerships and alliances within post-secondary education. I know there are some excellent examples, such as Malaspina College and the Honda corporation looking at how best to create some wonderful opportunities for students.
What I'm looking for from the minister is perhaps an extension of that kind of thinking. Is it this minister's interest or the ministry's direction to proceed with that kind of involvement? I think that will create some additional, more interesting learning opportunities than perhaps we have had in the past. If I can ask the minister to comment.
Hon. D. Miller: It appears to me that the Liberals are looking to the government for leadership. The member clearly must have read the outline of our Skills Now program, because we are about a year and a half ahead of the Liberal Party with respect to that initiative.
D. Schreck: Well, actually, they cancelled their conference, but they are going to try to set policy.
Hon. D. Miller: I don't know anything about that, but we have been doing what the member is talking about for quite some time. The very formation of the Skills Now initiative was a partnership. I'm not certain, but I think the member was there at BCIT, where we brought together business, labour, educators and communities to examine our system and to determine what was wrong. That's why we have Skills Now. As a government, we strongly believe in the partnership, and I'm delighted that the Liberals are looking to us for leadership in the area of post-secondary education and training. I have some concerns, however, but perhaps we might canvass those as we get into the debate.
L. Reid: All that was interesting, but it certainly was not a response to the question I posed to the minister. The question specifically was: does the ministry have plans to further that level of partnership? A simple yes or no would suffice.
Hon. D. Miller: As indicated, it is in fact the very heart of our post-secondary system and of many initiatives that we're undertaking. Even today in the House, I tabled a bill, the Royal Roads University Act, that expresses that very clear partnership. The report we commissioned with respect to Royal Roads talked about a partnership. All of the programs we're engaged in, both in my ministry and some under the Ministry of Education, are partnerships. If the member is not aware of those programs, I would be delighted to run through, perhaps just in a cursory way at this point, but I'm quite prepared to get into more detail with respect to those programs. Let's talk about the partnership with the post-secondary institutions. Instead of just saying, "Here's your normal grant," we said: "Here's some money for growth and inflation, but we're going to hold back the rest of it, and you come to us and show, through innovative ways, how many more students you can accommodate." As a result of that kind of approach and of other programs we have instituted, we've produced more than 9,100 full-time post-secondary seats in British Columbia this year. It's a remarkable partnership that has paid amazing dividends.
We've done a quick response training program, which is a very, very successful program -- very modest but very successful. We put in place partnerships with workers and industries and community colleges. I previously cited the example of Canadian Woodworks in Prince George, in collaboration with CNC, delivering computer training to the workforce at that very good value-added wood manufacturer. There are many others around the province. We have levered significant dollars.
I can talk about our equipment replacement or acquisition fund that we pioneered on a fifty-fifty matching basis, with $6 million initially. In year one, we allocated that in a shadow budget to all of the institutions and said: "Take that out and leave the 50-cent dollars; get the private sector to contribute." That money was fully committed, and as a result of that, many of our institutions have new equipment and machinery -- machinery that is more modern and relevant to the kind of training that's required.
We're partnering with business in terms of the welfare-to-work strategies. We've had some very good success working with business sectors that have agreed to hire individuals on social assistance. They carry with them a training credit that the employer can access in exchange for a defined training plan and some commitment to longer-term employment. There are just an array of successful programs under the broad heading of Skills Now that -- everyone of them, I think -- could be described as a partnership.
I'll stop there. Those are just some of the programs that produced significant benefits. It appears that while the B.C. Liberals appear to want to emulate what we are doing as government, I don't think they've quite reached our standard yet. But perhaps the member might want to defend the Liberal position as defined thus far with respect to post-secondary eduction.
I do have some concerns about some of the very real threats that exist for our post-secondary system. This government has expanded funding for post-secondary, both on the program or operation side and on the capital side. We have built new campus buildings at universities and colleges. I must say that not once in any of those projects has a Liberal MLA supported it. That is a pity; it is a shame -- except one. The member for Surrey-Cloverdale came up to me when we announced our new technical university in the Fraser Valley, congratulated me, and said: "Mr. Minister, I'm extremely happy. You've done the right thing." He was immediately criticized by the Liberal post-secondary critic, on the spot.
That's a bit confusing, but some say life is confusing. I'm sure those are issues that the voters are interested in....
D. Schreck: They had to check with their Conservative consultant.
Hon. D. Miller: Perhaps, as my hon. friend from North Vancouver suggests, the consultant for the Liberal Party, who has just been following the Conservative Party of Ontario around and learning how to attack the poor, has some new ideas for the Liberal caucus here in British Columbia. No doubt, in time we will see that.
[ Page 15254 ]
I am interested in the Liberal position on some of these issues. I think the fact that we're looking at a potential -- not a potential; it's real.... Their cousins in Ottawa are going to cut funding for post-secondary education by a dramatic amount. That's going to result in a potentially dramatic increase in tuition fees for students here in British Columbia. Much to my chagrin -- I'm somehow fumbling through my notes here -- low and behold, I have a clipping quoting the leader of the Liberal Party on that very important issue. No, this is the wrong clipping; this is the one where the Reform say we can't afford medicare. Well, it's pretty difficult to tell the difference these days. I'm sure I have one here. Here it is.
The headline is: "Students' Message a Hard Sell." Do you know why? They were talking to the leader of the Liberal Party. They said: "Look, we're quite concerned. Tuition is going up, the federal Liberals are cutting funding for post-secondary education and students already face massive debt loads when they come out of our institutions. This is a barrier to people going on." And what did the B.C. Liberal leader, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, say? He said that while the students are right to protest, "We are not doing them any favours in avoiding the cash crunch this country faces." I'm sure they went away with a warm and fuzzy feeling from that advice. "We have to review all programs," the member for Vancouver-Quilchena told the Province. The article goes on: "But the students got support from the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour of the government of British Columbia."
I'm a bit concerned. Here's another news story: "The federal Liberals are cutting the basic, underlying principles of the Canada Assistance Plan, and the Prime Minister suggests that medicare was really only intended to deal with those..."
D. Schreck: Oh, that's the one where Warren Allmand had to show courage.
Hon. D. Miller: Yes. I think these are the kinds of issues that we need to have a good debate on in this province. I think it is important that political parties put themselves on record in respect to what they would or would not do. I don't know what the position of the provincial Liberal Party is, because they haven't cited it. But are they in favour of the cuts to post-secondary education that are going to be brought down by their fellow Liberals in Ottawa? Those are questions that we all look forward to some answers on.
L. Reid: I mentioned earlier that I had one or two more broadly based comments, and I will proceed before heading into some specific debates. One of the areas that I have tremendous concern around relates specifically to evaluation and measurement. I believe that government does have some responsibility to act as a catalyst, to demand excellence from students, to demand excellence from the system, to be decent providers of good public policy and, hopefully, to have some accountability around that in terms of how best to spend those taxpayer dollars.
What I'm looking for and what I'm not finding in the vast amount of material that has flown from this ministry over the last year is a commitment to measurement that is acted on and there are results available.... I have been part of the debate for many, many months, during which the commitment was kind of tendered out there into the wild blue yonder that, "yes, evaluation is a really good idea." What I found, and what still causes me concern, is that there really isn't any report. What troubles me further is the reporting-out time line doesn't seem to be available. I have no issue with the individuals who agreed with me on many occasions that evaluation is critical to the future of the programs. It will determine whether taxpayers' dollars have been spent in any useful kind of way. To ask those questions is good public policy. To pose the question about accountability is exactly what should be happening in this chamber and the larger House.
[5:15]
I trust that the minister will not take this opportunity to marginalize this issue again. I believe it's important if this minister and ministry are interested in getting to best practice. The rhetoric is usually interesting but doesn't deliver on commitment. Could the minister touch on evaluation, on where his ministry is headed and on how we will know when this ministry has achieved some level of success?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm always happy to talk about evaluation and administrative issues, but I very much suspect that the voters are interested in policy issues. I've always thought that estimates were an appropriate forum for some reasonably good policy discussion that generally highlights the difference, if there are differences, between political parties. While the member may wish to concentrate on administrative details, she may learn over time that her job is not to be an administrator but to be more of a policy developer.
But to answer the member's question, yes, we are doing a lot of evaluation of the Skills Now programs. The following programs with respect to evaluation have been in terms of priority: the assessment, counselling and referral -- that's including the workplace, institutional and community employment delivery arms, quick response training, community skills centres, labour market information, sectoral and small business training partnerships and apprenticeships. The first four are joint strategic initiatives being undertaken in cooperation with the federal government as part of the social security reform process, and their evaluations are being conducted jointly.
Another activity completed is an evaluation framework for a training and employability branch; the formative evaluation is to be completed by March 31, 1996. Ongoing is an evaluation of quick response training. It's in the field with a due date of April 30. That's being done by ARA Consulting Group Inc. Bids have been received for a formative evaluation of the sectoral and small business training partnership program in 1995.
In addition to that, if the member is interested in looking at other evaluations, the B.C. Labour Force Development Board has done some evaluation of some of the programs, but not in-depth, and that work is ongoing. The College-Institute Educators' Association has a fairly extensive evaluation of the Skills Now programs in their latest publication. It contains some criticisms of their approach, but on balance, I think it correctly deals with the major programs.
So evaluation is very much a part of what we do, bearing in mind that we put these programs together based on the partnership that I talked about. They weren't dreamt up by politicians in isolation or by people from the administrative side of the ministry in isolation; they were put together in partnership. I talked about the BCIT conference; that's where those ideas came from. We took them and developed them into programs.
[ Page 15255 ]
The member may be aware that we are now advertising some of those Skills Now programs on television. I hope we will do more of that, because it's important that the public be informed about the kinds of programs that are available. I think we're completely on track with respect to public expectations.
I think we're completely on track with respect to the demands of our economy and the needs of British Columbians, both young and not-so-young, with respect to training opportunities. It's tied into our overall policy framework, which I think is very, very important. It commits the government to making significant expenditures on the capital side -- I have mentioned previously college buildings, university buildings, those kinds of things -- as well as making significant investments in individuals, making sure that they have the opportunity to acquire the skills they need and that the economy is demanding.
I spoke last year about a mismatch between the demands of the economy and skills. I notice that the Liberals in their paper have now borrowed a rather pale imitation of the Skills Now document, and they've put that out and adopted it as Liberal policy. It's somewhat disheartening to note that the Liberal policy calls for the privatization of the public system. Perhaps that's an issue we may want to discuss while we have the opportunity here.
L. Reid: I heard the minister suggest that there was an evaluation which was completed on April 30, 1995. Could the minister indicate when that is available? It would be most helpful if a copy could be shared with the opposition.
Hon. D. Miller: As the information becomes available, I'm sure we would be prepared to share that.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's response. What I'm attempting to nail down is some kind of time line as to when it might be. If indeed it was completed at the end of April, are we hoping to have it by September, December...? Or again, are we moving into the next fiscal year?
Hon. D. Miller: We will try and get it tomorrow.
L. Reid: The estimates debate certainly turns up some interesting responses.
In terms of the other evaluation that the minister said would be completed by March 31, 1996, I'm wondering what the scope of that evaluation looks like and if there's any ability on behalf of this minister or ministry to provide interim reports. It seems to me that if we wait until March 31, 1996, for some kind of comprehensive document, close to two or two and a half years will have elapsed. It seems like a fair chunk of time. Is there a reporting-out mechanism in place to provide the public with an interim report?
Hon. D. Miller: We have lots of reports, and if the member.... Speaking generally, if you want reports on any particular program or you want to know how they're doing, what the success has been, what the FTE count has been, where the programs are being delivered -- any of that -- just give me a call, and we'll.... But I don't know that we want to be too general. If the member has some specifics.... For example, I can give her a report on the deliverables of the 1994-95 Skills Now. If she wishes that, I can give it to her in short form. I can pass it over right now if the member would like it.
I think the real issue is that we've started something that is unprecedented here in British Columbia. Skills Now -- no government before us has tried this broad-based approach to skills delivery and training, post-secondary education. I think the real issue is that it's under attack; the system is under attack. Why did we have 15,000 students on the lawn of this building here? Because they're worried sick about the impact of the Liberal cuts to education.
It amazes me that the Liberals have now put out a White Paper that suggests that they want to privatize the system. They want to bring in a voucher system, and they want to transfer, as their federal cousins like to do, from the public system to the private system. They want to undermine the public education system that's taken years and years to build up in this province, and they don't seem to care that students are going to pay a dramatically higher price. Those are the things we're fighting.
I'm quite prepared. We've got staff. We'll do evaluation reports until the cows come home. We can do all the evaluation reports, but if the system is under attack and disintegrating as a result of that attack, it seems to me you've got to turn your mind to that.
I'd like to hear where the Liberals stand -- it's important. Why have they not made one peep about those federal cuts? Why has their leader gone out and told students: "Too bad, you're going to have to pay"? Why have they introduced a policy paper that now sees the privatization of the public system?
K. Jones: You're the minister. Why don't you do something?
Hon. D. Miller: We're doing our part. We're fighting, but it's awful hard to fight Ottawa when the Liberal Party in British Columbia is undercutting us every step of the way. It's pretty hard to fight. As much as I tried -- I think I tried the last time we started these estimates -- I gave an opportunity to the Liberals to stand up and deny, to say that's not true, to denounce their own policy paper that they put out. They have an opportunity. Take it! They have an opportunity to stand right now. I'm going to sit down right now and give the Liberal critic the opportunity to stand up and denounce the federal Liberals for their approach to post-secondary funding.
L. Reid: Again, I'd like to return to the question that I posed to the minister. The scope of the debate was March 31, 1996. What will that evaluation look like and can we expect interim reports?
The minister has responded to the second part of the question that yes, there will be interim reports available. I'm asking a very direct question to this minister. On March 31, 1996, how will the success or failure of this program be reported out?
K. Jones: He has no evaluation program. That's why he keeps babbling on this.
The Chair: Order, hon. member.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm having some difficulty. We....
[ Page 15256 ]
L. Reid: You're having some difficulty focusing. Make mention of that for the record.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm having difficulty figuring out the question -- or the rationale behind it, I suppose. Look, we are doing all kinds of evaluations. I have said that we are prepared to share those. Those evaluations are not done in isolation; they are done with the partners. If we have information or if the member seeks information on any particular program or broader evaluations of the work we're doing in the ministry, let me know, and I'll be happy to share it. As for how it's going to be and what form it's going to be, don't ask me. I don't pay attention to what kind of paper it's on. But the information will be available. We'll make it available to the member.
L. Reid: What this minister is having difficulty doing is focusing on the question. This is not a complex question when you are charged with the responsibility for expending the taxpayers' dollar. I'm asking this minister how he intends to report out. Am I interested in the quality of the paper for the report? No. That was just a darned silly response on behalf of this minister.
What I'm interested in is the methodology around the evaluation and why, if this program has been underway for.... By the time you intend to report out, minister, on March 31, 1996, this program will have been underway for well in excess of two years. It seems to me, because this is a new program and this minister will suggest to the public at large that he is indeed interested in best practice, that he has an answer to an evaluation question. Otherwise it is sheer speculation.
All this minister has done in this debate this afternoon is speculate. Frankly, this goes back to common dogma around this government, where they speculate wildly when asked to produce results. They are not able to do that. I think when you are charged with the luxury of expending the taxpayers' dollar, you have an obligation to report out in a useful way. Again, you've answered the part of the question that talks about interim reporting. Kindly provide me with the scope of the report that will be available on March 31, 1996.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, I think the question is nonsense. Nonetheless, let me try to answer it here. Let me run through the Skills Now program, which we are very proud of here and which we are going to fight darned hard to protect against the Liberals. I've already talked about 9,100 new FTEs. Where do they come from? I think it's buried in here somewhere. Let me find it, because I think it is important.
Here we go. "New training capacity created. The program, general expansion program, FTEs produced in 1994-95, 5,812. The FTEs target for 1995-96 is 2,376; new applied programs, 150 FTEs; combined skills, English language training programs, 120 FTEs; aboriginal programs, 180 FTEs; University of Northern B.C., 1,000 FTEs; quick response training, 548; community skill centres, 223; and community outreach programs, 940 -- for a total of 9,153 FTEs." That's performance, I'd say; that's not just talk. Let's talk about how we're looking at the programming side.
English-language training has been combined with skills training to propel candidates with English-language deficiencies into the job market. First nations coordinators have been staffed in public institutions to improve access for aboriginal candidates. Special programs have been developed for aboriginal students. All post-secondary institutions are implementing recommendations from campus safety reviews. All are improving access for students with disabilities.
[5:30]
In one year, six new applied programs were developed, creating 150 FTEs. This year, 11 new applied programs will add a further 210 FTEs. Six university colleges have been designated. Relevant new delivery systems improve access. Community skills centres ensure relevance by placing control in the hands of a community consortium. The Learning Highway Fund will harmonize technology networks used by institutions.
In 1993-94, an FTE was costing our government $7,806. In 1994-95, productivity measures introduced by Skills Now brought it down to $7,447. In 1995-96, an FTE will cost $6,807, a reduction of almost 13 percent. Talk about efficiency! Talk about using the taxpayers wisely to realize significant gains!
Private contributors have entered into partnerships with the public institutions to help reduce costs to the taxpayers. Skills Now added $6 million -- I've already talked about this -- in equipment and replacement grants. This has levered $12 million in total, $6 million of that from the private sector. Twenty-seven percent of the total contributed for equipment through placement came from the private sector.
I could go on and on -- sectoral training partnerships: number of projects, 25. That's where we're working directly with business. Number of workers, 24,328; number of businesses, 679. Small business training partnerships had 28 projects, 4,305 workers and 1,115 businesses. Quick response training -- again, a program I've already mentioned -- 85 projects; number of workers, almost 4,000; number of businesses, 42.
I could just go on and on. Part of the difficulty in Skills Now in terms of the communication side is that the programs are so expensive that it's difficult to communicate all of this information to the public. It's a bit shocking to me that the Liberal critic is not aware of it. I assume she's on our mailing list. There's literally a myriad of new programs, new students, more efficient administrations or public institutions, and that's where we're heading. That's where we put our money, our philosophy and our values in respect to post-secondary education.
I note for the record that despite the opportunity available to my hon. critic to stand up and denounce her fellow Liberals in Ottawa for the draconian cuts not only to post-secondary but to health care, she has failed to take it, as did the other Liberal critic who was in here a couple of weeks ago when we went through this exercise. My only assumption -- and I'll be forced to go to the public and advise them -- is that in fact the Liberals in British Columbia are no different than the Liberals in Ottawa. If you are in the post-secondary system -- whether you are a student, a board chair, a board member, an administrator or a teacher -- and there happens to be a change of government in this province, all I can say to you is: "Look out!" If you are a student, you won't be able to get in. If you are a teacher, you will probably lose your job. If you are
[ Page 15257 ]
an institution, you will be looking at downsizing. If the Liberals ever get their hands on the levers of power in this province, that is what will happen.
D. Schreck: I certainly know that on the North Shore we appreciate the work the minister is doing with the Skills Now program. Every time I go to Capilano College, which is located on the North Shore, I see new construction going on. The minister was present with me when we opened the new library at Capilano College. If one visits the campus now, there's another construction zone where the student centre is being built. That college now accommodates more than twice the student population of the institution where I did my undergraduate degree. I know that Capilano College is in receipt of special Skills Now funding for a variety of very innovative programs, be it animation in the film industry, video conferencing or several others.
For the first time in years, I did not receive a single complaint about students not being able to get a place in college. I did not receive a single complaint about the student loan program. The job that this minister is doing which I see on the North Shore, is outstanding, and I want to thank the minister for that.
The minister has an outstanding commitment, which I know we can look forward to, and that is to the day when Capilano College has degree-granting status. I want to thank the minister for meeting with the chair of the board of Capilano College, together with the chair and president of the faculty association. I found those discussions extremely fruitful, and those in the college community on the North Shore are looking forward to that continual growth leading to degree-granting status.
I note that we have somewhat passed our traditional time of setting this committee aside for an hour, so I now move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:35 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]