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 22, 1995
Afternoon Sitting (Part 2)
Volume 21, Number 12
[ Page 16041 ]
The House resumed at 6:55 p.m.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
F. Garden: I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
F. Garden: In the gallery are two very special friends from my constituency: Karen Gassoff and Jerry Mannerin. They're accompanied by my daughter Anne. The whole purpose of their visit here is that they're going to be married on the Legislature grounds on Saturday. I'd like us all to bid them welcome to the House and congratulations.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Section A for the purposes of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment. In the House this evening I call committee stage of Bill 26.
CRIMINAL RECORDS REVIEW ACT
The House in committee on Bill 26; D. Lovick in the chair.
On section 1.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to move the amendment previously distributed in my name.
[SECTION 1, by adding the following to the definition of "employer":
(k) any body, society or organization which is the recipient of moneys from the government.
(l) any individual, body, company society or organization which the government has granted a tax exempt status or which has been granted the ability to provide receipts for provincial tax deductions.]
The effect of the amendment is to broaden the definition of "employer," with the intent of expanding the application of this legislation. I will say that it is put forward as a friendly amendment, one that I believe supports the intent of the legislation but broadens it.
As I indicated in second reading, I'd like to see this applied particularly to groups that might as their primary function provide recreational services, training services and other services to children, and in which I think there is at least as much risk to children as in the institutions described in the legislation. So it is with the intent that groups that have adults in supervision of children would be covered by the legislation, either by way of tax-supported government involvement or by direct grants from government.
[7:00]
On the amendment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The amendment is well intentioned, and in principle I don't disagree with what the member is trying to accomplish. One of the challenges we had in respect to this legislation was dealing with the vast numbers of people who are going to be subject to the checks. In the bill as it is now before us, we're talking about some 280,000 people. I don't know what the additional numbers would be with this amendment incorporated into the bill. I do know that if we were to include all volunteers -- which I think is not quite what the member is talking about here, but is something we looked at -- we'd be talking about another 800,000. With this amendment we are talking about any organization which is in receipt of any money from government. That would be a large number of organizations. I don't know the number of people involved.
The tax-exempt status.... I suspect the member is talking about churches and other institutions of that kind. I suspect that some day that's where this act will go, but where we were are now is that we have 280,000 people. That's going to take us two years from proclamation, which presumably will be early in the new year, 1996. We're looking at '98 before we can even complete the process for the first phase.
There will be a number of startup problems, no doubt -- there always are -- and issues we will have to deal with. They're easier to deal with in a situation where we have clear authority -- we have the employers who are clear, whether they're school boards, day care centres or other direct or indirect government agencies, in respect of operating funds or governing bodies. I fully expect that whoever is government -- and I say this genuinely -- one of the issues that will be looked at partway through the implementation of this first two-year exercise will be: what's next and who's next?
So I say to the member that I don't disagree with him in principle, but we're two and a half years away, at least, from being able to handle this kind of thing, and we feel we just need to get the experience in a setting that's more doable than this might be. I don't reject the amendment because I oppose it; I reject the amendment because it may be more appropriate at another time.
J. Dalton: Thank you for the observation. I agree with what the Attorney just said -- certainly the intention is good. Let me cite an example whereby I could not support this amendment. I'm a member of the Capilano rugby club. It has received money from the government through community grants. We coach junior teams; in fact, we have people in our club who coach right into the elementary system. I don't think the member is intending to catch all of those people -- not that they wouldn't want to be subject to a search, I'm sure. That's just an example of why the net would be cast, and that's impossible to do at this time.
J. Tyabji: Before speaking to the amendment, I just want to mention how encouraging it is to see the Leader of the Third Party taking his responsibilities as a legislator seriously enough to be the critic of a portfolio. I wish we'd see more of that from leaders of some of the parties in the House.
Having said that, I actually do support the amendment. I think it's a good amendment. I understand the constraints of the financing and how cumbersome putting this into place is going to be. But I just want to put on record that in Vernon, in the Okanagan, we had a problem with the Boys' and Girls' Club. In that case, it was a clear example of someone who was in a position of trust. I don't think someone in the Boys' and Girls' Club would be captured. Maybe the Attorney General could let us know if that person would be. And to what extent was there consideration for the staff and senior administrators of churches to be captured?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I thought the member was simply supporting the member for Peace River South, but she proba-
[ Page 16042 ]
bly had a question, and I was busy engaged in something else. So if there was a question there, I apologize, and ask the member just to repeat it quickly.
J. Tyabji: The question was whether or not the staff of organizations like the Boys' and Girls' Club would be captured as the bill is currently written. If not, did the Attorney General consider that that would be phased in at some point? The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, of course, can amend this act. I also asked about churches, and whether or not there was discussion about churches being captured.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Boys' and Girls' Club is not covered. They're not in receipt of operating funds, and therefore at this stage -- and this goes back to my answer to the member for Peace River South -- it's not going to be considered. That doesn't mean that, as the program expands, they wouldn't be considered at some point in the future.
Amendment negatived on division.
C. Serwa: I move the following amendment:
[SECTION 1, that the definition of "employer" in section 1. be amended by adding the following paragraph:
(k) any society, business, charity or other organization or body, whether incorporated or not, which routinely places individuals in a position of trust with respect to the person or persons of a child or children.]
The amendment is very similar, but perhaps slightly different. The intent of the amendment is, again, to expand the definition of "employer."
On the amendment.
C. Serwa: There are a number of reasons for this particular amendment. In spite of what the Attorney General said about the difficulty of the challenge, it has been my experience, especially with the RCM Police and the computer search required for a firearms acquisition certificate, that it is not a major challenge. We're talking about convicted offenders, and there is a mechanism through the use of computers to search very quickly. I'm also concerned about incorporating all individuals to be subject to this legislation, be they in the public sector, in the private sector or volunteers.
The third reason is that on the basis of a previous bill with a similar intent that was brought to this Legislature by the former government, the bill will not succeed if challenged in a court, because of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It won't succeed, because we're only selecting one group of individuals. The former government wrote one up specifically: the Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 1991. We were looking at one group in society, and on that basis the Attorney General's staff advised us that it wouldn't stand the test of the Charter.
My concern is that the philosophy, principles and intent of this bill are very good indeed, and I would certainly hate to see it unable to withstand the Charter. By focusing on only those individuals in the public sector, I suggest that although you're expanding the realm, you're still not capturing all of those in positions of trust or authority in the proximity of children.
It seems to me that perhaps some sort of accommodation.... Rather than instantly checking tens of thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of individuals, realistically there could be some sort of progressive check made through the computer services of, let's say, the RCM Police. We can facilitate this. The challenge may be a bit too enormous, but on the other hand, my concern is that a Charter test may preclude this bill being utilized by the government.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We have very carefully canvassed the question of the constitutionality of the legislation, and we are assured, as best as can ever be determined prior to actually having a judge make a decision, that this is Charter-proof, whereas the advice at the time was that the legislation aimed specifically at teachers was not. I don't want to go into all the reasons.... But obviously we are talking here about everybody who is in the public sector or service, or who is funded by it for operating purposes, and also all licensed bodies, so it is not aimed at one particular group. That constitutional issue, I'm sure, is not a difficulty. That's the advice I have been given.
I guess that for the rest of it, it goes back to the overall question of volume. We have a 24-month implementation plan for what is in the legislation -- for the groups that are in the legislation. I'll just give rough numbers; I won't give precise numbers. We hope that we will proclaim on January 1. We hope to check about 19,000 records in the first three months of next year, and in the next three months after that -- through April, May and June -- another 40,000, almost. Then in each quarter over the two-year period, the numbers are: 42,000, 31,000-plus, 23,000, 48,000, 40,000 and 34,000. Because it is grouped into various employee groupings, it doesn't balance exactly. Obviously there will be overlap one way or the other in respect of this implementation.
That volume of 30,000 to 40,000 is all the system can handle and all we'll be able to do. So even if we were to add to the scope to include a million people, we would still then be talking about being able to process perhaps 150,000 per year, if it's all running well and properly, so we're still a long way off. We want to make sure that we get it right. We've made these choices that will be limited to those groups. They're definable, they're clear and they're specific -- and, I think, they're justifiable.
That's not to say that the groups the member would like to include will not be appropriate at some point. I sure wouldn't argue that. My view on this is that with anybody who is in a position of trust with children, we need to know that the position of trust is going to be honoured. This is not an argument between us about the principle; this is an argument about process and timing.
Amendment negatived on division.
J. Tyabji: Following the discussion that's happened so far, is there a provision for voluntary compliance with this act by some of the organizations that have been brought up by the two previous amendments? If so, how would that occur?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm smiling, because the reason I didn't hear the member's question earlier is that I was asking my staff that very question. It occurred to me that it might be the next logical question from the member. I was asking that then and didn't hear the question.
The answer is no, there isn't. It struck me as a good question and one that needs to be addressed at some point,
[ Page 16043 ]
but it is not addressed in this legislation. In other words, if the Boy Scouts or any other group came to us and said, "We want to be included because we like the protections available in the statute, and it's better than what we do or could do now," we aren't in a position at the moment to be able to do that -- again, because it's not in the legislation.
The reason it's not is also because we have a priority listing here, and we wouldn't be able to get them in until the third year in any event. We'll have a couple of sessions, I expect -- '96 and '97 -- that will give plenty of opportunity for whoever is on this side of the House to deal with the issue.
[7:15]
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to inject into the discussion at this point a plug for some form of sexual predators' registry. It seems to me, as we look at the notion and the challenges that the minister identifies in moving to the examination of individuals beyond government service, to be rather a broad acceptance of the notion that for people working with children, if they have a history that would suggest the possibility of abuse, there should be some way of parents and children knowing and being prepared. I have for some time now been a proponent of a sexual predators' registry, one with safeguards built in for people who have been convicted and apparently rehabilitated, and another set of standards for people who have, for a whole host of reasons, either failed to attend rehabilitation or have, to the knowledge of agencies, not been rehabilitated.
I understand that this probably isn't the right spot to put it in. I recognize that and won't belabour the point. But I do want to say that if the volumes become so challenging, it reinforces the argument for a more active involvement by way of a registry. I'll leave it at that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We'll both be out of order; I support the notion of a registry. But the work we've done on that indicates that it is really of no use to have a provincial registry. We need a national registry, because of the mobility. I have been pushing the federal Department of Justice to do that. They're working on it; I think it's something that we will see. I don't know what the timing will be. I don't know what Alan Rock has in mind about it, but there is a receptiveness to it there. That's far better than us working on a provincial registry
J. Tyabji: Just quickly, before we go any further, could the Attorney General please introduce the staff who are in the House with him?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I actually meant to do that at the very beginning. On my left are Lisa Burgess, who is with the criminal justice branch; Margot Tubman, who is in the public safety and regulatory branch of the ministry; and Eric Davies, who is with the policy and legislation shop in the ministry. My apologies to them and to members for not having done this earlier.
J. Dalton: Why is a municipality not in this definition of "employer"?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Again, it's volumes. I don't know how many municipal employees would potentially be in positions of trust with children; no doubt many would. This doesn't preclude municipalities from making their own decision that they're going to establish a criminal record check procedure. Some volunteer organizations already do that as a matter of course. I think the answer to all of these questions is volumes. We set ourselves a two-year project, and that's all we felt we could bite.
C. Serwa: I just want to add a few things that my colleague from Peace River South had mentioned with respect to the sexual predators' registry. My former colleagues in a former life developed a private member's bill which was not submitted in the Legislature, primarily because of the recognition of national requirements, because of interprovincial activities. As my colleague was just explaining to me, he felt, in his perspective, that the establishment of that national sexual predators' registry should have even taken precedence over the gun registration legislation that the federal government felt was a high-profile issue.
Standing in my name is another proposed amendment. It has to do with the definition of "employee." I will read the amendment into the record:
[SECTION 1. That the definition of "employee" in Section 1. be amended by adding the following:
"and additionally includes any volunteer who is regularly placed by the employer in a position of trust with respect to the person or persons of a child or children."]
The definition in the legislation only refers to employees. If there are volunteers within the purview of the employer, then they are not covered or accounted for under this act. It seems to me that if we're looking at public sector involvement, there are volunteers in the public sector who may be placed in a position of trust or authority with young children.
On the amendment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I guess there are two basic arguments against doing this at this stage. One is the numbers, and I've already made that argument. The other is that we're not in a position yet structurally to be able to handle the issue of who is going to be given the information. If you have a Little League team, for example, there isn't an employer or a licensed governing body that has some.... "Legitimacy" is the wrong word; I'm struggling for the right word. For a governing body, there's legislation; for employers, there's obviously a firm structure. For a lot of the volunteer organizations, it's pretty loose in neighbourhoods and communities. While I think that in the long run there needs to be coverage, in the short term we haven't been able to figure out quite how to do that and to protect privacy issues and individual's rights. Somebody who is a volunteer living in one house may have their record or whatever revealed to their neighbour next door who is the chair of the organization, the Little League club. Those are issues that are complex and difficult. Given that we're a few years away from being able to deal with volunteers in any event, the time to sort out those kinds of issues is really needed.
The Chair: Before I recognize the member, I must advise him that the Chair is having some difficulty. We have no record of another amendment to section 1.
C. Serwa: I submitted them earlier today to the Clerk.
The Chair: Thank you, member. I'm sorry, but we were struggling because we didn't know what you were talking about. Now we know.
[ Page 16044 ]
C. Serwa: Well, you know those Clerks.
The Chair: Please proceed.
C. Serwa: I still have my specific concerns if we're abandoning that. In listening to the Attorney General, it seems to me that his ministry has to develop criteria....
The Chair: I'm sorry, member. We have already dealt with the amendment that I have just been given. Is there another one? Did you have two amendments to section 1?
C. Serwa: Affirmative.
The Chair: That's our problem. We've only got the first one.
C. Serwa: I had given six copies of the two amendments.
The Chair: Excellent, thank you. Our error, not yours. Please proceed, member.
C. Serwa: After listening to the Attorney General, the question I have has to do with my belief that the Ministry of Attorney General has to define the criteria, and that the information going to other agencies or inquirers should simply be a yea or a nay, with no other expansion on the offending convictions. In that fashion, respect for the privacy of the individual is there. If the individual feels like appealing the ruling, the mechanism is there, and that is not an invasion of privacy. That will be between the individual and the Ministry of Attorney General. It seems to me that it becomes very arbitrary unless criteria are established by the Ministry of Attorney General for this specific situation. While it expands the numbers, I firmly believe that it should be simply either a yea or a nay going back to the questioning authority. That's all they should get, and you have to be responsible for the criteria.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's more to do with the information in the first instance rather than in the concluding instance. The member is right, as much as possible, that it's a simple yes or no. But in the beginning you're going to be given information about people by somebody you don't know, saying: "This person is a volunteer in my organization. I want you to do a criminal check on him and then tell me whether it's a yes or a no." We don't know whether this is a legitimate volunteer group; we don't know whether this is just a neighbour concocting something in order to spy on his neighbour. I'm exaggerating a little bit. These are issues that need to be sorted out, and we're just not able to do that. Those are issues that I would expect the ministry will be working on as we go through the rest of this.
There's no question.... For example, there are already groups that I know in various parts of the province where criminal record checks are being conducted in volunteer situations. I think that once those groups see how this legislation works, they will want to be involved in this. I would expect that the ministry will work with those kinds of groups to sort out protocols and procedures so that when the time comes, and if the Legislature decides it's appropriate, the expansions would then take place. We're simply not ready to do that at this point.
Amendment negatived.
J. Tyabji: A quick question to follow up on this. I'm not quite clear if, for example, chambers of commerce or economic development commissions would be captured under the definitions in paragraph (g).
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know of any chamber of commerce that gets its operating funds from government, so I think it's pretty clear that they're not covered.
J. Tyabji: Why was there no definition for physical or sexual abuse provided? Is that automatically coming under the Criminal Code? And if it is, why wasn't that referred to in the definitions?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There was long discussion about that issue at the legal drafters' stages, apparently. I don't know a lot about this because I haven't spent much time on that particular issue, but apparently there is a great deal of difficulty with a definition of physical and sexual abuse. I think that legislative counsel is working toward trying to find definitions for this and for other reasons in other statutes, but it was felt that it couldn't get it together for this particular legislation. In fact, I think it's not going to be necessary. The process that we have will enable.... It may be more subjective; that may be the member's point. But I think -- I hope -- the process provides sufficient protection so that those subjective decisions that do get made by the adjudicator will be appropriate in the final analysis. And if they aren't, then there's an appeal process, in any event.
J. Tyabji: It's actually kind of difficult to hear the Attorney General on this side if he lowers his voice. It sounded like he was saying that if the parameters of physical or sexual abuse are being subjectively determined by the adjudicator -- I would assume that's the person making the decision -- then there's a process to deal with that later. Is that correct?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We'll get to that later in the bill, but there is an appeal process. The question the adjudicator determines is risk. The decision isn't based on a specific definition of abuse -- sexual, physical or whatever -- it's based on risk. And following that, if somebody's unhappy or disagrees with the decision, they can appeal it.
J. Tyabji: That would make it clear that when there's a clear case of abuse -- physical or sexual -- it doesn't matter if you're being subjective. If there are four different people being subjective about it, then it's fairly clear-cut.
[7:30]
It sounds like the Attorney General is saying that there wasn't enough time to put that definition in here, or there was some dispute in legislative counsel about it. So it's not here, and it will be a subjective decision based on who's assessing the risk. It will also be a subjective decision by the panel of three members of the board. If it is true that it will be completely subjective, is it the intention of the Attorney General to leave it subjective throughout the operation of this act, or will there be, through regulation...? I know that the registrar will be making determinations or setting up some of the guidelines for the act later on. Will there be any clarification coming later?
[ Page 16045 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll try to speak more clearly and more loudly. It's important for the member to know that even the Criminal Code does not attempt to define physical or sexual abuse. The definition would evolve through case law. Any case law that has developed out of criminal cases would be used here for interpretive purposes, and that's how it will continue to evolve.
J. Tyabji: On the matter of criminal-record checks.... I know we'll get to it a little bit more in section 27, but just for the purposes of the definitions section, are the criminal-record checks...? You have to forgive my ignorance if the answer is something that's self-evident to people with more familiarity with this than I. Will they capture overseas convictions? If so, is that something that will delay the process? That comes into play later on in the bill.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is no, it will not include foreign records; but let me add a but or a however to that. The difficulty in many countries is the accuracy of their records and the failure of many countries to have the kind of system that we have here with CPIC. However -- another however -- we are now working with American authorities to try to ensure that we can in the future have an exchange of information between that country and ours in respect of those records. Once that's up and running, it will be integrated, and we'll be able to check those records as well -- but not yet.
J. Tyabji: If it would be possible for a third party to provide evidence that there were criminal charges in another jurisdiction, would that be taken into account?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The things you learn in committee stage! It's technically possible; I think that's the bottom line. I was just asking my staff. If somebody from Seattle, for example, applied for a job in Vancouver, and somebody else said that this person had a criminal record in the States that demonstrated that they should not be working with children in a position of trust, they would have a fairly rigorous exercise through the court system to prove that. This is something I didn't know until I was advised just now: apparently it would require that the fingerprints of the person who is alleged to have had the conviction in the States would have to match the fingerprints of the person here. Whether or not you'd get an agreement to actually have the fingerprints taken is questionable.
I don't mind admitting that I don't know much about this kind of issue. But even in regular criminal trials, it's something that doesn't happen very often. The ability to prove that kind of allegation, in effect, is what it is.
Rather than pursuing it that way, we'd be far better off putting our energies into trying to get a protocol agreement with the American states in respect of their records, or if their records are held nationally, doing it that way. That would be a better.... We've done that in other cases. In all kinds of other aspects of provincial programs in law, we are now entering protocol agreements with other states and provinces. That's the more effective way to go.
J. Tyabji: I was assuming that a criminal charge anywhere in Canada is automatically captured in a criminal-record check. I hope that's a safe assumption.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes. Anybody who has a warrant out, a charge or a conviction is on CPIC.
J. Tyabji: The Attorney General will remember that about four or five months ago there was a case of a man who had been convicted as a pedophile in England and had come to British Columbia. Where my question actually originated was that I met with some of the people who were trying to make that record relevant in B.C. That's why I asked that question.
We've talked a bit about the United States. It sounded like the Attorney General said, or at least I heard him say, that if a third party brought forward some evidence -- and let's use England as an example, because there was that one case -- of a conviction in another jurisdiction, there would be an application to the courts to have that made relevant. Is that correct? If so, who would make the application, because the Attorney General made specific reference to a court hearing?
The Chair: Just before I recognize the Attorney General, I must advise that I'm having difficulty connecting these questions with the definitions section -- so just a caution. Perhaps we'll pick them up at some other point in the bill, but at the moment it's not clear at all.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is asking questions that haven't been explored that fully before. That's good; that's what this place is for.
If the police were notified, then the police could deal through Interpol with Scotland Yard or whoever. If it was clear that this person was a pedophile -- records and the information could be demonstrated in a court -- then that information could be brought forward. I can't tell the member specifically quite how that would happen; this act doesn't establish procedures for that. But I'm advised that there are ways it could happen in those circumstances.
J. Tyabji: This will be my last question on this section. With respect to the registrar's role in this, would the registrar have some discretion, then, to determine where to go with that information? Would the police be informing the registrar if a third party...? For example -- let me back up -- it's a criminal-record check. The criminal-record check automatically goes to the police. The police then would provide some information to the registrar, who would decide what is done with it -- correct?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I just thought of an easier way to explain this. CPIC is a tool that the police use to keep track of people with a record. The police can normally obtain information about the record from the data on CPIC. If they get their information from another source -- another police agency in another country -- then they can deal with that in the same way. They can report that information to this program the same way as if it had come off the computer screen on CPIC. You just have to be able to prove that, in fact, that record is the case, and that this is the same person. I think the answer to that question is simple. If the police, either through CPIC or some other source, have the information that this person has a record, then this program can apply.
J. Dalton: Just one observation that I think might be helpful to the committee. The member for Okanagan East raised some interesting points with which, in a technical sense, I agree, but I think there is obviously a practicality here that doesn't work.
We're dealing in this discussion, I presume, with relevant offences. We're talking about Criminal Code offences in Can-
[ Page 16046 ]
ada. With all respect, even though we should be thinking of ways to cast the net beyond our borders, we can't do that legally. Relevant offences are identified by the law of Canada. United States law, for example.... Even though many Americans could very well be the ones we want to examine, we cannot be saying that somebody has been convicted in Washington State of an offence that we think could affect their working with children. We would have to be experts in Washington State criminal law to make that determination, and I'm afraid we can't do that. I want that comment on the record.
I think you raised a very good point yourself, hon. Chair. You were wondering where this discussion was leading. Well, I wanted to bring it back. Even though it's an important discussion, it isn't relevant to the bill that is before us.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
J. Tyabji: I'm still shaking my head about that comment in the beginning: "relevant offence." I think anywhere you get convicted it's a relevant offence. But having said that, on the "Purpose" section, obviously the Attorney General has chosen to deal specifically with people who have had a criminal conviction and would have a criminal record. When the Attorney General was drafting the "Purpose" section, was there any consideration given to those people who, although they may not have criminal charges, may be in a position of trust and may have abused that trust but haven't yet been charged for it? Or would that come under outstanding charges?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the member is asking whether you can take an investigation of someone and use that as opposed to waiting for charges, the answer is no, you have to wait for the charges.
Sections 2 and 3 approved.
On section 4.
J. Weisgerber: I would like to move an amendment that I circulated earlier.
[SECTION 4, in subsection (2)(b) by adding the following:
(i) only after reasonable effort has been made to notify the registrar and the individual in question;]
Let me say, before speaking to the amendment, that I had proposed making the amendment under subsection (4)(c), but in reading the bill a bit closer, it seems to me that it would be more appropriate under subsection (2)(b).
On the amendment.
J. Weisgerber: The intent of this amendment is to ensure that when a charge or a conviction is found by the registrar, the registrar first notifies the individual, rather than, as indicated in subsection (2)(b), "the individual and the employer, governing body or minister...." I think -- and we talked a little bit about it in second reading -- that in order to minimize the embarrassment that someone might be caused where an error occurred, it would be prudent that when a charge or some information that might be detrimental is found, the first response by the registrar would be back to the individual, to allow that individual to respond, saying, for example: "Gosh, it's got to be somebody else. Will you recheck? I've never been charged. I've never been convicted. I have an ongoing problem with an individual by the same name as me, where the confusion exists."
[7:45]
So I propose, under subsection (2)(b), to add a subsection (2)(b)(i) which would say: "...only after reasonable effort has been made to notify the registrar and the individual in question."
It would fit better there. It would flow through the rest of the subsections in this area. The intent of the amendment is to see, when a criminal check reveals something of concern, that the organization making the check first goes back to the individual who has authorized the check. I quite honestly can't see any risks to the people involved. I see there being from time to time, as there will inevitably be, errors. This would minimize the concern for all of the parties in the situation where an error exists. So that, again, is a friendly amendment, and I move it in that spirit.
On the amendment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is a complex procedure. I don't pretend to have it clear in my mind so much that I can have an exchange without seeking advice on this. As I understand it, the employer or governing body would not be told of the criminal-record check and the adjudication decision until after there is no longer any possibility of error -- in other words, after fingerprints and full verification. So if there is an error in the CPIC system -- if there is a difficulty with 10,000 John Smiths in British Columbia -- that wouldn't occur, because it would only be after the fingerprint stage that the employer or governing body would be advised.
For that reason, I think the.... I don't know whether the member was sure about that before proposing the amendment, but given that information, I wonder if the member still thinks the amendment is needed.
J. Weisgerber: The only concern I have, having heard the minister's explanation, is that it doesn't seem very consistent with the way the bill is written. The bill suggests that the registrar determines there is an outstanding charge. That's then reverted to an adjudicator, who must then notify all of the people listed.
The intent of the amendment is to achieve what the minister described as being the course of action. I don't think that the way the legislation is written is consistent with the intent of the minister. That's the reason for the amendment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Section 4(2) says: "If the registrar determines that the individual who is the subject of the criminal record check has an outstanding charge...." The determination can only occur after complete and absolute verification, including by way of fingerprint.
The Chair: Shall the amendment pass?
An Hon. Member: No.
The Chair: The amendment is defeated, then, or withdrawn -- one of the two.
J. Weisgerber: I'd be prepared to have it withdrawn.
[ Page 16047 ]
The Chair: For the record, we will note that the amendment has been withdrawn, then.
J. Tyabji: I circulated an amendment to section 4 as well. I seek to add a subsection (6) to section 4, which would read: "Notification under subsection (4) and written determination under subsection (5) shall be in confidence and shall remain confidential unless their contents are released under the provisions of another Act, or under the provisions of another section of this Act."
The reason I've put this in is that I note that the language in here is not specific about notification. Actually, the Attorney General made an interesting point when talking about volunteer organizations, such as a baseball league or something -- a Little League -- where it could be the neighbour next door. It could be an informal process.
I would be concerned, because I note that subsection (4) is specifically written for the possibility of a verbal notification, and that there doesn't have to be written notification unless there's a request for written reasons. And because of that, I would be concerned that.... As the Attorney General pointed out, there are going to be tens of thousands -- in fact, 280,000 -- criminal-record checks conducted in the next two years in order to come up to speed. If it does turn out that in haste people are calling to say, "Well, here's the results of the check," we wouldn't want that notification to be open to anyone in any way, shape or form, other than to the people listed to have that information, especially when we get to subsection (5), which says: "...must provide written reasons for the determination...to a person referred to...if the person so requests." I would especially like that to be confidential.
On the amendment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the member's concern, which is legitimate, is captured in section 6(3). That section is about use of information, and subsection (3) says: "Information provided under this Act must not be used or disclosed for any purpose other than...." The member hasn't persuaded me why this section doesn't accomplish what she wants to accomplish. No one can give information out; they can't give it to somebody who phones up for it, or that kind of thing. So I'm not quite sure how we haven't already done what she wants.
J. Tyabji: When I read through the act and I got to section 6, I noted that subsection (3) specifically says: "...other than the purpose set out in section 2 or in section 33 (n) or 44 (2) or (3) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act." I did note that. But in my reading of it, it didn't seem that that was adequate regarding section 4(4), because it says, "The adjudicator must promptly notify..." and it doesn't have a confidentiality provision. I would be concerned that the promptness which is specified might take precedence. For example, does the notification of the registrar mean the office of the registrar, or the human being? That's not specified. It could be that the notification, which must be prompt, would be provided to the registrar's office, and that would not necessarily be confidential.
In reading section 6(3) where it says, "Information provided under this Act..." it sounds like the information that they're referring to is the information for the purposes of the investigation or of the proceedings, but not necessarily a determination. Information is a much more loose term than the actual determination. Is the determination confidential? If so, it should be specified. That's why I moved that amendment.
Persuasive as the Attorney General may be, I don't see any protection. Everybody has the right to privacy, as this government recognized with one of their acts, and I would like, if anything, to err on the side of caution.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is talking about section 4(4). There are a limited number of persons who would be notified: the registrar -- the registrar is the registrar as defined in the Private Investigators and Security Agencies Act; that would be one person who is delegated to this, and there would be a confidentiality provision in respect of that person -- and, obviously, the individual, the employer or governing body, and the Minister of Women's Equality if it's child care. This is a very limited set of individuals who get the information. No one else can get it, and no one else can disclose it to anybody else, because they're governed by section 6(3). So with that, I actually think we have captured what the member wants us to capture, by way of section 6.
J. Tyabji: Well, one last crack at this, then. As the Attorney General knows, there are many, many acts in this Legislature that specifically allow ministers and public servants to delegate. If I had a situation where I was the subject of a determination, I don't believe I would have any recourse if it turned out that someone other than the human being who needed, I would assume, to be notified under this act were notified, if somewhere within that body there was an act that allowed any delegation -- the Minister of Women's Equality, for example; that doesn't necessarily mean the minister. I know the Attorney General recognizes that. There are many other acts. That's why I'd be concerned. No caucus is free of leaks, and that becomes the most confidential of bodies, as I'm sure the Attorney General is aware. Even in the political arena, you can't keep things confidential. So in terms of the privilege of the individual person who is the subject of the determination, I think it's important to be more cautious than the way it's written.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's a limited list. There's an absolute confidentiality provision. I suspect if anybody violated that confidentiality provision they would no longer have that responsibility, if in fact they still had a job. I would guess that the basic argument here is that it wouldn't be any more strengthened if we used the member's amendment or if we relied on the provision we have included.
J. Dalton: I listened very intently to this discussion. Quite inadvertently, I think the Attorney General is supporting an amendment that I have to come later. At least indirectly, I'm supporting the amendment of the member for Okanagan East. The Attorney General referred the committee to subsection 6(3). We should all note that subsection 6(3) is not an offence against this act, and that's the very subject of my amendment under section 28. So the Attorney General falls short by telling us that there are some guarantees in subsection 6(3), because there are no guarantees in subsection 6(3). So perhaps the Attorney General will be prepared to entertain and allow my amendment, and at the same time we can take care of the problem of the member for Okanagan East.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the member were prescient, he would know that I'm going to accept his amendment when we get to that stage. Therefore we fixed it.
[ Page 16048 ]
Amendment negatived.
J. Tyabji: Under subsection (1), will there be regulations to direct the registrar, and what does it mean when it says: "...with respect to the individual who authorized the criminal record check"? I'm having difficulty understanding that sentence.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure what the member means, because this means simply what it says in front of us. When the registrar receives the request, then the registrar has to carry out a record check in respect of the person for whom it is authorized.
J. Tyabji: I guess the registrar is receiving the criminal-record check authorization from the employer. Is that correct? That's why it's a little confusing, because it says: "...with respect to the individual who authorized the criminal-record check." So we're talking about the employee, rather than the employer. The wording is a little confusing.
I had asked another question: are there going to be regulations governing the registrar?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The authorization form in question is signed by the employee.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Right -- or the governing body.
The member is wondering whether there will be regulations or policy around this section. The answer appears to be that there don't need to be any. It's straightforward. Let me just go through the process. An individual will sign a form that they get at work if they are an employee or a prospective employee; if they are in a licensed body they'll get it from within the licensing body. They'll get a registration form, they'll sign it, send it in, the registrar will then do the check and then follow thorough the procedures in the act. So you don't need any regulations; you probably don't even need a policy in respect of this particular section.
[8:00]
J. Weisgerber: I want to ask the Attorney General to come back to the issue we discussed a bit earlier with respect to subsection (2). I read it again rather carefully in light of the minister's comments. It suggests to me that.... Let me read it out:
"If the registrar determines that the individual who is the subject of the criminal record check has an outstanding charge...the registrar must promptly
(a) refer the matter to an adjudicator..., and
(b) notify the individual and the employer, governing body or minister referred to in Part 5, as the case may be, that the individual has an outstanding charge...."
That doesn't at all suggest that the individual is going to be in contact earlier in the process. It says that as soon as the registrar determines that there's an outstanding charge, he must refer to an adjudicator and promptly notify all the persons and institutions listed.
I'm not convinced that the process would see an individual notified first, confirmed by way of fingerprint, etc. That was the specific intent of the amendment which I had introduced and was too easily persuaded to withdraw, I suspect. Having read it again quite carefully while the other debate was going on, I'll listen to what the minister has to say.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think that, on the face of it, the member has what seems like a good point, until and unless we know what "determines" means. It is all based on the word "determines" in subsection (2). I'm told that there is a very clear process about what "determines" means that requires, in fact, that at that stage.... Determination cannot happen until after the employee is notified -- because how do you get the employee's fingerprints unless you tell him that this is going on? In order to determine, as is required in subsection (2).... You require fingerprints before you can move on to be sure that this is the person you're talking about and then notify the employer. I think it's going to be very difficult to get this person's fingerprints without telling him that this is going on.
The flow chart that.... I'll show the member. This is entitled "Criminal-Record Check Process," and it looks a little bit like Snakes and Ladders. What the flow chart says -- this will be the kind of instruction to everybody; this is a document that people who use the system will be following -- is that, in effect, in order for the registrar to determine the individual who is a subject of a criminal-record check, the central agency requests fingerprint verification. The employee provides fingerprints to the local police, who forward them to Ottawa, the central agency receives the fingerprint results from the RCMP, and then one of two things can happen. First of all, the central agency advises the employer and the employee that no relevant record exists -- no problem. Alternatively, after that, the central agency informs the employer and employee that there is a relevant record and the matter has been forwarded to the adjudicator. In order to get the determination, you have to get the fingerprints, and to get the fingerprints, you're going to have to tell the employee.
I think that deals with the member's concern. If it doesn't, I don't know where we go.
J. Weisgerber: I don't want to try and put too fine a point on this, but I do think it's an important part; it's a kind of protection of privacy of people who may innocently be drawn into this. If, under sub-subsection (b), the word "individual" weren't there, I would be more inclined to accept the minister's argument that there was the presumption that the individual had been notified as part of the determination process.
I think what I'll do, for the sake of simplicity, is move the amendment.
[SECTION 4, in subsection (2)(b) by adding the following:
(i) only after reasonable effort has been made to notify the registrar and the individual in question;]
I move that amendment, and then we can deal with it as you wish.
On the amendment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I thank the member for doing that, and I'll vote no.
Amendment negatived on division.
J. Tyabji: With respect to subsections (3)(b) and (3)(c), I'm just wondering.... First, subsection (3) reads: "In making a
[ Page 16049 ]
determination...the adjudicator must consider..." and there are three factors that must be considered. The second one says that what must be considered is "the circumstances...including the age of the individual at the time...and the existence of any extenuating circumstances." Let's start with that. Where did this proviso come from?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: An excellent question. In fact, all three provisos -- (a), (b) and (c) -- came directly out of a court decision on this very question. The court decision was a 1983 B.C. Supreme Court decision -- McCartney v. Woodward Stores -- involving a decision by Woodward's not to hire on the basis of a criminal record. The court determined that three factors must be considered in determining whether a criminal record relates to an employment decision. The first was whether the behaviour associated with the offence would, if repeated, pose a threat of physical or sexual abuse to children; that's what the wording is in sub-subsection (a). I guess the wording is so similar.... This is a summary of the court's decision, so the wording in the summary is almost exactly the same as the wording in the section. The answer is that it came from that court decision.
J. Tyabji: Was the criminal record in the question of McCartney v. Woodward Stores a criminal charge or conviction that related to physical or sexual abuse?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The issue was, as I understand it, that somebody applied for a job at Woodward's, and there was a determination that there was a theft conviction. Woodward's said they were not going to hire this individual because of the theft conviction. There was an appeal to the Human Rights Council -- it would have been the council at that time -- and they made a determination. That question then went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court made a decision. I'll read what the judge had to say in respect of.... No, this is the board. I'm sorry. This is the Human Rights....
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The court cited and supported the words of the Human Rights Council of the day. The words are as follows -- the board concluded this and the court supported it:
"Whether a charge or a conviction is related to the occupation or employment of a person depends upon all of the circumstances of the individual case, including at least the following: (1) Does the behaviour for which the charge was laid, if repeated, pose any threat to the employer's ability to carry on its business safely and efficiently?" -- keep in mind this is a theft issue -- "(2) What were the circumstances of the charge and the particulars of the offence involved? For example, how old was the individual when the events in question occurred, and were there any extenuating circumstances? (3) How much time has elapsed between the charge and the employment decision? What has the individual done during that period of time? Has he shown any tendencies to repeat the kind of behaviour for which he was charged? Has he shown a firm intention to rehabilitate himself?"
It's from that decision of the court that this wording flows.
J. Tyabji: Was one of the reasons for following that court decision so closely that the determination that came out of this process might save harmless an employer if the employer had to take action against an employee?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The reason for relying on a court-based analysis of what kinds of questions should be asked is that if the section is challenged by anybody, it's more likely to be sustained.
J. Tyabji: I have to put on the record, then, that while recognizing and supporting the fact that the Attorney General has to make this section as strong as possible, I found it a little bit offensive. I'm not offended by the Attorney General, but when we're talking about physical or sexual abuse, most of the time we're talking about pedophiles, and to read that there may have been extenuating circumstances.... I'm assuming that the Attorney General will allow a registrar to give more weight to the charge if that charge is something.... Maybe I should back up a little bit.
There are many people who would make the argument that under no circumstances can you ever have an excuse for some of the physical or sexual abuse that may occur. What I would be concerned about is that we've had so many controversial decisions come out recently. Whether it's light sentencing, early parole or repeat dangerous offenders, people are saying: "Please don't take these things into account anymore for the following crimes." At the top of the list are crimes that involve children. I think the Attorney General recognized that in bringing this bill in.
Given the Attorney General's reputation for often championing the kinds of issues that we just spent the afternoon on.... When we talk, for example, about the issue of rape, I know that this Attorney General and this government have often come out -- both when in government and when in opposition -- saying: "There are some things for which there is no excuse. Don't give me any extenuating circumstances; don't tell me what the age was or any other factors." In subsection (c) they talk about the time elapsed, and I want to get into that in my next question. Could the Attorney General tell me if there's any direction there as far as when there can be relevant extenuating circumstances?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Ironically, this section is written in a way that will ensure that the goals the member wants achieved will be achieved. If we had included an absolute prohibition on some kinds of criminal activity without any discretion -- and the member cites pedophilia -- the courts would say that you cannot propose a law that doesn't provide any discretion. So there has to be discretion. We've provided a system in which there is discretion, but the discretion is going to be applied. You walk through the whole process, and all of the standards have to be met. People who are not pedophiles but who may have been involved in a brawl or something in a bar when they were 21 are going to be judged differently from somebody who has a long record as a pedophile.
You need the discretion for people who, in the adjudicator's view, do not pose a risk. If you were to say that this offence or this set of offences require that there be an absolute prohibition, and there's no discretion, then the history in this country is such that the courts would say that you as a legislature can't do that. There must be some discretion. What we've done is establish a really tight system, so the kind of person the member's talking about would never get through, but people for whom discretion is appropriate may get through, depending on the adjudicator's decision.
[8:15]
J. Tyabji: I guess the last question under subsection (3) is about section 4(3)(c), where we talk about "the time elapsed
[ Page 16050 ]
since the occurrence of the offence or alleged offence, subsequent actions of the individual, the likelihood of the individual repeating a similar kind of behaviour and any attempts at rehabilitation." The Attorney General has talked about the court decision that gave this.... In the evidence under section 4(3)(c), where would we be drawing from to put that evidence together? Would it be evidence provided by the individual? Would there have to be some records, for example, to show rehabilitation attempts?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The information could come from the individual or, if the employer of the individual or the governing body had some information, it could come from there, or it could come from a therapist, a psychiatrist or others who were involved in the rehabilitative exercise.
J. Tyabji: I'm only following the devil's advocate position because the Attorney General laid this out. If it turned out that some evidence hadn't been taken into consideration -- and this is the registrar we're talking about -- would that then leave them open to challenge the weight of that decision because section 4(3)(c) is there and because it says specifically, "...including, without restriction..." and then lists items -- in the event, for example, of an individual coming up and saying, "Well, I did see a counsellor three years ago, and that wasn't part of the information taken into account," and therefore the whole determination is invalid?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, it's the adjudicator who would make this decision, not the registrar. They are obligated to talk to the individual, so the individual has every opportunity to adduce the information. Then if all else fails, following a decision there's an appeal.
J. Tyabji: Under section 4(4), I note that verbal notice of the determination can be given to the individual. The other night in the Legislature we spent until 10:30 p.m., I think it was, on the Employment Standards Act. I'm just a bit nervous about verbal notice. One of the most contentious parts of the Employment Standards Act, which we actually thought was a good provision, was for documentation to be kept for seven years to save harmless those people who were participating in the process. In the event of it going to an appeal, why would verbal notice be given? Would there be a written record somewhere, even if that written record hadn't been provided? If there is a written record, for example, does the adjudicator have a written record even if they don't necessarily give it over? If they do, do they have a provision to hold on to it for roughly seven years?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: All the regular rules in respect of keeping documents apply; it's a seven-year provision under the Document Disposal Act, and that applies.
The Chair: Shall section 4 pass? The member for West Vancouver-Capilano.
J. Dalton: Sorry. Thank you, hon. Chair. I'm just juggling lots of paper around here tonight. It seems we have a bit of an avalanche of it.
I have two points I want to make. First, I'm a bit troubled by the word "behaviour" in section 4(3)(a). The case that the Attorney General cited, which was helpful, McCartney and Woodward Stores.... Of course, the behaviour would have been evidenced before the court in that case, but with a criminal-record search, the adjudicator will not know the behaviour of such that led to the conviction. For example -- and let's just take a hypothetical example, at least -- I am troubled as to why trespassing at night is on the list of offences. We don't know what behaviour led to the conviction of trespassing at night. It might have nothing to do with threats to children. So behaviour, I think, is an important point of the exercise.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The adjudicator very much will know the behaviour, because of the transcript of the trial and the information around it. If necessary, presumably they can talk to the prosecutor or others who were involved. But the records are something that the adjudicator would have to consider. Trespass by night, in lay language, is peeping Toms, I understand.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll let that one go.
J. Dalton: That's fair enough, and I appreciate that. But then the adjudicator or whoever is going to have to do a lot of reading. The Attorney General talked about taking two years to phase this in; we may be talking about two decades to phase it in.
The other point I want to ask about under subsection (2) is the outstanding charge that's referenced there. Has the Attorney General a legal opinion as to whether the presumption of innocence in the Charter of Rights is in any way compromised by someone with an outstanding charge? Keeping in mind it's pending only, there's been no trial and no conviction, has there been a legal opinion to substantiate whether that will stand a test?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There has, for sure.
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
J. Tyabji: I'd like to amend subsection (1). The reason I would like to do that is that I think the wording is subject to possible misunderstanding, at least as we go further down in the section. So I would move to amend subsection (1) by repealing the words "on which the adjudicator notifies the individual" and replacing them with the words "on which the individual is served with notice." The section would then read: "The individual who is the subject of a criminal record check may appeal the determination of the adjudicator under section 4 by serving the registrar with notice in writing within 14 days of the day on which the individual is served with notice of the determination." The reason that I would put that there is that obviously there's a difference in terms of notice. Notice could be a message left on the answering machine or it could be something in the mail.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The Attorney General is saying no. As far as I understood it, unless someone is actually served or the word
[ Page 16051 ]
"served" is used, then you don't have to have any verification that the person has been notified.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I understand the member's problem. I have the advantage that she doesn't. I know what the policy is and will be, and all of the rules around which the act will be governed. The notice must be in writing. It doesn't say that in the legislation. It can't be served verbally, it can't be served by way of a message on the telephone answering machine, it has to be served in writing.
J. Tyabji: Taking the Attorney General at his word that there will be service and it will be in writing, that's the intent of the amendment. So I can withdraw the amendment.
My second amendment is to amend subsection (3) by adding underneath "(b) convene a hearing" the words: "with due consideration to the nature and grounds of the request by the individual for the appeal." The reason I put that in there is that in subsection (6) the Attorney General has given the appeal panel liberty to determine its own procedures, whether or not they receive or accept evidence and whether or not it would be admissible in a court of law. Obviously we want to give the appeal panel as much power as possible. However, under subsection (3), it says: "On an appeal...the appeal panel must review the adjudicator's determination and any records on which it was based and may, but need not, do one or both of the following in conducting the review: (a) request additional information...convene a hearing."
It would seem to me that if an individual who received a determination felt that there needed to be an appeal, and if that were not a frivolous appeal, then there would be some grounds for that. If there are grounds for that appeal, then there should be something.... It doesn't have to mean that the appeal tribunal or panel is compelled to have a hearing or is compelled to receive evidence; but they should be compelled to take into consideration the nature and grounds of the request for the appeal. Otherwise we could end up with an appeal process where the appeal panel simply reviews what the adjudicator already reviewed and doesn't take anything new into account, and the person would still feel aggrieved at the end of it. So it's almost a form of protection.
On the amendment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Everything the member has said is right. It is supported by us and is in the policy, although the policy is still being developed. There were a huge number of issues of this kind -- many more than we will even note tonight. If you wanted to make the statute this thick, we could have put it all in here. That's going to be in the policy. What the member is talking about is natural justice. If we didn't do that, it would end up getting thrown out of court in any event. All principles of natural justice and all of the precedents that have been established in the courts over these kinds of questions in the past will all be followed in the policy, because if we don't, it will be thrown out, and it will be a waste of time on our part. The member's concerns are valid and are being looked after in the way the act will be implemented.
J. Tyabji: I request that the Attorney General review the Hansard from about ten minutes ago, where I was asking about regulations governing the registrar. He said at that point that there wouldn't be regulations; in fact, there might not even need to be a policy....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: He's asking if it's in that section.... So there will be policy accompanying these other sections and, I assume, some regulations. Well, that's reassuring.
Having said that, I want the amendment to stand, because I would rather see legislative protection for the appeal process than just a policy initiative, especially when we can't review the policy initiative. I appreciate that the Attorney General says that policy might support this, but I can't read that in the bill.
Amendment negatived on division.
J. Tyabji: The third amendment actually.... I am still having a hard time seeing how section 6(3) covers the confidentiality provision, notwithstanding that there will be an amendment to make it an offence. Maybe I would be reluctant to move this amendment if the Attorney General would add the words "or determination" after the word "information" in the next section. Then I wouldn't have to move the amendment in this section.
I'm saying that because it says.... What I was going to move as an amendment to section 5 was another provision for confidentiality in notice or in the written determination. Section 6, which the Attorney General is going to tell me takes care of my concern.... The subsection he's talking about says "information provided," and I would rather have it say "information provided or a determination reached under this act." That's something that specifies beyond information, because information is not the same. I'd like to hear from the Attorney General before moving that amendment. If we can't agree on section 6, then I'll move the amendment in section 5.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I would, in the first instance, agree with the member that "information" seems broad and doesn't seem to include the determination. But if the member goes back up to the top of 6 and looks at 6(1), it says: "The following persons must provide any records that an adjudicator or appeal panel may, by order, require...." What we're talking about there are specific records. The member may think that these specific records don't include the decision, but I don't know how you could read that into it.
J. Tyabji: Rather than debate section 6, I'll move the amendment in section 5. I would like to move an amendment to add subsection (9), which would read: "Notification under subsection (7) and written determination under subsection (8) shall be in confidence and shall remain confidential unless their contents are released under the provisions of another Act or under the provisions of another section of this Act." I recognize that there's not a lot of hope that that amendment is going to succeed. We'll come back to the reasons for it in section 6.
Amendment negatived on division.
J. Tyabji: Could the Attorney General explain section 5(6)? "The appeal panel may determine its own procedures and may receive or accept evidence whether or not it would be admissible in a court of law." Will there will be policy that will accompany that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The courts have very high standards of rules of procedure and rules of evidence. In this
[ Page 16052 ]
hearing you're not bound by those strict rules. This is a normal kind of provision for boards or adjudicative panels that are, in a sense, at least a step lower than the court system.
[8:30]
J. Tyabji: There was a second part to my question: whether or not there has been policy developed to accompany this.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There will be policies and procedures around this section. I think they will be done together with the appeal panel. In other words, the ministry and the panel will be working together on that.
J. Tyabji: Who will be sitting on the appeal panel? These will be people who will be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Where will we be drawing these people from?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are no final decisions on what the appeal panel will look like, but the appointments will.... What we're thinking about at this stage -- and I'll just share this with the House -- is that one of the three members would come from an appointment by the Attorney General; one would come from an appointment by the Human Rights Commission, I guess, if that legislation goes through; and the third one would be a nominee of a group that was affected, where the employee came from. In other words, if the person was a doctor, then the College of Physicians and Surgeons' nominee would be the third panel member in that case.
J. Tyabji: I'm not sure if I'm in order asking this, but I didn't ask it in the other sections. Where would we be drawing the adjudicator or the registrar from? Perhaps we could talk about that.
That sounds like an excellent model, by the way, for the appeal panel. I think it could be very effective in coming to a fair determination.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I started asking some more questions here, and I think I've lost some of the member's questions. The adjudicator would be appointed by the Attorney General but would not be a public servant. He or she would be at arm's length from government, independent from government -- keeping in mind that in this first phase, at least, we're talking about people who are funded or employed by government. We're going to keep a separation in that respect. I think the member had another question.
The registrar is a public servant. The registrar is the person who is, coincidentally, the chief firearms officer, the person who is in charge of the private investigators and securities branch -- or whatever it's called exactly -- in the ministry.
J. Dalton: I think it's appropriate that I just make one observation. I did comment yesterday about concerns that David Flaherty had about this legislation. I think they are relevant to subsection (6) in particular. The Attorney did talk about natural justice, but he also said that we don't have any policy in place yet. The concern of Mr. Flaherty would certainly in part impact on this particular section and subsection: "This breadth is excessive and represents a substantial intrusion into the private lives and identities of individuals who have no regular contact with children." That's a direct quotation from David Flaherty, the privacy commissioner.
Putting aside whether he should or should not be dragged into this debate, I just want to flag again and offer a word of caution that we are getting into some potentially very dangerous territory here. I'm fully aware of the tremendous need for legislation like this, but I am very concerned that we may be putting something in place that perhaps is a monster, which we've set loose and over which we may have no control.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In fact, this legislation is a cage for the monster. Criminal-record checks are conducted now in many situations without the privacy protections that are afforded in this legislation -- without all the securities and guarantees and without all the natural-justice provisions that we have established in the legislation. So this isn't the unleashing of a monster; this is the caging of a monster.
I might say, in addition to that, that I met with the freedom-of-information commissioner. He also met, I understand, at least once and probably more with members of my staff. We came to a meeting of the minds on most issues that he was initially concerned about. He may still have some concerns; that is his right. But I would remind him and the member that this Legislature is supreme.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
J. Tyabji: Section 6 is what we were waiting for. With respect to subsection (1), the Attorney General made a reference to the fact that the records that an adjudicator or appeal panel might require would also be part of the information under subsection (3), which we've been talking about in advance of this section, to protect the confidentiality of the people who are subject to this investigation. I'm not sure that I think that the records or the information represents the determination.
I would like to discuss this just for a few minutes, because when we're talking about a determination, it would obviously be something that automatically has to be disclosed under sections 4 and 5 to certain individuals. Subsection (3) only says that it cannot be used or disclosed for any purpose other than the purpose set out in section 2. Well, we already know that there will be disclosure of the determination under sections 4 and 5. How is it possible that the Attorney General has argued that subsection (3) protects confidentiality, and yet right away, when we talk about the determination, there is no reference to sections 4 and 5 being exempted under subsection (3)? Does that make sense? I could try a different angle.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Unless I misunderstand the member, the purpose of the act is general, and sections 4 and 5 are part of the purpose of the act -- are covered by it. So in section 6, they can't be disclosed other than the purpose.... I mean, it covers those other sections.
I'm not explaining this very well. It may be these long days and long nights. But clearly.... No, I'm just going to sit down and ask the member to try once more to explain to me
[ Page 16053 ]
what she's saying, because I don't understand why she doesn't think that all of the information, all of the records, all of the documents wouldn't be guaranteed to be private and confidential.
J. Tyabji: I guess because there are three different words being used here: "records," "information" and "determination." We treat the word "determination" differently than "records," because the records lead to the determination. And it says, "Information provided," so we're saying that the information provided -- for example, records -- will not be disclosed, except for the purpose set out in section 2.
If the Attorney General is saying that under section 2, which is very general, disclosure is allowed, then I'm not sure how we can limit disclosure. In that case, I would be concerned beyond sections 4 and 5, because it would almost seem that provided that somebody could justify disclosure -- because they believe that disclosure will help prevent abuse -- then any disclosure would be warranted. It almost makes me more nervous to say that section 2, which is general, captures sections 4 and 5.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The intent and, I believe, the effect of this legislation is to protect all of that information. The information in sub (3), "Information provided," includes the determination. If there is any doubt about it, these words are on record in Hansard, and if there is any confusion about it in the future, this is a source. If that doesn't work, then we'll surely be back with appropriate amendments. But I don't believe they are necessary at all.
J. Tyabji: Then a last question.... That's reassuring, and that is one reason why we have these long, yackety-yackety-yack debates.
Under subsection (2), could the Attorney General tell me, then, if there could be almost any disclosure -- provided that disclosure would help prevent the physical or sexual abuse of children -- could other disclosures occur that aren't mentioned in this act, if they seem consistent with the purpose section of the bill?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is no.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
J. Tyabji: In sub-subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c) we see a couple of exemptions: post-secondary institutions and municipalities or their employees. I know that the member for West Vancouver-Capilano asked about municipalities. The Attorney General at that time said they have the capacity to do their own criminal-record checks, and it's just a numbers game at this point because we're so new.
Why post-secondary institutions? Is that because they don't deal with children?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The decision to exempt post-secondary institutions was because of the very small number of students who are under the age of 19.
Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.
On section 10.
J. Tyabji: Just some points of clarification here. We see that there's a process, and the Attorney General could help me through this. We have a time when a criminal-record check or the authorization is requested. Let's say, for the purposes of this discussion, that an employer says to an employee or potential employee: "I need your authorization to conduct a criminal-record check." The employee or potential employee says: "Here it is." At that moment -- let's say it's a Monday, and the job starts on the Tuesday -- they've requested the authorization, and it has been given. Does the employer then hire the employee for the job that starts the next day? Or do they have to wait until the rest of the provisions of the bill start to kick in, about the return of information from the criminal-record check?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member isn't really asking about section 10, because that's existing employees.
J. Tyabji: Well, agreeing to that....
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Okay. The employer can hire conditionally, yes, as long as the authorization has been signed by the potential employee.
J. Tyabji: Now we're talking about existing employees. If you are an employee and there has been no reporting back of.... I guess the Attorney General is saying that we're talking about employees who exist right now, under this section of act. Okay. Well, I can deal with that as well. It's basically the same questions. Let's deal with the existing employees, then.
As of now, an employer asks an existing employee for authorization. They continue to be an employee. Then they get the first determination back. If that determination comes up negative, meaning that there's a problem, then we see two possible provisions. The employee must not work with children until there's an authorization.
But they may have given that authorization. So they can still work with children, because there's nothing there. Under this section of the act, the employee can continue to work with children -- even if they have a criminal record -- until such time as there's a determination or the adjudicator gets back to the employer. Is that correct?
It's very difficult to ask these questions without dealing with several sections at once. If that's okay with the Attorney General, then, what I'm trying to ask is.... I want to get into the employment standards side of things.
There are two scenarios. There are people who aren't employees yet, and they say yes. The Attorney General said they can be provisional employees. I'm assuming the word "provisional" is to save harmless the employer, in the event of the adjudication saying there's a problem. The Attorney General is nodding. Okay.
There's an existing employee as well. The existing employee gives the authorization, and then that comes out negative as well. There's also an appeal process that kicks in. So the determination, I assume, goes into limbo during the appeal process, even if there may be an assessment of risk. Is that correct? Or if there is an assessment of risk, is that employee automatically removed until an appeal panel clears that employee? And if that's true, is that legal?
[ Page 16054 ]
[8:45]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If between the authorization signature and the final determination there is an assessment of risk, then it's the employer's responsibility to ensure that that employee is working in a situation in which he or she is not involved in a position of trust with children, pending the outcome.
J. Tyabji: When the Attorney General says, "pending the outcome," he's talking about the outcome of an appeal if an appeal is launched. Is that correct?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes.
J. Tyabji: In the event of the employer, if it's a small business.... I don't think this is the section dealing with child care, but I am sure that this section would deal with instances where there would be a small company, and the employer may not have a choice of either laying off the employee pending the outcome of the appeal or violating the section of this act that says that the employee may not be working with children.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member described a small business. Let me be more specific and suggest it's a family day care, where the only employment is in fact.... Family day care is probably not a good example, because it may not have other employees. Let's say it's a situation where the only work available is in a position of trust with children. In that event the employer cannot comply by moving the employee into another part of the business, because there isn't another part of the business. This act requires that the employee not continue to work with children in that situation if there's a risk assessment pending adjudication.
J. Tyabji: Because we're dealing with section 10, which is existing employees, let's assume that an employee has been employed for five years at this business and now there's been a risk assessment. Under this act, the employee is basically not permitted to be with children, and everyone would say: "We must err on the side of caution." I'm talking about legal technicalities here, not where I'm at emotionally. So the employee must remove himself or herself from that care of children pending the outcome of the appeal. I didn't see a time provision in the appeal, and maybe the Attorney General would want to speak to that. If the employee has removed himself or herself, could that employee launch a grievance under the Labour Relations Board, not necessarily for wrongful dismissal but for a history of care -- for example, the five years of work record without a complaint or problem -- taking precedence over an interim determination?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If there's a collective agreement in place, then we're dealing with what's in the collective agreement. If there isn't, then it's under the Employment Standards Act. In either event, this act supersedes. It's a condition of employment. I want to make sure the member understands what I'm saying. The condition of employment in which an employee would be working in a position of trust with a child is that they have in fact gone through this process and have been deemed to be in a position where there's no problem in their working with a child. They can't then file a grievance under the collective agreement, and they can't then file a complaint with the Employment Standards Board. They could file it, but it wouldn't go anywhere.
J. Tyabji: So the Attorney General is saying that they would be in non-compliance with this act, so their grievance wouldn't go anywhere. What would happen if the appeal were in favour of the employee and that employee had been removed from work for that interim period pending the outcome?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I would suspect that where there are collective agreements in place, if provisions are not already in place for leave with pay, that will end up being on the negotiating list on the part of the union. In fact, if that interregnum happens and there is, in effect, a suspension from work because there isn't any alternative work available, and that period lasts for a while before the final appeal decision is rendered.... For teachers, for example, it's my understanding that in many cases -- I don't know whether it's in every school district, but we're moving to a centralized system now, so it will be determined there -- they would be suspended, in effect, with pay.
Under the Employment Standards Act, I suspect that.... I used to know this stuff, but I'm not current with employment standards stuff anymore, and I don't know what the provision is there. I doubt very much whether there is a suspension-with-pay provision there, but there could be in a collective agreement situation. Many of these people, of course, are self-employed, such as a doctor, dentist or other person who's working under a self-governing profession. They would just have to restrict their practice to adults.
J. Tyabji: It is getting late, and I'm trying to keep my train of thought focused.
All right. The question I was going to ask is: if someone was in that situation, what if it took a year, which is conceivable with 280,000 criminal-record checks? There could be, let's say, 1 percent that come out positive. I have no idea if that's conservative or an exaggerated amount, but if 1 percent come out positive, we're still dealing with -- what would that be? -- 2,800? Someone who's better at math had better help me out with this. We'd be dealing with a large number of people who would come out with a positive determination. So then, all of a sudden you've got this flooding of determinations. The Attorney General is saying no, so he might want to clarify that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Out of the 280,000 individuals, there is an expectation that there will be some 450 individuals who would require adjudication per year, so.... I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said out of 280,000; I should have said out of the 140,000, or it would be a bit less than that the first year, I guess. But there would be in the order of 450 adjudications out of 140,000, let's say. And out of that number -- who knows? I'm always amazed when I'm provided with predictions of how many events are going to occur. But the suggestion is that there would be -- I'm going to say this with some trepidation....
This is going to be worse than I thought. I was going to say nine appeals, but actually it's going to be 9.3. There is a basis for saying this, and it has to do with Ministry of Health statistics, where they have had this kind of experience.
J. Tyabji: So roughly 9.3 people will be going through an appeal process in a year. Okay. So that will not be an incredible backlog for the appeals panel.
[ Page 16055 ]
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: All right. So we could have all nine appeals running concurrently. If we've got these existing employees, such as a teacher who has had to take a year off with pay, and that person is one of the nine who is under appeal, what would be the reasonable expectation for that appeal reporting out? And if the report exonerates that teacher, then I have another question.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to try this on; I don't know whether I believe it myself. But it is two or three weeks we're talking about; we're not talking about an exhaustive process. There is a limited amount of information.
The reason I smiled in giving that answer is that I've got a lot of experience with labour relations arbitrations, and while the arbitration might take a day and a half, it sometimes takes two years to set up. We are designing a system that, hopefully -- and I'm going to make sure that feet are held to the fire on this -- doesn't have undue delays in it. The answer is -- the expectation is -- that these appeal processes will be a matter of weeks.
J. Tyabji: The last question, then. If it turns out that one or two of these people are exonerated by the appeal, what is the provision for redress for damage to reputation or anything that may have occurred because they were implicated by the first determination?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There would always be a civil remedy. They could go to court and file for damages against someone or other, or a whole bunch of people, but that's the only remedy.
J. Tyabji: Who would they be suing?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: A whole bunch of us, I guess. It depends on what their lawyer advises them as to the most effective remedy. That's out of my hands.
Section 10 approved.
On section 11.
J. Tyabji: I wanted to move an amendment to section 11 in order to protect the employers. The employers obviously have certain prescribed actions under this act. If we're talking about the existing employees, we could have an employer who, because of this act, has to take certain actions. I would like to make sure that they're protected by adding subsection (c).
[SECTION 11, by adding subsection (c)
"if the effect of the finding of risk of physical or sexual abuse, and the prevention of the employee working with children results in the loss of the employee's employment, the employer shall be saved harmless from wrongful dismissal charges."]
That goes to the debate that we've had in the previous section about whether or not the employer would be on the line for wrongful dismissal or, for example, for reputation damage.
On the amendment.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to stand in support of the amendment as put forward by the member for Okanagan East. The essence of it is the same as the amendment that I was proposing, so rather than deal with two amendments, let me just stand and speak in support of this one. That will help us perhaps move forward a bit more quickly.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Employers make employment decisions all the time -- hiring, firing, discipline, whatever -- and there's no immunity built in anywhere for the employer in any statute. The question is: why would there be any specific additional immunity in this particular case? If they're following the law in good faith, they are not going to be liable; there's no liability. Just to give the member some comfort, there was extensive discussion about this issue to be sure that employers would not be put in an adverse position because of this. The conclusion -- the legal advice on this -- was clear: if there's good faith, there's no liability. Why, in any event, would you provide a special status for this particular piece of legislation?
J. Tyabji: I think the answer to why you would is fairly clear. It's because the government has prescribed in this bill, in section 10, that the employee shall not work with children until they have provided authorization. Certainly, if there's a chance of risk, the employee does not work with children, under this section. The employer doesn't have any choice.
It could be a small employer. When the Attorney General says that if they have acted in good faith there wouldn't be a finding against them, that doesn't matter very much if you're a small employer and litigation proceeds -- which could happen. It could be two years before the employer would be exonerated. If the amendment were accepted, a motion against the employer would not be accepted by the court registry, because the act is specific and says they shall be saved harmless. So you couldn't even file a motion. How could you? Under section 11 they're saved harmless. If there's no reference to it, a motion could be filed, there could be litigation and a couple of years of pleadings could be involved. If that happens, then it doesn't matter much to the employer if they get off the hook at the end, because they could have spent $20,000 or $30,000 complying with the bill.
[9:00]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The argument was canvassed thoroughly, including at the political level, to be sure that the legal advice was correct. The conclusion was that there's no legal reason to do this. It sounds good, and it might make employers feel better, but there is no legal reason to do it. If employers are acting in good faith, there's not going to be a cause of action.
J. Dalton: On a point of clarification, can the Attorney General advise the committee as to whether, with this line of reasoning, it would be statutorily possible to deprive an employee of a civil cause of action -- which would be, of course, wrongful dismissal? I have every sympathy for what the member for Okanagan East has raised, but I don't think we could trample on the rights of the employee in this way.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member makes a good point. What we've decided to do in not following the course of action that, as I say again, we seriously considered, is allow the normal course of the law, the way it applies generally, to continue to apply here. I think the member makes one of the arguments against the amendment.
[ Page 16056 ]
J. Tyabji: I just want to make this point on the record. I'm not speaking against lawyers in any way, shape or form, but they don't tend to mind if there's a litigated loophole in a bill. I think the member for West Vancouver-Capilano talked about whether or not we could deprive an employee of a civil suit.
That notwithstanding, I think that if we can put something in there to protect the employer, then the onus is really on the government to do that, because the government has left the responsibility and full accountability with the employer to remove the employee from the children. I think that, given the fact that this government has brought in some very strict employment standards.... We have the Labour Code and so much protection for employees out there, and not really that much for employers who may wish to exercise their right.
If they feel they have no choice, they might say: "Well, this employee can't work with children, according to this act. I have to let this employee go." The employer may end up being on the hook either way. It's like a catch-22. If they're in non-compliance with the act, the government will be upset; if they're in compliance with the act, they could end up with a lawsuit by the employee. Even though they might not have a finding against them at the end of it, I know of many cases where there has been frivolous litigation, and it's very expensive. I think the amendment is a good idea.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think we have just about exhausted this topic. I will simply say again that employers cannot be held liable for following the law.
Amendment negatived on division.
Section 11 approved.
On section 12.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment to section 12 that has been distributed and is in the hands of the Clerk:
[SECTION 12, by deleting the proposed subsections (2) and (3) and substituting the following:
(2) When an employer becomes aware that an employee who works with children has an outstanding charge for, or has been convicted of, a relevant offence, the employer must require the employee to provide a criminal record check authorization for a further criminal record check.
(3) If an employee is also a registered member, the employer must take reasonable steps to notify the registered member's governing body that it is taking action under subsection (2).]
This is a technical amendment which, in effect, reverses subsections (2) and (3) and puts them in the opposite order to what they're in now.
Amendment approved.
On section 12 as amended.
J. Dalton: I have a question about this process. We're dealing now with someone who is employed, and a subsequent record check may be required. Would I be correct in presuming that those people would have to be placed in a situation where they would not be working with children? The section is silent on that point, whereas the previous sections all address the issue about the employer ensuring that employees do not work with children.
The point I'm making is: someone is in the course of employment and then a subsequent offence occurs, or a subsequent conviction, yet this section does not address the issue of working with children under those circumstances.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not absolutely sure that I follow the member completely, but what we have here.... Let's see if this does it. If someone who is an employee, and continues to be an employee, is then charged with a relevant offence -- one that is listed on the schedule -- they then have to go through the full procedure and there needs to be a risk assessment as if it were a new check.
Section 12 as amended approved.
On section 13.
J. Tyabji: Subsection (2) says: "The governing body must inform individuals of the requirements of this Act...." I wonder why the Attorney General wouldn't have said "the requirements and purposes." The reason I ask is that if there has been one criticism that has come out against this bill.... The member for West Vancouver-Capilano alluded to the information and privacy commissioner coming out and saying that he wasn't sure of the reasons for all the criminal record checks, and to look at all the people who aren't involved with children. Given the schedules that are attached to this bill, I would have hoped.... Perhaps "requirements" includes the purposes; I just don't read it that way. I think it would make it a lot easier if people understood that what they're doing is in the best interests of children.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I actually think it's the government's responsibility to provide the educational information around this issue to tell people what the purposes are. We don't want to make the employer's or the governing body's responsibilities more onerous than they already are. We're trying to keep this as hassle-free for employers as we can, so we're simply saying to them in this section that they have to ensure that everybody is registered and that every individual undergoes a check -- that's obvious for the governing body -- and then the same governing body has to inform individuals of the requirements -- in effect, giving them the form and the rules about what they have to do. They are inevitably going to include the information that we provide -- the brochures about the process, the reasons, the purposes and all of that. I think that will just happen automatically.
Sections 13 and 14 approved.
On section 15.
J. Tyabji: We have talked a bit about civil rights in this debate, and I'm just wondering, when we talk about this, especially when we're talking about governing bodies for professions, to what extent the issue of the collective civil rights of a professional body was explored before this section was brought into effect. I'm talking about whether or not, if there's a determination -- or in that interim period, again, if someone is affected by that -- the government explored at all the civil rights implications of having somebody impacted by a decision prior to a final determination of whether or not they were -- I'll use the word -- "guilty" of providing risk.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The exhaustive consultation that occurred in developing this legislation included exhaustive
[ Page 16057 ]
consultation with the governing bodies. So they know what they have to do, and that whole process has been worked out. I don't think it's fair to say that everybody is jumping for joy about having to do this, but everybody accepts that this is the reality and they are working with it, and working out the procedures they need to do. They're doing it in a very cooperative way.
Section 15 approved.
On section 16.
J. Tyabji: I note that in section 16, we have the title "Effect of finding of risk," similar to section 11 in part 3, where there is the title "Effect of finding of risk," but the language is very different. I guess one question is: why is this language different from section 11, where there is a recommendation for appropriate action taken by the governing body? What is appropriate action? To what extent would it have to comply with the intent of section 11, which actually says that the person shall not work with children if there's an assessment of risk? Does the governing body have to comply with that same intent?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is really clear on this. The employer has a direct relationship with the employee, can direct where the employee works or doesn't work, and the governing body doesn't have that kind of control over their members.
For example, let's take -- not to pick on them -- the College of Physicians and Surgeons working in Vancouver with a doctor in Pouce Coupe. They don't have the same kind of controls, so we need different provisions there to ensure that this is being adhered to.
J. Tyabji: Well, I'm assuming, if we use that example, that the doctor is the employer and employee in that case, because a doctor is self-employed. What is the appropriate action that the governing body would have to take?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Following an investigation, the college could suspend the licence if a person who was not supposed to be working with children, in fact, continued to work with children. That person would no longer be able to practise medicine, in that particular example.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't think it matters whether it's an employer or employee situation here. We're talking about licensed.... It gets confusing. Some doctors are employees; they might work in a clinic and may be an employee of the clinic, or they may work for the government in some cases, or whatever. I think the thing to think about with this is not to use the employer.... Don't think about employer-employee relations when you're thinking about the licensed governing bodies. We're talking about a mechanism to ensure that somebody who is licensed and violates the conditions of this legislation can, in fact, be governed. An employer in that situation can easily do it, and they're required to do it. It's a little more complicated than a governing body situation, but they can follow this and do an investigation and then, theoretically, suspend the licence.
J. Tyabji: Would it be mandatory under this section, if the determination is that there's a risk, for the governing body to ensure that that member did not have contact in their employment, whether they're self-employed or employed by the clinic? Is that automatically part of the appropriate action? If so, is it through the policy that accompanies this bill?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The governing body, at this stage the member talks about, would be required to conduct a hearing. It's possible that one of the outcomes of the hearing could be that signs would be posted in the office where the professional works, indicating that his practice is limited in the following way as the result of this legislation. In other words, the signs are saying that this professional is not entitled under his or her licence to work with children. So that kind of evidence would be there and would be available to potential clients.
J. Tyabji: I think it's my last question under this section. If it turned out that, as the Attorney General outlined, there was a posting of a limited licence, and the individual who was restricted by that licence went beyond the scope of that licence and the governing body refused to take action, what would the course of the Attorney General be?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the likely outcome would be a liability issue on the governing body. There would be a civil remedy for a.... Let's say what happens is that the governing body doesn't protect the patients or clients, and somebody goes in and something bad happens. Then there's a civil remedy against the governing body, and it could be substantial.
[9:15]
Section 16 approved.
On section 17.
J. Tyabji: A quick question: why wasn't it included that if you don't comply with section 17, it would become an offence?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That goes to section 28 -- all four of those subsections are included if you look at both sections 28(1) and 28(2).
Sections 17 and 18 approved.
On section 19.
J. Dalton: This is an interesting section. What consequence results if the minister does not comply with this section?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I was going to use unparliamentary language; I can't think of a parliamentary way to say this. The light answer is to say that the minister could never do anything wrong. The more serious way of putting that is that the Crown.... This is the Crown, and the Crown doesn't commit offences. If you want to believe that....
I'm being silly; it's that time of the night. The fact is that in all statutory language you never, ever have an offence provision against the Crown.
[ Page 16058 ]
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, I don't think it's that. This is the Crown, not the members.
Sections 19 and 20 approved.
On section 21.
J. Tyabji: I'm just interested in how this would actually work. I'm assuming that there first has to be a request made to an existing child care provider before they can be deemed to be in non-compliance. An important question: if they don't know that this provision exists, how do they comply? So the minister has to ask them first.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: Is there going to be policy or some sort of guidelines to follow this section? I'd just be concerned, for example, how we would interpret a child care provider who has not provided the authorization. I don't know how the minister notifies them -- whether they notify each of them individually, which would be preferable, or whether it's done in a mailout to their local association, which would not be that good -- and what the time frame would be for them to respond.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: These groups are all registered with the Ministry of Women's Equality, and they would get a mailing individually.
Section 21 approved.
On section 22.
J. Tyabji: I'm very curious about subsection (2), which says:
"The minister must inform the police force responsible for policing the area in which the facility is located, if the minister believes that an individual who was determined to present a risk of physical or sexual abuse to children is continuing to operate a child care facility."
That's an excellent provision. It seems to be the harshest language in the bill. Was there freedom to bring that in because it was the minister taking action, and we couldn't have such strong language in the other sections because we dealt with governing bodies and employers, or was it just because we're dealing specifically with a child care facility that the Attorney General chose to use such strong language?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're talking about facilities here in which there are not employer-employee relationships. It's almost an ad hoc kind of situation. It's somebody's home; they're registered. If in fact they're deregistered by the ministry because of a concern about somebody who shouldn't be having kids in their home, the deregistration doesn't accomplish anything. The person who's doing it could continue. At that point, the minister would just tell the police. In this case, the minister is the Minister of Women's Equality or her delegated person -- in other words, a worker in the field. That's really what it's all about. There is nobody to hold accountable in that situation.
J. Tyabji: Same kind of question, then.... A determination has been made, the person has appealed and the grounds for appeal are that the determination is baseless. Is the child care facility shut down in the interim?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes. I answered that question earlier in a different way. If the only thing they're doing is working with children, and there's a risk assessment, as it's worded here, then it shuts down pending the outcome.
Sections 22 to 24 inclusive approved.
On section 25.
J. Tyabji: I'm not sure what the qualifications will be for adjudicators. Could the Attorney General let us know what that would be?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member won't like this answer, but the first thing they'll need to have is a law degree and legal training. They'll get training at the JI -- the Justice Institute -- through the Council of Human Rights and other appropriate training areas. A protocol around all of this will develop in the ministry internally to make sure that the adjudicators are, in fact, well qualified to handle this role. The last thing we want is to have all of the adjudicators do it wrong and have a huge appeal problem.
J. Tyabji: I just have to respond on the record that I have many lawyers in my family; I don't automatically dislike lawyers. Just so I don't have lawyers phoning me afterwards, it's now on the record.
Section 25 approved.
On section 26.
J. Dalton: I'm curious about why, under section 26(b), it's possible that a Member of the Legislative Assembly might be an adjudicator or a member of an appeal panel. That doesn't seem right to me.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: May I use the words "out of an abundance of caution" should there be a decision at some point that an MLA should be an adjudicator? I have to tell members that I don't envision the situation of having an MLA involved in this kind of provision. In drafting legislation, whenever there's a possibility of an MLA doing something, there has to be an assurance that they won't get paid. This comes in in a backwards way. It's just to prevent an MLA from taking money for this position. I have no intention of appointing anyone, including myself, to this position.
Section 26 approved.
On section 27.
J. Tyabji: I would like to ask what there is in addition to the bill that's in the works to assist the registrar in developing forms for criminal-record checks.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Most of the work on these forms has been done. The wording is here so that it doesn't have to
[ Page 16059 ]
be an order-in-council. It can be a form that the registrar approves. There's been a lot work going on behind the scenes in anticipation -- I don't know if that's appropriate or not -- of this Legislature approving this legislation.
Section 27 approved.
On section 28.
J. Dalton: I move the amendment distributed, and I understand it's going to be met with some favour.
On the amendment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Just to be absolutely sure that we are in accord about what we're doing here, I am going to.... Just to be brief, because we don't often do this.... I am very much in favour of accepting amendments on the floor when they work. Subsection 28(1) will now read in the first line: "A person who contravenes section 6 (1), (2) or (3)...." That's what this amendment will accomplish. I thank the member for assisting us in this respect. This was a good idea, and I thank him for pointing it out. I think this is the way committee should work.
J. Tyabji: I rise to speak in favour of this amendment.
The Chair: It's nice to all be on the record.
Amendment approved.
Section 28 as amended approved.
Sections 29 to 55 inclusive approved.
On section 56, section 28.1.
J. Weisgerber: The amendment to section 56, as proposed, is as a result of what appears to be quite an inconsistency between the wording in section 56, section 28.1, as it deals with the Teaching Profession Act and other professions, and the preceding sections. The wording is far less precise, gives far less direction to the college, agency, council or discipline committee than would be the case, for example, with the Optometrists Act or the registered nurses' act. I'm curious about that. It seems to me that it would be far more appropriate to revise the wording and give similar instructions to the discipline committee under the Teaching Profession Act as would be the case with the others.With that in mind, I would like to move this amendment:
[SECTION 56, by deleting everything after the word "committee" and replacing it with the following:
"must take the failure or the determination into account, investigate the matter and decide whether to set limits or conditions on the practice of the member or whether to suspend or cancel the registration of the member."]
That is precisely the wording in almost every other case, and it would seem to me to be appropriate to carry that on with consistency through to the Teaching Profession Act.
[9:30]
On the amendment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I don't disagree at all with the intention of this amendment. There are two kinds of consistency, I guess. One is consistency within this act, and the other is consistency within the professional acts that we're talking about. If we hadn't gone through an extensive consultation process -- if this were our draft without the consultation and agreement of both the College of Teachers and the Ministry of Education -- I'd be quite happy to stand up and accept it.
We haven't had a chance to go back and do that consultation. I'm a little reluctant to do this, frankly, without going back to those two bodies and saying: "Let's do it this way instead, because it's more consistent with the act." It would be a bit of a betrayal of the consultative process if I did that without consulting them. For that reason and that reason only, I would say to the member that at this point, I don't think I can accept the amendment.
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps the minister can explain why he has not come up with the same kind of wording in drafting this. One would be left with the belief that perhaps there has been some consultation taking place, and for some reason either the BCTF or the B.C. School Trustees' Association or some other agency specifically requested different wording for this one area dealing with the Teaching Profession Act as opposed to all of the others. Again, I find it very strange that we go from professional act to professional act with the same wording, and then we come down to this last one and have quite significantly and substantively different wording with respect to the instructions given to the discipline committee.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't want to argue with the member, because we don't have an argument, other than to say that there isn't as much consistency as the member suggests throughout the rest of these sections. There are differences. This language was selected through the consultative process in order to be consistent with the provisions of the Teaching Profession Act so that they have some consistency in how they deal with failure to follow the rules they are required to follow, so that they don't have different procedures within their statute. That's essentially why they want to go this route. The undertaking I can make is that I'll ask my staff to go back to the college and the ministry with the wording that the member proposes, and have those discussions -- obviously it's not going to be doable for this bill this session -- to see whether they would agree to move toward consistency within this bill as opposed to consistency within their process.
J. Weisgerber: Somehow I suspect this is about as close as I'm going to get. In looking again, the section dealing with the Social Workers Act deals specifically with instruction to consider suspension or cancellation of registration as part of the remedies. The Psychologists Act specifically refers the disciplinary panel to investigate and consider suspension or cancellation of registration. When you go back through each one of these, the Optometrists Act, two sections under the Nurses (Registered Psychiatric) Act.... I look back here and it seems to me that there's a consistency with the professions, with the exception of the teachers, so that causes me concern. With tongue in cheek, I would suggest that perhaps the thing to do would be to bring in the amendment, go back and consult, and if there were some solid reason for the inconsistency, to deal with that later. But I somehow suspect that's not going to be the case.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member's suspicion is correct. But I do undertake to not only do the consultation with the
[ Page 16060 ]
respective bodies -- the college and the ministry -- but also to have my staff advise the member as to the discussions and the outcome.
J. Tyabji: I want to speak very strongly in favour of the amendment and just remind the Attorney General that when the Citizens Against Child Exploitation first formed about eight years ago, they actually formed around the issue of a pedophile in the school system whom they were having a very difficult time removing. In fact, since they started to reveal this person in the school system, a number of other stories came out.
Obviously, the teachers' association, in order to protect the teachers' association's reputation, would want to be at the very least consistent with the other professions. I know the Attorney General has already said he won't accept it. I'd like to say very strongly that this is a very large loophole if we're trying to capture pedophiles. Certainly, in large measure we don't have anything to worry about with the teachers' association. But they should have the same ability to act -- or at least the same direction -- as the other professions do, in ensuring that people are suspended or removed if there's a potential of risk. We have to remember that before we even get to this section, there has already been an assessment of risk. That's why the other sections are worded as strongly as they are.
Amendment negatived on division.
Section 56, section 28.1 approved.
Sections 57 to 59 inclusive approved.
On schedule 1.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I want to move the amendment.... I was going to say standing in my name on the paper; it isn't. It's filed with the Clerk, and copies have been distributed to members.
[SCHEDULE 1, by deleting the following:
section 212(3): (Evidence that a Person Lives Off Avails of Prostitution);
section 222: (Homicide);
section 223: (When Child Becomes Human Being/Killing Child);
section 224: (Death that Might Have Been Prevented);
section 225: (Death from Treatment of Injury);
section 226: (Acceleration of Death);
section 227: (Death within Year and a Day);
section 228: (Killing by Influence on the Mind);
section 234: (Manslaughter);]
At first glance it would look appalling, and that was my first reaction on first glance. I trust that the note we have prepared assists in explaining what this means. But just so it's on the record and, hopefully, enables members to understand what we're doing, I'm going to read a very brief note: "Ten sections listed in schedule 1 are being deleted. This is for the sake of clarity only and does not affect the range of offences covered by the act. Members will see an explanatory note" -- which I just referred to -- "listing the ten definition sections that are being deleted." The note that members have in front of them includes in the left-hand column the sections that are being deleted and in the right-hand column the section of the Criminal Code that covers that particular issue. These are definition sections of the code; they are not sections that actually create offences.
In order for all of us to understand why these sections are being deleted, we need to understand that the Criminal Code does not just contain lists of offences; it also includes sections that are used by lawyers and judges in interpreting the offence sections. These interpretation sections are not the sections used to charge, and they are not the sections that appear on criminal records. What this means is that certain sections that were originally included out of an abundance of caution are not, in fact, necessary.
The sections being deleted are definition sections; the sections -- I'm saying this again -- that actually create the offences remain. It's important to understand that the integrity and the scope of the act has not been affected in any way by these deleted sections, because none of these deleted sections would show up in a criminal-record check. Members should understand that this really is a housekeeping amendment. I hesitate even to say that. It's clear, and I hope that explanation provides enough clarity for what, on the surface, seemed a little bit surprising. I was surprised myself when I first saw it.
That's the amendment. There may be a discussion about the list itself, but let's deal with the amendment first.
Amendment approved.
On schedule 1 as amended.
J. Dalton: As the Attorney knows, some concerns have been expressed -- and not just mine -- about the extent of this list. Now we've tidied it up a bit, but the amendments that he just put through are truly housekeeping, as the Attorney said. I want to put this one on the list for at least a bit of discussion or explanation: why is "vagrancy" on this list? That's the thrust of my amendment. I move that "vagrancy" be deleted from the schedule.
On the amendment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to speak strongly against the member's suggestion that vagrancy be deleted. I'm going to do so because of the way in which that section has been used. Contrary to common lore, it is not simply a reference to panhandling or loitering. In fact, it has been used to protect the public from those who had prior convictions for sex-related offences. It was specifically directed at protecting children in playgrounds, schools or public parks. In fact, one could argue that this is one of the more important sections to be included in the schedule. I'm not going to make a political speech about it; I'm just going to reject the member's amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Schedule 1 as amended approved.
On schedule 2.
J. Dalton: We've had discussion previously, both in second reading and even tonight, about the governing bodies that are listed. I can recognize that the one I suggested as the amendment -- and I still want to advance it -- is probably not a good selection. After all, I presume everyone in the corrections system is searched. I would like to think they are, but maybe the Attorney can address that.
Still, I think we have to wonder why others.... I asked earlier why the municipalities, for example, were not caught
[ Page 16061 ]
by this. I recognize that the Attorney has presented a good argument -- that we have quite a bit of work to do anyway with 280,000.
But we probably should be directing our minds -- and that's the purpose of my amendment -- to where perhaps we've missed some more that might be more obvious, or maybe to better ones to have thought of than the ones that have been listed on this. That was the line of reasoning I'd advanced.
On the amendment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: All corrections employees, with the exception of a limited number of support staff in the central office -- not in the facilities, as we're not dealing with sentenced people -- now undergo criminal-record checks.
The Chair: Members, I just want to advise, before I ask for the question on schedule 2, that in schedule 1 there were two other sections. I just hope we're all in agreement that sections 2 and 3 of schedule 1 have also been passed. So ordered, then?
Interjection.
The Chair: Okay.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll just go back to schedule 2 and add to my answer. Because all people who work for government in positions of trust with children are covered, that would bring under the ambit of this act all corrections employees who work with children. Beyond that, all of them are covered in any event. So they're covered both ways, by policy and by this act, at this point.
Amendment negatived.
Schedule 2 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
[9:45]
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 26, Criminal Records Review Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 32.
HUMAN RIGHTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading)
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's a privilege at this late hour to be able to rise and speak to the second reading of this bill. The need for revision to the human rights legislation arose as a result of the state of human rights in British Columbia. As you know, human rights in this province have not keep up with progress made in other parts of Canada and in other jurisdictions. In fact, over the last number of years, human rights went backward rather than forward in terms of making them better and more accessible to the people of British Columbia, so that they could feel that their rights were more protected and were dealt with more appropriately than before.
You know that as British Columbians we have certain obligations to international organizations and to international conventions. We also have a committee, which is a continuing committee of officials responsible for human rights across Canadian jurisdictions. It's important to remember that as a result of concerns that the people of British Columbia had expressed and as a result of the promises made by this government in its election campaign of 1991, we will be revising the human rights legislation.
A commission was appointed under Prof. Bill Black of the University of British Columbia in 1994, for him to be able to consult with the people of British Columbia about the provisions of human rights legislation and what changes might be required and made. The comprehensive nature of the report that he produced and filed makes it clearly and abundantly evident to all British Columbians that the state of human rights in British Columbia needs a major overhaul.
He made many recommendations. He made recommendations for substantive as well as structural and procedural changes. It was the decision of this government at this time to deal with the structural and procedural aspects of the human rights legislation only. The substantive aspects of the legislation, we felt, were adequate; we needed to make changes with respect to the structure and procedure embedded in the legislation.
One of the most important things that was recommended by Professor Black was the separation of functions. The Council of Human Rights that we have today under the present legislation has many functions. It has the advocacy, education, research, investigation and adjudicative functions. For us as British Columbians to feel comfortable in the knowledge that human rights are being handled in the most efficient and just fashion....
The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan West on a point of order.
C. Serwa: I note that there isn't a quorum. I know this is a very important bill for the government side, and there are virtually no government members in the Legislature. Perhaps a quorum could be called for.
The bells were ordered to be rung.
The Speaker: The Minister of Government Services.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm delighted to be able to resume my remarks.
As I was saying, the most important recommendation in Professor Black's report focused on the need for separation of the functions currently all handled by one body, the Council of Human Rights, under the current legislation. We need the separation for many reasons, the chief one being that we have
[ Page 16062 ]
a body that does adjudicative, investigative, research, educational and other functions all under its own auspices. It therefore does not provide the knowledge and comfort to the people of British Columbia that (1) their complaints are being dealt with expeditiously; and (2) their complaints are being dealt with in a fair and impartial fashion, because if the same body that's the investigator is the adjudicator, therefore you essentially have the prosecutor and judge embodied in the same body.
The recommendation meant that we would now have in the legislation a Human Rights Commission, a Human Rights Tribunal and a Human Rights Advisory Council. The Human Rights Commission would consist of three commissioners: the chief commissioner, deputy chief commissioner, and commissioner of investigation and mediation.
Then you have the Human Rights Tribunal, which would consist of three full-time members and perhaps up to six part-time members. That would be the body that would adjudicate with respect to the complaints.
Then you have the Human Rights Advisory Council, which would consist of seven to 11 members. This body, advisory to the minister, would of course do research and advise the minister on policy issues from time to time, and would meet only occasionally and for perhaps a number of days in the year. This body would not be a salaried body at all. It would be a body based on per diem, being available as are other bodies that are advisory in nature.
So that we understand the thrust of this legislation, it's important to go through what the functions of these particular commissioners are. Let me just go through that very quickly. The chief commissioner would be responsible for the overall administration of the act, as well as education, information and research programs. The deputy chief commissioner would be responsible for assisting the chief commissioner, as well as initiating and intervening in complaints and taking measures to address systemic discrimination. The commissioner of investigation and mediation would be responsible for investigating, mediating, referring and dismissing complaints. Then you would have the tribunal that would adjudicate on the complaints that are referred to the Human Rights Tribunal for adjudication.
So you have this new structure embedded in this new legislation that's before the House, and it's very important to remember that the recommendation to separate the functions currently being performed by one body came from all corners of British Columbia, from all of the presenters before Professor Black. It came from business, labour, community groups, advocates of human rights, and from complainants as well as respondents.
The employers want to make sure that once there is a complaint it doesn't take 36 months to resolve -- that we don't have a backlog of 1,200 complaints, as we have today. The complainants want to know that if they make a complaint, their complaint will be heard within 14 or 15 months. The federal backlog means that if you make a complaint today, within 13 months your complaint is concluded and adjudicated upon, and you have a decision. British Columbia's record is that it takes almost 30 to 36 months from the date the complaint is made to the date the case is finally concluded. I think it's important for British Columbians to know, and to have the comfort of the knowledge, that they will have a system under the proposed legislation which will be efficient and streamlined, and which will be able to redress some of these issues very quickly and efficiently.
The second issue, which is more important, is the issue of whether or not the B.C. Council of Human Rights under the present legislation is able to perform the educational, research, information, awareness and advocacy function. The consensus across British Columbia -- and it has no reflection upon the membership of the council; it is a reflection upon the way the council is framed and made up under the current legislation -- is that while doing the adjudicative functions, they could not perform all the other functions that are important for a particular tribunal or a body in British Columbia to do.
If you have a very well-defined thrust of educational work on human rights, research on current issues and monitoring of human rights work in British Columbia, you will have more awareness of these issues among the population in British Columbia. This government generally believes that you will have a lowering of the number of complaints per year, whereas in the last six to ten years the number of complaints has risen. The number of complaints has gone up over the last number of years purely, I believe, because we have not been able to do the educational and preventive work that needs to be done. The way the structure is being proposed under this legislation.... I think it will be very important for the people of British Columbia to know that there will be educational, research, information, awareness and advocacy work done by the commission.
If you then move on to some of the procedural changes that have been brought in this legislation.... Let me just go through them for you, so that I don't miss many of them. In this proposed legislation, you now have the power to defer consideration of a complaint pending the outcome of another proceeding, so that there is no unnecessary overlap in the proceedings. You now have a clear mandate in this legislation to pursue mediation and settlement as options for the resolution of complaints, rather than adjudication. There is adjudication if necessary, but not necessarily adjudication.
Under the proposed legislation, there is now the ability, discretion and commission to dismiss frivolous complaints after investigation -- or no investigation -- so you don't unnecessarily waste the time and resources of the people of British Columbia and create backlogs.
You now have provisions that enable settlement agreements to be registered for enforcement, and they then have the force of law. The aggrieved individuals or groups would be able to take comfort in knowing that there is a provision for them to be able to enforce the orders made by the bodies that would be in the legislation.
You have the power to dismiss the complaints, as I indicated, and that has been expanded. You also have, within the commission, the right to review a decision to dismiss a complaint. It is not an adjudicated process per se. The fundamental principles of natural justice will be followed, but within the administrative function of the commission, there is a new function added where, if the complaint has been dismissed and has not been referred to the Human Rights Tribunal, the individual or the group would have the right to a review by the commissioner. Of course, the commissioner can then either reinstate the complaint or reaffirm the decision made by the officials in that particular area.
The tribunal has been given the power to modify orders in restricted circumstances. There is also a provision made in
[ Page 16063 ]
the regulations for time limits governing these procedures, so that you don't make people who make complaints now wait a year or 15 months before they hear from the Human Rights Council. There will be time limits; there is the ability, at least, in the regulatory powers to make regulations to provide for some time limits so that we can deal with these issues in a very efficient fashion.
Those are, in essence, the major changes that are being made in this legislation. The substantive provisions in the existing legislation are not being touched. There may be some consequential changes to some of those sections with respect to the substantive matters as a result of the names of the bodies changing. There might be some grammatical changes. There have been no substantive changes proposed in this legislation.
I know that when this bill was introduced for first reading, there was some misunderstanding across the floor. Let me say this -- and I say this to the people of British Columbia, not just to the legislators here: there is no provision for employment equity in the new provisions of this legislation. This is not employment equity legislation; this is human rights legislation. There is a provision from 1992 that exists dealing with the provision of employment equity by way of a remedy pursuant to an investigation and adjudication by the Council of Human Rights, and we are transporting that provision into the new legislation, as we are all of the other substantive provisions of the existing legislation.
[10:00]
Section 19.1 of the existing legislation is exactly the same -- with the exception of some minor grammatical changes -- as section 38 of the proposed bill. For someone to say that we are importing wholesale job-equity programs into the substantive provisions of this legislation is to deny the truth; it's saying that it's day when it's night. Well, I'm sorry. I think it's very important for the people of British Columbia to know that this is human rights legislation, not employment equity legislation. It has been the policy of this government in the last many years to encourage all public employers -- the government, Crown corporations, ministries -- as well as private employers to look at their own workforces across the province and make sure that they take voluntary steps to ensure that the population of British Columbia is reflected in their workforce as time goes on, from one end of the province to the other, from one level of government to the other. That has been the policy and the commitment of the government, but that has not been turned into law. This law is not employment equity legislation; this is human rights legislation.
Let me also say that there is a provision for the remedy of employment equity programs. Let me give you an analogy. When you take a case to court, the court has a range of options to provide a remedy in civil matters, from a simple reprimand to a judgment of damages to ordering some other conditions. In 1992, we said that if there is a finding made by the Council of Human Rights of systemic discrimination or a pattern of inequality that continues, the Council of Human Rights has the option of ordering a job equity program as a remedial measure pursuant to a hearing.
That power has not been used in the last two to three years; that power may never be used. But it would be foolish for any legislator in this province to argue that we should take away from a quasi-judicial body such as the Human Rights Tribunal the option to consider various options in dealing with systemic discrimination. There is no change from what existed in 1992 to what's in the bill today on that issue.
What some hon. members opposite may argue is that we should take that away. We are not prepared to take away that option from a quasi-judicial body. In terms of the procedural changes, we have given them some tools for investigations that the Human Rights Council doesn't have. I will speak about those tools in my concluding remarks.
There has been some criticism that we have given far more powers to the investigators under the new human rights legislation than they had before. This jurisdiction of British Columbia, which should feel proud of its human rights record in the past, does not have the kinds of powers that other jurisdictions across North America have. What we have done, essentially, is bring ourselves in line with other jurisdictions across North America and across Canada so that our investigators in the human rights area have the same investigatory powers, the same tools in their hands, as people in other jurisdictions. They are now able to do their investigations without having to go to court day in and day out. They have access to appropriate circumstances and the appropriate evidence that may be required to deal with these issues.
It's important for us, as we are debating this issue, to remember that we may think that we're never going to need the mechanisms provided by this legislation. We may think that we are somehow above discrimination; it's never going to happen to us. But we should think. We should cast our minds to the totality of the over three million British Columbians and think of the people we know -- the relatives and friends and acquaintances we have -- who may require the protection of this legislation. I say this because the substantive provisions of this legislation -- which exist in the current legislation and will move over to the new legislation -- prohibit discrimination in publication, public facilities, purchase of property, tenancy premises, employment advertisements, wages and employment, and unions and associations.
The grounds of discrimination.... If you are discriminated against because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age.... If you are ever discriminated against for any of those reasons and under any of those headings where discrimination is prohibited, you will have access to the human rights legislation in British Columbia and to an advanced system of procedures and structures that we are now going to put in place to make sure that people's rights are protected, are adjudicated fairly, and that the people of British Columbia know about their rights from a body that's charged with the proactive business of educating the people of British Columbia in terms of human rights issues.
If you look at all of the discrimination that's prohibited under the existing legislation under the various headings for various classes of individuals.... I can tell you that if you look at this, you will encompass the overwhelming majority of the people of British Columbia who may, at one time or another, face discrimination under any of these headings. So let's not sit here and think that human rights legislation applies only, perhaps, to visible minorities or people with disabilities. Human rights legislation can apply, let me say, to some of the members of the Reform Party -- to white, old, male middle-class individuals who may feel discriminated against. I'm sure you may feel that threat one day. This human rights legislation....
[ Page 16064 ]
There is a myth out there, and I want to kill that myth if I can, that somehow human rights legislation is for special interest groups or for special individuals. Human rights legislation makes no distinction; it is for everyone in British Columbia. It is for the protection of the people of British Columbia that we are now enhancing the current legislation.
V. Anderson: I commend the minister for his enthusiasm and straightforwardness in his first major presentation to the Legislature as the minister of multiculturalism, immigration and human rights. I now discover he's the minister of all three of those, plus a few other jobs that he has as well. We welcome him in all of those capacities.
I appreciated his presentation and his straightforward description of what was in the act. I'm quite aware that the act, as far as the human rights aspects of it is concerned -- apart from the structural organization -- is basically the act we had before. A little bit of the equity section that he referred to has been reordered, but it's still the same material if you sort it out and find out what the reordering is about.
The minister has indicated the number of staff persons of the advisory council, the tribunal and the commission. What he might enlighten us on is the number of subsidiary staff who are going to be involved in supporting these people -- the support staff who are going to be involved in this -- and what additional funds are involved. How much money is involved in order to make this possible? It's quite clear that the previous Council of Human Rights had the problem that not only were they overloaded and short-staffed but they also were short financially.
I also ask the minister: with the education, advocacy and research functions being done in the area of the new council, tribunal and commission, does this mean that the ministry area is being reduced in staff and being downsized because a lot of this work is now being taken over by the new creations? I know that over the last while there have been readjustments and an increase in staff and in money to the ministry. Is this a double whammy, if you like -- both an increase in the reorganization under this act and an increase in the reorganization of the ministry? How do these tie in one to the other?
[10:15]
I know that those who have complaints will be delighted if they're dealt with in a more timely manner and more effectively. We'll have to wait to see how that plays out, to see whether that really happens or not and to see how good a prophet the minister is. My own feeling is that if the education program is as good as the minister says it will be, at least for the foreseeable future it will have the effect not of decreasing but of increasing the number of complaints, because more people will discover they can make a complaint who in prior times were not able to or did not know how to go about it. So initially I see there would be an increase in complaints -- justifiably so, perhaps -- and then perhaps down the line the decrease that the minister talks about. But I wouldn't see that immediately, particularly when they have all the backlog that he's talked about to work through.
I agree that the ministry has primarily taken the restructuring elements from Bill Black's report. That's what they've dealt with here in this particular undertaking. One of the realities, though, is that our discussion about this and -- seemingly, sometimes -- our disagreement have an educational function. It makes the public aware that this bill is here, that the functions are there, and it's something they should be aware of.
When we're going through the sections of the act, we will deal more particularly with the relevance of the tools of investigation, as the minister has referred to them, always aware that a lot of the meat of the act is not here -- that it's in the regulations. Still, whether the regulations are to whom and how they function, we might be aware....
There are couple of edits, though. The minister might look on page 19 for a typo that needs to be fixed, near the top of the page in section 4, section 39. The minister might also check on page 23, because it says "Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism, Human Rights and Sports," and that's not the current name of the ministry. He might want to update it before the act comes out.
Having said that, we look forward to third reading.
J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak in the Legislature on this Bill 32. I don't think it's any secret that I'm opposed to the legislation. I believe it's bad legislation. Having said that, I don't support discrimination; I have no patience with discrimination. But I don't believe legislation is the solution or the resolution of the issue.
Indeed, I believe that good government policy -- good public policy -- can show leadership. Indeed, government has a responsibility to lead by example. Quite candidly, I haven't seen much evidence over the last four years of that kind of leadership in the government service itself. For the benefit of members here -- who I'm assuming will all speak before we go home tonight -- I look back to the time I spent as Minister of Native Affairs. While I was minister, the number of aboriginal employees increased dramatically. I believe it was at a higher level than it had been up until that time, or has been since. It's that kind of leadership that I believe we in government can demonstrate, and it's the most sincere kind of demonstration that you can make. So before we talk about legislating others to follow a prescription, I would encourage the minister and his colleagues to go back and look at their own houses -- look at their own record in government, because again there is an opportunity.
Some of these ministers have been here three and a half years now. If there is a lack of equity within the ministries they represent and if they believe the profile of groups outside of government is inappropriate, they may want to have a look at their own ministries -- areas where they have direct responsibility. As is always the case, I suspect that the government is far more inclined to legislate others. Don't do the hard work, don't do the kind of day-by-day grind that's necessary to bring in equality, to eliminate discrimination. Instead, bring in a high-sounding piece of legislation. It's much easier, much quicker; it only takes two or three people to sit down and draft it up, and you can bring it in and appear to be on the side of the angels.
But look at this bill and examine it critically. Look at the purpose: to identify and eliminate persistent patterns of inequality, to monitor progress and to create mechanisms. That is the kind of action that has led to very determined employment equity programs in other jurisdictions. The minister spent so much time defending why employment equity was allowable within this legislation and advising us that he didn't believe we'd ever use it but we've got to have it there, that one is inclined to respond: "He protests too much." Indeed, his
[ Page 16065 ]
repeated protestations around that issue simply underline my suspicions. I believe that this goes further than that. This sets the stage; it sets the mechanisms in place for U.S.-style affirmative action. It gives all of the powers within the "Purposes" section.
Interjections.
J. Weisgerber: The members disagree. But read the "Purposes" section. I know the members don't want to hear that, and I can understand that. I'd be surprised if they were to confirm it. But I would encourage people who have concerns in these areas to read the legislation.
Beyond that, this bill sets out to create new layers of bureaucracy: a Human Rights Commission and a separate tribunal. Not only that, it gives fixed terms for the people appointed. In functions other than those appointed by this Legislature itself to ensure through the legislative process the independence of particular officers of this House, where else has government started appointing people for three-, four- and five-year terms? It's very difficult for me to rationalize. These folks are given not only guaranteed fixed terms of office, they are given virtual police powers. Under the "Powers of investigation" section, they are given exactly the powers that would be given to a police officer or a police force. I believe that that is inappropriate. I believe that it confirms my original beliefs.
When I look at the tribunal, I see it has the power to order and implement affirmative action procedures not only for individuals but for groups of individuals. I fully expect that government members will deny these things. I fully expect that government members will say: "Hey, this is nothing new; it's the same old stuff." But why would you bring in a bill, why would you bring in an amendment that has several sections -- some 40, perhaps 50, over 24 pages -- if all you're doing is rewording the same old act? That is not the case. I know it; the minister knows it.
Here we are bringing this legislation in, not in the midst of a session but late at night, in an attempt to stifle debate around the legislation. I think that that's unfortunate. It again speaks to the fact that the government and the minister are less than forthcoming on what the implications of this bill are. It's bad legislation; it's an attempt by the government to impose a kind of action and advocacy role that we haven't seen before in government and in human rights legislation. We haven't seen that advocacy role, that determined.... There doesn't have to be a complaint. The people within the bureaucracy can simply decide that a concern exists, can launch an investigation and can order action -- all without a single individual coming forward to allege discrimination.
Mr. Speaker, that is bad legislation, and I believe the effects of this legislation will be bad. Quite obviously, I will oppose the legislation at second reading, and we will have an opportunity at committee stage to go through this section by section.
G. Wilson: I rise at this time, 10:30 p.m.... I have to tell you, hon. Speaker, that I take a somewhat perverse pleasure in rising at 10:30 p.m. I was just in the little House and was told by the Minister of Employment and Investment that we'll keep going tonight as long as it takes to get through second reading of this bill, and he is currently under scrutiny by the member for Surrey-Cloverdale. So I take a particular pleasure in keeping this debate going for as long as possible.
Having said that, let me come down to the root of this bill. First of all, this Human Rights Amendment Act, 1995, is an extension of the existing legislation. It's interesting to do a comparison of the two, because in effect what it does is use the existing legislation in large measure and build onto that legislation.
In principle, I don't think anybody can speak out and deny that where systemic segregation, discrimination and racial discrimination are taking place, they should not be dealt with by society. The question is: to what extent can government effectively do that thought legislation? That is the matter that I think we were hearing about from the leader of the Reform Party a moment ago, when he stated his position that he doesn't believe that it can be done effectively through legislation. Clearly, what we're hearing from the government is that, regrettably, we are at a stage in our social evolution in this country when we have to. I would say that there is a need for human rights legislation. The mark of a mature and intelligent society is largely measured by the extent to which it looks after and protects its minorities and extends to those who perhaps have had more limited or fewer opportunities than others a provision for equal opportunities -- as well as the extent to which equality is the provision that drives us.
I am not in favour of affirmative action programs. I've been on record as that saying that in this House before, and I say it again. I listened with particular interest to the leader of the Reform Party when he suggested that this leads to affirmative action. Quite frankly, I've read this bill carefully, and I don't personally see that in this bill. In committee stage we're going to take a look at that to see where that may be.
[10:30]
C. Serwa: It's there.
G. Wilson: The member for Okanagan West says that it's there, and if it is, we'll ferret that out.
I don't support affirmative action. I don't believe that affirmative action programs can address the kinds of inequalities that exist. The kind of discrimination that we're trying to address in this bill is not something that is worn on a person's skin or is simply transparent in its nature; it's something that people foster within their hearts and souls. And that takes a lot of time -- regrettably so. It takes a lot of education and social commitment to try to drive that out of people, so that people can be far more understanding and compassionate and can be better citizens in terms of recognizing the kind of pluralism that is beneficial to our society.
I have publicly stated before and will state again that unlike the current trend in Canada today, and it is a trend that seems to have been adopted by -- and I say this with some amazement -- even the federal Liberal government.... Perhaps there is some political peril in saying this, given the mood of a certain segment of the public, but I happen to think that immigration is good for Canada. We will benefit by expanding Canadian populations with peoples from all over the world who have a desire to come here to live and to work together to build a strong nation that has as its foundation an adherence to some very fundamental principles of equality. Every Canadian must be equal to every other Canadian regardless of their race, colour, creed, language, religion or
[ Page 16066 ]
gender. It's something that those who have heard me speak since I've been active in politics, since 1985, have heard me say over and over again, ad infinitum. I don't think there is any basis to our political beliefs that can be more fundamental than that.
Where I find this kind of intriguing, however -- and I put this to the minister -- is that it would seem to me that the party that will be immediately guilty of violations of the very conduct and code that this act seeks to protect will be the government itself. We are engaged now, rightly or wrongly -- and perhaps outside the parameters of this debate -- in the establishment of a Treaty Commission process that puts in place the very kind of segregational legislation that actively discriminates on the basis of race, colour and creed.
What it says is that the country of origin, the heritage -- that is, one's longevity in this nation -- is indeed a feature or characteristic that will determine rights and privileges. It recognizes that Canada has had a colonial history and that because of that colonial history, there has been a fiduciary obligation transferred to a government that took over from the Crown. It recognizes within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the provision of equality and the rights of that equality distinguish the classes of Canadians.
I would say that one of the key features in the debate on the Charlottetown accord, for those of us who were on the No campaign, was to argue that there should be no discrimination on that basis. Surely enough, we argued that, not just for aboriginal people in terms of first nations involvement but with respect to those whose language was French, who enjoyed French culture and who practised the French Napoleonic Code in Quebec.
Anybody who has ever heard me speak on these matters will know, I believe, that I try to be a passionate defender of equality in human rights in Canada. But the government is going to have to convince me that the process we're engaged in with respect to aboriginal people doesn't violate the very principles they're espousing in this bill.
We took very strong issue with social legislation that was brought before this House last session, because that legislation did identify and did put in place discriminatory language with respect to aboriginal children. There may have been a very good reason why that was attempted -- I'm not going to take issue with that reason today, because I think there is a process that has to recognize those kinds of sessions -- but this government promoted that. Certainly those of us in the Alliance -- and I think there were other members in this House -- stood up and said: "Well, hold on a minute here. If we're going to be equal -- and we must be equal under the laws of British Columbia and Canada -- and if we are not going to allow discrimination on any basis that is tied to race, colour, creed, language or religion, then surely that involves and implies first nations people also."
I have met with many first nations people for whom I have enormous respect, and I have asked them to help me with that situation, because I have thought that maybe this is a particular hangup that I have; maybe this is something peculiar to me, in that I don't see that we can set up that kind of discriminatory practice on the one hand, by providing some recognition through legislative process that there are going to be rights, jurisdictions and privileges that will be run and determined by....
Let's take the Nisga'a, for example, because it's an issue that we've canvassed thoroughly in this House, and one that the people of British Columbia who may be reading my words later or possibly hearing me tonight might relate to. In that instance, we were talking about the establishment of Nisga'a citizenship based on four clan groups coming together, having two members from each who would determine, by matrilineal kin line, who would be Nisga'a and who would not, and arguing that once that is determined and established, their rights and privileges would be distinct as Nisga'a, and their jurisdictions to rights and privileges on the land would run on the basis of that racial determination. That runs counter to exactly what this bill is talking about. If it doesn't, I hope the members of the government are going to tell me how it doesn't.
So I have some real difficulty with that; I have difficulty when I hear members.... For example, I received word the other day that people who are leaseholders, for example, on aboriginal land have now been served notice that they will no longer qualify for the homeowner grant, because the self-taxing authorities that exist there -- aboriginal people -- will not honour it, even though they entered into an agreement on the process under terms and conditions of a long-term lease that did not identify that kind of discrimination anywhere. That is a discriminatory practice. It's discriminatory for two reasons. The first is that those leaseholders have no right to run for office or to vote for those who have power to tax them. The reason for that is that they are racially different. That speaks against the very intention of this bill, because this bill says there shouldn't be any....
Believe me, I understand the complex nature of the history of aboriginal people in the long-term negotiations, and I don't want to get into that long discussion tonight. But in debating Bill 32 and the principles that are in it.... They're laudable; they're good. I don't say for a moment that what they're attempting to accomplish should not be advanced.
I want to flag this for the minister, and I'd like to hear it possibly in his closing remarks; if not, we'll pick it up in debate. Perhaps he wants to take some time to reflect on what I'm saying. I want to know how the government justifies that direction, that procedure and that very practice which they are now advancing with vigour. It flies absolutely in the face of what they've just tabled in the House today and what we're debating in second reading. If Canadians are to remain strong, if this is to be the kind of....
An Hon. Member: You're not talking about the bill.
G. Wilson: The member for Yale-Lillooet says that I'm not talking about the bill. I am talking about the bill. This is very much a part of the bill.
Interjections.
G. Wilson: It's good that we're going to spark them into debate.
If Canada is to remain a strong and united nation, and if we are going to be a nation that is going to survive the next decade and the decade beyond that, we are going to have to resist those forces that would try to balkanize and tear us apart to serve their own economic interests and their own needs. Those interests are very much a part of a continentalization of our economy, and a blending and harmonization of Canadian society into the society south of the border. The
[ Page 16067 ]
difference is that the society south of the border is very much built upon a melting-pot mentality. That mentality says that they are going to fly the American flag and use the political icons and the big bands. They are able to put out this notion that somehow to be an American supersedes any of the individual personal kinds of goals they may have, so as to blend us altogether into one homogenous kind of American. That's their way, and that's fine. But that's not the Canadian way.
In this trend toward a more right-wing description of society, there are people in today's society who speak out against multiculturalism. They say that we should get rid of multiculturalism and that we shouldn't have programs that encourage people to maintain and speak their language, because it's not cost-effective for government to do so. There are people who say that we shouldn't continue the practice of encouraging the differences that our cultures bring through the immigration process. There are those who say we should close the door to immigration. All those people are speaking to a part of this bill. But most importantly, those people are speaking to the heart of what it is to be Canadian.
Canada is a country of cultures which come together to celebrate their differences. They respect each other because they are different. Because we are different, we are able to practise our religion, our language, our customs. We celebrate that yes, our skin colours are different, and we might speak with different tongues, but we are equal under the laws of the province and the laws of Canada.
Any legislation that comes in front of this House that says that we have to protect that level of equality I will vigorously endorse. Regrettably, it's hard to do so when, even in this day and age, we have not arrived at a time when we can dispense with the need for this legislation because we have an honest compassion among the people to be able to go forward and simply push out the ugly discrimination that occurs.
I was just up in Chase -- and I see the member here -- and I ran into a couple of people who were proud to suggest that they were white supremacists, and they were ready to arm themselves and anybody else and go in and start to shoot and kill Indians. This was just a couple of nights ago. They exist, hon. Speaker, and do you know what is scary about them? They are very real in what they say. These are not people who make idle threats; these are people who honestly believe that because of the colour of their skin and their own heritage, they are somehow superior beings and have the right to look down on and cast down upon those others who may be different. They talk about perpetrating violence against people solely because of their different religion or, in this case, their different culture. I can't condone those people; I can't even be polite to those people. I don't believe that in our pluralistic society there is any place for those people.
Affirmative action programs and the movement to try to artificially create the blending and modelling of our society doesn't work. We have to, within the human spirit and the human soul, recognize that even though we may all come from a different background and heritage, have a different skin colour, practise a different religion and speak a different language, we must all be equal under the laws of Canada.
While I support what this bill is attempting to accomplish in principle, I hope the government will take my concern seriously about an inherent discrimination in the practice that we're putting forward with respect to first nations people. Because surely to goodness, if we are all equal, that includes first nations people.
I'm going to conclude by saying that it's always difficult, when one stands up to support a bill like this in principle, to suggest that there are sections that we are going to go after and go after vigorously, because one sometimes then wears the label that somehow you're a racist or discriminatory.
My comments here are to allow the minister to know there are some definitions within the expanded section of the proposed bill that we want to get after in committee. We are also going to be looking at the process with respect to the disposition of complaints section. We have some concerns in section 21, and we will be raising them in committee stage. I flag that now only to suggest that if there's an opportunity before committee to air these concerns, we might have a more productive debate and conclusions on them.
Let me conclude my remarks now and say that in principle I support Bill 32, but I have some very serious and grave concerns as to whether we really are in a position where this bill is going to be implemented with any degree of success.
[10:45]
H. Lali: I'll keep my comments brief, to the delight of the Reform members of the House here. I know it's getting near midnight, and everybody would like to go home and catch some sleep.
I rise in support of Bill 32, the Human Rights Amendment Act. The government is acting on the recommendations that were made by Prof. Bill Black of UBC in his report on human rights in British Columbia, and these changes are designed to ensure efficient, effective and fair administration of human rights.
In 1983, I had an occasion to go to Ottawa for the national convention of the Federation of Sikh Societies of Canada. It was shortly after that that the then Premier, Mr. Bennett, and his government eliminated the Human Rights Commission that had been set up by the NDP government in '72-75. There was much worry among the people who were gathered at the convention that this sort of thing was happening in British Columbia, because some of the other provinces often look to British Columbia for a lead. That didn't spell good news for the rest of the country if the rest of the country was also going to go that way and start eliminating human rights commissions in all the other provinces as well. That point has really stuck with me all these years.
I'm happy to be a part of this government, with a minister, the member for Vancouver-Kensington, who has had the courage to bring forth the amendments that are required. Over a number of years the backlogs have increased for those people who are seeking justice on human rights issues. I don't think anybody should have to wait two and a half to three years to have their case heard, simply because of the lack of person power or the resources that have been put into it. I'm happy that this bill will rectify that situation by providing additional resources and staff to be able to get rid of those backlogs.
Members of both opposition parties have made some statements.... I apologize; it's three opposition parties. I forgot about the Progressive Democratic Alliance.
Interjection.
H. Lali: And I won't forget that next time, as the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has indicated.
[ Page 16068 ]
Members from all three opposition parties have made some comments contrary to this legislation. The member for Vancouver-Langara said he had concerns about costs related to this amendment. My question to that hon. member is simple: how much value does he put on human rights, the same human rights amendment act which he may have to utilize himself one day? How much value does he put on it? If he can answer that question, then he should be able to answer his question about costs.
The Leader of the Third Party said that this is bad legislation and he can't support it. I can respect him for his opinion; after all, we are living in a democratic country. But I don't agree with him. He indicated also that this would lead to affirmative action, even though there's nothing in this bill that talks about affirmative action. These are the same kinds of comments that he made in 1992, and I'd like to quote. The Leader of the Third Party said: "The new act will give sweeping new powers to appointed NDP hacks to force employers to adopt and implement so-called employment equity programs for entire groups and classes of individuals." I'll get back to that statement in a minute.
He indicated that legislation was not the way to bring about the results that affirmative action or other types of actions may bring. He indicated that good government is the answer, and that when he was Minister of Native Affairs in the Social Credit government he was proud to see that there was an increase in aboriginal people within that ministry. If he had something to do with that, I would take this opportunity to congratulate him for making some of those positive moves. But he indicated that his government did more than perhaps what this government has done, because he said that our government's actions were not something that he could be proud of.
Well, let me give you an example. When this government took power in 1991, out of 80 assistant deputy ministers, executive directors and other senior staff that the government of the day had, there was only one person who was of a visible minority, and I don't think that that's a record he should be proud of.
We're making some progress: there are three people who are now of visible minorities within that area. And there was only one female deputy minister, out of 24 ministries under Social Credit. We have six now. In terms of the cabinet, they had only two female cabinet ministers out of 24. In a downsized cabinet of 18, this present Premier, under the NDP government, has had the foresight to include seven women out of 18.
In terms of boards and commissions, which had literally hundreds of members.... When you look at the membership lists of the boards and commissions, invariably you find that the memberships under Social Credit were older white males. Very, very few people were of visible minorities; there were very few aboriginal people or people with disabilities. Again, this government has had the foresight to start addressing those wrongs that are a record that the hon. Leader of the Third Party says he's proud of. I think they had just a horrendous record, and this government has taken steps to start rectifying some of that.
Also, the member mentioned the statement I read out which was attributed to him in the Vancouver Sun of June 14, 1995. If he is concerned that this is going to lead to some employment equity provisions -- which, obviously, it is not -- and that it is discriminatory against people who are not visible minorities, aboriginals or disabled, and if he's concerned that it's reverse discrimination of some sort and this is something he would like to oppose, then I'd like to ask him a simple question. Without any kind of actions to address some of the wrongs.... Where was this member when discrimination was being perpetrated against people of visible minority background, against women and against aboriginals? I didn't hear this member jumping up and shouting and saying that this was wrong. Yet this member....
An Hon. Member: You weren't even here.
H. Lali: Well, I paid particular attention to politics for a very long time before I actually entered at the provincial level, and I'm sure that you were interested in it as well in your past life, before provincial politics.
But you didn't hear these people, these Reformers -- then Socreds -- talking about discrimination against these very equity groups. Yet when the government brings in any action that would address some wrongs, they talk about reverse discrimination. Where was the fairness then? Where was the concern about discriminatory practices? They were not there. This is a group of people who are part of the privileged group, an advantaged group in society, and it's easy for them to say that they oppose certain bills.
Interjections.
H. Lali: I'm hearing from one side of the House that I should speed up my comments, and the other side of the House is saying, "Keep going," because they're really interested in what I have to say. In any case, if the members would just be quiet for a minute, I could continue on with what I have to say.
Interjection.
H. Lali: You are making me lose my train of thought, hon. member.
Getting back to this bill, the member for Peace River South also indicated that he hasn't seen an advocacy role anywhere else, and that this bill is going to bring forth an advocacy role on the part of the B.C. Council of Human Rights. Well, I would like to point out to him, first of all, that B.C. is currently the only Canadian jurisdiction without an advocacy mandate allowing human rights commissions to represent the public interest by intervening in complaints. This legislation will rectify this deficiency. The reason for that is that there is ample evidence that groups that are most severely affected by discrimination are less likely to file a complaint. Giving the commission the power to file complaints will allow it to help rectify that severe discrimination against such groups. This is simply bringing British Columbia into line with other Canadian jurisdictions -- like the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the commissions of Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan. They already have the power.
Finally, these are the very same members who, when the Law Society -- without a complaint filed -- acted against the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, were sitting there applauding that move, when that minister at the time had to resign.
[ Page 16069 ]
Yet now they are saying that this legislation allows the human rights commission to act as an advocate. So it's right on one side; it's wrong on the other. That's a hypocritical stance.
Without going any further, I want to say to the members of the House, to the government and in particular to the Minister Responsible for Human Rights, that this act is something I am proud the government had the courage to do, and I will support it wholeheartedly.
C. Serwa: I am very pleased to rise and speak on this particular matter. It's very important to me. Multiculturalism, ethnicity and human rights legislation are most important. But I speak against the philosophy and principles of this bill, and I'm going to speak for quite awhile. The other member took lots of liberty and he took lots of shots. I've got half an hour, and we're going to sit here for awhile.
I look at the quick-fix concepts that the NDP continue to bring forward: legislate everything, because as soon as you write a bill and pass it, right away everything is okay. That's not how this country was built. It was built by individuals who came here seeking freedom and opportunity. In my particular case, that happened in the first wave of immigration from the Ukraine in the late 1800s. That's really interesting, because when we came here there was no difference in colour. But there was a difference in culture, so there was discrimination, to a degree. It's not something to whine and cry about, and there was no legislation talking about the necessity for equal rights. But there was an opportunity to work and accept your responsibilities and earn the rights as a citizen of Canada.
This country was built by people from many different lands in the world. I'm proud of what we have here in British Columbia and what we have here in Canada, as far as understanding and compassion and tolerance go. When you look at other countries in the world -- we may look at India, if you wish -- and see the civil strife that exists in India between Sri Lanka and the Tamils and the people from east India, you can look at the difference religion causes there, and the strife and problems that occur. When I look at what happens where we live and work together in communities, I'm joyful and very happy with what has transpired here. You cannot simply change the public's acceptance through legislation. It has to be earned by all of us. So my family has worked hard, and we've come up in Canada with the opportunities. We've learned the language. We've assimilated into part of the Canadian culture, which is made up of a mosaic of people.
Often when people talk here in Canada about multiculturalism, they're really not even talking about or understanding what multiculturalism is. They're talking about ethnicity and the right to use your own language and retain your own customs independent of the Canadian culture. I don't think that's what multiculturalism is to me. Multiculturalism is all of us, whether it's German, Ukrainian or perhaps East Indian or African ancestry. It's living and working together in harmony, respecting each other for our capability -- not somehow legislating someone who has some special rights because of race, colour or anything else.
[11:00]
I really believe that this country was built with challenge in mind and that merit is the arbiter. Merit is what allowed the election of the members in this Legislature. We weren't elected because of race, ancestry or colour; it was because of our thoughts, our beliefs or our value systems, and how they reflected on our commitment to the Canadian culture. That's what's really important.
Quick-fix legislation and this particular piece of legislation have the opportunity of placing political friends of the current government for long terms in the tribunal situation. That's what will probably happen. I sincerely doubt the objectivity. I'm quite confident that the next government -- and there will be a different stripe of government at the next election -- will probably have to let all of these people go, at great public expense. Maybe that's what this is set up for.
The Canadian culture is a very, very special and respected culture in the world. There is virtually no country in the world that has this mix of peoples, because here in Canada we represent all races, all colours and all religions found all over the world. We work, live and play together. Sometimes we laugh together, and sometimes we cry together, but that's part of the exercise. We don't need crutches. We don't need special legislation to enforce us and enable us to do that. We just want the opportunity. We work together and respect each other. That's what Canada represents to me, and that's what it should represent to all of us.
If there are abuses, then fine, the legislation is there for that specific reason -- the existing legislation. I wonder how much of this backlog is caused by real problems and how much of it is caused by imaginary problems shaping up as opportunities, either for a vocation or a job or some imagined slight.
We have to remember that there is a Canadian culture in Canada. Yes, it's a mosaic, and it's probably made up of cultures of many places in the world, but there is a Canadian culture and a Canadian value system, and often what we think is discrimination is in fact not discrimination. It's a different form of culture, it may be a different value system, and so we chafe. But you can't legislate that away. We're all human beings, and we have biases and likes and dislikes. Anyone who thinks they can legislate it away and clean everything up with the stroke of a pen is not being very realistic.
As we continue to welcome new immigrants into Canada -- and we must continue to do that, and we will continue to do that.... It is no different from the massive migrations to Canada in the early 1900s. If you look at the Prairies, you can see communities all through the Prairies that may be Icelandic, may be German or may be Ukrainian. You may have in your cities groups of Italian people and other communities that have gathered together. Nevertheless, over a period of time they assimilated into the grand Canadian culture.
I'm very proud of what we have, and I'm not going to badmouth it, nor will I stand for anybody badmouthing what we have. Whether we look at Ireland and the conflict that exists there or in many other nations in the world, let alone the tragic war that is occurring in Bosnia, in the former Yugoslavian territory.... We have to understand that what we have here is very precious.
We have to be concerned with the concept of reverse discrimination. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast indicated his particular concern with what is happening with the aboriginal people in British Columbia and the potential for a backlash -- which isn't going to serve anyone well. The moment you use reverse discrimination, it's going to start resulting in a backlash.
[ Page 16070 ]
Yes, we have to make improvements. When we talk about discrimination, we're not necessarily talking about ethnic discrimination; we're talking about all forms of discrimination. It may be the disabled. It may have something to do with providing opportunities for those who are mentally challenged. All of those are the responsibility not simply of government but of society as a whole. Society is making progress, but society cannot jump from one side to the other very quickly. It makes legitimate progress in a series of stepping-stone approaches, and that's the way the public as a whole can get through it.
Seeing that it's a little bit after 11 p.m. and everyone is very tired, I'll wind up my comments rather than prolong them. Hon. Speaker, I'm not very pleased with the philosophy and principles behind this bill for a lot of the reasons that have been expressed earlier by other speakers, but thank you for the opportunity to speak on it.
The Speaker: The hon. minister closes debate.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move second reading of Bill 32.
Motion approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 37 | ||
|
Petter |
Dosanjh |
Pement |
|
Priddy |
Zirnhelt |
Charbonneau |
|
O'Neill |
Garden |
Hammell |
|
B. Jones |
Lortie |
Giesbrecht |
|
Smallwood |
Clark |
MacPhail |
|
Ramsey |
Barlee |
Lovick |
|
Pullinger |
Evans |
Randall |
|
Farnworth |
Conroy |
Doyle |
|
Janssen |
Lord |
Simpson |
|
Tyabji |
Wilson |
Krog |
|
Schreck |
Lali |
Hartley |
|
Dalton |
Tanner |
Anderson |
| K. Jones | ||
|
NAYS -- 4 | ||
|
Neufeld |
Serwa |
Hanson |
| Weisgerber | ||
Bill 32, Human Rights Amendment Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:14 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; F. Garden in the chair.
The committee resumed at 7 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT AND INVESTMENT
(continued)
On vote 24: minister's office, $375,615 (continued).
D. Symons: I spoke with members of the Ferries board, and I am getting some answers to questions. I was asking about the board meetings and about the amount collected in fares in various fiscal years.
The expenses increase by about the same amount as the increases in revenues from the fiscal year 1993-94. Both went up about $5 million, from the figures I have here. Therefore the deficit increased by the $5 million cutback in the operating grant in that particular year. I notice this year that the cutback in the operating grant has been considerably larger than before. In '94-95 the operating grant was $36 million, roughly. For this coming fiscal year, you're budgeting $9 million. So basically there has been a 75 percent drop in that operating grant.
I guess I have some concerns on that issue. It looks more and more as if you're going to get a zero operating grant, which I suppose is a desirable thing, but I just have to read something from a previous critic wearing my shoes back in 1987. The NDP critic was speaking to the Social Credit minister of the day:
"I want the minister to simply grapple with that question and consider whether he is prepared to give us assurances that that pattern of regularly increasing ferry rates is going to end, or whether there will at least be some kind of rationale provided -- a longer-term rationale, rather than every year we have to talk about increasing ferry rates."
I'm going to talk about rates in a moment. Then he went on to say that we want some assurance "that the ferry system is going to be recognized as an essential part of the highway and transportation system in the province, rather than something that seems to be subject to a kind of double taxation. That is what we think we have now, quite frankly." I'm wondering if the minister might indicate where the ferry system fits in the highway system. I don't think we make the highway system pay for itself, in the sense that you're collecting revenues off the highway to any extent, except for the Coquihalla. You seem to be collecting revenues off the ferry roads.
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I agree with the member that it's an essential part of the highway system. I know it's my turn to answer questions, but I don't know how the member reconciles his position with his leader's position. His leader is in favour of privatizing B.C. Ferries, and he has made that case many times.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: He specifically mentioned B.C. Ferries, along with a couple of others, and I can get the quotes for the member. Of course, anybody who thinks that as a private company it wouldn't try to make a profit and raise fares, which are historically low by any ferry system's standards, is dreaming.
I want to deal with a footnote to the report, which the member may have missed, that shows that the reduction in
[ Page 16071 ]
the provincial grant is in part offset by the fact that there is a federal subsidy. The federal subsidy has gone to the province historically and has now been redirected to the corporation. It is true that the subsidy from the province is $9 million, but there is a federal subsidy, as well, which will be about $20 million in 1994-95. While there is still a cut in the provincial subsidy, it's not the same as in the past.
D. Symons: That helps to clear things up a little.
I'd like to read a few quotes here and then get some feedback. These are from an April 18 article in the Times Colonist called: "The Business Voice: Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce." Apparently they had a meeting with the CEO of B.C. Ferries. The article states: "Rhodes plans to increase income by operating more like a business. One way will be to offer sponsorship opportunities such as advertising in video areas..." and so forth. I'm wondering to what extent the Ferry Corporation is going to do that.
I asked a question about Victoria Line leasing space to private entrepreneurs on the ship. I suspect that the same answer would apply to B.C. Ferries: you're not going to consider it. I had somebody call who would like to get into that business, so I'm asking, on that individual's behalf, if there is an opportunity for the private entrepreneur, other than as a supplier of materials to B.C. Ferries, to actually get in on the sales end of the ferries.
Hon. G. Clark: Those were excellent comments by the CEO of B.C. Ferries with respect to becoming more entrepreneurial and businesslike. What I think he had in mind was something we have encouraged for some time, which is to have more private sector sponsorship or involvement.
I'll give you an example, and that is the video machines. The video machines on the vessels are now run by private companies. A couple of them have franchises for elements of the fleet. They make money for them, and they make money for us, and they provide a competitive service. In addition, in some operations in Europe and elsewhere, it's possible to have televisions around the superferry that would be running promotional videos for a hotel, tour packages or the like. We would charge for that service or have a private sector provide that service.
We are looking at significant private sector sponsorships. I don't have any problem looking at the question of a private sector operator coming on a ship, but we have a labour question, a labour relations contract. We have no wish to jeopardize the relations on the ship. We're not interested in contracting out some of the services we're providing; I wouldn't support that. If we can have the private sector add value to the passage, bring on services which aren't provided now, increment them to our existing services and make money for us and for them, we're certainly interested in looking at it.
I may have been mistaken or the member may have misinterpreted my remarks with respect to Victoria Line. We have lots of private sector involvement, including Starbucks and Beautiful British Columbia magazine. We also have Tourism Victoria, which operates a promotional stand on Victoria Line now. They actually staff it, run it and pay for it. We don't have any problem with that. It's those kinds of opportunities we are looking for at B.C. Ferries. Of course, we'd have to work out any arrangements with the employees of B.C. Ferries to ensure that it's acceptable under the current collective agreement.
D. Symons: I think I got a slightly different answer. I understood it was to do with the Victoria Line earlier.
You mentioned Starbucks. Are they just supplying materials or would the people operating a coffee bar there be Starbucks employees, B.C. Ferry employees or, in this case, Royal Victorian employees? I wonder about that sort of thing. You can answer that along with my next question.
From what you described, it seemed to be more that materials like video machines, not personnel, were involved on the ferries. Would you then consider having personnel involved from private franchises in the ferry terminals -- not just the little craft tents that we have out on the parking lots now, but actual commercial space in the building?
Hon. G. Clark: We're open to any of those ideas. In fact, right now we're actively looking at car rental opportunities for the private sector at our terminals.
In the Starbucks case, Starbucks provides the equipment, the marketing, the supplies and the training. The employees are employees of the Victoria Line. I said there was emergency lifeboat training. We need to have a crew that we can call upon, and we don't want other unskilled people working on the ship. We have to take advantage of the cost-effectiveness of overlapping responsibilities. But in general, we're open to all of these ideas, and we're very interested in pursuing them. I think there are some real opportunities at the terminal site, and we're actively exploring them.
D. Symons: This is quote two: "Rhodes said the Ferries' long-range plans will create a separate business entity operating without taxpayer subsidies." This implies that midcoast service might sometime have to be self-supporting. I don't think it would be the intent of this government, certainly not of our government, to insist that everything be self-supporting. But you could read that into that statement. I'm not sure whether that's the intention. Could this also mean that you're looking at maybe privatizing part of the corporation -- the terminals or any of the routes? Is that how we could interpret that statement?
Hon. G. Clark: No, absolutely not. In fact, your party is the only one talking about privatizing B.C. Ferries. Even the Reform Party, and the previous government, knows how ridiculous that is and how significantly bad the politics are with respect to what that would do this essential service.
What it means is that we want the Crown corporation of B.C. Ferries to minimize the taxpayer support, and that means we want it to get to a situation where it doesn't require an ongoing tax subsidy, although it will require support from the provincial Crown and taxpayer guarantees of its debt and the like. But we don't believe it necessarily requires taxpayer subsidy.
Increasingly, not just at B.C. Ferries but elsewhere in government, we are looking toward user-pay and the ability to recover costs where possible. At B.C. Ferries there is a certain amount of cross-subsidy, and that cross-subsidy will continue. There are some routes, particularly northern routes, which will always be subsidized if I have my way and if our government is re-elected, because to not do so would be prohibitive. But there are routes which have the potential to minimize losses, and that's what we're attempting to do.
D. Symons: I was concerned about the words "create a separate business entity." I thought B.C. Ferry Corporation, in
[ Page 16072 ]
a sense, was that already, so I was wondering if this meant something other than is current. I see heads shaking no, so I'll assume that was that.
The last quote is: "He suggested one possible way of operating like a business is by invoicing ministries whose political decisions impact the ferries operating revenue. For example, if a ministry concludes a special group should be subsidized, that ministry should be asked to pay for the shortfall." I'm wondering if this might also relate to decisions made by certain ministers to incorporate a type of service or maybe even a type of ferry that ends up being a money-loser. Would the minister be responsible for subsidizing that particular service or vessel?
Hon. G. Clark: Of course, it has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that if the government institutes a policy that says we want to provide free ferry service for handicapped individuals or for medical treatment, if that is a policy decision by the Ministry of Health and the government proper, we have to be careful not to simply off-load that service onto B.C. Ferries. If we did, that would mean that B.C. Ferry passengers would be subsidizing a health care decision or a decision with respect to handicapped service. The notion that Mr. Rhodes was referring to, I'm sure, was not to oppose any of those decisions, but simply to say that if the government wishes to make those decisions, it should explicitly make that subsidy available in the ministry responsible.
D. Symons: I was afraid it meant that, and I rather hoped that it meant what I was suggesting, but time will tell whether the new ferry scheme is going to work.
[7:15]
Just carrying on with that, I wonder if you might give me some flavour of the new salary agreement that was signed with the union recently -- what the base rate is and what provisions are in there for severance pay in the event that severance takes place. Recalling what we dealt with in reference to the buses, could we move onto the ferries and ask about sick days and how sick leave might work with the Ferry Corporation?
Hon. G. Clark: A new agreement with B.C. Ferries marine workers was signed on October 30, 1994. The agreement lasts until October 31, 1996. The salary adjustments are: November 1, 1994, 1.5 percent; and November 1, 1995, 1 percent. There are some new union-management consultative committees. There's an agreement to continue working on job evaluation and pay equity concerns. There were some significant improvements from the perspective of both the union and the management, with respect to expediting the grievance process. There were some other provisions to facilitate the introduction of fast ferries and how we might handle that. There were some modest improvements to shift premiums and a variety of other minor items.
I don't know the answer to sick leave. We can get that for members. I can say that it is not anywhere near the challenge that it is in the Vancouver bus system. I don't believe it's above the provincial average with respect to sick leave, nor are the provisions to the collective agreement as open-ended as they are at B.C. Transit.
D. Symons: I believe there is something called a short-term illness and injury plan that's fully funded by B.C. Ferries. I just wonder if this was fairly open-ended, as seemed to be the case with the bus drivers.
If I can go back to my experiences as a teacher, we had a definite number per year. When you went over that, you had to have a salary indemnity plan that you paid into yourself -- all the teachers paid into it -- rather than having the corporation pay into it. Do you have any information handy on that today? Otherwise, I would appreciate it at some future date.
Hon. G. Clark: No, it's nowhere near the same as B.C. Transit. In fact, it's nowhere as lucrative as the teachers get. It's six days per year, and it's not cumulative. It starts over each year. After that, you go on the STIIP plan, which is 75 percent for six months, and then you move to long-term disability. It's more akin to the provincial government system, I believe, as opposed to either the education system, which is much more generous, or the transit system, which is more lucrative.
D. Symons: I don't know if I agree when the minister indicates that this plan is not as lucrative as the teachers'. I don't know if lucrative is the word to use, because after we had used up our 15 days, that was it. The teachers had to go on a salary indemnity, which was wholly funded by the teachers.
This is a plan that you said gets 75 percent. The figure I have is 66 2/3 percent of your wage after your six days are used up, and that's wholly funded by the corporation.
Also on this, what I'd like to know is: when you go on one of these salary indemnity plans -- or injury, sickness and illness plans, whatever the name is -- is the money you get through that plan tax-free?
Hon. G. Clark: No, it's not. I don't mind answering these questions, of course, but this is not something that we've done or that is new. This has been around for years and years and years. There have been no improvements that I know of in the days off for sick pay, the STIIP program or the long-term disability plan. If there have been any, they've been very modest. Oh, it is taxable.
D. Symons: There are some plans where, when you receive the funds -- and that's what I was leading to -- it's not taxable in that sense. You could end up with two-thirds of your pay, actually coming out better than after you've had it taxed. This is not one of those cases. I think WCB works that way. The members are assuring me that that's the WCB procedure.
I'm getting into different topics now. There's a bit from the Nanaimo Daily Free Press, where there was some concern expressed last summer by the mayor of Nanaimo and council about the proposal for Duke Point. The concern was that B.C. Ferries currently doesn't pay taxes or equivalent taxes in lieu -- at least, that was the case they seemed to be making. They were commenting that they really want to put pressure on B.C. Ferries to pay its dues in Nanaimo. I know there was some threat that if you don't pay something, they'll cut off services to you.
How has that whole thing ironed out? I think the same situation was occurring over in Tsawwassen. There were some concerns that you're putting pressures on the roads and everything else. They didn't seem to think they were getting too much back in the way of taxes and other compensations for that.
[ Page 16073 ]
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, to correct the record, the mayor of Nanaimo certainly has no problem with Duke Point. He was on the committee that helped to advise and recommend Duke Point. He has a problem with grants in lieu of taxes, as do all the municipalities associated with it, because they want more revenue.
We have a whole review of grants in lieu of taxes taking place. The Crown corporations secretariat is involved in that, as well as the Ministry of Finance. There were some moves in the last budget to expand the grants in lieu of taxes to universities and some others. We understand that concern. We've been increasing the grants in lieu of taxes somewhat every year. Remember that prior to 1990 no grants were paid to any municipalities. In 1990, that was changed, and grants in lieu were put in place. This year we're giving $159,000 for major terminals, $50,000 for mid-size terminals, $18,000 for smaller terminals and $1,000 for minor locations. We have been moving in this direction.
I think the municipalities have a point, and we're doing a full evaluation. The cost implications are very significant, not for Ferries so much as for B.C. Hydro. Obviously we have to work carefully on this to make sure it's not only fair, but affordable.
D. Symons: I'll move on to capital leases. I gather you have three ships that are on a leased basis: the Queen of Surrey, the Quinsam and the Queen of Oak Bay. Are they all 20-year or 15-year? Twenty-year. Have you, between the time I got the information a year ago and now, bought out any of those leases? Are you waiting until they run the full period?
While we're at it, there are three other ferries: the Queen of Alberni, the Queen of Cowichan, and the Queen of Coquitlam. I wish I could lease one for a dollar a year, but I gather that's just left over from the transfer before. It talks about a buyout option at the end of them. I think one of those did terminate last July, and the others are coming up very shortly. They all terminate then. What happens when they terminate? Is this a buyout or do they just transfer over to B.C. Ferries?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm going to ask Glen Brown, vice-president of finance, to answer the question.
G. Brown: The corporation has three vessels under capital lease at the moment: the Queen of Sidney, the Quinsam and the Queen of Oak Bay. I'm afraid I don't have the dates of their termination. They all have the same terms and conditions, one of which is that there will be a balloon payment at the end.
The other three vessels, the Queen of Cowichan, the Queen of Coquitlam and the Queen of Alberni, were all done through the province as part of the province's estimates. They were cleared this year by the province and transferred to the corporation.
An Hon. Member: For a buck.
D. Symons: That was my question, and the member across the way called the answer. I was wondering, since they were being leased for a dollar a year, if the final payment would be a token payment as well. I have had that indicated: it was a dollar. I wish I was in on the bargaining on that one.
I wonder if we might move on to something that I asked about last year and raised some fuss over. Another member beat me to it this year, but I do have concerns because it's an issue I raised last year. It has to do with the fare schedules that came out. This one is dated January 3 "until further notice," and the next one is dated January 9 "until further notice." These have different fares on them, between January 3 and January 9. I know it didn't happen between there, but somewhere along the line there must have been a lack of communication. For two years in a row, you have put out a fare schedule, and very soon after, the figures for the schedule were the same, but the fares expressed on the back side of these were not the same. You had to put out a special one for the fares, one updating the other.
Is there some lack of communication in the firm where this takes place? You had 400,000 of these printed, and within six days they were out of date, or at least the information was incorrect. They might have passed each other at the printer's. As one was going out the door, the other was coming in the door as an order. I can see it happening it once and that last year you would get your act together and it wouldn't happen again, but two years in succession seems a little excessive.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm going to have the CEO of B.C. Ferries answer.
F. Rhodes: We have discussed this on several occasions, and I have indicated that we put out those brochures about six times a year on all the routes. The schedules change through that period of time because of refits of ships, etc. We do put out a general fare brochure that covers the entire year once the annual tariff is announced. In the period between December and January, we're inevitably advising of a change in service that normally occurs over the Christmas season. Seeking cabinet approval for the tariff adjustments is tied in with the budget process, and we have to ensure that we have the most current information available.
All the brochures were used. The cost of printing is about $14,500 per run on those runs, and all the brochures are used in conjunction with the new rate sheet. We do not lose those rate sheets or the schedules; we use them. I understand the member's point, and you will not find that it happens this year.
D. Symons: I was just checking the printing dates on the back, and there is a month's difference between them. I thought that last year and again this year, you would somehow know that possible changes were coming out in the rates. If you look on the inside, it's got a fair amount of time, from January through to June, so it has six months of schedules in the old one. The updated one I have here is not the schedules but simply the fares, updating all these other forms that were printed with the new fares.
It would seem that if you had waited a short period of time before you put out the new one, you could have had the correct fares on it and then saved the problem of printing an extra 200,000 leaflets. It's a minor point, nevertheless I think it might be something you can look into.
Another thing I want to refer to is the problem of fare increases. Over the years, it seems there has been a fair number of increases since this government has come into office. With that new fare leaflet I was just referring to, we have now seen the fourth increase since the NDP was elected. We've had some of the fares increased by as much as 40 percent over roughly three and a half years.
[ Page 16074 ]
The most recent increase really flies in the face of the promise of no new taxes, since an increase in the fares is a way of taxing people, in a sense, particularly if you're cutting the subsidy. The subsidy comes from general revenue, and that's tax money. In one sense, you could say that you are increasing taxes because you are cutting back on the subsidy and then collecting it out of the fare box on the ferries. I'm curious about the 40 percent increase in fares over that period of time. I know you're trying to get it to be self-supporting, but that's quite a bit over a short period of time. I wonder if the minister might comment on that.
Hon. G. Clark: First, my general comment is that there's no free lunch. The ferry service has increased wages, fuel costs and food costs, so ferry fares will rise consistently to deal with increased costs, and no one should be under any illusions about that. The only alternative to them not rising is either a reduction in service or an increase in taxpayer support, and I don't think either of those is particularly in the cards, although we're always looking for service efficiencies. There will be increases. The 40 percent the member refers to is grossly misleading. He knows it, because that's not been the case in general.
What we've done is move to peak pricing, off-peak pricing and shoulder pricing. That means that we have increased prices at peak periods. We also reduce prices in off-peak periods. Over the four years they may be virtually the same, but they've virtually been frozen. They've gone up less than the cost of living, if at all, in the off-peak winter periods. That's an attempt, for the first time, to have a more rational pricing structure which says that more people take the ferry in the summer, therefore we have to build to peak capacity. We have all these expensive ships sitting around in the winter, which aren't utilized to their capacity. It's to our advantage to try to shift some of the travel to off-peak periods. We save literally tens of millions of dollars in capital costs in so doing. Like a private company, an airline or anybody else, you move to a pricing structure which more adequately reflects demand, and that's what we've tried to do. I think it's been widely supported. I think those who utilize the system as an essential service appreciate the significant price break in off-peak periods, and those who can plan accordingly can avoid the peak pricing, but tourists and others who are taking it and putting a strain on the system will pay slightly more. I think it's a rational approach, and we should continue to refine that approach over time.
[7:30]
D. Symons: I'm reading from a 1993 Times Colonist, where Mr. Rhodes is quoted as saying: "The increases set are needed to defray both an $8 million drop in the government's subsidy to B.C. Ferries and to pay for various capital projects." In 1995 we see it's the same song sheet. He says: "Regular adjustments to our tariffs are absolutely essential to meet our assets renewal and investment goals." This was from the Times Colonist, Thursday, January 6, 1995.
My concern is that we have a real capital program coming on of roughly $800 million, and I wonder if the minister might be able to give us some flavour of what's going to happen to fares in order to be able to cover those capital costs, if indeed you're trying to get B.C. Ferries to be self-sufficient. You're cutting back on the subsidies, you're spending $800 million on capital and, as indicated by the CEO, you want to increase the fares to cover those costs. Can you give me an idea, first, if you've done a study on the fares needed to support the capital and the resulting operating increase because of the spending? If you've done a study, could I have a copy of it? What fare increases or projected increases have you got for 1996, for your program and all the other things that are related to it? Maybe you could give me a projection for the year 2000. I'm sure you must have worked all of this out for the future, in order to be able to figure out what it's going to be. Tied in with this, since we're moving into cats fairly soon, I wonder if you could give me an idea of what premium you might charge for the new fast ferries that are going to be constructed.
Hon. G. Clark: The required revenue increases are very sensitive to passenger growth, because passenger growth increases revenue. We have said that we can pay for the entire capital plan with fare increases every year that are 2 percent above inflation. If we receive productivity growth, although some of that is accounted for, and we receive revenue growth, and some of that is accounted for, then we will not require revenue increases above inflation. As you may recall, we are increasing ferry traffic by some 4 percent a year or some 800,000 incremental new passengers each year. If that pattern of growth continues combined with productivity improvements, we will not need revenue increases beyond inflation. I say that somewhat advisedly, because we may want to do a little more on peak pricing and rearrange the formula. However, if we return to a slower passenger growth, then we may need modest increases above inflation. That's all in the ten-year capital plan; it's all budgeted for.
With respect to the fast ferries, we've made no decision on premium pricing for the fast ferries. In fact, the plan just referred to, including the financial plan, does not assume any premium pricing for fast ferries. So because it is a blended system, if we have premium pricing for fast ferries, that will mitigate the increase for price increases on the rest of the system. I think there will be premium prices on the high-speed catamarans. That is certainly my view, and I've been public about that. It is a significant time saving, and that certainly will assist us.
The capital plan estimates a 2 percent increase in passenger growth, and so if we receive the 4 percent that we have been receiving each year for the last four years, then we will only need inflationary increases in fares.
D. Symons: I did ask if you had a study, and apparently, from the figures the minister is giving me, you do have a study. You've done some homework on this, and it's in the form of a business plan or something of that sort. I would appreciate it if you might be able to share that with me.
Earlier when I was asking about the subsidy, you mentioned the $18 million this year. I think you said $20 million, but it's $18 million, at least in the estimates book. Are there any strings attached to that transportation and highways subsidy from the federal government? Is it for midcoast ferries? Is it for providing any particular ferry service or subsidizing any? Or is it simply passed over to B.C. Ferries with no conditions attached as to how it is used by B.C. Ferries?
Hon. G. Clark: It is not tied to any specific service, but it is, in effect, a contract for coastal services.
[ Page 16075 ]
D. Symons: So coastal services could include Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay or it could mean midcoast. It could mean anything....
Hon. G. Clark: Interpreted by the province.
D. Symons: Thank you, that was what I was leading up to.
I figure that when I'm doing this I should throw a compliment in. You apparently have something called a CirclePac. It looks like a great deal where you offer people.... I gather it's been quite a success so far. Are there conditions on that -- a time frame in which they might complete the circle package? Oh, we have an example of a booklet. I hadn't noticed that on the ferries, so I'll take a look at it. Is there a time frame in which the person must make the circle? I assume it wouldn't matter which way they go around the circle. Maybe you could just enlighten me a little bit, and next time I'm on the ferry, I can pick up a brochure on it.
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, it is an excellent innovation, and our ferry corporation is to be commended. I think there are more opportunities for this kind of innovation. It's valid for up to six months from the date of purchase. I'll just have the Clerk pass this on to the member.
D. Symons: I think the minister and the staff must have been anticipating that question. I thank them very much. I usually pick something up in the schedules, but I didn't notice that one. It looks like a good program, and I congratulate the corporation for coming up with this innovation.
I have a news release here from back in 1992 -- I'm hanging onto these things, as you might notice -- and the headline says: "Second Superferry Boosts Jobs, Improves Service." The one thing I noticed was that when the two superferries came on, it didn't improve service for me, because the 8 o'clock ferry I used to catch for coming over here Monday morning no longer existed. What I'm told by people in the know is that the superferries, unless you've got a pretty full load on them, are money-losers. They aren't the same as the ferries you had on this run before, and I would suspect that this may be why you don't have the 8 o'clock on. It would take some of the fares away from the 7 o'clock. I now have to go on the 7 o'clock or 9 o'clock ferry.
The minister is working on a new ferry program, but we were always told how wonderful these superferries are. Are they as cost-efficient, in spite of the fact that you might need fewer sailings? If you need fewer sailings, you are cutting down on the service. Are they as cost-efficient as the ferries they've replaced?
Hon. G. Clark: I don't think that's a fair characterization. We need a 33 percent load factor utilization to break even on the V-class. We need 40 percent on the S-class. So it is true to say that you need slightly more capacity on the S-class. It's more expensive in that regard, but only marginally. More importantly, the load factor is 60 to 80 percent on that run. While one could argue, presumably, that a V-class might be cheaper, we don't have any problem with the superferry, which is doing very well, given the load factors it has had. As the member has taken the ferry, he may know -- and I recall that while in opposition I was taking it slightly more than since I've been in government -- that there is a significant increase in passenger volume. We're now into June, and talking to my mother, who visited yesterday, I can tell you that the ferry is jammed, and this is not the peak period of July and August. We are running at the same pace we've run at for the last four years, and aside from putting pressure on the corporation, it's good news for the economy and good news for the corporation in terms of revenue.
D. Symons: The corporation has come out recently in many news releases with the minister's name on it, indicating that you're moving into this ten-year capital plan with the ferries and that this government is going to be improving the ferry service. Going back to April 1988, the Vancouver Province said: "New Ferries Coming. 'B.C. Ferry Corporation is planning to build one new ferry every year,' says transport minister Stephen Rogers. Construction could begin in 18 months." They began a little later than that to get the superferries underway, but at least the minister's intention is there.
We move on to July 11, 1991, just prior to the election: "$63 Million Terminal Shift at Nanaimo by Early 1994, B.C. Ferry Corporation Confirms." Well, we're into mid-1995 now. "B.C. Ferry Corporation is spending $63 million to move its Nanaimo ferry terminal" -- that's not operations, that's moving the whole thing, I think -- "to Duke Point, six kilometres south of the city. 'It involves a terminal costing $45 million and $18 million worth of highway and access improvements,' Transportation and Highways minister Lyall Hanson said in a news release."
It seems to me that the prices we're hearing now, compared to the prices they were giving then, are about 75 percent more. So rather than the $63 million, we're looking at over $100 million for the two projects they were planning. From the sound of it, they were planning a more expensive terminal at Duke Point. It looks like they were going to move it entirely out of Departure Bay. Your announcements don't seem to be any more than the previous announcements as far as moving into those operations. I'm wondering if you might comment on how we can be sure that what you're doing is vastly different from what seemed to be planned for. They were moving in that direction.
Hon. G. Clark: They may have talked, but we're delivering, and I think that's significant. But it's true that in any rational review of the ferry system.... We have 40 ships. Crudely put, they last 40 years. Roughly, we should be building one a year just to replace our capital stock, not to mention accommodating growth. So obviously Mr. Rogers was correct. They didn't do it entirely, but his announcement is consistent with our ten-year plan, and perhaps that might make members more comfortable in supporting it.
On Duke Point, the numbers have not gone up as dramatically on the terminal. The numbers are $49 million now that we've done the detailed drawings as opposed to the $40 million that was announced by the member for Okanagan-Vernon. The road, however, has gone up significantly, from $18 million to $48 million, and a lot of it is a result of higher land values as this economy continues to take off.
I do want to say, though, that we did a more rational plan, because moving the entire terminal at Duke Point would have been very problematic for service to Nanaimo. As you know, what we have done has saved millions of dollars. We've taken Departure Bay, and with very little retrofitting, we can accommodate the fast ferries there, because it doesn't require the
[ Page 16076 ]
same parking requirements. We can save money at Horseshoe Bay for the same purpose, then we can utilize Duke Point for truck service -- largely from Tsawwassen to Duke Point -- although more than trucks can take the ferry. But we will take all the trucks out of the Horseshoe Bay-Departure Bay route, route 2, and move them all down to route 30.
D. Symons: If we can just go back again in time for a moment. I always seem to be reading from news releases and newspaper articles, don't I? This one is dated Saturday, July 28, 1990, and it said: "Japanese Shipbuilder Low Bidder On Two Ferries. Japanese shipbuilder, Mitsui and Co., was the low bidder of $177 million on two 470-car superferries for B.C. Ferry Corporation." Later on it said: "Versatile Pacific of Vancouver bid $119 million to build the second vessel." I'm not sure why they didn't bid on the first or didn't get that.
[7:45]
Anyway, what we seem to find is that we had an offshore bidder bidding something considerably less than the $137 million figure that, I think, was the figure used when the minister kept saying "on time and on budget." But we found that the figures they used in the past didn't include the motors, apparently. I found when I looked back to the time the superferries were coming on, that the figures used were the $119 million that Versatile Pacific had bid. When it came out as $137.6 million, they explained the difference by saying it was for putting some engines in the boats. So you may find later on I'm going to keep asking what's included in these estimates, because I thought a ship would come with its engines. Superferries apparently didn't, when you said how much they were going to cost.
Again, it seems that the business of getting a bid when you're asking for one.... We had Japanese shipbuilders willing to build those ferries for considerably less. I know that the first one was set by the previous administration, and they chose to use a Canadian builder at a higher price. But you seem to be going exactly the same way on the catamarans, the fast ferries, and I'm wondering if you have costed out for something you have in mind. They are being built around the world. How much of a premium are we paying for bringing in that technology and trying to develop a shipbuilding industry of that sort in Canada?
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, in part under pressure from the then opposition, the then government decided to build them in British Columbia. I make no apologies for that, nor would I be party to building any ships for B.C. Ferries offshore. I know the Liberal Party would do that, and that's their right. I know the public would support the government in ensuring that those jobs stay here in British Columbia.
I also want to make the point that the Japanese bid you refer to did not include the duty, and the Canadian duty on this is 25 percent, which does not necessarily mean it's competitive. When you combine that with the significant loss of jobs associated with that and the multiplier of those jobs here, the Canadian company is more than competitive.
Having said that, with respect to the aluminum ferry, we believe we will be world-class competitive in that technology. I do acknowledge that it is due in part to the Canadian dollar, but we have lots of interest internationally in high-speed ferries. There are not that many places building them. They are building them in Europe, the Scandinavian countries and Australia. Once we start building them here, we're in a much smaller niche market. It's a large market with very few competitors, and we believe we will be competitive, but that's yet to be seen. We won't be paying a premium for that, other than the fact that the government will have to get involved in training aluminum welders to help revitalize the shipyards.
D. Symons: We do have an aluminum boat industry. Some of it is situated in my constituency of Richmond. We have fishboats and various things of that sort being built out of aluminum there, and they do a very neat job. But this is somewhat larger than that.
Moving on to the need for a new fleet, the minister spoke quite a long time ago about the need to upgrade our ferries and our transit system and spending large sums of money on the upgrading of both. He insisted that our fleet was getting old. I forget, but I think he said that over 50 percent of the fleet was more than 30 years old or something of that sort, to justify the fact that we have to build these new ships. Our current ships are basically falling apart; they have reached their life spans. Yet the minister was telling me earlier in the day about how the Queen of New Westminster has had a refit. That ship was built in 1964, and some major work has been done on it. Who was making the things? The senior vice-president, engineering and construction, of B.C. Ferries says the Queen of New Westminster has at least another 30 years' service left, and therefore is well worth the incremental investment we're making. Replacement cost of the ship is between $80 million and $90 million.
It seems that we have an awful lot more ships in the fleet that were built in 1964 or around that same time. I've got a list of them here, and an awful lot of them were built in that time. The ones that were built prior to that are usually the ones on the very small routes. You insist that we must replace these ferries, but you've done a modification on the hull of the Queen of New Westminster, and they're saying it's good for another 30 years. What is the necessity for replacing the fleet? I can see the necessity of bringing in something that you think is grand in fast ferries or a catamaran, but the necessity of building them seems to be proven to be untrue. If you can do a modification at considerably less price, then you don't have to pay for building new fast ferries.
Hon. G. Clark: The only flaw in that argument is that the Queen of New Westminster in 1990 underwent a $50 million refit. The thing was cut in half and stretched and raised, and new engines were put in. It is in fact three-quarters of the price of a new ship. It would probably be a tough call today, in terms of.... The minister responsible may be here, I'm not sure, who made such an extensive investment in the Queen of New Westminster. That was made just a few years ago, so there's no question that we can retrofit the boats -- no, the ships. You've even got me saying that; they'll shoot me at the Ferry Corp. They are ships.
There's no question that you can extend the life of these vessels, and we do so continuously, but there is a significant cost to doing that. In this case, it's virtually a new ship that we're now refitting five years later, and we're spending that kind of money on the vessel. You always have to weigh that.
The general point is still true. Almost 50 percent of the fleet was built between 1962 and 1965 under a previous farsighted government, and those ships are nearing the end of their useful lives. We don't intend to retire them, but for
[ Page 16077 ]
planning purposes in general, if we don't plan for an orderly replacement and expansion of the facility, then we'll have some significant pressures on the corporation.
L. Hanson: You raised the issue of the Queen of New Westminster having some vibration problems. Have they been cured?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm going to ask the president and chief executive officer to answer that question.
F. Rhodes: The Queen of New Westminster is now just completing a further refit with some modifications to the stern of the ship. Those modifications involved some structural alterations to the stern extensions of the shafts, because in its redesign and total rebuilding several years ago, there was a latent harmonic or flaw -- a vibration in the ship. We determined that in the long run, it was in our interests to correct that, so it has been done.
L. Hanson: I assume that it is now back running and that the problem has been overcome.
Hon. G. Clark: I'll ask the president and chief executive officer of B.C. Ferries to answer that question.
F. Rhodes: The ship is scheduled to be in service by mid-July, approximately July 10 to 15. It will all be completed at that time.
L. Hanson: I have just a few questions, and now is as good an opportunity as any. The Queen of the North, I think, is an ex-Stena ship. Is it on the list for refit or replacement? It doesn't qualify for all the safety.... I think there's something called SOLAS '90 that it doesn't measure up to, and I wonder if there were any plans to bring it up to that level.
Hon. G. Clark: I'll ask the president to answer that.
F. Rhodes: There are two major vessels operating in the north: the Queen of Prince Rupert, which is part of the ten-year capital program, and the Queen of the North. The Queen of the North was formerly the Stena Danica. It complies in every respect to today's standards. The issue that is in debate now with world ferry operators and regulators relates to compartmentalization -- the number of compartments in the ship. If there's a requirement to increase the number of compartments, then the ship would require modification to comply with a new standard. It now meets current standards.
L. Hanson: The ship now qualifies for those standards.... They haven't been established yet? I don't need an answer to that; I see everyone nodding over there.
I just want to canvass a minute, because there seems to be an awful lot of controversy going on about the fast-ferry issue. There have been articles in the paper, news conferences by some individuals and so on. I've been provided with a lot of material to give me an education, if you will.
The news release issued by B.C. Ferries -- B.C. 21 -- says: "The results provided by International Catamarans Designs Inc. show that their vessels will require 33,500 horsepower to reach their service speed of 37 knots." Then it goes on to say: "Fully loaded, the vessels will carry 250 vehicles and 1,000 passengers." Is that service speed of 37 knots with that horsepower fully loaded? There seems to be a period after that, then it says that fully loaded vessels will carry 250 vehicles and 1,000 passengers. Does that horsepower carry it at 37 knots with that 33,500 horsepower?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes.
L. Hanson: That's not uncertain; it's very clear that that's the case. Is this a technical advancement that we haven't seen before? The information that I've been given is that a ship of this size and with this load capacity would have great difficulty in reaching that service speed with that horsepower. They seem to think that there is some new design or some breakthrough that hasn't been apparent before in order to do that.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm going to ask the senior vice-president responsible for construction of the fast ferries to answer.
T. Ward: The results of the tests done in Norway, which is where all the previous Norwegian vessels were tested.... Probably the person who supplied you with the information is basing his numbers on a design that was prepared, but not built, in Norway. We've actually gone to Norway to have the vessel tested. The results are consistent with what the naval architect found from previous large car-carrying vessels on which he has been the naval architect. One of the reasons we selected Incat is that they were the designers of 11 of the 14 catamarans carrying cars that are in service now. That naval architect actually had access to three quarters of the full-scale tests, so it's not surprising that the model tests are consistent with his calculations, which were extrapolated from a number of full-scale vessels.
L. Hanson: Well, it is difficult to become a marine engineer in a very short time. The evidence that was given to me seems to say that smaller, similar-style ships carrying much less in terms of load and weight required much higher horsepower, up in the 45,000-horsepower range -- which to a layman seems like an awful lot of horses -- to drive it at 35 knots instead of the 37 that you're predicting. I've been provided with a lot of evidence that says that it would be a technical breakthrough to be able to get that speed out of that load, compared to all of the other things that are being done in that field. I'm certainly not a marine engineer, nor would I ever profess to be, but it seems to make a plausible case that that performance measurement is pretty optimistic.
[8:00]
Hon. G. Clark: Incidentally, the senior vice-president is the other Mr. Ward, Tom Ward -- no relation.
Look, I understand this debate. We've been having it, somewhat in public, for some time. I'm not a marine engineer either, although Tom Ward here is a marine engineer. The debate really should have been settled with the tank tests, as Tom Ward mentioned a minute ago. They build an 18-foot scale aluminum model exactly to fit, and they put it in a huge tank that simulates the waves and the configurations and the wake, and they test it, pulling it along to see the kinds of speeds it can get. And that is the ultimate test.
Philip Hercus from Incat, together with Bob Allan from the Robert Allan marine architects' group in Vancouver, have
[ Page 16078 ]
been working on this question, and the debate is really this. This is a bigger ship than the currently operating Incat-designed ships. The largest currently operating Incat-designed ship is 74 metres, and we're building one 94 metres on the water line. So the question was this: can you extrapolate or extend that design 20 metres, or does it require a leap in technology to go farther? Can you simply elongate the design, or do you need to do something different when you get that big? That was the debate, frankly. Incat made the argument that there was no technological leap required to extend their design another 20 metres. I think Mr. Hercus said, at least to me privately, that if you go over 100 metres, it probably will require another reiteration of the design and gas turbines, etc., although that's just something he said to me offhand.
He believed that you did not have to do that. That was the bid they put in. The Robert Allan marine architects from North Vancouver worked on it together with them. They came up with the design, and they were successful in the competition, but the real test was when they actually built the scale model. They've done the scale model; it worked perfectly. And that's unusual; usually there's some redesign required.
That should have, in my view, put completely to rest the Bob Wards of the world and others who are arguing it simply can't be done. Unfortunately, it's not done that, but from the corporation's perspective and from my perspective, I think he's proven it quite significantly.
There are further tank tests to be done with respect to ride control and the wave configuration that we have here in the Georgia strait, which will further refine the design to make sure that it deals with the particular type of wave configuration. It will be modelled and put in a tank test. But Mr. Bob Ward had a competing bid and wasn't successful. We believe that we've now proven that we can do this with this horsepower.
L. Hanson: I'm not too surprised that you recognized the name of the individual who provided me with some of this information. But as I said, being a layman, he seems to make an awfully good case for his position. All I can do is ask the people on the other end, who have done that homework and arrived at those figures. As a matter of interest, what is the 74-metre ship of the same design carrying in terms of horsepower and service speed?
Hon. G. Clark: We'll have to get you that. I actually travelled on the one that goes across the English Channel and the one that goes across the Irish Sea. They're both about 74 metres, and the AEQ, or auto equivalent, numbers are probably about half. The horsepower is probably 20,000 or something like that. I can certainly get that for you without any problem.
[B. Jones in the chair.]
The Chair: The member for Okanagan-Vernon continues.
An Hon. Member: Ad nauseam.
L. Hanson: Everybody else is trying to; I guess I might, too.
You've done studies with the ferry and its application and so on. What do you expect it to do on a trip from Victoria to Tsawwassen in terms of time? I'll ask you another question on Duke Point in a minute.
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, it won't be travelling between Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen because of congestion and Active Pass and everything else. That's why we chose the Nanaimo-Departure Bay route. I want to say candidly that the route is not quite long enough to optimize fast-ferry technology. A little longer, actually, would be better. That's not necessarily an argument against it, but I think you can appreciate that as it leaves Horseshoe Bay, it will be going relatively slow. It's a congested harbour, etc. When it comes in at Departure Bay, it will be going relatively slow, and then it will go very fast in between, in open water largely. A little farther would actually improve the advantages for the fast ferry.
A conventional B.C. ferry travels at 19 knots. Some of them go a little faster; some go a little slower. This will be 37 knots, so that's almost twice as fast. You won't achieve twice the savings in time because of the point I just made. So what you'll get will be about an hour instead of an hour and 35 minutes between Horseshoe Bay and Departure Bay. You might be optimistic and say that you might squeeze it down to 55 minutes, but it will probably be an hour and five minutes instead of an hour and 35 minutes. We don't get the optimum savings, because we really should get twice the speed and twice the savings. In addition, the wake wash is not as severe as the conventional ferry.
An Hon. Member: At slow speeds?
Hon. G. Clark: At all speeds. The conventional ferries and superferries have very large wakes. This is maybe a bit counterintuitive, because these are going twice as fast, but our understanding is that the wake is not as significant. We don't optimize the real value, but we still get good value and significant improvements.
Just while I'm doing this question, I'll say that there is some concern about congestion, so that's another reason that the ferry will be going slower out of or into each harbour. However, these ships stop faster than conventional ships. They stop very, very quickly. Of course, they are operating in very congested waters all around the world, including places like Hong Kong harbour and the like. We don't think that is unmanageable, and it's something that we take very seriously -- the other sort of criticism of this technology. I have just been advised by the vice-president that when we are manoeuvring or coming into the harbour, we are going the same speed as the conventional ferries.
L. Hanson: One of the issues about Departure Bay in Nanaimo, as I remember, was the congestion it was causing on the streets in Nanaimo and the concern of the city with that problem. Have you included in your estimates of doing this some transportation improvements within the city of Nanaimo to carry that traffic? I think that was one of the main reasons that Duke Point was seen as the replacement for Departure Bay.
Hon. G. Clark: One of the motivations for the decision we made in terms of keeping Departure Bay for fast ferries and moving to Duke Point was precisely the point you are making. As I recall, the highway work cost $70 million just to fix the problem we have today. If we want to leave the status
[ Page 16079 ]
quo or build a superferry or something, we have to have extensive highway work. That is partly because, as anybody who knows that route knows, they are lined up bumper to bumper all the way up the Island Highway, trying to get on. You need extensive work there.
That is avoided by this for two reasons. First, we don't have any trucks coming in there. Trucks will no longer be out of that terminal; they'll be moved down. Secondly, and more importantly, we will be moving largely to a reservation system. Also, remember: smaller ship, more frequency -- more like smaller pulses of traffic.
If you picture the superferry coming into Tsawwassen or Swartz Bay, you need a huge holding tank just to hold the cars while the ferry comes in. When the ferry disgorges, if you will, you also have huge amounts of traffic coming off and on and lower frequency. When you have a high-speed smaller ferry, you have less cars more frequently. If you combine that with a reservation or a partial reservation system, it means you don't need a huge holding tank, or people having to line up for hours, because they have a reservation. You also don't need the big holding tank, because they hold less.
We believe the existing configuration of Departure Bay will be sufficient to deal with the fast ferries. We won't need highway improvements -- maybe some very modest highway improvements -- around Departure Bay to make it work it a little better.
We've designed the catamarans -- and this is another important innovation in our design versus others -- to fit our terminals. In Europe the catamarans have very modest terminals. Because they don't need the same infrastructure of the huge steel ships, they don't need the same infrastructure investment. Here we have infrastructure investment already -- big steel double-decked ramps. That is unheard of with high-speed ferries in Europe. They just come into very modest facilities. We want to run them both sometimes at the same place. We also don't want to negate the investment we've made, so the catamarans are slightly different in design. Instead of being square, they come in a little pointed in order to fit our existing ramps. There has been some design work done on the fast ferries.
There is also some investment in the terminal. Nine million dollars has to be invested in Departure Bay and Horseshoe Bay in order to fit the high-speed technology -- a very modest investment to make it work in those two terminals.
L. Hanson: What is your schedule for Duke Point?
Hon. G. Clark: May 1997.
L. Hanson: Just one final question: in this design for the fast ferries, is it similar to the ones we have now in terms of loading and unloading?
Interjection.
L. Hanson: But drive-on and drive-off without....
Hon. G. Clark: Just for the record: double ramps, drive-on, drive-off, roll-on, roll-off -- the same design as we have today.
L. Hanson: I had an opportunity to ride a fast ferry in New Zealand. It was a car ferry, but they had to have a turntable to turn it around. That took an awfully long time in the loading, and I'm sure it delayed the process quite a bit. They were going 30 knots, and I didn't think it handled rough water very well. We'll see what this design does.
An Hon. Member: You didn't handle rough water well.
L. Hanson: I did, actually, but nobody else did. C. Tanner: The minister said the ultimate test on this catamaran was in a tank. The ultimate test is surely the boat in the water, when it gets there. If your tests prove to be inaccurate and it doesn't work out, have you got any insurance against it, or is the province carrying the whole risk?
Hon. G. Clark: There are 14 of these in commercial operation, and there are about 12 on order every year. It's the fastest-growing element of ferry travel. Remember, we've talked about New Zealand. This is a very fast-growing industry, and almost all the incremental growth in ferry traffic is high-speed ferries -- mostly catamarans, but not exclusively, and mostly aluminum, but not exclusively.
What that means in terms of risk is that if for whatever reason there are problems associated with these in these waters or if people aren't happy or comfortable with them, I'm very confident that we can recover our costs in terms of exporting the boats we have. Obviously, if they don't work, we won't, but that seems ludicrous to me, because they will work. There is no technological reason why they won't. There are 14 in commercial operation. They are building them all around the world and expanding that service now, so I don't think there's any fear of that.
[8:15]
I guess the unknown here is not much of an unknown, but I'll give the member some benefit of the doubt on the question. There's some unknown around debris, and there's some question about the distance, which I talked about earlier, not being optimum. There's some question around the ridability and the fact that people are spoiled with the spectacular service we have today. These are all questions one could argue. I don't have any problem debating them. I'm completely convinced that we've dealt with all those problems, but if at the end of the day, there are still some problems with this, I'm sure we won't have any problem selling those boats for equivalent value. These are going to be pretty spectacular vessels; I have no doubt about that.
C. Tanner: The minister went to some trouble to tell us that this is the first time we've had a boat of 100-metre length and that you're increasing it from 74 metres, so there aren't 14 others like this around the world. This is the first one; this is a unique experience. My question is: if that unique experience doesn't prove to be the success that we hope, who gets stuck with it? If it doesn't work here, it's not going to work somewhere else, so what are you going to do with it?
Hon. G. Clark: Well, it is going to work. There are four larger ones of 120 metres under construction by Stena right now in Finnyard, and that is a leap in technology. They take semitrailers and everything. This is an incredible venture. They are now building four of them. There is a great deal of interest internationally in the size that we're building, because
[ Page 16080 ]
we're going to be utilizing not-unproven technology. Look, I have to say to the member that we don't have any fear of this not technically working.
C. Tanner: There is not one of these vessels of this size in the water anywhere in the world today, from what I understand. There are others being built by other companies. None of them has been in the water, and none of them has been in our waters, so there is a risk. There's got to be. I'm asking the minister, first, whether we have insurance against that risk, other than his word that he feels good about it. Second, my understanding was that the Ferry Corporation wasn't enamoured of this vessel until you got to take over the ministry. What did you do to convince them that this was something so special, and why are you so sure of yourself now?
Hon. G. Clark: I've just been advised today that Stena has ordered four 100-metre high-speed catamarans from Norway. The superferry is the largest conventional ferry ever built in North America, with more new technology than in the high-speed ferry. That might be a stretch; I don't know. There's a debate about that, but it's pretty close.
When a previous administration many years ago built Tsawwassen terminal -- I can show you the clippings -- they all said it couldn't be done, and there was no way they could build a ferry terminal at Tsawwassen. All the evidence said that was the case. All the critics said it couldn't be done.
An Hon. Member: All the naysayers.
Hon. G. Clark: All the naysayers, that's right.
When the shipyards in British Columbia split the ferries in half and stretched them out, the newspapers were filled with people, so-called experts, saying: "It can't be done." When they raised them and put another deck on, they said it couldn't be done. We understand this. I'm not diminishing legitimate criticism on these questions. There is risk associated with that. I don't have any hesitation in acknowledging that, but there is risk with everything you do. The B.C. Ferry Corporation has been leading the world, in many respects, in all of this, and we can do it. I have no fear that we can do this successfully. They're doing it everywhere else in the world.
At the end of the day, there is no guarantee. We don't have insurance against this. We don't have anything except the fact that we have the highest-quality workers in the world, a design which is proven and tank-tested and which will have further tank testing. Everywhere else in the world, they're moving aggressively to this new technology. I say we should get on board, we should build them here and we should export them around the world.
C. Tanner: There's a whole series of contradictions in what the minister said over the last 25 minutes, in my view. First of all, we went out and found the technology somewhere else, so anybody else who wants to build them can do exactly the same thing. Secondly, we might have the most highly skilled workers, but we've also got the highest-paid workers in the world. This is nice for our workers, but it's difficult for us to deal with as far as competition and price are concerned. Thirdly, no matter what the minister thinks, not one of these vessels is in the water. We have no insurance against it going wrong except the word of this minister. He thinks he convinced those people sitting behind him and the other people at B.C. Ferry Corporation that it was a good idea. Before this minister appeared on the scene, they didn't think it was a good idea. The question that I asked just previously is: What did this minister do to convince the experts that his idea was a good one?
Hon. G. Clark: Most of the announcements were around route 1. That was where the debate was. Shall we build fast ferries or superferries? It's not a good idea for route 1 for the reasons I mentioned.
What has happened with the ten-year plan and the vision for the Ferry Corporation is traffic segmentation. We started looking at moving the trucks off and segregating the passenger load. I can tell you right now that we're actively looking at passenger-only high-speed ferries, notwithstanding the experience with Sealink, because our passenger-only growth is growing faster than our conventional growth. We are now getting more and more people who walk on to B.C. Ferries and take buses at either end. That means there's a growing market, and that saves us money if we start building passenger ferries, truck barges and the like. Moving the trucks out and looking at the configuration makes sense for route 2; it does not make sense for route 1. I don't believe there's any disagreement with the Ferry Corporation.
I want to deal with just two points you made. Firstly, our wages are not the highest in the world, far from it. Our competition is Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Australia is our biggest competition. We are very competitive on the wage side, not even including the benefits of the Canadian dollar.
Secondly, the first fast-ferry car service really went into service in 1990. We are now getting close to 20 in service in five years. We can wait; we can wait another five years if we want. What do we do at Departure Bay with six-hour lineups on the long weekend? Do we spend $100 million or $200 million building huge ships for route 2 while we wait because we're too conservative to deal with the new technology, or do we do something that makes sense, that's rational, that saves us money, and move into an area where we can be competitive? I say we move now.
With respect to the design, the member says anybody else can buy the design. That's true to some extent. We own this design for this particular vessel for this size. The member is correct, this hasn't been built. We have the Incat design, the patent on this size of this ship here in British Columbia. It's a technology transfer. Someone else can go hire Incat to do that. Once we build the facility to build these, once we train 200 aluminum welders and fabricators to do that, once we have this facility up and running and build three of these for our needs, we will have a world-class facility to build them, we will have a world-class design on which to build and we will be competing in the fastest-growing market in the world for ferry technology against the Scandinavians and the Australians. I suggest that it's worth the chance that we can create that kind of industry here in British Columbia.
L. Hanson: You're going to build some facilities to build them, and I think there are some estimates of the cost of the three ships. Do they include the cost of building those facilities? Or are they an asset separate and above that?
Hon. G. Clark: The estimates include the cost of building the new facilities. We haven't quite decided on the design, and
[ Page 16081 ]
on how we will build them here. I have to be frank with you about that. We do have Vancouver Shipyards Co. which can build them and would like to build them. They are the logical facility, and they do outstanding work. But there is less competition if Vancouver Shipyards gets it, but I'm not sure anybody else has the ability to do that.
An alternative would be the way the superferries were built under the previous administration, and under ours -- that is, the integrated ferry constructors idea or the consortium idea, where different elements of the facility are built by different pieces.
A third idea we are leaning towards is a version of this. We need to build a facility, and perhaps B.C. Ferries should build the facility, or the shell if you will. Then an integrated ferry constructors-type model would allow different people to build components of it with a general contractor -- likely someone like Vancouver Shipyards -- putting it together in our facility. That would mean the asset would still be owned by the Ferry Corporation. It would essentially be very simple, I think it's fair to say. A big kind of shell with probably demanned cranes or something in it and very, very spartan -- not a very fancy facility, just to put the elements together.
A modular construction is the way virtually everything is being built these days. It makes a lot of sense. It allows us to have lots of competition and subcomponents. And it allows us to harness the expertise that does exist out there, including places like Shorebuilt Boat Builders in the member's constituency and others who might be able to do components of very high quality but obviously can't build something of this magnitude.
L. Hanson: I guess the final question is to do with the arrangements that have been reached with the designers, and so on. There's a commission and a royalty system. At least, that's the information I've been given, and maybe the minister could enlighten us on what that is.
Hon. G. Clark: I'll have the other Mr. Ward answer that question.
T. Ward: We will have to ward off the negative connotations here.
The arrangement with the naval architect is that there is a fee of $1.8 million to cover the design of the three vessels we are building. So that's essentially $600,000 per vessel. Of that, the split is roughly $1.2 million for the hull structure, which has been designed in Australia, and $600,000 for the mechanical and electrical engineering, which is being done in Vancouver. That includes the start of the technology transfer from Australia to B.C. The technology transfer gives us access to all the designs the Australians have for a fee based on the size of the vessel. The arrangement allows us to continue building more of the vessels for B.C. Ferries, but there is a royalty to be paid if we build it for an offshore owner. Associated with that is the obligation of the naval architect to do certain work with us and to keep the liability for the design. We have a bond on the naval architect for his professional liability, and that will stay in place for future vessels.
K. Jones: With regard to the facility that this is being built in, was this intended to be on land, or was there some reason that the Paramax floating drydock is not available for this, or is not big enough?
Hon. G. Clark: It's "Panamax." There's no choice yet, but this would be a facility on land in all likelihood. We haven't chosen a site yet.
[8:30]
D. Symons: The questioning has led other than where I was planning. I was going to do the other and come to fast ferries at the end. I will jump into fast ferries now and come back to my other chain of thought later.
Just on the ferries, then we were dealing with this cost of the shipyard. I think you mentioned you haven't quite decided how that's going to be paid for. I was under the understanding that it would be basically built in. One way or the other, it's going to have to be built into the costs of the ship.
Hon. G. Clark: Built in.
D. Symons: I have just had confirmation that that's true. So, in one way somebody's going to have to pay for it, and we will in the long run.
Somewhere it was mentioned that at least 80 percent would have to be Canadian content with 60 percent of it B.C. content. I am wondering if that 80 percent and 60 percent deals with materials or cost value. Are we dealing with the weight volume? I assume it's dollars that you're referring to, is it?
Hon. G. Clark: I think I'll ask Mr. Ward to answer that detailed question.
T. Ward: Approximately 60 percent of the total cost of the vessel will be labour, and all of that's Canadian. The materials come from different parts of the world. Probably 25 percent of the material will be Canadian.
If you look at the rest of the capital program, we will find that where the vessel is a steel vessel, for example, the labour will be in the order of 50 percent to 60 percent, but then the steel content is typically Canadian content, which is about 50 percent of the material, and that would typically come from Ontario. We have no steel-producing facilities here.
The labour content at the B.C. end in the shipyard is fairly high. I think previous studies have shown that there's an economic multiplier within B.C. of somewhere between two and a half and three. There's a large industry here of suppliers and manufacturers to the marine industry that feed the shipyards with components and specialized trades. B.C. Ferries is, of course, one of the main customers of the shipyards, and over the last five years has represented nearly 90 percent of the work done in the shipbuilding end of the British Columbia shipbuilding industry.
D. Symons: When I read those figures of 80 and 60, I thought it was materials and I thought that was rather high. But to say that 60 percent of it is going to be B.C. content, when that 60 percent is really the labour component of it -- I don't think one would expect otherwise. It sounds good when you read that in a news release, but when you look at it, it's not likely to be otherwise. I don't know if that's saying anything other than what normally would be the case, unless, of course, we built the whole ship offshore.
On August 12, 1994, the minister put out a news release stating in part that construction of the vessels is scheduled to
[ Page 16082 ]
begin in early 1995 -- we've passed that date -- continuing through to the end of 1997. The first fast ferry is expected to be ready for commissioning by early 1996. My question is: are you on schedule, because it's already well past the starting date? When will construction begin? What is the projected date for the first commissioning? Are the designs complete so you're ready to go to contract?
Hon. G. Clark: Sorry, that was at Duke Point. I was wondering why I was mixed up. We're about four months behind schedule, which is not bad. The aluminum has been ordered from France; it arrives in October. We should have construction begin sometime this fall. It takes about ten to 12 months to construct a vessel, so we can take it from there. It's fall or summer of 1996 -- somewhere around there. There is a relationship with the Duke Point terminal. We're working hard on that, because....
C. Tanner: No relationship with an election, is there?
Hon. G. Clark: No, unfortunately, they'll probably be after an election, and I look forward to launching them.
Interjections.
Hon. G. Clark: I look forward to cutting the ribbon on the new ferry. It's been a little bit behind time.
There was a question about France. The aluminum may well come from Canada, but the specialized rolling required for the plate and extrusions is a selective process. France was the successful bidder; they were the low bid.
D. Symons: Can you tell me if the designs are completed so that it is ready to go to tender if you boarded the aluminum? Just on the aluminum being done in France, or at least rolled there, is this a special alloy, or is it straight rolled aluminum? Is titanium or something put in to strengthen it?
Hon. G. Clark: It is a special alloy; it's called marine alloy.
K. Jones: Why would that be? Does that withstand deadheads?
Hon. G. Clark: I don't quite know why that is. There is some special treatment; it's marine grade.
When will it go to tender? Very soon, depending on how we decide to construct it. We'll probably put the tender out in July. It will take some time to analyze that. We hope that construction will begin this fall. We have a very ambitious training program we also have to pursue, because we don't really want aluminum welders flooding in from all across Canada. We'd rather train existing shipyard workers or new or young people to take advantage of this opportunity.
D. Symons: I gather that you've had studies done recently on your schedule, pricing and so forth. I wonder if I might have a copy of the most recent one that would indicate where you are on the schedule. You're indicating four months behind, so you've done some studies, and you know where you are. If it would be possible to have a copy of that, I'd appreciate it.
I wonder how many people are working for the corporation on the fast-ferry project? I know you have a Vancouver office. Could you could tell me how many Ferry Corporation employees are there on that project, how many have been seconded from other government departments, or how many are contract employees? Could you divide that total number into how many are B.C. Ferries, other government employees or contracted from outside of government?
Hon. G. Clark: It's hard to answer that question definitively. We have four full-time people working on the fast-ferry program at B.C. Ferries and about 20 or maybe slightly more than that on a part-time basis. We have technical advisory committees and the like. I'm not sure if you would count this, but as the member knows, not that long ago -- perhaps it was long ago, but it was prior to my having responsibility for the ferries -- when they designed a ferry they tried to involve the workers in the design. The superferry was a real success story in that regard. To make sure the users of the ship have lots to add to it in terms of the design, there were all kinds of committees of employees looking at how the galley would work, how the wheelhouse would be and those kinds of questions. I don't know if you would count that as working on them. Then there is Robert Allan and his associates in Vancouver, and he may have a few people working on it, as well. There are other consultants who are hired from time to time, but in general that is the scheme of it.
In addition to that, the new construction division, which Mr. Ward is the senior vice-president of, obviously has a bigger staff of engineers and the like, who are drawn on from time to time. That is where the four sit, I assume. Then we have, in the government itself, the Crown corporations secretariat and certain expertise -- people like Sam Bawlf and others who are on contract with the government or Crown corporations secretariat. They aren't necessarily connected to this program specifically, but they do provide advice occasionally.
D. Symons: On February 27, 1995, the minister announced that invitations to supply the water jets were sent to manufacturers. You've indicated that you now have a contract for the aluminum for the ship. I was curious, when I saw that notice, about whether the designs were finished. I gather that maybe the designs aren't finished. You've sent out expressions of interest, at least, for the water jets, but you don't quite know the design yet. At that time, you didn't seem to quite have a handle on what the horsepower was going to be. It's sort of interesting that you sent out a request for proposals before you had that information. Is it planned to go with gas turbine or diesel?
Hon. G. Clark: It's a medium-speed diesel with water jets; that's part of the debate we had earlier. The tank tests merely confirmed what we believed all along. We were sufficiently confident and had moved along in the design sufficiently, so we put the RFP out. We have concluded the water jet proposal; they were purchased from KaMeWa, which is a Swedish company. With the engines, the debate is still raging. The technical review is complete, but the commercial review is not. That should be chosen fairly shortly and things are moving along very quickly.
D. Symons: You have settled on diesel. Diesel engines, I suspect, are still known to produce more pollution than gas
[ Page 16083 ]
turbine engines. You'll know where this question is coming from because I was interested in rail without wheels and previous ferries without engines. Is the $70 million per ferry that you are talking about now inclusive of the engines? When you talk about $70 million per ferry, are you talking about a turnkey operation? When I ask you at some future date whether this is on time and on budget, I want to be sure that you won't say: "Well, certainly it was, but the engines or the superstructure or the captain's wheelhouse or something like that wasn't included when we were talking about it. Naturally, you understand that we wouldn't include the captain's wheelhouse." Can we be sure that the electronics, the engines and everything else that goes with the ship is included and that we have a turnkey operation when you are giving us that figure?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm advised that it's right down to the toilet paper. This is all in the price. The member has said this a few times, and I haven't bothered to rise to the debate, but I will say that it is misleading to say that the superferries were overbudget. The contract for the shipbuilding was a certain amount, and it was always intended and always upfront that the engines were purchased by the Ferry Corporation, separate and distinct from the shipbuilding contract.
In this case, our outside cost is $72 million. We think it will be less than that, but that's the outside budget for fast ferries. It does not include interest during construction and some of those other things that you can sometimes roll in if you want. That's the capital cost, the fully outfitted turnkey operation, or whatever you want to call it -- drive it off the barge, or whatever.
D. Symons: The minister is telling me that there was a bit of waste on the part of Canadian General Electric. They put out a full-page ad around the time you were doing it on their gas turbines. Obviously that advertising on their part didn't sway the minister. I'm glad to see that they used engineering advice, at least, rather than glossy ads in newspapers.
[8:45]
I wonder if we could move into a separate, related issue that deals with safety. Indeed, there was a study done on the collision that occurred between the Sealink and a B.C. Ferry near Active Pass. The report came out fairly recently. They did indicate that there are some special needs and problems related to high-speed ferries. They made some comments about passenger and baggage restraints and all that.
In exactly what sorts of ways is the design of this particular ferry going to mitigate the problem, if there is any sudden change in speed -- you know, striking something -- that the throwing around of people at 37 kilometres per hour is considerably different than doing it at 19 kilometres per hour?
Hon. G. Clark: I'll ask the vice-president to answer those concerns.
T. Ward: The new high-speed ferries will be built in accordance with the International Maritime Organization's high-speed ferry code, which was brought in in May 1994. It will also meet the requirements of the Canadian Coast Guard, which are on top of the high-speed code. The high-speed code specifically addresses such things as seatbelts and the need to tie down cargo. It has three classifications in it. If you're in a certain class, then everything has to be lashed down, including the passengers. If you're in the second category, the seats have to be facing aft, and if there's a bar, the bar has to be facing aft. If you're in the third category you don't need seatbelts, you don't need to lash anything down. You can sit on settees and walk around the vessel. There's a formula for calculating it, which is very dependent on the size of the vessel, and therefore the deceleration characteristics of the vessel, in a crash-stop situation. We instructed our naval architects to put us in the lowest category so that we didn't need seatbelts and we didn't need to lash down the cars.
A couple of weeks ago I was on board the Hoverspeed Great Britain, which was the first high-speed car-carrying ferry put in service. I travelled from Folkestone to Boulogne in France. The master on that ship, Captain Read, who has been on it since it went into service, told me that they hadn't lashed a car on that vessel in the last 12 months. They had done that in the first four years, but then they started experimenting and found that, regardless of the weather in the English Channel, they did not have to lash cars down.
They have a contract to carry brand-new Range Rovers from Britain to France. If they have ten spare spaces on board, they load the Range Rovers. They've had no damage whatsoever on the fast ferry. The conventional ferries that had previously carried them had to lash them down, and sometimes the lashing damaged the cars.
D. Symons: On June 29, 1994, there was a news release from B.C. Ferries saying a new ferry terminal would be built at Duke Point. I'm going to come back to Duke Point for a moment. I'm wondering if you can give us a timetable for that. We've also had an announcement about sale of properties at Duke Point, so I'm wondering if you can give us an idea of what proportion of the property there has been sold and when construction is going to begin on the terminal. The date seems to keep changing.
Are you planning to do sort of a Mount Washington thing? You're going to have to put in a new road there that you said was somewhere near $50 million. Will you do sort of a Mount Washington thing on that road, where the person is paying the toll for the ferry but they're also paying for the road as well? Are you building that into the ferry ticket?
Hon. G. Clark: Last question first. We haven't decided yet on that. We could build it in the conventional way with debt servicing, or we could put a premium on the ticket to pay for the road.
In addition, it's May 1997; I mentioned that already. There have been properties sold. It's Duke Point Development Ltd., which is owned by the government of British Columbia but managed by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. No revenue comes to us for the sale of those properties.
D. Symons: Just staying at Duke Point for a moment, when you get around to doing the construction on it, I'm wondering whether the construction of the ferry terminal, the docking facilities and so forth, is going to be put out to a single bidder, or whether you might do something like what we've done with the Island Highway, where you'll divide it up into a number of smaller projects, put together a sort of Duke Point constructors' limited, and have a union-only label on that for building on that site. I'm sure the minister has been thinking
[ Page 16084 ]
of how they're going to handle the construction. Are you planning on a Vancouver Island Highway arrangement for the construction of facilities at Duke Point?
Hon. G. Clark: An excellent suggestion from the member, and I'll take it under advisement. At the moment, the interchange at Duke Point will be by Highway Constructors Ltd., because it's the interchange of the highway, and then the remaining highway will be, I believe, six small contracts, open tender call. The marine work, the terminal itself, is put into four contracts, open tender call.
D. Symons: Along with this, Duke Point is not close to the town centre or facilities for transport into the town centre. You're putting in what is primarily going to be a passenger vehicle. I hope more people will be going by passenger rather than by car. So are you going to arrange that there will be good transit at both ends so people can utilize the idea of a passenger service ferry even though you have car facilities on it? Right now you can get from Tsawwassen into Vancouver, either on city bus that takes you an hour and some odd minutes, or you can take a ferry bus, the "follow the birds...." What's the name of the thing?
Hon. G. Clark: PCL.
D. Symons: PCL, thank you. You know, you take that and you pay a $13 charge. You do the same at Swartz Bay into Victoria. So one is extremely slow but reasonable in price -- $2. The other one gets you there very quickly, as a rapid bus will, but it's rather expensive. So is there any medium point where somehow B.C. Ferries can assure that when you put a ferry facility in, particularly when it's removed from the destination, that there be some adequate transportation system tied in with it to get them into town?
Hon. G. Clark: Just a couple of quick points to clarify. The terminal at Duke Point will largely be a truck terminal. Any passenger-onlys would likely go into Departure Bay, so the Departure Bay connection is more important for transit. We haven't made decisions yet -- we've got a year or so -- but we are discussing service to Duke Point with transit.
D. Symons: Sea Containers of the United Kingdom is suing Incat right now over recurring cracking problems that they have around the propulsion units. I gather this is a problem that's happened with a good number of the Incat designs. I gather that the ferry service out of Seattle also had an Incat ferry with their fleet for a while, and they found that that particular ferry was down a good amount of the time compared to the other two ferries they have. When you're getting this design done by Incat, I'm wondering if there is some sort of guarantee in there about the particular problem that seems to be inherent in their ships?
Hon. G. Clark: The lawsuit had nothing to do with any structural problems with the Incat. It had to do with restriction of service; it had nothing to do with cracking. With respect to the problems in the early Incat designs, those have all been fixed.
D. Symons: You'll see my questions tying in with the ones asked earlier here. They're in a different order. You gave a figure, and the way I have it written down here is that B.C. Ferry is paying for design rights and for something similar, you said. I had $2.8 million, but I believe you said $1.8 million. I might be calling it something different, but it's $1.8 million for something to do with the Canadian design rights to this particular one you're having designed.
I'm wondering if it's possible that any of that fee or any other sorts of fees that might be paid as part of this are going to find themselves in the pockets of individuals who acted sort of as finders -- to use not too good a word -- for Incat. Is Incat going to pass this on to some individual who might have been working here on their behalf and became a finder for this sale of technology that they're bringing to B.C.?
Hon. G. Clark: No, there isn't. There's a specific clause that says that any commissions paid have to be identified, and B.C. Ferries has to approve any commissions paid. None will be.
D. Symons: I think the minister knew where I was leading on that one. I'm just wondering whether beyond the $1.8 million that you're paying for these design rights or something, there's going to be a design fee for each particular ship as it is built. That is often the case in building ships. I gather that the usual industry standard is that you pay somewhere around 5 percent or 6 percent for the first ferry built, and then you're paying somewhere around 1.5 percent to 2 percent for the second ferry. In this case, you seem to be putting $1.8 million up front, which is unusual in the industry. Are you replacing this usual design fee that's built in as a percentage to the first and second ferries with the $1.8 million? Or will these other design fees on each vessel also kick in?
Hon. G. Clark: I'll ask Mr. Ward to answer.
T. Ward: The $1.8 million is for the production of the design, calculations and the drawings. In the presentations made to B.C. Ferry by naval architects from various parts of the world, some naval architects, in fact, asked us for 6 percent per vessel. Some people asked us for 4 percent per vessel. Incat advised us that in other contracts they had been paid 6 percent of the cost of each vessel. We sat down with them and negotiated a fee that was based on the quantum of work that they would be doing.
I should add that the $1.8 million does not include the cost of the tank-testing, which is being done in Norway and is being invoiced direct to B.C. Ferries.
D. Symons: Just one last question along that line. I wonder again about the design and so forth of the ferry tied in with the docking facilities. I think cats are considered to be wider because they have the two pontoons, so the whole format of the ship is wider than our current ferries. Are you going to be able to tie in the docking and the loading arrangements for the new cats with our current docking facilities, because I know at the beginning you were saying that that's going to be done. I wonder if you're going to be able to do it, because of the design of a catamaran compared to a monohull vessel.
Hon. G. Clark: The answer is yes, and I've already canvassed the answer to that question with the previous member, so I won't do it again.
D. Symons: I see we've covered Duke Point; we will let that one go.
[ Page 16085 ]
The B.C. Ferries strategic planning advisory committee for the southern Gulf Islands met in March, I believe, of this year. At that meeting there was concern shown by people about the possibility of a Cusheon Cove terminal, and I wonder if this was muttered about as a possible replacement for the main terminal. Is it Long Harbour or Saltspring or Fulford Harbour, and where's that particular plan?
Hon. G. Clark: Cusheon Cove was identified by an islander, not by B.C. Ferries. It has never been in our plans.
[9:00]
D. Symons: I wonder if we can go to the midcoast. I gather that a while back some private firm came forward with plans. They wanted to go out and buy a ship and do that particular one. Apparently they were going to offer a fairly good price on it. The ship would be there, and they would have it up and running considerably sooner than B.C. Ferries is supposedly going to get that service in. I know you're improving your facilities to Bella Bella. I'm wondering why you did not encourage the private sector, if they were there and willing to bring in a service that apparently was going to be on par with the cost and the service that B.C. Ferries would operate. Why wouldn't there be more encouragement for the private sector, if it were willing to do that, to take the costs and risks and all the rest that go along with it? B.C. Ferries needs a subsidy to work that particular system. So this way, the people up there would have had the service they need sooner, and the taxpayers of British Columbia would have had some saving on that. So I wonder if you might give us some rationale for not accepting their offer.
Hon. G. Clark: The member should be careful in dealing with this question. We had a private company that asked for $1 million a year subsidy for ten years with no tenders, no public process. They went up and sold that idea to certain people on the midcoast, naturally, and then they came and asked us to pay the bill. Well, I think we would be a laughingstock -- notwithstanding that it might be a great or wonderful service. Surely we have to allow other private sector people to bid if we're going to offer a million-dollar-a-year subsidy and I'm sure there would be lots of people interested.
So we have a review ongoing for the midcoast. We're interested in improving the service. We put in a roll-on, roll-off ferry terminal at Bella Bella, and we may well have a private service there. I have no problem with that. A private service has been there for some years, contracted from B.C. Ferries, and it may well continue. But we can't go around and simply agree, without any specifications or otherwise, when somebody wants to come along and ask for $10 million of tax money.
D. Symons: When people tell you their concerns about what's going on, it is interesting how sometimes in newspapers there are some details they neglect to mention. So it's always good to hear the other side. I know the minister understands that when I'm asking these questions, I'm asking for information. It's a learning process for me, and I enjoy this learning process with the minister because he is so open.
We are getting toward the end, and we might actually make the time tonight. Do you have private industry and government representation on a marine transportation committee that basically works to look at strategies in order to coordinate and cooperate in identifying the needs on the Pacific Coast? Are they seeking a means of providing those services, whether they be public or private services? It seems that we have a long coastline and a lot of needs along this coastline. It would be a great idea if we had some sort of -- I don't know if I'd call it ad hoc -- interest groups that could get together, discuss the issues and look for solutions on a continuing basis.
Hon. G. Clark: I'll let the president deal with that question.
F. Rhodes: There are a number of agencies that do come together and discuss shipping issues pertaining to our coast -- the Chamber of Shipping, the Council of Marine Carriers. There are agencies that work with Coast Guard and B.C. Ferries. There is no group that has an overview with respect to planning for marine transportation services for the length of our coast other than these ad hoc groups.
D. Symons: This may be incorrect, but the impression seems to be given to me periodically that B.C. Ferries seems to be a rather large, almost monopolistic organization on the coast, and that there seems to be some stifling of private initiative. In a sense, I mentioned this previously when you indicated there was a certain amount of money they wanted given to them up front to introduce the service I was asking about on the midcoast.
In spite of that, B.C. Ferries does have quite an advantage over them. I don't think B.C. Ferries pays taxes in the same way that a private marine operator must pay them. I don't know if B.C. Ferries has to pay the fuel tax and the federal excise tax that other people have to pay on the fuel they use. Does B.C. Ferries have to pay the sales and property taxes? Do they pay the lease costs for the land they have their terminal facilities on? How about federal and provincial income taxes? How does B.C. Ferries relate to all those sorts of things as far as paying taxes compared to the private sector?
I think they also have an advantage as far as insurance goes because other corporations need liability insurance and all that. I rather suspect that B.C. Ferries is self-insured, with their capital expended on assets. Again, I think B.C. Ferries is in a superior or advantageous position as far as capital on assets goes. If we were to talk about a level playing field in producing the services, B.C. Ferries already has quite a good leg up on other ones if we were to end up saying: "Well, if they can offer it for the same fares, we'll give them a chance to get in." All these things really give B.C. Ferries a competitive edge as far as pricing goes.
Hon. G. Clark: It's not a level playing field the other way, either. We don't have private carriers carrying kids to school on Sointula. We don't have private companies that run 90 percent empty in the winter because it is an essential service. We don't have private carriers that are required to provide that kind of public service. So, yes, there are some advantages that the public sector has, but not nearly as many as the member has indicated. We pay fuel tax and sales tax; we pay essentially most of the taxes associated with it.
There are some advantages that B.C. Ferries has, including the cost of capital and others, but there are also enormous public service requirements being imposed on the corporation. It's pretty foolish of us to allow the private sector to come
[ Page 16086 ]
in and cherry-pick the profitable pieces of the service and leave just the unprofitable pieces to B.C. Ferries. I just don't accept that generally.
D. Symons: I have another question on some innovation that B.C. Ferries is doing, and that is the integrated voyage recorder that you have as an experiment on one of the superferries. I forget which one it is on. Basically, we'll call it a black box. This was brought in on a trial basis. Has the trial been completed? I'm not sure how long the trial was to be. What were the results of that trial? And will these gradually be put in on the other ferries? Maybe you could give me a very brief description of the advantage of using this technology.
Hon. G. Clark: I'll ask the president to handle that.
F. Rhodes: That technology remains under development. It is, as the label describes, a voyage recorder inputting all the critical operational data from the ship. We are experimenting with that technology with a B.C. manufacturer. It is not yet on one of the superferries. It is being developed.
D. Symons: There was a design award given recently for the century-class vessel that I assume went out to bids. I'm wondering if you might give me an idea of how many bids there were, and whether the price that has been put out on that particular ferry -- again, the minister can see where I'm coming from -- is going to be the turnkey price that's suggested on this as $70 million. Does it include the engines and all the rest, up to the toilet paper that you mentioned in the other one?
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
Hon. G. Clark: There were five bids on the design. The price that the member referred to is an all-in, turnkey price. The bids for that vessel should go out very shortly to the shipyards, probably within the next few weeks.
D. Symons: Let's go back to some other issues on safety. We had a concern expressed when the Estonia ferry sank in the gulf, and a good number of lives were lost there. The government took very quick action on that, in the sense that they cancelled one of the runs of the Queen of the North and, I believe, the Queen of Prince Rupert, and welded the doors shut to prevent the same sort of thing that seemed to have happened to the Estonia from happening here. But the Queen of the North has made a good number of runs back and forth over the years with no difficulty. It seemed overly cautious to cancel runs and leave people basically stranded, which happened. Were there any reports at that particular time of really inclement weather that might have made that a necessity? I didn't hear of any storm warnings at the time. Was it a case of: we'd better do it now, because this is going to be an unusually difficult period as far as the weather goes, so we must do it today?
At that time, a lot of people were inconvenienced. Their cars were left on one side, and they were on the other. There were all sorts of problems in that sense. They missed connections with planes and other things they might have had, because they weren't able to get off the Queen Charlottes or out of Prince Rupert. People were promised at the time, I think, that their claims for losses would be considered by B.C. Ferries. Could you give me an idea of how many people put in claims and what the total of those claims might have been for the inconvenience, loss of wages, salary, travel or whatever the people might have suffered because of that very fast decision?
Hon. G. Clark: I'll get the information for the member. I don't know; it's not very many. I want to make it clear that I don't think you can be too safe on these questions. You should remember the issue of the design. The Queen of the North was designed and built, I believe, in exactly the same shipyard and with exactly the same design as the Estonia. We took that action out of an abundance of caution. Subsequently, of course, we've now taken a different course of action as a result of the hearings. We had no cause for alarm or concern, as it was working fine. We just did it out of an abundance of caution.
K. Jones: With regard to the Estonia, is it not true that there was actually a double-wide door on the front of the vessel whereas the Queen of the North has only got a single-wide door? I was talking to the crew on board there at the time. They really felt that there was no reason for it to be welded whatsoever, because the narrow opening did not place the vessel at risk whereas the wider doors of the Estonia, which enabled it to load two vehicles at a time, made a big difference in the way that it affected the watertightness of that front end.
Hon. G. Clark: There is not a material difference in design. It's exactly the same design, but it may be single or double. It's the same principle, and the same design is at stake. I would say that there was a majority view in favour of welding the door shut. Clearly there were people who didn't think it was necessary. They had been running that ship for some time, and they felt it was fine. As the minister, I could have accepted that risk. But I refused to accept that risk, when 900 people lost their lives within minutes on a ship with the same design, running in the same kind of waters and built by the same shipyard as the Estonia. It was built earlier, but it's the same visor design principle. It's correct that not everybody was happy about that, because people were inconvenienced, and some crew didn't agree with it. But I make no apologies for that.
D. Symons: When the minister is looking up the material about compensation, I wonder if he might look for weather reports at that time, too. You didn't respond earlier. If we had smooth sailing, which sometimes happens on the Inside Passage, I can't see the necessity of doing it that day. If indeed the weather forecast for the next few days was indicating a very strong wind -- maybe a force 6 wind or greater -- we could have been into some problems where you may have wanted to end up considering what you did.
I'll leave that for a moment and carry on with safety, because I have some concerns. We've had a number of accidents. Maybe the minister's caution on the Queen of the North was well placed, because we've had a considerable number of accidents over a period of time, with a good number of them happening in 1991-92. Each time there has been an accident, we have received assurances: "This has been looked into, everything's fine. We've got a safety committee that's looked into this, and we've addressed all the problems." Yet another accident occurs afterwards.
[ Page 16087 ]
[9:15]
I'm reading now from the marine occurence report that just came out recently on the collision between the Queen of Alberni and the Japanese carrier Shinwa Maru. There are things in here under findings.... I admit these findings came out just now, but I'm sure that what I'm going to say was known within days of the accident occurring. They talk about the Queen of Alberni proceeding at an average speed in excess of 15 knots prior to the collision. It did not request, either from vessel traffic services or the Shinawa Maru, precise information and lattice position to enable her to positively identify on the plan position indicator. The apparent absence of the second echo on the plan position indicator aboard the Queen of Alberni was not questioned. The information as presented to the radar aboard the Queen of Alberni was not verified against the information received on very high-frequency telephones. There was virtually no change in the bearing between the two vessels as they approached each other. Those are all findings in that report.
My concern isn't so much about the findings in the report, but that that accident happened only months after the accident in Active Pass with the fast ferry. Many of the things I read in the report would be identical to the situation that probably went on in Active Pass -- identifying the vessel, the track they are taking, etc. I realize there was a sudden change of direction in the fast-ferry sea container.
Interjection.
D. Symons: Sealink was the word I was after. Anyway, there were the problems of dealing with the positions of ships, their speeds, not recognizing that the ships are moving into the possibility of a crash -- all sorts of things. B.C. Ferries, I think, was more absolved of any accident, certainly in the Active Pass situation. But in this one, it seemed to be a shared responsibility.
Because of the Active Pass accident, many of the things in this report should have been addressed previously, yet they're reported in this particular report, which happened months later. That's of concern to me, because we were given assurances that all these things were happening. To compound the matter, what we had happening six months later in Nanaimo was even worse, but it was of a different nature. That was a loading accident compared to a moving accident, but nevertheless, when you're doing your safety reviews, one would have thought that these things would have been taken into account and, indeed, that the third accident should not have happened after the other two.
That's why I'm concerned. Again, we have had assurances, following an investigation by the Coast Guard and the failure of one of our B.C. ferries to pass a routine safety practice. We had this same thing happen, so it seems that these assurances of safety being number one don't necessarily move down to the deck where people are.
Hon. G. Clark: Well, I don't accept that for one second. They're completely different circumstances. B.C. Ferries has an outstanding safety record that is second to none anywhere in the world. Having said that, obviously we are concerned about safety standards, and we will continue to be. We did have some very unfortunate accidents, and we took immediate action. We had the Nemetz inquiry on safety. We made literally dozens of changes to ensure that we do the best we can on safety. We now have a new director of safety operations, Capt. Harry Martin, the former head of Canadian Coast Guard ship safety and now in charge of a whole new review of safety regimes.
Notwithstanding that we have an outstanding safety record, we have had a couple of accidents. We went back and retooled right from the beginning, we established a new senior position, and we continue to have a good ferry service. Remember, we're carrying some 22 million cars a year and ten million passengers, and we cannot guard fully against human error or accidents happening. All we can do is the best we can, and I think what we've been doing is exemplary. We've had these unfortunate accidents, and we've taken steps to do the best we can to make sure they never happen again.
D. Symons: I want to stick on this safety issue for a while. I am really getting toward the end of my questions on safety, so I should have saved the heavy stuff for the end, I guess. I do have some concerns. I think the minister will admit that on the ferries there's quite a changeover between the crew that mans the ship to begin with -- or persons, I guess, nowadays -- and the changes in staff as the loads demand during the day and throughout the week. So the crew that might be there when you're going through a safety practice routine is not necessarily the crew that will be there the day after or the day after that or possibly even later in the same day. Basically what you have on any given ship is a skeleton crew trained in the basic necessities of emergency preparedness, and that might have led to the problems on the Queen of Cumberland, which we will get to in a few minutes. Besides emergency evacuation training, what other training do they receive? Do they receive training in firefighting and so forth? When we go back to the accident with the Queen of Alberni, one of the conclusions in the report I didn't read was that there was a delay in evacuating the injured passengers from the ferry, as no person was designated to expedite the efforts of the emergency response teams. I'm concerned about having contingency plans for multiple events. If you have a grounding or collision, something of that sort, along with a fire breaking out because a vehicle shifted or something, you have emergencies at two different places on the ship. Are crews trained not for just one thing, but a variety of things, as a variety of things may be happening simultaneously or in quick succession?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, and I'll let the president elaborate further.
F. Rhodes: I can only say that the issues of safety remain a number one priority for us. Our approach to that is not through a resolution of safety issues by rule or regime, but through creating a culture of safety within the corporation. That is one of its values. That, I think, is central to all of the improvements that we're trying to make.
The issue of crew rotation is one that we deal with all the time because of the growth in the size of the corporation during summer months and also the need to provide for time off for those who are regular crews. It's a matter of building the core crew and the proficiency level of all who are associated with our vessels and ensuring that they have adequate training. The training goes beyond evacuation procedure to all MED, or marine emergency duties, requirements. We are
[ Page 16088 ]
required to and willingly provide training opportunities for our crews, and working with the Coast Guard ensures that we do that. Our goals are the same as yours in terms of meeting safety requirements.
The Queen of Saanich issue was clearly not a B.C. Ferries scene at all, not caused by B.C. Ferries. Therefore our systems were thought to be -- and were, in fact -- more than adequate. That was not the case in the Queen of Alberni and Shinwa Maru, and we have taken corrective policy action since then.
D. Symons: My comment about the Active Pass incident wasn't to imply there was any problem. I know B.C. Ferries was exonerated in that particular accident. What should have occurred, I suppose, was a real awareness of the need for safety. My point was that the second accident shouldn't have happened. It's the culture again.
That brings us down to the Queen of Cumberland. Indeed, if what the CEO said were true, I don't think the Queen of Cumberland should have happened. When the Canadian Coast Guard came to test the crew and their safety performance, they found that 30 percent -- 30 percent sounds awful, but it turns out it's a ten-person crew, so it's only three people -- didn't know what to do. It's of concern that somewhere, something happened.
It almost seems that in this case the captain was the fall guy. Surely the captain isn't solely responsible. There must be somebody beyond the captain. You mentioned somebody who's responsible for safety and so forth in the B.C. Ferry Corporation. Isn't there a check on each of these ships before the Canadian Coast Guard gets there to do their safety inspections? Isn't somebody responsible for going around and seeing that each captain and each crew is properly trained so that when the Canadian Coast Guard gets around to doing their check, they will be in fine shape and pass it with flying colours? If that's not the case, then I think somebody beyond the captain of that ship should be held responsible for the fact that that crew was not in topnotch order as far as their safety went.
Hon. G. Clark: I'll have the president deal with that question.
F. Rhodes: On that issue, it speaks again to the culture and organization around safety in our corporation. We have created a system in our organization, notwithstanding the ultimate responsibility of the captain under the Canada Shipping Act, which is a responsibility I cannot, in my role, supersede, supplant, take away or diminish in any way -- it is their responsibility. We must have an organizational structure around them that ensures that competency is tested on an ongoing basis and that we offer training. I think we have done a great deal of that in the last three years through the restructuring of the corporation and by refocusing on shipboard management teams.
We have voluntarily adopted the International Safety Management Code -- ISM -- for implementation by June 1997 and undertaken our own safety audits through Lloyd's and others to ensure that we can build that culture of safety that we're looking for in the corporation.
D. Symons: I don't know if I wholly buy the answer, in the sense that the Queen of Cumberland happened when I think it shouldn't have. But I'm sure that the people responsible at B.C. Ferries also feel it shouldn't have happened, so we're probably at one on that.
You have an operational safety joint committee, and I'm wondering who the umpire on that committee is. You have an umpire set up to hear things where there is not an agreement between the union and the employer. I'm wondering who that umpire might be and what issues have been referred by this operational safety committee since January 1993, when it was set up, to the present. Which ones have gone to the umpire for a decision?
Hon. G. Clark: I'll ask the president to answer.
F. Rhodes: The parties have found it not necessary to refer any issues to the umpire, and they have managed to work through the issues in a collaborative and cooperative way. The umpire in this case is a retired master mariner from the British Columbia Ferry Corporation, selected by both parties.
D. Symons: Sort of like an arbitrator is chosen -- very good.
On to something else that's not quite safety. The government portrayed it that way, but.... I'm sorry, I'm going to backtrack a moment here with one more safety issue. This deals with a report on the British Columbia Ferry Corporation by the task group on scheduling and safety. It was an outcome, I think, also of the Nanaimo accident. There were some things here that struck a chord with me as I wait for the ferry every Monday morning. I'll mention the first thing that's not in here and then get to this.
The first thing that I notice every Monday -- almost every Monday; there's the odd exception -- is that when we get there, they start the cars moving up the ramp onto the Spirit of B.C. on the Vancouver side. As we're coming up there, I'd say nine times out of ten they start the first two rows going up. You get up the ramp, up to the top of it, and the barrier is still down, and you wait anywhere from two to five minutes until it's up. So you've got about 200 cars sitting there with their motors idling. I wonder if it might not be possible, since the person who starts the cars down to the parking lot has a radio, to coordinate it so that by the time the cars get up there, the gate is just about ready to lift. We might as well not add any more exhaust fumes into the atmosphere than we have to. It just seems a little bit wasteful in the sense that you can't coordinate the start of the people going up.
That has little to do with what I'm going to say now, but it's something that irks me every time we move up there and then stop and wait. A minute I don't mind, but when it stretches out sometimes to five minutes and you're on the upward ramp with your foot on the brake, it just seems sort of unnecessary.
This particular one dealt with startup times. It mentioned that because the crews are to start their watch 15 minutes before the scheduled sailing time and the chief second officers have maybe 15 minutes after that, we have a problem if the ship is delayed. This often seems to be the case. We're not leaving right at 7 o'clock. It's well after 7 o'clock when we pull out from the dock. The crew has to catch up somehow to keep on schedule. If they get delayed, we have a problem. We have to increase the speed of the ferry, which apparently can be
[ Page 16089 ]
done, but it takes up fuel. It seems the decision has been made that it would cost more than the pay for the officers and seamen if you brought them in a half hour earlier so you could end up being sure of leaving on time. That's not done. But it puts the entire crew in a position of catch-up from the very start of their watch, which puts stress on them. It's probably not so much of a concern in the winter, when loading times are probably faster -- maybe not on the superferries, because they are pretty loaded in the morning when I go there -- but this can cause problems, I think. That was certainly suggested as one of the possible reasons for the Nanaimo accident: the fact that there is a need for the ferries to get in and out so quickly that they jump the gun in leaving the Nanaimo dock.
It almost appears, in a sense, that the rush is still on there. I realize you have a very tight schedule to keep that two-hour time frame in and out, but isn't there some way we can get around starting the day in a late position? Pressure is on them all day long if they are behind to begin with. If they fall behind because of a loading problem or a full load, it makes it more difficult to keep the schedule.
Hon. G. Clark: I think the member has made some excellent points, and I'll take them up with the corporation.
D. Symons: Can we move on to this other item that I started to refer to a moment ago? It's not quite a safety issue, but it's related; it involves the incident with TNL. In my interpretation of it, it seemed that innocent parties, in this case truck drivers who wanted to get onto a public service, were denied passage. Apparently the innocent parties also had the police called out. They refused to move their trucks until they were given the tickets so that they would have access to the ferry. The police were called out to remove them from the gate so other people could get into the terminal. But the police were not called out, I understand, to have illegal pickets removed from that site.
Besides the Ferry Corporation denying passage -- and the excuse given at that time concerned safety reasons -- it also seemed to pick on the innocent parties, which in this case were legitimate people going to work using the ferry system. They were the ones who had to remove themselves because they were blocking gates, rather than the pickets that were there, which were creating the whole problem to begin with. As an afterthought here, I would suggest that perhaps we could put a bubble zone around the ferry terminals.
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I had nothing to do with the decision, as the member knows. It was a decision made by the terminal manager. I'll ask the president to elaborate further.
There were no illegal pickets at the time. There were pickets, but pickets are not illegal until you get an injunction that declares them illegal. You can't have the police remove them until there's an injunction, which was subsequently sought by the Ferry Corporation. Perhaps the president could elaborate slightly.
F. Rhodes: I think I've explained the actions that I took with respect to the dispute. They were actions taken by me, and I wasn't instructed by the government to do so. It was important to deal with what I perceived to be a safety issue. That safety issue was of paramount importance to us, so we took the decision that we did.
D. Symons: Something was brought to my attention a while ago. I wasn't aware of this happening, but when I read about it in the newspaper on one of the Gulf Islands, I realized that there were some problems in respect of the business of basically overselling passengers. My attention was drawn to -- I don't know if it was a superferry or not -- the Swartz Bay-Tsawwassen run, where apparently the captain came over the PA system and said that they had sold.... I think the number was 15 extra people. They had somehow allowed 15 extra people on board ship, and the ship wouldn't leave dock until those 15 people left. This was beyond what the ship was allowed to have. Apparently this happened on one of the Gulf Islands where people had reserved car space on the ferry, but because there were so many foot passengers, cars, drivers and passengers in the cars, it put them over the legal limit for the ferry.
I wasn't aware of this problem at all until recently, and now I've heard it happens quite frequently. Is there some way of avoiding getting people on the ferry and then basically looking for people to leave the ferry so that it's allowed to leave the dock?
Hon. G. Clark: I'll have the president answer that.
F. Rhodes: It hasn't arisen in any greater numbers. I think it's probably reported more often now, no question about that.
The situation you referred to occurred at Tsawwassen when an extraordinary number of bicyclists arrived to take the Gulf Islands ferry for the long weekend. Normally we carry about 200 to 250 bicyclists. We had 450 arrive within the last 20 minutes of sailing, which just overcrowded the passenger licence. We are limited by the Coast Guard and the licensing of the ship as to the number of passengers. We had a number of people who reserved, and we attended to their requirements later in the day.
At Swartz Bay, we had a number of late buses arrive. Those things happen when your licence is exact and suddenly you have a bus arrive with more passengers on it. We invited a number of passengers to go with us on the next sailing...
Hon. G. Clark: For free.
F. Rhodes: ...the same as an airline would, and it was not a problem at all. But we monitor the passenger count very closely, as we are obliged to.
D. Symons: I guess what I'm looking for is some way of monitoring so that at a given time you know you've hit the magic number. If a bus comes after that magic number, I don't know.... You generally give buses priority, which I have no difficulty with, but it does create this problem when a bus turns up there.
I think the other one involved a last ferry off one of the Gulf Islands, which is considerably more difficult than the ones leaving from Tsawwassen or Swartz Bay, where there is another ferry and you can say: "We'll give you free passage." Free passage for a foot passenger isn't all that much of a great gift, actually, because the passage is quite reasonable for foot passengers, but with a car and a pile of kids coming home from the long weekend.... I can see long weekends are always a problem.
These were people with reservations, and it would seem that a reservation should take priority over a foot passenger who turns up at the ferry at the last moment. So I would just
[ Page 16090 ]
ask that there be some way of addressing that, with a person with a finger-clicker as you're selling tickets or whatever.
I have another little question dealing with reservations. You've gone into a commercial vehicle reservation pilot project, and I think the first one worked out of the Tsawwassen terminal to Swartz Bay. There was some thought that if that worked, it would be expanded to the Mid-Island Express run. I'm wondering whether that has worked out and whether you are expanding it. The one concern I have is: by using a reservation system of that sort, does that mean that a fairly large number of trucks might make reservations and we're going to see automobiles and maybe tourist traffic -- motor homes, that sort of thing -- displaced? Will cars just have to take their chances as they arrive at the terminal because trucks now have a guaranteed position on the ferry?
Hon. G. Clark: No, it's working very well, and we are expanding it to route 30. There are so many metres of a ship dedicated to the trucks, so they're maxed out at a certain amount. You can't displace more cars, although it does arguably potentially displace some cars. This is an important goods-movement corridor, and we have to make sure goods are moved. The reservation system is really, I think, very much a help to truckers and to ourselves in terms of managing the load. I think that's all you asked.
D. Symons: Just one last thing here. More than a year ago -- I think it's two years ago, actually -- B.C. Ferries advertised, "We need a creative publisher," and you were looking for something. I gather what came out of that was something called Passage. I wasn't aware of Passage. I hadn't seen it until I asked what was going on here. This was winter in 1994, and I haven't noticed them on the ferries. My question is: are they still going? Are they so popular -- that's why I haven't noticed -- that they've all been picked up immediately? Where are they displayed on the ferries?
Hon. G. Clark: I'll ask the president to answer, but just before I do, this was one of the innovations we've done since we've come to office under Mr. Rhodes's leadership to try and become a bit more entrepreneurial with adding some incremental services. This was one that we just started fairly recently, and I'll ask Mr. Rhodes to elaborate.
F. Rhodes: A number of private sector firms have come to us and expressed an interest in putting together a travelogue advertising journal for sale on the ferries, inviting the private sector in. We asked three or four to give us a proposal, and one made a significant offer to the corporation to try it. They tried it, they assessed the product, they've withdrawn it, and they're bringing it back reformatted. It should be back later this summer.
D. Symons: I want to thank the minister and the staff of B.C. Ferries this evening. I know we've dragged you in. You were here yesterday and never got on, so we have completed as far as I am concerned. Nobody else has shown up, so I'll turn it over to you.
Hon. G. Clark: I think we are going to continue for some time, because the debate in the House will continue for some time. I would move that we recess for five minutes, and then we'll come back -- for the sake of anybody listening -- with B.C. Buildings Corporation, which we'll canvass, no doubt, at some length.
Motion approved.
The committee recessed from 9:42 p.m. to 9:52 p.m.
Hon. G. Clark: We'll be going through B.C. Buildings Corporation estimates for some time. B.C. Buildings Corporation was, I believe, established in 1977 as a Crown corporation and holds almost all the property of the government. It does a superb job. It wins awards internationally for environmental sensitivity, for Power Smart and for energy conservation initiatives. It does a superb job of managing the assets that the government holds. It generates significant revenue -- all of it internal, of course. We keep the books of B.C. Buildings Corporation in such a fashion that it runs like a private corporation, and we expect it to run in a businesslike fashion. We try not to off-load hidden costs to the corporation; we try to have it operate as would a private company. Then, of course, if it makes profit -- which it does, even though it's generated from government -- we expect it to pay dividends to the taxpayer.
It's fair to say that in the private sector sense, it measures up by virtually all categories. It is a big challenge to manage a portfolio the size of the government of British Columbia. It has a mix of owned and leased buildings, and that mix changes from time to time.
In terms of recent initiatives, for the first time in history we've been pursuing strategic plans -- space plans, we call them -- for the various regions of the province. This has been a long-range strategic planning exercise by the corporation. The one that's received the most profile is the Victoria accord, which was an attempt to work with the municipality to manage the buildings in Victoria -- of course, there were many, with the capitol being here -- the precincts of the building and some underutilized assets.
A lot of the attention was focused on the Y lot and the Q lot, as we call them here in Victoria. I'm sure there must have been an A and B at some point, but we're already up to Y. I don't know what the other ones are. In any event, we tried to do some innovative things. We said: "Let's take some of the parking lots, which are underutilized for valuable land, and build on them in a way which complements both the legislative precincts and the neighbourhoods, and works with the municipality in so doing." In addition, we tried some creative ideas with the Y lot to get higher density than might have been allowed normally, take the profits that that generates and apply them to saving St. Ann's Academy. That's a real innovation that I believe makes good business sense and helps to save a historical institution here.
I can discuss the Victoria core projects at some length, if the member wants. There is a phasing of them. We have slowed down the implementation of the accord somewhat, beyond what we might like, in order to deal with the provincial debt-management strategy. We are, by all means, committed to proceeding with what I think is a very worthwhile and cost-effective plan for Victoria and region.
Let me just introduce John Robinson, vice-president of real estate for BCBC -- another gentleman who does superb work, in my judgment, for the Crown.
K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister if he could provide us with the number of FTEs employed in each program within
[ Page 16091 ]
the Crown corporation? How many FTEs are employed in each program -- program by program and branch by branch? It's appropriate for you to submit that to me early next week if you wish, if you don't have it readily available. Also, how many FTEs are full-time employees and how many are on contract? How does this compare to last year for each program? I'll give these to you in written form so you won't have to write them down.
Also, what are the main objectives of each program? How do you measure the effectiveness of each program? How do you measure the performance of the personnel in each program? Have the objectives of each program changed since it was first started, and if so, how have they changed?
Hon. G. Clark: Those are obviously good questions. They're good order-paper questions; I'm not sure if they're good estimates questions. If the member provides a written copy, I'll undertake to get a prompt response to these detailed questions.
K. Jones: This facilitates us not spending a lot of time in the questioning of each individually. We'll try to speed up the process by that method. Could the minister tell us what is the most current annual report of B.C. Buildings Corporation?
Hon. G. Clark: The 1994-95 report is about to be submitted. We hope to table that in the House shortly. The 1993-94 report is in.
K. Jones: Just a clarification: has the 1993-94 report been tabled in the House? I haven't seen it.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry. I'll certainly get it for the member. It has been tabled in the House.
K. Jones: I'll look forward, then, before we finish this in the next few days....
Could the minister give us the amount of long-term debt up to the end of the fiscal year 1994?
Hon. G. Clark: At the end of the fiscal year 1994, the long-term debt was $496,998,000.
K. Jones: What is the real market value of assets held by B.C. Buildings Corporation?
[10:00]
Hon. G. Clark: The market value is approximately $1.3 billion.
K. Jones: What is the basis of that evaluation? Is that from a current review or was that done over a period of time?
Hon. G. Clark: It was a very current review. My recollection is that about 60 percent of the buildings the government has are owned and about 40 percent are leased; that varies from time to time. Sixty percent of the buildings that are owned, particularly in the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island, are on very valuable property. We recently had a review of them. The corporation from time to time -- it's not static -- sells buildings and leases them back, leases buildings, buys new buildings and buys property. That's the business they're in, so it's important that they have accurate information on the value of the properties at any given time.
K. Jones: That figure is based on an assessment done at what time? Is it a current assessment or an assessment that may have been done three or four years ago?
Hon. G. Clark: It has actually been done over a period of three years, as an average. Obviously it's a big portfolio, so to try to capture it in a snapshot at any given time would probably be imprudent. We try to do this on a rolling, three-year average.
K. Jones: That's why I asked the further questions. That is usually the case. With regard to the projects under construction, could the minister tell us which of them are currently under construction and which are planned for this fiscal year?
Hon. G. Clark: I'll get the capital plan for the member. If he'd like, I can give him the full details. I think this year the capital budget for the corporation and the debt management plan or consolidated capital plan is $32.7 million. That doesn't restrict the corporation to those assets entirely, because it generates funds internally by selling buildings and buying new ones, etc. According to the debt management plan, the new incremental debt that the corporation can incur is $32.7 million. Of that, a chunk of it -- I think that's the technical term -- is for tenant improvements, disabled access and those kinds of things. In next year's capital plan there will be $5 million for internal leasehold improvements and the like. About $2.5 million will be allocated to St. Ann's. Sorry -- $2 million. My memory is failing at this time of night. That leaves about $25 million in new buildings.
I'll see if I can get a list of the proposed projects. I'm just trying to give the member an idea of the magnitude, because a lot of them are small forestry buildings here and there, replacement yards, etc. We can give you the full list, but the largest one, I think, is the museum upgrade here, which is a fairly expensive project. There is also the remainder of the Abbotsford veterinary lab, which is a brand-new lab. I'll have a full list for the member of the capital plan for this year, but that gives you a sense of it.
It was fairly curtailed this year in terms of new buildings and debt that we are allowing the corporation to incur. Part of that is because this corporation has more flexibility for alternative financing, and some of it is just out of concern about overall government debt. The Selkirk Building, which is a heritage building over here in Victoria -- at least the facade is kept -- is a project which is being built by the private sector. Often we can agree to enter into a lease, which would allow a builder to build a building and borrow against that, so the debt is certainly not the province's but a lease improvement. That sometimes provides some flexibility for the corporation in terms of government operations, which change from time to time.
The corporation has had an excellent private sector experience in dealing with these questions. They have lots of flexibility and alternative financing arrangements. We also want to curtail, somewhat, the debt incurred by the government of British Columbia.
K. Jones: With regard to the Selkirk Building, are we the primary tenant? Is the government or B.C. Buildings the primary tenant?
[ Page 16092 ]
Hon. G. Clark: We're the only tenant.
K. Jones: Does B.C. Buildings have all that space leased for government purposes?
Hon. G. Clark: Here it is, just like magic. We have $1.1 million to spend on weigh scales; Dease Lake district office, $200,000; Alexis Creek district office, $2.25 million; Fort St. James district office, $2.15 million; Castlegar district office, $1.5 million; remote residences, $4 million; Prince Rupert district office, $400,000; and the provincial government building in Kamloops, $6.81 million. That adds up to $22.81 million. In addition, we have major asset maintenance, $4 million; tenant improvement, $5 million; and the B.C. Museum exhibit hall, $5.4 million.
K. Jones: With regard to the Selkirk Building, how much of the lease that B.C. Buildings has of the whole building is being used by the provincial government on completion?
Hon. G. Clark: As I understand it, the tenants for the Selkirk Building are the motor vehicle branch and the Superannuation Commission. I think the main floor is the only floor which is retail. Is there a Tanner's Books going in there?
C. Tanner: Requested.
Hon. G. Clark: Good location, actually. I believe the remainder of the office building is for these tenants, and they're 100 percent provincial government.
K. Jones: Could I just clarify if the ground floor is intended for commercial tenants, and have they been obtained?
Hon. G. Clark: No, we're still looking for tenants, and in about eight or ten months, Ken, you might think about it.
C. Tanner: Tell him it's grossly overpriced. We can make a deal.
K. Jones: As the future Minister of Government Services, do you mean that you might be able to make sure that there's a proper price that will get that leased out in the marketplace? I certainly hope so.
I'd like to also look at the B.C. Museum upgrade. Could the minister give us an outline of the capital structures that are going on? I understand there are structures between the museum and the archives buildings that are under construction presently.
Hon. G. Clark: The Royal British Columbia Museum is a magnificent facility; I think all members agree. It had some serious problems with fire safety and asbestos removal. The government had to make a decision on whether to invest fairly significantly in it. It was one which we obviously scrutinized very carefully, and notwithstanding that it's a valuable asset to the community here, any renovation of that project was challenging and expensive, particularly the fire question. But it clearly had a serious safety problem for visitors as well as for the people who worked there. The current building was built in 1967. The tender process was conducted in the fall of 1994. We found the tenders to be in excess of our budget estimates quite significantly, and we had to go back to the drawing board. This has gone around a few times. We are now reasonably satisfied. We are going to provide two new exterior exit stairs -- fire and safety is a large part of this -- one new interior set of stairs, and a new entrance lobby. This increases the usable floor area by allowing the removal of the existing escalators and allowing the floors to be filled in where the current open plan exists. In addition, there are modifications to reduce potential smoke migration.
The intent of the new lobby is to provide new escalator access to the upper levels of the building, as well as covered public access to the Fannin curatorial tower. The main museum building will be joined through an enclosed passage way to the Fannin tower, thereby allowing public tours of collections currently not on exhibit. The new lobby will also be disabled access and the new stairs will accommodate additional exiting requirements from the upper levels. Washrooms on the second and third floors are enhanced.
Essentially, that's it. Unfortunately -- I shouldn't say this -- it's a bit of a pedestrian upgrade. A lot of it is just work to bring it up to standard and deal with fire and safety questions. I'm sure the architects have done a wonderful job of dressing up the lobby, etc., but it doesn't dramatically enhance the entire structure. It's really one that is an attempt to deal with some longstanding fire and safety concerns. These concerns, I have to say, were very, very serious.
K. Jones: With regard to the museum location, is this structure going to include all of the plaza between the three buildings: the archives, the curatorial and the museum itself?
Hon. G. Clark: No.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what construction is going on in that plaza area?
Hon. G. Clark: Just the covered walkway to the Fannin tower. If the member is interested in this, I'd be happy to have him taken on a tour and shown all the evidence. Because of the cost of this and the estimates and the challenge of doing it, I'm actually reasonably familiar with the details of it. If the member is interested, I could give him all that. I'm not sure that it is particularly productive time for the committee debate, but I'm in your hands, member -- a scary thought, but I am.
K. Jones: Probably vice versa, too. I appreciate the invite, and I'll probably take you up on that and get a good look at it.
Interjection.
K. Jones: You've just passed it on to John; that was quick. I was wondering if the minister could tell us if he is familiar with the museum facilities changes that have been made and where the John Lennon Rolls-Royce is located.
Hon. G. Clark: I don't know the answer to that. A fascinating question. I'm quite sure that the government sold it. It was in the Cloverdale museum, as the member knows. We closed the Cloverdale museum and proceeded to sell off the assets. There was some dispute about that at the time. I remember, realizing the enormous tax advantages that Mr.
[ Page 16093 ]
Pattison received from the gift to the province, that no compensation was required. I'm quite sure we sold it. If we haven't, I'll get that for the member. I don't believe it would be at the Royal British Columbia Museum. Frankly, I don't think it should be there.
K. Jones: I haven't checked on it lately, but following the demise of the Cloverdale Transportation Museum in my riding -- which I was very familiar with, and I'm sure you were very familiar with the fact that I was concerned about it -- I understood that it was transported to the basement of the Royal B.C. Museum, where it has been in storage since. I'm just wondering if it is still there. I hope it is, because it was a very prized tourist attraction, and I'm wondering why it hasn't been utilized. I realize this is probably in the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture's realm, but since you were familiar with the museum, I thought perhaps I'd ask you.
[10:15]
Hon. G. Clark: I was involved in the closure of that museum, but that was an earlier date, and I'm not responsible for that question. I'd be happy to find out for you, but you are quite right; I really can't answer that question, and I would expect that I shouldn't have to.
K. Jones: Wasn't that nice of me, to get you out of that one?
With regard to the facility and the construction going on there, I understand that there is some major rock drilling going on in the facility adjoining the archives. This happens to be of concern as there wasn't very much notice given to the people in the archives. There was concern about the impact that drilling might have on their items in storage. Could the minister give us further details on what's actually going on there?
Hon. G. Clark: I want to introduce Lak Parmar, vice-president of finance at BCBC. I'm advised that there were extensive consultations on the matter the member suggested.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what construction is going on there that would have concerned the staff at the archives?
Hon. G. Clark: I don't know; ask the staff at the archives.
K. Jones: We're getting to silly time, from the sound of things.
I understand that it has to do with blasting and deep rock work of some form, something that I think is quite a serious a concern.
Hon. G. Clark: We're searching for that detail. It doesn't appear to be in the briefing book, but we think it's probably seismic upgrading. Again, I'd be delighted to get that information for the member, and I will undertake to do so.
K. Jones: I appreciate that undertaking. Could the minister tell us what is happening with regard to the Y lot? Where is the Y lot project at the present time?
Hon. G. Clark: We have the zoning for development there, and we're proceeding with the development of that project. The bonus density we received is critical to providing the funding for St. Ann's Academy. Again, it's part of our debt-management strategy. We said we were phasing these projects in a little slower than we had originally anticipated -- or than others would have liked -- but we still intend to proceed with the project.
K. Jones: Does B.C. Buildings have a projection of staff requirements for all government offices located in the Victoria area in order to determine the justification for various building projects?
Hon. G. Clark: Absolutely -- a very rigorous process. I alluded to the fact that at BCBC, we're a very professional corporation. We don't just build a building and then fill it up -- although sometimes the public thinks we do. As I said before, we own roughly 60 percent of the buildings; we lease 40 percent.
The problem in Victoria is an acute shortage of space. Because it's a capital city, we tend to pay more for lease costs than we might like to. In order to have some balance in the marketplace, it's important that we build office space from time to time to ensure that we don't bid the price up against ourselves. There's less than 1 percent vacancy in the Victoria area. That puts acute pressure, obviously, on the largest captive tenants in the region, who have no desire to capriciously put private developers out of business. We still intend to lease space, and continue to do so, but when we manage our space plans accordingly, we have to look for an appropriate balance between buying and leasing.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us a copy of the projected staff requirements for this area so that we could have an idea of what your figures are?
Hon. G. Clark: Certainly. It's probably declining, of course, with government cuts and budgetary restraints, but I'll give the member that information.
Again, BCBC has to work on assumptions based on information from ministries. It's an interactive process, I think it's fair to say that we do have to take some guesses about staffing in certain areas, and the critical assumption that we and the ministries use is population growth.
A lot of government programs are in demand, driven programs which are statutorily required. For example, if you're five or six years old, you get a free education, by law. If you find yourself destitute, you get welfare, by law. If you find yourself in a certain situation, you get other benefits, by law. That means that there is a direct relationship between population growth and certain government programs, statutorily driven. Similarly, there's a relationship between employees and population growth and those programs. That's not to say that we shouldn't and don't factor in productivity improvements; we do. But there is a direct correlation.
I should also say that our requirements for space, particularly in this region, are based right now on existing space shortfall, so we do have a shortfall in space here and some real substandard and crowded buildings, and we have to manage accordingly.
Again, I think I made this point, but my staff are reminding me, so I obviously didn't make it sufficiently for them to understand it, so I assume no one else did either. We have to
[ Page 16094 ]
have a balance between owned and leased properties. We have increased lease rates, which drive us to look more seriously at increasing the balance of owned material.
K. Jones: I understand that the Y lot was destined to be the home for the Ministry of Health. I understand that under the Closer to Home program and the regional councils, a lot of staff who were normally centralized are being distributed out to the regional locations and that these office requirements no longer exist. Is that a factor in the Y lot, and why would we be wanting higher density if that's the case?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, it is a factor. It was considered for Health, and it's no longer being considered for Health. It's now being considered for Forests.
The Ministry of Forests has 17 locations in the Victoria region, which I think members would agree is unacceptable in terms of the operational efficiency of the ministry and the cost associated with that. It's generally desirable in a ministry environment to have fewer locations than that. My ministry has a couple of locations; we're fixing that. So that is, I think, almost unworkable. That's a logical candidate to move into a new structure. It may not be the only candidate, but it's one we're considering.
K. Jones: Does that mean that the Forestry staff in Nanaimo will also be consolidated in this site?
Hon. G. Clark: No.
K. Jones: How does the minister expect that this large building in the Y lot, which has extra density added according to the agreement, is to handle the staff from the Victoria area alone? Surely it is going to bring people in from other parts of the province as well.
Hon. G. Clark: We're also looking at Social Services. But remember, what we would do is extract ourselves from certain lease obligations as they expire or buy them out or find other commercial tenants and consolidate in the Y lot building.
This is Dennis Truss, for those of you who don't know, chief executive officer of B.C. Buildings Corporation. I see he has a new tie.
This is a twin-tower building. It would help to accommodate both Forests and Social Services.
K. Jones: Welcome at this late hour, Dennis. We appreciate your coming out on short notice. It's unfortunate that we had to call you out like this.
Could the minister tell us what the government plans to do with St. Ann's?
C. Tanner: Bulldoze it.
Hon. G. Clark: The member for Saanich North and the Islands, who is the Culture critic, says bulldoze it. Shame on that member.
We're not planning to bulldoze it; we're planning to renovate it -- restore is the more appropriate term. We're planning a full heritage restoration of the chapel and interpretive centre. We also plan to upgrade the offices.
K. Jones: Does the minister plan to retain the auditorium also?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, we are going to maintain it. In fact, we've received a provincial, municipal and federal contribution to the infrastructure program. The money goes toward the conservatory, for which I'm the minister responsible. The remainder of that will be dealt with by BCBC.
K. Jones: How much is it going to cost the government to renovate the auditorium and, I understand, to provide for a new building for the conservatory -- when they already have an existing building on the other side of the road?
Hon. G. Clark: I'll have the chief executive officer, Dennis Truss, answer that question.
D. Truss: The conservatory of music is still in the process of finalizing its plans. They will be adding on to their existing buildings -- at least, that's the preliminary plan. They will make a contribution towards the upgrade of the auditorium of up to $600,000.
[10:30]
K. Jones: There's only one part of St. Ann's which is really heritage, I understand. The centre core, the chapel area, is the only part of it that is really heritage. There is a section to the east that is part of the original building and a section to the west that forms a bit of a cross with the centre core chapel area that is part of the original building. Further to the west there is an additional section that is newer. What is the plan for that section?
Hon. G. Clark: I'll ask the CEO to answer.
D. Truss: There will be a full heritage restoration done of the chapel and interpretive centre, which I believe is the part that you're saying should be retained. Then the office space on either side of it will in fact be upgraded to heritage-compatible, but not a full heritage restoration -- not to the same level as the other parts of the building.
K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister, with regard to the latter part of my question, if he could tell us about the newer part of the section that was to the west of the original core building.
Hon. G. Clark: I just want to clarify if the member means the Hooper wing.
K. Jones: I'm not familiar with that term. I mean the area between the auditorium and the main building.
Hon. G. Clark: That will be converted to offices.
K. Jones: From my understanding -- and I toured that facility -- I would say that the centre core is a heritage building. The secondary built section....
Hon. G. Clark: And you're a heritage expert, are you?
K. Jones: Well, the people I was talking with. The second section of office area -- the newer section -- which is in rather
[ Page 16095 ]
poor condition, really isn't worth restoring. It will cost a tremendous amount according to some of the people who were working on the Victoria accord. Therefore it would seem logical to eliminate that section and just put a covered walkway between that section and the auditorium, which is then a freestanding facility.
The opportunity is to utilize the core office space -- the heritage or upgraded office space -- for the conservatory and not have to expend that money on a new conservatory building. Putting the funds into that facility would make that a much more viable facility, rather than trying to find office leasing for that facility, which is really adding another factor to the provincial office requirements in this area.
Rather than expend all of the money that would be allocated to this, it would be much better to use that money in other projects. I can think of several in my area, such as a university that is going to require some funding and certainly should be a higher priority than to restore an older, almost nondescript building. Could the minister tell us why they would continue with the conservatory building as a separate building on that site when you could actually eliminate all of that and open up the area right to Beacon Hill Park from the St. Ann's building itself?
Hon. G. Clark: I know the member may have some concerns. He is voicing some opinions on what we should and shouldn't do. At the end of the day, we enter into extensive consultations with the community. When you go into a community process with good will, and part of that process is the rezoning of the Y lot and others, then you work to get an agreement by working with city council. My view is -- and this is, I think, supported by almost everybody involved in the process -- that it was generally agreed that the whole building was worth saving. It may not be a consensus, but it's certainly true that the vast majority of people who were involved in the consultative process agreed that the building is worth saving.
The member disagrees with that view, and there are members in Victoria who disagree with that view. The member for Saanich North and the Islands disagrees with that view; I understand that. But we went into the process in good faith, and we agreed to try to abide by the public consultation process and do what we thought was right. This was a piece of a bigger puzzle in terms of rezonings and others in the vicinity. In terms of the trade-offs, I think we made a trade-off that is desirable.
The city made the rezoning of Y lot contingent on doing St. Ann's in its entirety, and I don't blame them for that. We went through a process, and we received significant up-zoning of Y lot, which is worth millions of dollars. They extracted, as they should from any developer, in my view -- and in this case, we're a developer -- extensive commitments on the part of the government on St. Ann's. I believe it is a very clever way of doing business. This was done to achieve the public policy goal of saving St. Ann's, which we as a government are committed to, and the public policy goal of providing office space in the region in a cost-effective fashion. We have the rezoning in order to accomplish both those objectives. This is a win-win situation.
K. Jones: It may have been win-win as long as it was done when there was an NDP city council there. It does not meet the satisfaction of the current council, and they've expressed concern about it. For the benefit of the people of British Columbia, who are footing the big bill on this, we should recognize the fact that the government does not have to go to the city for any negotiations with regard to the Y lot; they can put whatever they like on there. There are no zoning requirements that the province has to meet with regard to that. They're above the municipal power, and therefore they can put whatever they want on there. There wasn't really much of a negotiation other than what might have been an attempt to help get a mayor elected in the last municipal election.
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, the rezoning was done while Mr. Cross was the mayor, and this city council voted seven to two in favour of the accord. So this is not something that was done and voted on by the previous city council.
Second, I don't accept that this costs the taxpayers millions of dollars. I accept that we struck a deal which is of significant value to the taxpayers. I don't accept the notion that in the 1990s the province can simply go and build a 30- or 40-storey tower in Vancouver or Victoria because we have the power to do so. I think that would be an affront to city council; it would be an affront to the people who live in the city for the senior government to simply move in that direction.
That's not to say that the province, at the end of the day, does not have the ability to move. From time to time it may wish to do so and may have to do so, and I might support that from time to time. But as a general rule, it should not be attempting to build buildings beyond the zoning or buildings that are incompatible with the region, and we certainly shouldn't be doing that without extensive community consultation and extensive consultation with city council. Maybe that's what a Liberal government would do, but I think that's unacceptable.
K. Jones: The minister gave the impression earlier that it was necessary to negotiate a deal for St. Ann's as a requirement for them to obtain the higher density, which is the situation that the minister.... The minister is an outstanding negotiator -- certainly he proved it with the Bonneville negotiations -- and is quite capable of knowing that he can get a good deal. He certainly didn't have to make any special deal with regard to St. Ann's to be able to get the upgrading and density that was desired for the Y lot. I understand that it really was just a gift determined by the government to another NDP friend in the operations of the city.
Could the minister comment on the fact that the government gave up a $21 million private purchase or development of that St. Ann's property?
Hon. G. Clark: The only private deal that I know about was turned down by city council on the basis that it was a shopping centre. Probably the member for Saanich North and the Islands supported that idea; I don't know.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, he did. That was just intuitive on my part. It was a private sector development which attempted not to preserve it as heritage status but to make some use of the buildings. I don't mean that in a disparaging way. As I understand it, it was rejected, and also rejected generally by community activists in Victoria.
K. Jones: Just to clarify the reference to the member, the minister was referring to the member for Saanich North and
[ Page 16096 ]
the Islands, not the member for Surrey-Cloverdale in the last speech.
Could the minister tell us what is proceeding at the present time with regard to Q lot?
Hon. G. Clark: Actually, Q lot is moving fairly quickly. I think there will be housing, as you know, at the far end. I think that goes first, but very shortly thereafter some of the office construction will begin. Is the Menzies Street piece doing that first?
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, they'll build 40 units of affordable housing, and then they'll start the.... If you're familiar with the plans, there's some retail space on Menzies and some office space above it. There's also a tower across the way from the Embassy -- about a six-storey building. I think that will proceed.... Certainly there will be some action on that site in this fiscal year.
K. Jones: That site presently is being used as the primary parking lot for most of the staff in this precinct. What provision is the minister making for staff parking in the precinct?
Hon. G. Clark: There will be some significant underground parking as part of the development, but we will lose some parking. We have a variety of techniques that we're working on in terms of transit and trying to improve the use of public transit. We have a transportation demand management study underway to look at the implications of more office space on the Q lot, with parking underneath, and the lack of parking and what people who currently use that parking will do.
[10:45]
I just can't help saying that even though it's really nice to be able to park that close to the legislative buildings, this city is becoming much larger. This is very prime real estate, and it is an extremely bad utilization of the land to have inexpensive parking this close to downtown and the region. There will be some inconvenience, and I expect people won't be very happy about losing their prime parking spots -- probably even some staff in my office. Frankly, I just don't think we can make any apologies for that. We simply have to charge higher rates for parking than has been the case, and has not been acceptable. We have to encourage people to take public transit, and we have to start acting more efficiently when it comes to the use of public lands in the vicinity of the Legislature.
K. Jones: I understand that the BCGEU workers in this building have a contract that includes a parking component. How is the parking going to be accommodated while this building is under construction? There will be a period, when the building is under construction, during which there wouldn't even be underground parking available. What's going to happen to people who currently require that parking?
Hon. G. Clark: As I understand it, there is no guarantee to provide cheap parking in the contract. There is, I gather, a guarantee that we provide parking where it's available. If it's no longer available, then it becomes a moot point. In any event, I would argue very strongly, even if there were any negotiations required, that it's simply not acceptable to be charging those kinds of prices for that valuable property. Again, we don't believe there's any prohibition on what we're doing with respect to the collective agreement.
K. Jones: I understand John Shields has gone on record as saying that that's not the case -- that his employees do have parking provisions in the contract and that the question still stands. What provisions are being made for these people, with the removal of that large parking lot adjoining the site?
The other problem is that we also seem to be a drawing feature for tourism in Victoria, and tourist parking utilizes that lot quite extensively as well. What provisions are being made to handle that requirement?
Hon. G. Clark: These questions are why we're doing a transportation demand management study. We obviously want to make sure that we don't have some unintended consequences. I don't dismiss that there are consequences, but we think they are definitely manageable. There was, as part of the original accord review, the idea of a streetcar loop, which I'm very much supportive of. It didn't get as much support as I would have thought. Well, I won't make any further comments about that. It's still part of the discussion and still being reviewed, and I would think a heritage streetcar service in this community would be outstanding for the tourist potential and would also be of real assistance. But that's still under discussion, and there's some expense associated with that, so we're still reviewing it.
If the member has been to Portland or some other communities, he'll see the heritage streetcar concept working extremely well. In fact, many communities use it. That was one idea for dealing with some of the consequences. It's not etched in stone; this process has gone through lots of public consultation, and I'm sure it will go through more yet.
K. Jones: Is the study the minister referred to the same one that former minister Blencoe was talking about two years ago and was underway then?
Hon. G. Clark: I think it is.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us why it has taken over two years to implement what would appear to be a very small study that possibly could have been done in two or three months?
Hon. G. Clark: I understand that the study is complete. We are now reviewing its consequences and costs and continuing to study the question further. That's why we're still reviewing it.
K. Jones: Could the minister make a copy of the study available to the official opposition critic?
Hon. G. Clark: Sure.
K. Jones: Does the minister wish to continue further at this point? Are we getting into new areas, or do you want to wind it up?
Hon. G. Clark: Carry on.
[ Page 16097 ]
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what is happening with regard to the properties at Colony Farm?
Hon. G. Clark: I think I'll have the chief executive officer answer that question.
D. Truss: A portion of the lands, about 65 acres in all, will be retained for the rebuild of the Forensic Psychiatric Institute. The balance of the property will remain in the agricultural land reserve. It was part of a recent government announcement to make it part of the parks program in the lower mainland, so it will all be continued in the agricultural land reserve. We are in the process of transferring the property to the Greater Vancouver Regional District for use as a park.
Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 10:53 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]