1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JULY 11, 1995

Afternoon Sitting (Part 1)

Volume 21, Number 27

[ Page 16825 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

B. Copping: In the gallery today are two constituents, Bruce Rickard and his daughter Chelsea Rickard. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'd like the House to give a very warm welcome to Darlana Mulzet, who is in the gallery today. She was one of the 1991 recipients of the Premier's excellence award. Of course, you're aware that it's a scholarship for academic excellence among our top students in British Columbia. The scholarship has assisted Darlana to successfully complete her studies in science and pre-med at the University of Victoria. She is headed this fall to medical school at the University of British Columbia. So would you give a very, very warm welcome to Darlana Mulzet.

Hon. D. Miller: In the gallery today are Lori Winstanley, Leanne Rogan and Jolene Finnerty. Jolene Finnerty is from Campbell River and is in her third year at the University of Victoria, where she is currently enrolled in the faculty of business co-op program. As part of her co-op program, she is working in a student summer works job, sponsored by the provincial government under Skills Now. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

L. Hanson: In the gallery today we have a young lady from my hometown of Vernon, Leanne Rogan. Leanne is 13 years old, and this is her first visit to the provincial Legislature. Would you please join me in giving her a warm welcome.

S. Hammell: I'd like to introduce two wonderful people who are in the gallery today, Val Hammell and Bill Piket. Bill is here marking provincial exams, and Val is visiting the gardens of Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION ACT

L. Stephens presented a bill intituled Domestic Violence Prevention Act.

L. Stephens: This bill will afford victims of violence greater access and protection through the use of a justice of the peace. A major innovation is the removal of the offender from the home rather than removing the victim and children. In addition to removal of the offender, an emergency intervention order and a victim assistance order can provide for the comfort and safety of the victim and other family members who remain in the home. In the judicial system, the onus will be on the respondent to demonstrate why such order should not be in place, and the focus will be on greater protection for the victim. Provisions for the respondent to be restrained or removed and/or to attend counselling or therapy are also included.

Bill M218 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

CHILD PROTECTION ACT

J. Dalton presented a bill intituled Child Protection Act.

J. Dalton: I move that Bill M219, Child Protection Act, of which notice has been given on the order paper in the name of the member for Langley, be introduced and read a first time now.

One of the most severe forms of child abuse in Canada today is youth prostitution. This bill amends the Motor Vehicle Act to better protect youths who are sexually abused by adults through the trade of prostitution. Under this bill, adults will be deterred from purchasing sexual services from youths under the age of 18, as they will have their driver's licences automatically suspended if they use a motor vehicle in the commission of the related criminal offence.

The Criminal Code was amended in 1988 to penalize any person who purchases sexual services from youths under the age of 18. Just as a number of provincial statutes supplement federal criminal sanctions, such as impaired driving, this bill would ensure that an appropriate deterrent be enacted to address those who would exploit a sexually abused youth. Studies indicate that the majority of consumers of child prostitution utilize their vehicles in the commission of the crime. This bill would create the immediate deterrent of loss of driver privileges for the conviction of the crime.

Bill M219 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Presenting Petitions

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I rise to present a petition on behalf of about 250 people from my riding.

Hon. E. Cull tabled the 1993-94 annual report of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1994.

Hon. A. Petter tabled the 1994-95 audited financial statement of the Provincial Capital Commission.

Oral Questions

NDP SWEEPSTAKES DRAW FOR TRIP TO ALASKA

W. Hurd: My question is for the Premier. The provincial New Democratic Party has sent out entry forms for a summer sweepstakes draw. First prize is an all-expense-paid cruise to the Gulf of Alaska, which is referred to in the brochure as the most beautiful place on Earth. Can the Premier tell us why his party is giving away an all-expense-paid trip to Alaska at a time when the state is wilfully flouting conservation laws with respect to fish?

The Speaker: Hon. member, I don't believe that the Premier has responsibility for the question you have raised. Do you have another question, hon. member?

W. Hurd: I do have an additional question. When the Alaskans walked away from talks over salmon preservation 

[ Page 16826 ]

recently, the Premier said: "It's disgusting that the Alaskans are poaching on fish that are being taken care of here in British Columbia." He said that the Alaskans were acting like Spaniards, and they should be brought to heel. Can the Premier explain why the NDP would choose an Alaska destination rather than one in B.C.? How does this action by the Premier's own party play into the hands of this government's commitment to "get tough" with the Alaskans?

[2:15]

STATEMENT RE GORDON HANSON BY FORMER ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS MINISTER

M. de Jong: My question is also to the Premier. I would alert him again to the fact that on July 4 last week at an FOI appeal hearing, a senior official of the comptroller general's office, Sunny Mathieson, was asked about the contents of a statement issued by the present Minister of Forests in September 1992 in his capacity as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. In referring to that ministerial statement concerning the Gordon Hanson conflict matter, Ms. Mathieson said under oath: "I don't agree with the statement in the press release. I think that it was misleading."

My question to the Premier is: has he commenced a review of the charges made by Sunny Mathieson during her testimony, and what actions has he taken as a result of those charges being laid?

Hon. A. Petter: While this doesn't technically fall within my current area of responsibility, I'm happy to answer. The question relates to a review that was undertaken...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. A. Petter: ...at the request of the Deputy Minister of Aboriginal Affairs into contract relationships with Gordon Hanson. That review was undertaken at the request of the deputy minister by the Deputy Attorney General. The Attorney General in turn sought advice from the comptroller general and then submitted his report to the Deputy Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

In his report to the Deputy Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the Deputy Attorney General of the day, Mr. Bob Edwards, said the report -- speaking to the comptroller general's report -- spoke for itself on the question of the propriety of Mr. Hanson's billings under the ministry's contract. It concluded that Mr. Hanson was entitled to receive payments made to him.

I agree with the conclusion that no evidence was disclosed of any attempt to defraud the ministry. Based on that, the Deputy Minister of Aboriginal Affairs then communicated to me the following:

"The findings of this review are that Mr. Hanson did not breach his contract with the ministry and that neither his work with the ministry nor the first nation's people heritage, language and culture council result in any conflict of interest. Additionally, Mr. Hanson was entitled to receive payments made to him, and no payments to Mr. Hanson constituted double-dipping."

That was the report to me from the deputy minister, based on the report received by him from the Deputy Attorney General, and I simply repeated that in my statement. If there's a disagreement of opinion here, it's between those officials, not a disagreement involving me.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

M. de Jong: The minister, in his capacity as Aboriginal Affairs minister, as he then was, issued a release. That release was based in part on the report prepared by Sunny Mathieson. Sunny Mathieson has given testimony under oath that the minister misrepresented that report. That is the testimony, under oath, given by Sunny Mathieson. My question to the Premier is: does he believe that an allegation by a senior bureaucrat that one of his ministers has misled the public is an allegation worthy of investigation?

INTERFERENCE IN RELEASE OF WCB REPORT

L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Labour. The Liberal opposition has learned that the WCB spent $54,000 to obtain an independent analysis of the WCB's own operation by the Laurier Institute. Once the report was complete and 600 copies made, the WCB put release of the report on hold because Ken Georgetti was disgusted with the chapter on moral hazard. Why did this minister allow Mr. Georgetti to influence an independent report on the operations of the WCB?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. D. Miller: The member stands and makes a statement that is loaded with conjecture, and she wants me to treat it seriously. I think every member in this House agreed yesterday that indeed there are problems at that board, and every member in this House, I hope, will vote in favour of the legislation that this government will be debating later today to ensure that that organization is put on a footing to serve the public interests of the people of this province.

The Speaker: I would caution all members with respect to a matter before the House when posing questions.

L. Reid: The fact is that the WCB chair ordered 600 copies of the report destroyed because Ken Georgetti was upset. That's the bottom line. This is the type of interference we on the Liberal benches have been exposing for the past year, and you indeed, as the minister, allow this interference. Our question to this minister is: why did he condone, for so long, this interference that indeed impacts negatively on workers in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Miller: Given the importance of WCB, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the only interest the Liberals have is in furthering dissension, in taking sides and in promoting trouble for their own perceived political ends. My advice to them is that it will not work. So why don't they try to be part of the solution instead of trying to be a problem-maker?

[ Page 16827 ]

ISSUANCE OF TRAFFIC TICKETS WITH PHOTO RADAR

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. According to the government's own figures, the government issues about 400,000 traffic tickets each year -- at least, police agencies across the province issue about 400,000 tickets each year. We have learned that the government plans for an additional 400 percent increase in the issuance of traffic tickets as a result of the introduction of photo radar. Indeed, a request for a proposal put out by the ministry states: "A number of stakeholders will be significantly impacted by the additional 1.6 million tickets expected in the first year of operation." Why has the government never disclosed that it plans to issue an additional 1.6 million traffic tickets each year -- an additional traffic ticket every 20 seconds, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Hon. J. Pement: The member certainly raises an issue of concern. The thing is that the member still hasn't got the message that speed kills -- speed is killing us. We have put in safety initiatives in this province to address the issue of 500 deaths on our highways, 98,000 accidents and 47,000 injuries. One cannot condone those types of figures and stats. Certainly we have said right from the start that there would be an increase in fines with photo radar, but we also said that as the increase goes up, we expect less speeding. We expect people to see it as a deterrent. We expect to get less traffic fines in the long run.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: To refresh the minister's memory, on March 14 the minister said: "We do not intend to use photo radar cameras as cash cows. In fact, they will work without adding significantly to revenues." At a minimum of $100 a ticket, 1.6 million new tickets represent $160 million in additional fines for drivers in British Columbia. How can the minister possibly deny that the government intends to use photo radar cameras as a cash cow, given the evidence by her own ministry with regard to the issuance of 1.6 million additional tickets, a 400 percent increase in one year?

Hon. J. Pement: Again, I don't really believe this member has got the message yet or got the point. The point is that there are going to be 60 lives saved, 4,700 injuries reduced and a saving of $225 million overall -- $125 million in insurance alone. Take a look and see what the savings are for British Columbia.

GUIDELINES FOR MINISTRY PLANNING "RETREATS"

L. Stephens: Last session the Liberal opposition revealed that the Minister of Social Services allowed a ministry field trip to Qualicum Beach. As a result, the Premier issued a directive which states: "Retreats and planning sessions will not be held at locations a significant distance from the normal workplace." Now we have learned that B.C. Ferries took approximately 90 staff to Courtenay last month. Why does the Premier continue to allow his cabinet ministers to break a directive which the Premier himself has issued?

BRITISH COLUMBIA SALMON FISHERY

D. Mitchell: Tomorrow the federal Minister of Fisheries, Brian Tobin, is coming to British Columbia, hopefully to learn about the serious crisis in the British Columbia salmon fishery, and also, hopefully, to learn that unilateral conservation efforts cannot, and will not, work in order to save the British Columbia salmon fishery. Last week in response to a question in this House, the hon. Premier said that the province may be seeking compensation for British Columbia salmon fishers.

A question to the Premier: is that the extent of the vision for the province -- that we're going to be seeking compensation to allow B.C. salmon fishers to seek social assistance or to go on unemployment insurance? Is that the extent of the vision, or is the hon. Premier going to be taking advantage of the opportunity to meet with Minister Tobin to let him know that British Columbians are not going to settle for unilateral conservation, and that we want the strongest possible message...

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

D. Mitchell: ...communicated to the Americans on this matter?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the member is fully aware of the vision that this government has to make the greatest salmon fishery in the world whole. We have cancelled the Kemano completion project. We have finally completed, after a quarter of a century, the funding of half a billion dollars to entirely complete the secondary sewage treatment at Annacis Island, the last great polluter on the Fraser River. We have invested in a new Forest Practices Code that will change the way logging is done to prevent the destruction of salmon spawning streams. We have $400 million through Forest Renewal B.C., a significant portion of which will go to watershed restoration. British Columbians are doing more than Alaska, Washington, Oregon and Canada combined in making sure the salmon fishery is kept whole...

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

Hon. M. Harcourt: ...and I think, hon. Speaker, it's time that others took up their responsibility like B.C. has.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

D. Mitchell: The Alaskan fishers are robbing British Columbians of their heritage by overfishing a natural resource that is owned by Canadians and by British Columbians. The province has some jurisdiction over this natural resource. Can the hon. Premier tell us if he is going to be taking advantage of the opportunity to meet personally with federal Fisheries minister Brian Tobin when he comes to British Columbia tomorrow to let him know -- and he must be told in the strongest possible terms -- that if the federal government doesn't take strong action in this regard, British Columbians will? Are we going to tell him that?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes, the Minister of Fisheries will be meeting with his counterpart tomorrow. He has said that 

[ Page 16828 ]

B.C.'s position is very clear. I've just outlined some of the measures that British Columbia has taken to make sure that we can practise the principles of conservation and sustain the fishery. We want equity to make sure that our neighbours don't poach the fish that we have nurtured and have invested millions of dollars in to make sure they are available.

Yes, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Fisheries is going to be putting forward the British Columbia position of conservation and equity in the salmon fishery very forcefully. We don't want our salmon fishery to go the way of the cod fishery on the east coast or the salmon fishery in Washington and Oregon; and it won't, if British Columbia has its say in this matter.

[2:30]

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

COST OF LEGAL FEES FOR FORMER GOVERNMENT SERVICES MINISTER

Hon. M. Harcourt: I was asked a couple of questions in the last little while. One was about the legal fees for the previous Minister of Government Services in the Kelleher investigation that was carried out on my instructions. I can tell the House that the sum of $15,806 was paid by the Minister of Finance through the Financial Administration Act.

BOB WILLIAMS, B.C. TRADE CORPORATION AND VANCITY CREDIT UNION

Hon. M. Harcourt: I was also asked about a letter from Bob Williams that was written on B.C. Trade letterhead. I was asked by the member for Peace River North if Mr. Williams had also collected his pension. I can say on the two points that the member raised that when Mr. Williams was working with the Crown corporations secretariat from December 1991, through to August 1993, he did not collect the employer's portion of the pension. He drew only the employee's portion of the pension, which he had purchased himself, and that was $385 per month. As I understand, that also continued when he was on contract to B.C. Trade, through to the conclusion of that contract in February 1995. After the conclusion of any involvement with the provincial government either as an employee or on contract, Mr. Williams, as retired MLAs can do, started to collect his MLA pension in March this year.

On the question of Mr. Williams' letter, he said in regard to the sale of British Columbia's land registry system and a letter he had written because of a relationship established with the Asian Development Bank, that he would make inquiries as to how a very difficult area to finance for traditional financing institutions -- the sale of services such as land registry systems.... He would informally seek some expert financial advice from VanCity.

After checking with B.C. Trade, I can tell you that I have received the following information. In the opinion of the officials at B.C. Trade, this activity was well within Mr. Williams's role of investigating opportunities for B.C. businesses. In these early stages of discussions with the Asian Development Bank, it is only natural and advantageous that he draw on his past experiences and resources in government and the private sector. This letter was a very general preliminary discussion of how ADB might begin their search to match their public funding with private funding. There was no formal financing package at that time.

Bob Court, CEO of VanCity Savings Credit Union and chair of Citizens Trust, has never been approached by anyone from B.C. Trade or the Premier's Office or by Bob Williams on co-financing support for property rights. Bob Williams, while discussing the need to source private sector financing to match public sector funds from the Asian Development Bank, suggested the one financial institution he was familiar with to assist the ADB in their search. No follow-up was ever taken.

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 28.

ELECTION ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 28; G. Brewin in the chair.

L. Fox: I'd like to move the amendment standing in the name of the member for Peace River South on the order paper, which proposes a new section 227.1. For the record, I would like to read it into Hansard.

[227.1 by adding the following section:

Restrictions on government advertising

(1) Advertising by the provincial government shall be limited and cannot include the following during an election period:

(a) any television advertising,

(b) any newspaper advertising not directed specifically at government contract tendering,

(c) any direct mail, and

(d) the production of any government publication directed to the general public

(i) that did not exist six months prior to the election period,

(ii) that has not produced regularly or annually for at least the past two years.

(2) Subsection (1) shall apply to all government agencies and crown corporations.

(3) Subsection (1) shall apply to any advertising or publication required by statute existing six months prior to the election period.

(4) Subsection (1) shall not apply to any advertising directed by the Chief Electoral Officer.]

On the amendment.

L. Fox: I've listened for countless hours to the debate about providing a balanced approach to the election for all parties concerned. The purpose of this amendment is to take away the advantage from the governing party, and prevent it using public dollars to promote government initiatives with one purpose only: promoting its own re-election. I think I can speak to this in fairness, because I wasn't part of any party that was ever part of an election. But I have seen the misuse in numerous elections of government spending during the writ period. Given the Attorney General's arguments that he's put forward on third-party spending and the approach he's taken on third-party spending within this legislation, and if it is going to be around the principle he has spoken of, I have to feel that he would accept this amendment in the way that it's meant -- that is, to provide an even playing field for all parties during an election.

[ Page 16829 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is one of the issues that took a lot of time as we considered how we might actually accomplish the goal the member outlines and the leader of his party proposes by way of amendment, because it is a serious issue. In fact, I was determined in the long run-up to the introduction of this bill to find a way of doing what the member suggests, because I think it's important that governments do not use taxpayers' money to promote themselves during an election campaign.

But as we began to try to work through that, it became clear that it was impossible to make distinctions between the various kinds of advertising. Let me just give a couple of examples. Does such a prohibition mean that the Lottery Corporation cannot advertise its various lottery activities during the period of the campaign? Under this section, that would be problematic. They may well have to cease their advertising.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, I looked at it from that perspective, and I'm not sure it does deal with the issue that we had to try to grapple with.

We went so far as to try to sort out its impact if a particular ferry was disabled during the campaign and a new schedule resulted. This isn't something that has happened regularly in the past and so there's no precedent for it. Could a television, print or radio ad be aired or published during the campaign, notifying the public of this new schedule from B.C. Ferries? Could the Minister of Transportation and Highways continue to promote traffic safety -- for example, advertising on bicycle helmets for kids? That kind of activity is a new program. If the program was up and running, say two or three months prior to the election, would they be able to advertise during the election campaign? There's a whole variety of these kinds of questions.

In fact, being more technical, the amendment would even prevent the government from advertising for people to fill certain positions. Section 1(b) in the amendment says: "...any newspaper advertising not directed specifically at government contract tendering...." Well, that's a fairly limited kind of thing. I guess the member wants to be able to advertise that there's a bridge to be repaired and to call for tenders, but if there's a new assistant deputy minister in the Ministry of Health to be hired, that wouldn't count. So that advertisement would not be able to be published.

I could go on. This discussion, I can assure the member, went on for hours and hours and hours, with a whole variety of complications. Every time you find a way of either preventing one thing or allowing another, you discover yet another outcome either prevented or allowed that you didn't mean to have prevented or allowed. It just became an impossibility.

I concluded in my own mind that, given the difficulty with this, the best solution was to leave it silent and allow voters to determine what their response would be if a government chose to advertise in any way that could be seen as partisan during an election campaign. It would be counterproductive for a government to do that. That is the ultimate sanction against governments using taxpayers' money to do something that is, in effect, aimed at supporting the party. Beyond that, if the government ran an ad that could be seen as supporting one political party or opposing another, then the third-party advertising prohibitions would kick in, in any event.

L. Fox: Let me first suggest that if you're hiring.... Let's talk just very briefly. Let me at the outset say that the Attorney General was clutching at straws to try to point out that indeed there is no need for this type of amendment, because there are clauses throughout this amendment that dealt with every specific interest that the minister brought forward.

Let's deal first with the changing of the ferry schedules. Subsection (d)(i) is very explicit that if it was customary that ferry schedules or changes in those ferry schedules were advertised prior to the six-month period of time, they could go on. If that was the systematic thing done by government, there's no problem with that.

In terms of the hiring, let's face it. The hiring of a deputy minister, for instance, during a 28-day writ period -- how much of that is done? Who indeed is even going to apply for the job during an election, knowing full well that they may only have it for not long enough to get in the office? So I don't see that as a legitimate rationale.

[2:45]

What I do see is the willingness of government, on the one hand, to tie the hands of a third party from spending dollars in trying to influence a government or an election of a respective party; and on the other hand, the government having full opportunity. I have to go back to the discussions we had a few sections back -- I don't recall it right at the moment -- where the Attorney General himself agreed that the contributions made through the NAFTA initiative were a successful tool used by the Conservatives to get Brian Mulroney elected.

This legislation without this amendment permits that very similar process. This amendment, however, reduces that opportunity. It may not totally wipe it out, but it would certainly restrict it somewhat. So I question whether the minister has given this a fair opportunity, and suggest that by not accepting the amendment, he wants the scales once again to remain tipped in the favour of government. That's very unfortunate for British Columbia.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Just in case there's any misunderstanding, the third-party limits on advertising would apply to the government as well. So if the government were, in fact, doing something which was promoting the government in power -- promoting itself -- that wouldn't be allowed under the third-party limits.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, nor any of its agencies -- ICBC, Hydro or any of them. No one can spend money on advertising to promote or oppose a particular political party, and that includes Crown agencies and the government.

L. Fox: I fail to understand how that would apply. Let's just say that in health care, for instance, we're advertising new policies in Pharmacare, because that's very controversial right now. Let's say the Ministry of Health is putting out an ad that's trying to appeal to seniors, who are very concerned about Pharmacare coverage today and are very mad at this 

[ Page 16830 ]

government for its initiatives around Pharmacare. How would the $5,000 limit that is available to a third party be applied in an initiative where we've already seen thousands of dollars put forward by this government around the health care issue? The Attorney General is being less than fair with us when he makes that statement. I do not understand how it could apply to that kind of expenditure.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the health care ads were directed at individuals, urging them to improve their diet, to exercise, not to smoke and those kinds of things, then that's obviously not going to be caught by third-party limits. But if, let's say, the Pharmacare branch of the Ministry of Health were promoting a particular policy that only the government party was promoting and all the other parties were opposing, and Pharmacare took ads during the writ period advocating the position the government party was taking, then those ads would not be allowed to run.

L. Fox: I recognize that if the government was going to do it, it wouldn't be so blatant as to be promoting a particular initiative. What it would be doing, however, would be trying to do its best to explain the initiative and its ramifications, which could be construed not as promoting it but as explaining a public service. From my perspective, that would take it out of that definition.

I'm not even the minister, and I'm sure I can envision all kinds of ways to spend provincial tax dollars to improve the climate out there for the government of the day. I think it's unfortunate that the minister is attempting to leave us with the position that somehow government spending is going to be curtailed by the third-party provisions within this act. It's just not true, and I think it's unfair for the minister to try to leave us with that kind of impression.

G. Wilson: I want to get some comments from the Alliance Party on record here, because I don't think the minister is going to accept this amendment, and my guess is that we'll have a hard time getting it through the House. I hear what the minister is saying, and I would have some similar concerns. If we were to put this amendment in, there might be interpretive measures taken to say that the government, in its orderly conduct of business, could not run ads that it ordinarily would, but the way this wording is drafted, I think that would be far and away the minority case rather than the majority case.

Quite clearly, subsection (1)(d) says: "...the production of any government publication directed to the general public...." If the government is putting out information programs and packages, those would be part of an overall program than has already been approved through the estimates and spending debates of this Legislative Assembly. In the vast majority of cases, the government could argue that those expenditures are part of an orderly and ongoing process of government doing business and being able to get its information across.

Where we would obviously run into problems is if the government was then to change course and start to produce new materials that would go out extolling, for example, the virtues of the forest renewal plan. If it were to publish a document, saying, "Your tax dollars at work renewing your forests," and then, by riding, demonstrate.... I mean, I wouldn't mind, because mine happens to top the list. I don't mean that by way of an ad, but many people, if you were to put out a glossy ad and fire that out to householders, would interpret that as being an election-type expense. That's a problem.

Similarly, we've seen huge highway signs in the past that have sprung up like tulips in the spring right before an election, saying: "Your government at work." The name of the Minister of Highways is very prominently displayed, with "Your tax dollars...." Here's the new project we've all been waiting for, for four years, and it's going to materialize miraculously just before the next election. The asphalt starts to flow, and we get into the pavement politics of the past.

What this amendment is trying to do is capture in this act some language that says this is not going to be a practice we want to have during the writ period, and I would support it. There are some minor concerns here, but nothing more than we've seen with minor language concerns in a whole host of sections of this bill. Given that we will have a new CEO and a new committee to review the fine-tuning of this bill in its operation, it would be much better to err in favour of this language and put this language in the bill, recognizing that there may be a few technical issues that need to be ironed out, than to grossly err, in my judgment, by excluding this provision. It is a provision that the general public would like to see to protect their tax dollars.

D. Mitchell: The election campaign period in British Columbia is very short; it's only 28 days. When the election writ is dropped, the Legislature is dissolved and we are no longer Members of the Legislative Assembly, but there is still an executive council and a cabinet. There is still a government in the province, and the government has to be given the opportunity to continue to do its job. But surely British Columbians would be prepared to accept the notion, and any government would be willing to make the sacrifice, of a 28-day prohibition. That is not just this government, but any future government, because this act is going to deal not just with the next provincial election, but hopefully with all future provincial elections. That's all it is -- just 28 days. It's not going to be crucial to the delivery of any particular ongoing government program. It's a prohibition, for 28 days only, of government advertising. I think that's the intent of the amendment, and it's reasonable.

Members have talked about this. When members of the governing party were on the opposition side, they used to criticize previous governments for spending money during election campaign periods for exactly this purpose. This amendment is geared toward not just the next election campaign but all future election campaigns of any future government. What it is saying is that for a short period of time, less than a month, there will be no advertising; there will be a prohibition on government advertising.

If we had a fixed term for elections, maybe this wouldn't be an issue, but because the government also controls the timing of any election under our system, none of us knows when an election will be held. Because the government also controls the specific timing of the election, it has a tremendous advantage in terms of planning these advertising expenditures. Could the Attorney General tell us what is wrong with a 28-day prohibition on government advertising? It's a short sacrifice to make to achieve the goal of inspiring the confidence of the electorate in this process and to ensure that no government will abuse its powers during an election period.

[ Page 16831 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't think the member was here in my opening comments when I responded to that question. That would be available in the Blues.

C. Serwa: It's a very interesting amendment that has been proposed, and a very necessary one. I suppose the true test of any legislation is how the government would look at it if they were on the opposition benches, and how they would live with it. Can you imagine the howls of outrage that would issue forth from the now government members if the Social Credit government did such a thing in an election act? I would imagine that every union member in the province would be out there marching on the lawn, talking about the ability of the government to spend millions of taxpayers' dollars to enhance their chance of re-election. The Attorney General has been around the block a number of times and fought many elections. He is a very good, astute politician and has one enviable characteristic, in that his experience has been in every position in this Legislature, so he understands full well the implications of this.

The minister has said time and time again that it is necessary to ensure the confidence of the public in the election system -- in the Election Act -- and here is the greatest escape clause of them all. If the minister and the government were truly sincere -- or were even trying to demonstrate their sincerity -- they would support this amendment. Or else they would have, in their wisdom, put in this type of section as something that they could live with, which would have been a clear, indicated sign for the government to remind itself that everyone is watching. The instructions are clearly laid out in the Legislature and in this piece of legislation that that type of advertising of the moment, during the election writ, is prohibited. That in itself is an adequate enough deterrent.

The minister goes on to say that if the voters are offended by their government and their program of advertising, they can show that in the election booth. I understand that. But if that logic is so rational and so valid, why isn't that test utilized for the whole Election Act, for example, in the contributions of the third-party interests in the campaign? Why don't we use that particular test? Again we run into that business of variable principles. It's the flimflam type of stuff that it's okay this way but it's better for us, and the next time we go around this way.

There's no question in mind that government -- whether it's the former government or this government -- will use the position and abuse the position to the maximum if they can. If this legislation is to stand any test, it has to have some sort of constraint with respect to public spending directly on the part of government or Crown agencies that the government controls. We hear about a $10 million advertising campaign. Any political party's budget for an election pales by comparison. But that's not all; right now, there is probably more than $200 million being given out to government members in various government constituencies throughout the province, which is just small change -- giveaway gifts -- to try to ensure real action. But that's all right.

[3:00]

The Columbia Basin Trust Act. Over a billion dollars was committed by this government to buy six seats, and that's okay. And government advertising is okay. It doesn't stand the test. There is no philosophy or principles that are consistent in this bill. In his opening address the minister talked about 99 44/100 percent pure. I suggest that it probably doesn't meet anywhere near that test. If the minister refuses to accept this amendment, the minister is clearly stating -- and compromising himself and his position -- that this is a biased political Election Act. The public hasn't had any involvement in it; they don't really matter. The executive branch of government has had a great deal of involvement in it, and that's what matters. As I said initially, it enhances the chances of government's re-election by 5 or 10 percentage points.

All of the appearance, or the facade of sincerity, of a devout interest to provide an Election Act in British Columbia that is fair, balanced, open and accessible is simple camouflage. This bill is the mother of hypocrisy, and every voter in the province had better know that. I would like to know from the hon. minister how he can reconcile his noble position and his government executive branch's noble position, and then support no restriction on government advertising. There are any number of ways that this could be done. There is nothing wrong with the amendment. There's nothing wrong with the 28-day prohibition every three, four or five years prohibiting government from advertising. There's nothing wrong with it at all. Or perhaps a clause, for example, that says only what advertising is normally necessary for the practical operation of government and the normal conduct of its business. But no effort was made. The government remained silent on this, so we open the floodgates of public taxpayers' dollars to enable and enhance the election of government.

If the minister were in the opposition, I know that he would have a great deal of difficulty. That is an understatement. I know that every government member, if they search their conscience, would oppose this type of legislation and would tell their violent opposition to the world. This is neither balanced nor fair. It is just another evident distortion included in this election bill that will enable and enhance the opportunity for a government to be re-elected. I think it is very wrong not to insert something qualifying or controlling in this bill.

J. Weisgerber: This is an opportunity for me to speak to the amendment that was standing in my name on the order paper.

I believe it's an important amendment. I've listened to this debate with a good deal of interest. I've looked at a piece of legislation that's 275 pages in total, some 307 sections at least. And the minister has been consistent in his defence of this bill in this Legislature by saying that it sets about to limit expenditures on behalf of all parties. The minister has looked at every conceivable area where parties might influence our electoral process.

Incredibly, the government has overlooked government spending for advertising during an election campaign. It's incredible to me that a government could have been so meticulous, so determined to identify every possible abuse of our electoral system -- as the minister would suggest that he was -- and then leave out and be silent on government advertising, the biggest advertiser on an ongoing basis in our society. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent annually. I was supportive. I was with the minister on the notion of polling -- the limitations on polling and containing that within the writ period. I accepted that argument. I accepted it, because I believe that exactly the same principle should apply with respect to government advertising.

I don't think that the Election Act should try to define government advertising. I don't think that should be the pur-

[ Page 16832 ]

pose of the act. But during an election period, when government essentially allows the system to run and cabinet meets rarely -- and only to deal with very urgent and pressing matters of business -- I can't imagine why this amendment, and the limitations spelled out in this amendment, would be any constraint to the orderly operation of government. Indeed, why would any ministry of government feel compelled to do television advertising during a writ period? I can't imagine any event that would require television ads to run during that 28-day writ period; why there would be any newspaper advertising not directed specifically at government contract tender; why government, during a writ period, would want to engage in direct mailings; and why the government would want to produce a publication directed at the public that had not existed six months prior to the writ period or had not been produced regularly for two years leading up to an election. I can't imagine a situation where a government not wanting to use its partisan advantage would find those sections of this amendment difficult to deal with. I can't imagine why Crown corporations would be obliged or feel the need to involve themselves in advertising campaigns that don't meet the criteria suggested in the first section. Indeed, there is every indication that for necessary advertising, any publication required by statute would be permitted.

If the purpose of this bill is to genuinely limit spending on behalf of all of the parties in a campaign, it's incredible -- it's unthinkable to me -- that we would have a bill like this that's absolutely silent on the greatest single advantage that government has. I acknowledge the points made by the member for Okanagan West. The fact of the matter is that in the months leading up to a campaign, we see -- and we're already seeing -- an increase in institutional advertising. It's not the government giving specific information to voters, but giving information designed to influence the decision that will come at election time. We know that. We don't like it, but we accept it as a fact of life.

I challenge the minister to -- say for 28 days in much the same way he makes the argument on spending limits for third parties and with respect to restrictions on pollsters -- have the courage to apply it not only to everybody else, but also to himself as the Attorney General, a representative of the government and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Apply the stamp that you so rigorously apply to groups like the B.C. Taxpayers' Association, the Coalition of B.C. Businesses and the Responsible Firearms Owners' Coalition -- and the list goes on. Apply precisely the same kinds of disciplines to yourself, for the same period of time, as you are so eager and so willing to apply to others.

I'd like to hear from the Attorney General about the kinds of difficulties for government he would foresee in this amendment if he is in fact unwilling to accept the amendment. I genuinely believe that this friendly amendment should be accepted by the government in the spirit that it is put forward.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member, as with the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, wasn't here when I made my opening response following the introduction of the amendment, but given that it is the member's amendment, I will just make it again very briefly. The first thing I need to say is that the government would be limited in the same way as any other third party, so the examples this morning....

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The members shake their heads, but it's true. The government would not be able to do anything that the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club of Western Canada or anybody else couldn't do. The government couldn't do what they couldn't do, and the government could do what they could do, so the rules are the same. People don't like the third-party limit because it's too controlling. It controls government and its agencies as well, so that's the first point.

I also said earlier in response to this issue -- I think it's a serious issue, and I don't mind us taking the time on it -- that we put our minds around this question for a long time, trying to sort out how we could do it; we worked with draft proposals on how to accomplish this. Every time you solve one problem, you create another problem. This amendment would prohibit the Ministry of Health, for example, from advertising in Prince George that everybody needed to boil their water because there was a health crisis.

An Hon. Member: It's required by statute.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, it's not. That's required by statute existing six months prior to the election period.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Then the members are saying that any advertisement that is required by statute.... Let's say, for example, that it's Hydro, and there's going to be a power outage for three days in Trail. There's no statutory requirement that they advise anybody -- not to my knowledge. I would expect that they would advertise on the radio station and in the media that this outage is going to occur. They would not be able to do so. I talked earlier about the Lottery Corporation. It's problematic as to whether or not they would be able to conduct those kinds of advertisements, given that their advertising campaign changes every week.

We can't replicate the hours of discussions at a technical level that were held to sort through this issue, but I can assure the member that for every problem you solve, a new one is created with respect to an unintended consequence of the prohibition on advertising that might be necessary for the government or one of its agencies to be involved in.

I'm not quarrelling with the intent of what the members want to accomplish; we could find no way of accomplishing that goal. I think it's met, in any event, by values that now exist around that particular question. That's not to detract from what the member for Okanagan West said. I don't particularly disagree with his comments. The fact is that we were unable to find a way of ensuring that there would not be unintended consequences that the public could not live with, and therefore we chose to not include this kind of section in the bill.

J. Weisgerber: The first thing that springs to my mind as I look through all of these sections is that every one of them has consequences. They all have consequences; they all have an effect on some of the parties involved. Had the same logic been applied to third-party advertising, the use of polling or the various sections of this bill, I wonder if the result would have been a much smaller bill with fewer sections. If you couldn't find the ideal solution for all of the parties involved, you would simply say: "Pass on that one, folks; let's go on to 

[ Page 16833 ]

the next section. Obviously there are some ramifications from this section that people aren't going to be particularly happy with; therefore we move on." I don't accept that. As the minister has demonstrated, with a significant staff of people who have worked on this and the number of amendments that we have coming before us today and coming before us every day, none of this is perfect.

[3:15]

Maybe there is an issue that should have been addressed in this amendment that hasn't been. I'm not convinced that any of the examples that the minister has given couldn't be accommodated within this amendment, but it is incredible that the result of these long hours of debate and discussion on a major bill is to be silent on one of the biggest public issues in an election campaign: the misuse of taxpayer dollars in advertising for the benefit of the government and the party in office. It's a fundamental issue, and this bill is silent. If the members have a....

L. Boone: You're the expert on this.

J. Weisgerber: And if indeed....

F. Garden: Give us some examples from the past.

J. Weisgerber: If indeed the members have examples of misuse, then I would have expected the motivation for correction would have been greater. If indeed the member for Prince George-Mount Robson believes there have been abuses in fact, you get the sense of the circumstance that's arisen in this House time and time again: criticisms in opposition and the indecent, overreaching haste to grab it and take advantage of those opportunities when in government. So I'm not going to take this issue as an argument from the minister or from the two or three people who seem so intent on getting involved without actually standing on their feet. But this is a serious issue, and I think the minister is recognizing it.

I'm going to finish, because I don't think we're going to debate this or, if we're going to prolong debate, it's going to improve our chances of getting recognition. But let me say again there should have been.... I believe it's a major oversight and flaw in this bill that the bill is in fact silent on the issue of government advertising. If indeed, regardless of the technical arguments, I can't imagine....

I challenge the member for Prince George-Mount Robson or the member for Cariboo North to stand up and defend the notion of leaving out of a major piece of legislation entirely the question of inappropriate advertising by government during a writ period. That's what I want to hear. I want to hear an argument that says there is absolutely no validity to bringing in a section in this bill to limit, constrain, control and regulate government advertising, estimated at anywhere from $200 million a year upward, during the 28-day writ period.

Madam Chair, again I make this one last argument, I ask the minister to genuinely consider this amendment in the spirit that it's put forward in, the spirit of addressing a major omission in a bill that for the most part, I agree, is a pretty good piece of legislation. It's got some major flaws in it, and those have been well identified and well debated. This is another major flaw that until now I don't think has received the kind of attention and consideration that it should have.

J. Dalton: I have several points to put on the record. Firstly, in his lame defence of this excellent amendment -- and I have one quite similar to this on the order paper that we'll come to later -- the Attorney said that he decided to leave this matter silent. He said the word "silent." He responded to the Third Party leader's comments by saying that he couldn't think of a solution to this problem. Well, how true it is that this government wished to be silent on this issue.

I refer to Jeffery Hoskins's memo to the AG of September 5, 1994. Mr. Hoskins addresses -- the last topic in his memo -- third-party advertising. What does he tell us on page 6? "The current draft of the bill does not include a provision restricting government advertising during an election campaign." Well, how true -- the very point we are arguing. I will go on. "Since no public announcement was made of the previous proposal, its absence may pass unnoticed." That's what the Attorney means by "silent." It will pass unnoticed; the public will not notice that this government has a tremendous loophole in this bill.

Let me go on. Mr. Hoskins continues:

"However, such regulation is part of the scheme in some other jurisdictions, and it was recommended by the Lortie commission. Similar proposals were raised by the opposition in the debate on initiative and recall. Finally, and possibly most importantly, such regulation is part of the party policy on good government and its absence may be discerned by supporters."

I believe Mr. Hoskins is referring to the party that's in government; I presume he is. The last paragraph of his memo says:

"The introduction of such a provision gives the opportunity for a favourable comparison of the present government with its predecessors. The absence of such a provision involves some risk of an unfavourable comparison."

That's my first point.

Secondly, let me go on. The Attorney advises that third-party spending will catch what the government does. Well, my colleague from West Vancouver shares my surprise at this. He came in and asked me: "Has he talked about third-party spending?" I said: "Yes, the government feels that third-party spending applies." Well, there's nothing in this bill that indicates that. I think this government -- as any other would likely do, given the loopholes in this bill -- will probably argue back and say that anything we do in the writ period isn't government advertising. It's public policy and therefore it's fair game.

Thirdly, a little closer to home, my colleague from North Vancouver-Lonsdale is not with us today, because he's dealing with the Westview interchange. When I go back to my riding on Thursday or Friday or whenever we finish this bill, I will drive along the Upper Levels Highway. I predict that I will find signs on the south side of the highway, the Lonsdale side of that riding, but not on the north side, because that's my riding. That, I would submit, is government advertising. Westview is long overdue, don't get me wrong. I don't want the Attorney to stand up and say: "Fine, we just cancelled Westview." That's a separate matter, of course.

Finally, one more point: why should or would a government comply with third-party or any other restrictions? This government is going to find ways, not unlike previous governments Mr. Hoskins refers to in his memo. We know they've got a $10 million campaign raging currently, and this is all pre-writ, so they don't even have to worry about that. We're 

[ Page 16834 ]

simply trying to argue that during the 28-day writ period -- it's not going to disrupt the government -- there should be no government advertising. Don't let us hear that third-party restrictions apply and things like that, because that doesn't wash. This is a terrible omission from this bill. It's a disgraceful omission, as Mr. Hoskins has told the Attorney General.

D. Mitchell: Very briefly, no public consultation went into the tabling of this act in the Legislature. If there had been public consultation, no doubt the government would have heard from many British Columbians about the desire to have some kind of restriction on government advertising during an election campaign. If the government, for whatever reason, doesn't favour the amendment moved by the leader of the Reform Party -- and I personally think it's a good amendment -- surely the Attorney General could have come in with a different form of restriction on government advertising. Is this one of the reasons that no public consultation went into the act? That's the question I would like to ask the Attorney General. Inevitably, the government would have heard a request from many British Columbians for some kind of restriction on government advertising during an election campaign.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, there is some form of restriction. It's the same kind of restriction that applies to everybody else. When we get to section 234(1), the provisions in respect of third-party advertising apply to the Crown. All statutes bind the Crown. The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi suggests that somehow the government and its agencies are above the law. They are not.

D. Mitchell: We're going to be going to a division on this amendment, I believe. Would the Attorney General be willing to grant leave to allow this vote to be settled by those members currently in the committee?

[3:30]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

C. Serwa: I'd like to propose an amendment to section 227, to add section 227.1. I'll just read the amendment, and then I'll speak to it.

The Chair: Have you got it in writing? The Clerks' table needs it in writing.

C. Serwa: I'll table the amendment.

The Chair: Proceed, hon. member.

C. Serwa: I'll read the amendment as I've presented it.

[SECTION 227.1

(1) During the writ period government must not engage in any advertising campaign other than that required for the appropriate and normal conduct of its business.

(2) Subsection (1) shall apply to all government agencies and Crown corporations.

(3) Subsection (1) shall not apply to any advertising directed by the Chief Electoral Officer.]

The purpose of this is to clearly set down if not a prohibition at least a principle to establish it clearly. The amendment has adequate enough latitude.... If the minister would like to read it....

The Chair: You have the proper form now, so I think it would be appropriate for you to write it out in the proper form. Then we can circulate it in the appropriate fashion, and everyone will know what you're speaking about.

C. Serwa: May I then come back to this?

The Chair: Then you can come back to it, absolutely.

On section 228.

G. Wilson: I have a couple of specific questions with respect to section 228(2)(a) and (b). They are just technical questions. It says: "Where this Part requires the inclusion of a mailing address or telephone number at which a sponsor can be contacted, (a) any mailing address given must be within British Columbia, (b) any telephone number given must be that of a place within British Columbia...."

Now, the anticipation here is that if you've got people who are sponsored outside of B.C., they have to have a registered -- and I use the word "registered" -- address in the province of British Columbia. For example, if there is a contracted agency that may be from, say, south of the border, Alberta or, as is often the case, Ontario, Manitoba or somewhere else, they can't offer their services directed out of the province unless they have a registered B.C. address. Is that the way it works?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The purpose of this is simply so that people who have questions about the advertising or opinion surveys would be able to contact the sponsor without having to make a call to Toronto, Washington or wherever in the world they may come from. They can have their head office and their operation, say, in Toronto, but they have to have a British Columbia telephone number for queries. That can be done in a variety of ways.

G. Wilson: One of the variety of ways that they can do it, then, is to use the campaign headquarters of a political party that they may be in co-sponsorship with. Can they just simply use those campaign headquarters?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: They could. I suspect that wouldn't happen very often, but technically there's no reason why not.

[ Page 16835 ]

G. Wilson: If those telephone numbers or mailing addresses may be part of those registered campaign offices, do they have to disclose that that's what they're doing? The reason I say this is.... Maybe I could let the Attorney General know where I'm heading with all of these questions.

When we look at sponsorship of election advertising and opinion surveys, I think what the public often likes to know is whether or not there is an association with or an attachment to a political party involved in the sponsorship. Often a surrogate group will come together -- the friends of Joe, who is running for office -- and therefore will sponsor this particular survey. Or there will be one called the Concerned Taxpayers' Association of British Columbia. I don't know if there is such an organization; if there is, I apologize for the use of their name. Whatever the group may be.... I think there was, in years past, a group called the Red Rose organization, which effectively was a partisan organization.

What I'm curious about is this: if we're going to be looking at the sponsorship of advertisement and whether or not there has to be an identification in the regulation and in the addresses and phone numbers that are given, that they are connected to a political party running for office.... If there is no regulation for that, how do we, under the first part of section 228(1)(c), get at this notion of a sponsor within the meaning of the paragraph acting on behalf of another individual or organization? Do you see what I'm saying?

What I'm trying to get at is the notion that.... If, for the purposes of an election, a pollster called Western Public Opinion Polling Services, or whatever, phones people, canvasses on a telephone polling system and does not identify themselves as being a partisan organization.... They are directly connected to a partisan political campaign; they publish as though they are not; they state their name; they state as a sponsor. Yet they're registered and operating right out of the headquarters of another political party. That's both misleading and dishonest, and I don't think that the public are well served by it. That's why I'm asking these questions.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Does it help the member if I...? Referring back to section 228(1)(b), if the polling company is so intertwined with the political party in that they are donating this polling service to the party, then the value has to be calculated by the party. It's not a third party; it becomes a first party. The party becomes the sponsor in that case.

G. Wilson: I can see where we can get into all kinds of really difficult problems here. I'm not going to work out all kinds of mythical scenarios, but there will be favoured rates to favoured clients. There will be all kinds of other measures through which these organizations may be working directly with a partisan organization, although they are not registered as such and may in fact be providing preferential service to these groups.

My concern comes with the fact that there are registered pollsters in British Columbia, and I mentioned this earlier. These are people who in the past have not been politically neutral players, and it's important that people know that. If there is, for example, a Pat Kinsella.... I don't mean this in any derogatory way. I think the work that Pat Kinsella and Marktrend Research Inc. do is well known in the province. His political affiliations and past political involvements should be well known to people so that when they read a Marktrend poll, they know who's behind that poll.

Angus Reid has often been considered kind of a "Liberal" pollster. I'm not sure he would like to see himself cast that way, but that's certainly been the perception out there. If it isn't so, it's important that we know that these are independent polling organizations that are not in any way affiliated or tied, or have not done promotional polling. Political parties commission polls. The Attorney General knows that. Everybody involved in politics knows that political parties that have the money commission polls in order to try to sort out voter trends, where people are going and so on.

Once that organization is put together, two kinds of public opinion polls can be done. One is an independent market survey, which is strictly an academic piece of research saying that at this snapshot in time this is how people are going to vote. The other is a market-driven survey. It's a completely different proposition, because the second polling is done for the purposes of promotion; the first is done as an academic exercise to report on the status quo. Two entirely different sets of techniques are developed, as the minister well knows.

[3:45]

I'm concerned that if we're going to put these kinds of restrictions on polling, and there's going to be notations or commentary as to the questions asked and so on, which I don't necessarily disagree with.... I think the Minister of Skills, Labour and Training was right on target when he said there shouldn't be any public opinion polling during the writ period. Amen to that -- I'm 100 percent with him. Given that he lost his battle in the executive council, along with others.... But we don't know if it was the minister or not. We have to be as vigilant as we can in making sure that people know where those registrations are, where those past political affiliations are, and whether there is any connection with respect to the promotion or marketing of a political campaign through some kind of contracted survey work.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think I understand where the member is going. I don't quite know how that could be accomplished. Most reputable polling companies end up working for one party or another. Decima Research Ltd., which I think it's fair to say is a reputable polling firm, was usually identified with the federal Tories. David Gothilf and his group were always identified with the NDP. As the member says, Angus Reid has often been identified with the Liberals. That doesn't mean they aren't independent companies, in one sense of the word. To put it another way, that doesn't mean that those companies can't do the kind of pure academic polling the member is talking about, and I know they do. It obviously doesn't mean that on occasion they don't do that kind of market-driven polling and figure out how they can package and sell a particular issue. That is another component of polling. They all do that, too. They do it for companies; they do it for everybody.

Other than just having it in the public knowledge, I don't know that these companies have that kind of bias. The way we've tried to approach that is to ensure that the methodology, the numbers and the questions are all in the public domain so that people can then make up their own minds as to whether this is a pure academic-driven, research-style poll or is one that has a partisan and politically driven component to it. They won't make up their minds because of the name of the polling company. They will make up their minds because of the nature of a particular poll, and they'll have the ability to do that because the information must be provided.

[ Page 16836 ]

G. Wilson: I'm pleased that the Attorney General recognizes the concern and sees it as valid, because it is valid, certainly for people in order.... I hope that what we really are attempting is to put in front of the public as fair a representation of their choice in an election as possible, with a limited amount of promotion and baloney, so they can cut through all of that to decide exactly what they want to do in the best interests of their families, themselves, their communities and so on.

My last question on this is with respect to the sponsorship of election advertising and opinion surveys, and it's the opinion survey section that I'm really curious to know about. What's the Attorney General's view on ongoing government polling that's done with respect to public opinion on matters that may then be used as issues in an election campaign? Does the Attorney General feel that the results from those surveys should be available for all political parties to be able to review so they have an equal understanding of what public opinion views might be?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This applies to polls that are published. Is the member asking if government polls are published? Then, of course, they have to be public. If they're not published, then they're not in the public domain. The data may still be being collected or the phoning may still be continuing. I can't imagine why any government would conduct polls during an election campaign, frankly, because by the time the results were in, the election would be long over and there would be no benefit for that purpose. Maybe I don't understand the question.

G. Wilson: I'm not suggesting for a second that a government would conduct public opinion polls within an election campaign. There are much more efficient ways of getting at the information that's needed than going through this kind of bureaucracy.

What I meant was that within the notion of.... It comes back to the third-party consideration in light of advertising and so on, and the government leading up to.... Given that under the current system, we regrettably don't have a fixed election day yet, though soon we may.... But given the current system, leading up to a poll, the government has an option to call an election at any given time and is therefore able to use the opportunity to do ongoing polling with taxpayers' money on a number of things. Party preference is only one of the issues. In fact, there may be an identification of issues, of trends within issues and identified issues that may be of very substantial advantage to parties contesting a provincial election. In the light of the spirit of what's being intended in the election, my question is whether the Attorney General believes that this information should be published and made available to all political parties.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Government polls are made public, and if we're talking about polls that have questions having some connection with the election, then the procedures here would kick in. I guess I don't understand. If the polling results the government has are made public, then they're obviously made public to all political parties, so that's not an issue. They are now made public periodically, and if they're not, they're available through FOI unless there's some reason they're protected, so they are available that way. Any government would be foolhardy to use taxpayers' money to ask politically driven questions on a government poll. There are other ways of doing that. The party can tag on to a Decima quarterly or whatever, but the parties do that, not the government.

D. Mitchell: The Attorney General is right. Some of the government's public opinion surveys are made public now through the information and privacy branch; in fact, they're deposited across the street from the parliament buildings at the British Columbia archives and records service. Unfortunately, the catalogue is not kept very up to date, I can tell you; I've used it. The deposits do not take place very often, but oftentimes the material in those surveys does contain opinions that relate to party preference and other interesting issues. There are some. The odd poll does talk about very political issues, but sometimes it's opinions on public policy. I suppose it's conceivable that the media could gain access to that public registry of public opinion data and publish some of those polls during an election period. Even if the polls themselves were not conducted during that period, they could be published during an election period. Would section 228 capture that?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The later amendment to section 234 captures that. When the results are first published, information that's required would have to be disclosed for those polls as for any others.

D. Mitchell: Thanks to the Attorney General for that answer. I have one other question, then, when it comes to omnibus polls. The Attorney General referred to quarterly surveys by some of the national and larger public opinion research firms. We're dealing here with the sponsorship of opinion surveys. There are many corporate contributors, individual contributors and others who pay for the quarterly or regular omnibus polls that are done by national and large regional public opinion research firms. How would the sponsorship of these kinds of omnibus surveys be captured by section 228, which requires disclosure of such sponsorship?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: None of us here are experts on this question, but an answer off the top of my head is that the quarterly report that the member refers to, the omnibus, is generally a series of questions that is designed and determined by the polling company and done for the polling company. That is then sold by way of their newsletter or their subscription service. Without doing further research, and knowing it's fairly theoretical -- I can't answer every question without all the facts -- I think the sponsor in that case is the polling company as opposed to the 10,000 subscribers, or whatever the number is.

G. Wilson: That answer sounds good, but those omnibus polls will often allow particular clients to actually buy a certain section of questions, which are answered and then exclusive to themselves. So how do we capture that?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Again, I don't want to be held to this, because I would need to sit down and work out exactly what we're talking about, but I think if someone adds on -- which happens a lot; somebody can't afford the whole survey, so they buy a question -- that question belongs to the purchaser as opposed to the polling company. So I would think that the sponsor in that case is the person who paid for or bought that particular question or series of questions.

[ Page 16837 ]

The Chair: The member for Okanagan West.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much, hon. Chair, for the courtesy extended to me to be able to....

Hon. C. Gabelmann: After we do 228. We'll just pass this section first.

C. Serwa: You want to pass this section? Okay.

The Chair: Hon. members, as I understand it, this is a new section, section 227.1, as opposed to anything to do with 228. So it occurred to me that we'd....

Interjection.

The Chair: Do you want to finish 228 now? Does the committee agree to do 228, and then we'll go back and deal with this amendment to the bill? Does everyone agree to that?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll continue with 228. Further discussion on 228?

Section 228 approved.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much for the courtesy of the Chair. I've written out, on the appropriate form, my proposal for the amendment, a new section 227.1. I've read the amendment into the record, but I would like to speak briefly to it. The first thing I would like say is that Bill 28 is probably the most important bill that this Legislature has discussed in the current session. It affects all British Columbians no matter where they live in the province. When you look at it from that perspective, it is a very important bill and perhaps the most important bill that this Legislature will pass.

In recognition of that, it has to face a very stringent test. The bill must face a test not dissimilar to the one faced by Caesar's wife: not only must she be perceived to be beyond reproach, she must be beyond reproach. So it must be with this bill. I would like to say that each member in the Legislature should strive to remove their partisan caps at the moment, retain their political interest in their association, but try to retain the highest degree of objectivity with fairness and balance, so that regardless of where they may sit in the House in the future, they are satisfied and comfortable with the legislation put before us. That is why I've made the submission.

The purpose of this amendment is to establish a principle. It is not a strict prohibition. It is not strictly limiting on the government; it allows a flexibility. But it allows the entrenchment in the act of a section earmarked with respect to government advertising. It seems to me that regardless of where we sit in the House -- and we've heard some mutterings and complaints about previous administrations and so on -- we should recognize that it is a problem. It is not a perceived problem; it is a real problem. The Attorney General has conceded as much in his remarks by saying that it's going to remain silent on it because it appears to be insoluble.

A general overview such as this would satisfy me and those who believe that this Legislature has established that there should be a prohibition against abusing the powers of government to use public tax dollars to enhance opportunities for whatever political party may be in government at the moment. I think that it is fair and reasonable. If it is not, perhaps the Attorney General would indicate to me why he believes it is not, or perhaps why this appears to be too restrictive on government.

[4:00]

It establishes in my mind a principle without restricting the government's normal freedom and activity. It is very important that it be established, because we've heard every member in this Legislature mumble and grumble or stand up and speak openly about their concerns with the power of government and the public dollars at its disposal.

The Chair: Hon. member, I thank you for your comments and for your amendment and the work that you've done on it, but I....

Interjection.

The Chair: I beg your pardon, hon. member -- you're still on your feet?

C. Serwa: I move the amendment.

The Chair: All right. I thank you for moving the amendment. But at this stage, having read it and having considered the previous amendment, I believe that it has essentially the same intent as the previous amendment, which was defeated. I therefore rule this one out of order. But I thank you for having brought it forward.

On section 229.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment to section 229 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 229, by deleting the proposed section 229 and substituting the following:

No indirect sponsorship of election advertising

229. An individual or organization must not sponsor election advertising with the property of any other individual or organization or indirectly through any other individual or organization.]

On the amendment.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to ask the hon. Attorney General to explain why this amendment is moved here. Section 229 in the printed bill was a rather extensive amendment regarding restrictions on election advertising. It has been deleted, and something very brief has been inserted in its place with respect to "No indirect sponsorship of election advertising." Could he explain to the committee the purpose of this amendment?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As the member knows when he looks at the order paper and the series of amendments from me, we have added a whole new division -- a whole new scheme, as it were -- dealing with third-party advertising. So we're not doing it this way; we're doing it a different way. So this section reappears, but in a new form a little later on.

[ Page 16838 ]

D. Mitchell: My only question is why any section 229 is now required at all. When I look at the way this amendment is drafted, it's somewhat confusing, because we're repeating the words "individual or organization" three times in one short sentence. It's awkward drafting from my point of view as a layperson. Could the Attorney General at least tell the committee what it means when we say: "An individual or organization must not sponsor election advertising with the property of any other individual or organization or indirectly through any other individual or organization"? It's confusing this member somewhat.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: May I apologize on our part for confusing the member. It would have been simpler if we could use the term "person," but we can't, for legal reasons. We need to use both the individual and the organization. Is there a way of writing that and using those two words twice rather than three times? If there were, I can assure you that with the quality of legislative counsel we have, they would have found a way.

J. Dalton: I have just one question for the Attorney General. Can he give us an indication or example, perhaps, of what indirect sponsorship might be? I can understand the upfront stuff, even though we don't like it. I'm having a little trouble with what might be implied by indirectly sponsoring an individual or organization.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's if one party gives money to another party so that the second party can, in fact, advertise for a candidate. I realize that with the way I've done that, I'm going to confuse it with third-party advertising. It's just to prevent indirect.... It's too make sure that somebody can't give somebody the money to do it without being caught as well.

Amendment approved.

Section 229 as amended approved.

On section 230.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment to section 230 standing in my name on the order paper:

[SECTION 230, in the proposed section 230, by adding the following paragraph:

(a.1) if applicable, indicates that the sponsor is a registered sponsor under this Act, .]

Amendment approved.

On section 230 as amended.

D. Mitchell: Just a brief question to the Attorney General. Under this section about how the election advertising must identify the sponsor, it says under subsection (c) that the advertising must give a telephone number or mailing address at which the sponsor or financial agent may be contacted regarding the advertising. Just for clarification, would that telephone number or address be required right in the body of an advertisement that is published either in the newspaper or on television? How would it be incorporated in the electronic media -- on radio, for instance?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The radio ad would play its message, and at the end it would say: "This ad has been brought to you courtesy of so-and-so, who can be reached at such-and-such a number."

Section 230 as amended approved.

On section 231.

D. Mitchell: Again, just a technical question here. This is a restriction on rates charged for election advertising. I think there has to be some small concern expressed about an intervention in the business of the media when it comes to advertising. Section 231 refers to a rate that exceeds the lowest rate charged by the individual or organization. I guess my question is: who decides? The government is saying that it must be the lowest rate charged by the individual or organization. But who will decide? Who will monitor this? Is this not an unnecessary intervention in how the media run and operate their businesses?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, it's not the government saying anything; it's the Legislature saying something, and the CEO will be the....

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm actually serious.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: And if the member commanded a majority of the House, he would have been successful.

This is obviously designed to deal with the problem that could occur in an election campaign, and has occurred historically, where because there is such a high demand on a limited amount of advertising space, the rates can go up dramatically for political parties. That has been dealt with. My memory was that it had been dealt with in B.C. already, but I'm told that it hasn't been. It has been dealt with federally -- you can't charge extra federally -- and I know that it has been dealt with in a number of other provinces, as well. It would be the CEO who would respond, presumably on the request of a political party that felt that they were being shut out of the airways by the price that was being asked.

D. Mitchell: Just a brief comment, then, to the Attorney General. If all candidates who run for office in the next provincial election are able to get the absolute lowest rate charged by any media for advertising, then maybe we don't really need to have campaign spending limits that are as high as those prescribed by this act.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: One of the favourite places for a party that doesn't have much money to advertise is after the late night news, at midnight. You can buy an ad pretty cheaply.

L. Fox: Nobody's listening.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's right; that's why it's cheap.

[ Page 16839 ]

Whatever the price for that ad is, it has to continue to be the price for political parties. They can't double it because everybody demands that particular time slot now.

K. Jones: I want to clarify further, minister. When we talk about an organization, are we talking about a network?

The Chair: Please continue, member.

K. Jones: With regard to the word "organization" here, where it says "charged by the individual or organization," are we referring to a network or a publication company that has a series of newspapers, such as the NOW organization, which has a Burnaby, North Shore, Fraser Valley...? Is it going to be the lowest rate that any of those publications has, regardless of whether it's advertising in the more expensive areas? For instance, if the organization is CTV, would it be the rate that they would charge in Newfoundland or the rate in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I have no idea what the Newfoundland election act says, but it would be the British Columbia rate.

K. Jones: The minister was saying that he wasn't sure what the Newfoundland act had to say about it. We're not talking about Newfoundland legislation; we're talking about the fact that....

An Hon. Member: You're the one that raised Newfoundland, there, boy.

K. Jones: Yes, I did, thank you.

The Chair: Order, please.

K. Jones: But what I said was that the CTV network.... It refers to exceeding the lowest rate charged by an organization. It doesn't say an organization within British Columbia, so the lowest rate might be -- I'm not sure if it is -- in Newfoundland. Is that rate covered by this? How do you clarify that?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If that rate is normally available to other British Columbia advertisers, then that's the rate at which that space is available; if it's not then it isn't. Whatever Overwaitea or Save-On-Foods pays for an ad on BCTV here in British Columbia normally.... If that's the regular lowest rate, that is the rate that parties would pay. It would have no connection to some rate that CTV may have in Newfoundland or anywhere else.

K. Jones: I bring the minister's attention to the fact that there's no reference in this particular section to advertising rates related to British Columbia. You can get a reference to publications done within British Columbia in section 232, but you haven't got anything referring to where these lowest rates are to be determined in this piece of legislation.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, we do, because of the term "equivalent." It's equivalent advertising in the same medium for the same campaign period.

Section 231 approved.

On section 232.

D. Mitchell: Could the Attorney General tell the committee if the prohibition against election advertising on voting day in section 232 would also capture government advertising? I don't want to revive the earlier debate on government advertising, but could governments advertise on an election day?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It refers to election advertising.

D. Mitchell: I take it from the Attorney General's response that the government could produce feel-good ads throughout the election campaign and even on election day. But section 232 would not prevent the government from having feel-good advertising on the radio or television or in newspapers even on voting day about the great things that are being done through various government ministries or Crown corporations.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Anybody who wanted to spend the money could run feel-good advertising, and it could appear on any day.

Sections 232 and 233 approved.

J. Dalton: I just have a point of clarification, hon. Chair. I have an amendment -- a new section 233.1 -- on the order paper. But given that it's on the same topic of government advertising, I take it that it would now be out of order, as the previous Chair so ruled.

The Chair: Yes, it would be out of order, hon. member.

On section 234.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 234, in the proposed section 234,

(a) by deleting subsection (1),

(b) in subsection (2) by deleting "who publishes" and substituting "who first publishes",

(c) by adding the following subsection:

(2.1) if the results of an election opinion survey are to be published without the authorization of the sponsor, at least 24 hours before first publication, the individual or organization who publishes the results must notify the sponsor so that the report required under subsection (3) can be prepared. ,

(d) in subsection (3) by adding ", published as referred to in subsection (2)," after "the results of the survey",

(e) by deleting subsection (3) (d) and substituting the following:

(d) the exact wording of each question for which data are reported; , and

(f) by deleting subsection (3) (p).]

[4:15]

On the amendment.

D. Mitchell: Again, this is a very significant amendment in terms of its size. It's one of the larger rewrites that we've seen for any section in a bill during the course of this session. 

[ Page 16840 ]

This is a very significant amendment dealing with the requirements for publication of election opinion surveys. We're deleting most of what is in the printed bill, and we're substituting a very detailed section and adding a new division on election advertising limits. I think this really warrants a detailed explanation from the Attorney General to the committee on what we're doing here with several pages of amendments to this section.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think I failed to clarify that I have actually two separate amendments on section 234. The second one is technically not 234; it's 234.1, etc., and that will come next. That's the one with multiple pages.

The amendment that's actually in front of members is to the existing section 234. It is in today's Orders of the Day, on page 3, and it starts at the top of the page and it goes for about a quarter of the page. The amendment removes the requirement that the sponsor of an election opinion survey must authorize its publication. It limits the requirement for information regarding an opinion survey to its first publication, and it requires a publisher to give notice to the survey sponsor if a publication is to be done without authorization.

I think everybody in the House knows what this issue is. It has had a lot of commentary in the media. One radio reporter, in particular...

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That was a nice photograph.

...who spends a lot of time in this building, has spent a considerable amount of time with me since June 1 wondering about the requirement to broadcast all of the details on every newscast. I think he and others made a good point. Our intent was that the information be in the public domain, and that can be done by way of publication in the first instance.

Secondly, there was a concern that if news organizations came into possession of a poll that was leaked to them, under the previous provisions they would not have been able to publish that information unless they got permission. We have now changed that to enable them to publish it, although we're enabling a 24-hour period for the sponsor to get their material ready for release so that the public can have the information that is required generally.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased that the Attorney General tells us that at least there has been some very selective consultation with news media on this section, which he's presenting as an improvement to the bill.

I'd like to ask the Attorney General a question about the mechanics of how this is going to work, especially with respect to the words "who first publishes" instead of "who publishes." Does that mean that when a public opinion survey during an election campaign is first reported it will have to list the name of the poll sponsor, the dates the poll was conducted, the number of people polled, the poll's margin of error, the exact wording of each question, the address and telephone number of the poll sponsor and the other details that are required by this legislation, but only the media -- whether it be radio, television or print -- that first publishes this will be required to report on all of that data and methodology? Will anyone thereafter, whether they're local media or provincewide media, be able to report this poll without having all that data? Does that mean that the media which first publishes it, whether they be local or provincewide, will be the only ones? How will they know if they've been the ones to first publish it? I guess that's the other question on this. It's important, I think, to understand the mechanics of how this is going to work.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: During the 24-hour period in which they're talking to the sponsor to give them the notification of this, they would know very clearly whether the.... The sponsor would say to them: "Well, another radio station has beaten you to the punch, and they've already published it." So it's going to be.... It gets caught that way, I think.

D. Mitchell: The Attorney General has addressed the question of how they know who is first. But was my interpretation correct? I guess that's the question I'd like to direct to the Attorney General. Was my interpretation of how this is going to work correct, even if it's simply a local media report that doesn't reach the majority of the province or the major media centres of the province? As long as some media publish this first, even if they're publishing or broadcasting to a very select audience, is that all that is required in order for all subsequent media not to be encumbered with the details of this act?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's correct, but I would assume that media would be very keen to exercise their public responsibility and make sure that their listening audience, too, had the information. But this doesn't require them to do it; it's only on the first publication.

K. Jones: With regard to that first publication, does it matter whether it has wide broadcast capabilities? A very small distribution paper could publish it, and then the rest of the broadcast would be provincewide without any tags on it.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's just what I finished saying.

C. Serwa: Still on the amendment to this section, subsection (e) says: "...by deleting subsection 3(d) and substituting the following: (d) the exact wording of each question for which data are reported; , and (f) by deleting subsection 3 (p)." I guess the question in my mind.... I've seen a number of polls, and they're very, very thick and complex documents. I don't know if anyone has enough air time on radio or on television, or even in the print media, to put out all of the questions that are normally asked in a poll. Yet here in the legislation we have something that seems innocuous, but the mechanics of endeavouring to report the total poll make it so that they wouldn't be able to report any of the poll. That's what my particular concern is.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It is only the question for which the report has been aired. In other words, it will almost always be: what's the popularity of all the parties today? The question would be something like: "If an election were held today, which candidate would you vote for?" And then there would be a list. That would be the kind of question. The way in which that question is framed can be significant. All we're asking is that that question be aired. It only has to be aired the one time.

J. Dalton: I just have a point or two about the rather cumbersome detail in subsection (3). Certainly I have had 

[ Page 16841 ]

contact from media people who are not very happy about all the information that has to be provided, whether it's for the first time or whatever time. For example, would it be true...? I'm looking under sub-subsection (3)(m), which says that the number of eligible individuals contacted has to be provided. Would that mean that if my household was called, for example, and my 13-year-old daughter answered the phone...? She is not an eligible voter. I presume that she is caught by this provision. Do they have to report that type of information in this survey?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Let me try this to see if this answers it. If the polling company makes 500 phone calls and reaches 100 ineligible voters, then the sample is only 400; it's not 500, unless they do what most polling companies do when they reach an ineligible respondent, which is to then add another one to get back to the 500. It's just so that that information is available.

Amendment approved.

Section 234 as amended approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's now time to move the amendment, sections 234.1 through to 234.96, standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

I should just take a second on this. This is a different way of dealing with third-party spending limits. Members will know that in the first instance we simply put on a $2,000 limit. What we have done now is raise that amount to $5,000, and require that third-party sponsors, if they spend more than $500, be registered with the chief electoral officer. I think, even though there are a lot of words, that that's really what it accomplishes.

On the amendment.

D. Mitchell: Thank you to the hon. Attorney General for that explanation. This is a fairly significant section that we're adding here. Can the Attorney General tell the committee what consultation took place between the time when Bill 28 as printed was tabled and introduced in this Legislature and the time when this amendment was brought forward? What inspired this amendment?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member will remember, I hope, that in my comments while moving second reading I made it very clear that I would listen to members of the Legislature, who, I assume, reflect the views of their constituents. So we consulted, through members of the House, some 3.5 million British Columbians as they are represented here in the House. I was serious in my comments in second reading about listening to members. The issues that were raised were addressed -- not altogether, but in significant number, and if not entirely in the way the opposition members wanted them addressed. There were some concerns around this issue raised by members of the opposition. I listened to those. During the course of second reading debate we were working on the amendments. In fact, the work on those amendments continued right up until minutes before second reading was concluded.

D. Mitchell: The Attorney General is blaming us for this amendment. I'm not sure that raising the limit for third-party advertising from $2,000 to $5,000 does satisfy all the concerns raised in second reading debate. They don't satisfy my concerns.

I'd like to ask the Attorney General a question about the registration of sponsors of advertising during the election campaign. Are we not creating...? Is there not a concern about the cost of this? Or indeed about the cost of the whole act? But I think we can highlight it here with this section. Is the chief electoral officer really going to be serving as a kind of super-registry during an election campaign? Is the CEO going to be administering a super-registry that's going to be quite complex, especially when it comes to this area of the registration of any advertising sponsor? Has there been any consideration given to the cost, and how cumbersome that kind of bureaucratic process is going to be?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This particular procedure is probably one of the more simple and cheap provisions in the act. All it is is a requirement that the CEO have on file the name and address of the sponsor. That can be done ahead of time, before the election is called, if people want to fill out a form and send it in so that they're registered. Or it can be done during the course of the campaign. It's a simple question of one simple form. The information is as simple as having a name and address on it.

G. Wilson: One of the difficulties, I guess, that people have had in reviewing this matter and the information that comes in to us is the legality of this question and how this question is going to stand the test of court action. Of course, I don't think -- notwithstanding what we say in this House -- any of us know, until such time as that is tested, whether it is or isn't. We can quote all kinds of case law. I don't think it means much, frankly, because none of us is in a position to really make that kind of judgment.

But I'm curious to know why the movement from $2,000 to $5,000 is deemed significant, because it strikes me that if we're dealing with the principle of the right of an individual to be able to advertise and they feel there is a matter of freedom of speech.... Just for the record, let me say that I don't think this is a freedom-of-speech issue. I just don't buy that argument. I really don't, because it means that people who have money have more freedom to speak than people who don't have money. If you buy into that argument, the rich have a great deal of freedom of speech and the poor have zero. That's the issue. But let me say that I just don't understand why the movement from $2,000 to $5,000 is seen to be the solution.

[4:30]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The reason for it is to enable an organization to reach a provincial audience. For example, $5,000 would allow for the purchase of a full page in the Vancouver Province.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, in certain editions, in certain places. Or it would enable reasonable-size display ads in both the Sun and Province, reaching a provincial audience more effectively than $2,000 could do. On reflection, listening to the 

[ Page 16842 ]

debate and the arguments that have been raised, we want to make sure that people aren't limited to sending their message out to an audience that doesn't include the whole province if they choose to do it that way.

So it's a balance. This is a number which, for realistic purposes, is added on to the campaign limits. You don't want to make this number too big; otherwise, the campaign limits get out of control. So it's that balancing act. It is for the purposes of being able to reach a provincial audience.

G. Wilson: You know, when you go back to look at one of the.... Just to underscore how I don't think the actual amount of dollars is the issue, I think the fact of influence and attempt to influence becomes the issue. In this very detailed and somewhat complex set of amendments, it strikes me that as long as there is an opportunity for every candidate to have equal access to representation -- that is, to have a fair and equal comparison -- then this matter doesn't become so problematic.

This does become a problem in a campaign when there is limited or no coverage of particular parties in that election, to the exclusion of the candidate's right to have access. If they are wealthy, as a political party, and feel that they're not getting their message across, they can buy the exposure they need to overcome that hurdle. That becomes an issue, and I think the minister has perhaps captured that in respect to what he's attempting to do here. If they're not wealthy, then they're stuck. There's not much they can do, because there's no way they can compete on a dollar-to-dollar basis. But I don't think it necessarily determines the outcome of the election.

Just for the record, let me put a couple of issues into this debate. I've heard a lot of talk about the fact that this proposition is going to sway whether or not a candidate is elected. If we go back to the now famous referendum on the Charlottetown accord we can use that as a comparative example. In direct contribution, the Yes campaign spent $11,752,782.78. In indirect contribution, they spent an additional $11,246,348.10, plus there were unaccounted expenses of about $1.6 million. On the No side, they spent about $859,000 in direct contribution and about $882,000 in indirect contribution. As a result, you can see that the Yes campaign spent roughly 13 times the amount of money that the No side did, and they resoundingly lost in their attempt to get people persuaded.

What's even more interesting, because you get into third-party spending, is to look at where the money came from. Where did that direct money come from? If we look to Elections Canada, the source of this information I'm giving you now, we know that individual third-party involvement -- that is, people who took it upon themselves to simply advertise more -- spent $383,829.39. Publicly traded corporations spent $7,085,317, and non-publicly traded companies spent an additional $1,624,724.30. Trade unions, which are often compared with them, spent $84,831.50. What's interesting is that that's on the Yes side.

On the No side, publicly traded companies spent $8,900, non-publicly traded companies spent $19,600 and the trade unions spent $37,285. In fact, within the union movement, which was often labelled as being on the Yes side, there was a bit of a balance, although not completely.

Political parties, interestingly enough, spent $320,272.74 on the Yes campaign and $385,638.04 on the No campaign.

D. Mitchell: Cheapskates.

G. Wilson: The member says "cheapskates." That may be, but they were the only registered principal contributor that actually spent more on the No side than on the Yes side, and that's interesting. This is excluding Quebec, by the way. These figures do not include the province of Quebec, where we can add another $7.6 million.

On the other hand, governments -- that is, the duly elected representatives of the people of British Columbia -- in their third-party involvement, spent $335,231.43 on campaigning and not one dime on the No side -- not a penny.

The reason I read this in is that when we're talking about this whole question of third-party expenditures, we can see a very interesting breakdown with respect to how people have actually contributed to other campaigns. We don't have the luxury of knowing how that works in political campaigns, because we haven't had the benefit of this legislation yet. But my guess is that the real nuts and bolts of the issue is not a question of freedom of speech on the basis of the amount of money you can spend. Quite clearly, the Yes side spent 13 times as much and didn't succeed, so that wasn't the benefit. The real issue here is whether or not the provisions for that spending on advertising eliminates the opportunity for those parties that do not have those resources to get the same kind of coverage in the non-cost-driven record. There is a concern, because if you're going to say that third-party expenditures and party expenditures are going to be capped, what we have to make sure of in a democratic process is that those political parties that do not have some third-party organization working on their behalf and that don't have huge cash contributions from backers of one sort or another are not limited in their ability to get exposure to the public that is not cost-driven.

My biggest fear with this section of the bill is that this is going to determine how those political parties can be covered. My guess is that what you're likely to see is such a rigid structure of expenditures that the opportunity to get coverage on an equal footing in the free press -- if I can use that word so loosely, because it is an extremely generous offer that there is any such thing as a free press -- is going to be severely limited by this legislation. I have some serious concerns about that, because I don't think that serves democracy. I would be interested to hear the Attorney General's comment.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think I'll let the member's comments stand. They're on the record.

K. Jones: Going back to the minister's statement that registration is very simple and that just a name and a address are all that is required, section 234.5 certainly details a lot more than that. It requires a telephone number and the principal officers or principal members of an organization if there are no principal officers. It's also asks for any other information required by regulation. That's a catch-all that gives the government the ability to put in any regulation or any requirement possible. Could the minister give us some closure to that section?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The regulations will go through the Election Advisory Committee, and those people -- the member will presumably have a representative through his party -- will have an opportunity to make sure that this is as simple as I say.

K. Jones: Will the public have a voice in that, too, or is it just political parties?

[ Page 16843 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: For most political parties, there's a great deal of public involvement; I don't know about the Liberal Party. Beyond that, members will remember that earlier we accepted some amendments -- I think one was from the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi and one was from the member for West Vancouver-Capilano -- that required that the minutes be made public, so the information is very much in the public domain.

J. Dalton: My first question is on section 234.9. Maybe the Attorney explained this in his opening remarks on the amendment. If I missed it, can he tell us again why that figure is $500? Should it not be $5,000 to be consistent with the rest of this section?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We didn't want to require disclosure for very small amounts, so we said disclosure is only applicable between $500 and $5,000.

J. Dalton: The main point of my discussion here will be dealing with the old section 229, which we now see resurfacing in section 234.1. This is fondly described by the media and others as the gag provision. The first point I would like to make.... I think the Attorney General commented that we have heard from our constituents in record numbers.

I don't know whether this letter-writer qualifies as a constituent, but I think he does carry a lot of weight. He's the president-elect of the B.C. section of the Canadian Bar Association. John Waddell writes to the Attorney General on July 5 complaining about the old provision of $2,000. I haven't talked to John Waddell as to whether he's happy with raising the ante from $2,000 to $5,000, but I suspect not. However, the main point that Mr. Waddell makes on behalf of the CBA is:

"You are undoubtedly aware that attempts by federal governments in the past, who passed similar legislation imposing a limit on spending by citizens and organizations, was ruled unconstitutional by the courts. This legislation will presumably suffer a similar fate if you proceed with it."

I certainly agree, and I'll get to that point in more detail in a moment. Mr. Waddell concludes: "In summary, we suggest that it is unreasonable for your government to act in such haste, and we therefore urge you not to proceed with passage of the legislation." And he goes on in that vein.

Let me give the Attorney a bit of a lesson in law here, because he doesn't seem to understand the constitutionality of this section. There are two court cases right on point. This is a federal provision, and admittedly it's $1,000 and not $5,000, but there you are. I heard the Attorney remark at one point during the afternoon that he'd like to have some case law on the subject; well, I'm giving it to him. Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, 1993, was the most recent, and that case is currently before the Alberta Court of Appeal for a judgment, which we expect shortly. I will go into the trial of this case in a little more detail later. It's interesting that this case was set down for May 8 and 9 of this year for a two-day hearing and the justices of the Court of Appeal listened for three hours. They didn't need two days to dismiss, presumably.

Interjection.

J. Dalton: The Attorney says four hours. Well, if we're going to argue the toss over an hour on a very important appeal set for two days....

As I indicated to the Attorney previously in second reading, I'm predicting that the Alberta Court of Appeal will uphold both the trial judgment of that case and a previous Alberta case of 1984. That's the first point.

[4:45]

Let's look at some questions that one of the justices asked of the government lawyer who is trying to defend the federal law. Mr. Justice Kerans observed, "No politician likes a single interest group but to shut up people who disagree," and he asks that of the lawyer. Drawing on the theme from George Orwell's Animal Farm, Kerans said the gag law amounted to: "Everybody is equal if everybody is forbidden to speak." I think that's the Attorney's definition of equality. Mr. Justice Kerans went on to criticize the $1,000 limit. He said it was totally inadequate, and I would suggest that $5,000 is very little better. I hope the Attorney General is not going to defend his amendment by saying that we raised the ante from $2,000 to $5,000. That's hardly adequate.

Let me look at some other aspects. In 1984 the National Citizens' Coalition took the first case to the Alberta Queen's Bench: National Citizens' Coalition and Brown v. the Attorney General of Canada. As we know, because I've already said so, the case was struck down in the Alberta trial court. It's very interesting. Leading up to that court case and the passage of the then federal law in Parliament.... I'm sure this point is of interest to all political students and observers. Brian Mulroney, then Leader of the Opposition, apologized for his party's support of the gag law, saying: "We were asleep at the switch." I might add that I think all Canadians were clearly asleep at the switch to elect Mr. Mulroney in 1984 and then to re-elect him in 1988.

Let me go on. In the 1984 decision, violation of freedom of speech was the main issue, and the court was of the opinion that in fact the Charter had been violated. So the government charged on recklessly. After all, they had lost once but that doesn't mean they're going to lose again. In February 1992 the essence of Bill C-169 resurfaced as a proposal of the Lortie commission on electoral reform. Lortie observed, when somebody was complaining about his provision: "One thousand dollars doesn't buy a lot of TV." Well, that is true, and $5,000 buys very little else these days.

We're told in this release that I have in front of me that secret meetings were conducted, which seems to be typical of the things that go on in Ottawa sometimes. A committee was established on February 14, Valentine's Day of 1992; I guess it was the Valentine's Day massacre. That committee reviewed the recommendations of the Lortie commission, and we see the result: a new gag law was produced. So they had failed in 1984; the federal government was going to take another run at it in 1992, and they brought in amendments that imposed a new gag law.

On Friday, April 2, 1993, the gag law was rammed through the House of Commons after only 15 minutes of debate -- that's disgraceful -- just before the House adjourned for a two-week Easter holiday. Of course, as all members know, we were also very close to a federal election. We were in the throes of turfing out one Tory leader and putting in another one, who went on the barbecue circuit for a while. They had a great summer job, but, as we know, that job didn't last long.

[ Page 16844 ]

Returning to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, another court challenge was conducted by David Somerville in June 1993. It was argued before Mr. Justice MacLeod of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, and on June 25, 1993, the Alberta court ruled that the 1993 version of the old '84 provision was unconstitutional. Mr. Justice MacLeod ruled that sections of Bill C-14 violated freedoms of speech, association and the right to an informed vote. I emphasize that for the attention of the Attorney General -- an informed vote. I somehow suspect that the NDP does not want the voters of British Columbia to be informed.

Later on, we're told a little bit about Kim Campbell when she surfaced. She said that she was going to appeal Mr. Justice MacLeod's ruling, and we were even told that Jean Chretien got involved in this. So the bottom line, for the edification of the Attorney -- because he still doesn't want to admit that this law is in fact unconstitutional -- is that we have two court cases that fly in the face of this law. The second one, I predict, will be very soon upheld by the Alberta Court of Appeal.

I do not understand why this Attorney is bringing bad law before this House. If he has some argument to defend it, I would certainly love to hear it.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I would like to thank the member for my law lesson. It was worth every penny I paid for it.

The member goes through a history -- his version of a history. The '84 challenge was over a law that required that no spending whatsoever could occur. The people who took the case didn't have the courage to go to the Federal Court of Canada or to a superior court in any other jurisdiction. I wonder if members can figure out why they went to Alberta to try to get that kind of decision.

The next time there was a case, it was in the early nineties, following the provisions in the federal act that set a $1,000 limit for third parties. Lo and behold, the National Citizens' Coalition again chose not to go to courts elsewhere in the land; they chose to go to Alberta, because they felt, no doubt, that in that province they would have the best chance of securing the kind of result they wanted. Even so, after more than a decade of such laws existing on the books in this county, no appeal court has confirmed one province's superior court's decision; no appeal court has done that. The issue has not been enjoined in a very real way in the court system in this country, and it obviously has not reached the superior court.

But having said that, those cases were about a prohibition that was far more limiting than this one is. The member says that this is somehow a gag law. Let me say again, as I have said repeatedly, this is not a gag law by any stretch of the imagination whatsoever. Organizations can continue to communicate with their members and can continue to advocate for or against a particular political party during an election campaign if they so choose. They can continue to espouse the values of their organization and the concerns they may have as an organization, or they can continue to oppose other concerns that may be present in society as long as they don't do one thing -- and that is, effectively, join the campaign for a political party or, effectively, oppose one particular political party. That's all.

But if they want to, they can even do that by simply arranging with the political party to include what they want to spend as part of the political party's limits, which in this bill are, I think, very generous: $50,000-plus in ridings, and what is going to work out to around a couple of million dollars per party provincially -- very generous limits. So organizations that feel they have to support a particular political party can make arrangements with that party to fit within the limits. They can continue to do what they've always done with their members. They can continue to promote their cause as long as it doesn't support a particular political party, and if they want to support or oppose a party, they can work within the limits of the relevant party. Some gag law.

All this is designed to do is make sure that political parties like the opposition party don't get to spend $170,000 in one constituency association. If you didn't have this third-party provision, what would we have in Abbotsford? We would have Friends of Abbotsford. We would have Friends of the Candidate from Abbotsford, and we would have Friends of Dairy Farmers, in particular. We would have any number of friends' organizations, each of which might spend $10,000, $20,000, $30,000 or $40,000 supporting their friends. What would you have at the end of the day? The potential of hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent for that candidate.

The reason the Liberals oppose this provision is that they don't believe in campaign limits. It's pure and simple. If they believed in campaign limits, they would prevent third parties from supplementing the campaign expenditures of their candidates. They don't like it because those candidates can only spend so much money. It's very generous, but there's a ceiling. They don't want the ceiling. They want the ability of third parties, their friends.... Who knows what organizations might be concocted, and who knows whether we would have 75 ridings in this province each spending $170,000 to try and elect a Liberal? That's why the Liberals oppose this section.

W. Hartley: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: On behalf of the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, I would like to introduce some people in the gallery. Margaret Peterson and her son Mark Peterson are visiting from Australia, and they are with Irene Geoghegan, who is the mother of ministerial assistant Mike Geoghegan. Please welcome them.

G. Wilson: I also want to welcome our guests from Australia, who have a much more sophisticated way of dealing with elections than we do.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: No, it is not a punch-up, as the member over here suggests. I think you're confusing states. But there is a requirement to cast a vote there. I think there is also a provision whereby a fixed amount of dollars is available to political parties to run, which is an excellent idea and one lamentably that we didn't follow in this legislation.

I just want to add one very brief comment with respect to this notion of a gag law, because I've heard from my constituents.... It's been effectively advanced in the media that what is being put in place here is a gag law. I think it's very, very important that people understand that in fact this is not a gag 

[ Page 16845 ]

law. What it does is put the amount of money that can be spent by a third party in support of a candidate on an even footing. That's a very substantial difference. It does not deny people the opportunity to have their say.

Having said that, I would hope that if the sort of altruistic views of the members here.... If those members who truly do believe in a free, democratic process -- and that would include the members of the Liberal opposition -- are really serious about what they are saying and what they are opposed to in this section of the bill, they will recognize that no amount of spending limits on a candidate will have any effect whatsoever if you do not put in place some comparable limits to third-party expenditure. Once you have made the decision to limit candidate spending, you have to put in place limits for third-party spending, or the whole exercise becomes totally futile. Those are the first and second points.

The last point I want to make is that if the members of this Legislative Assembly are truly interested in having an open and free democratic election, they ought to be focused not on the amount of money that's being spent, but on the fair and open access that all candidates and political parties have to the electorate. We, by virtue of dollars -- and this is where those underfinanced or low-financed parties will have difficulty -- will be dependent upon the media to carry the message to the electorate. If you don't have a lot of money to spend on advertisements, brochures or whatever, then that is really the only way you can get your message out.

My big concern with this, again -- and that's why I would hope that members of the Liberal opposition would recognize it, having come from a very similar position to the one I'm about to articulate -- is that if we do not recognize that there is a need in this province for a fair and equal footing for each candidate to be able to put their position in front of the electorate, then the voters do not have an opportunity to make an unbiased vote. That is a very, very important factor.

If, through the amount of money that is being spent, we fall victim to this concept that somehow there are major political parties and then there are minor political parties, the province will effectively be allowed to deal with the election in two phases. Local cable and other television stations will have representatives from the "major parties," to be followed the next week by representatives from the "minor parties." It is unfair, anti-democratic and deceitful of those people who would come forward and try to present that as a fair representation of where the electorate is at.

[5:00]

There's nothing in this bill that talks about fair representation, fair presentation or equal opportunity. I would like to hear from the members of this Legislative Assembly that they are indeed committed to that level of democratic procedure, so that the voters have a much easier time in making up their minds. They would have an opportunity to read, hear from and see each of the candidates equally, so they could make a sound and proper choice.

Sections 234.1 to 234.96 inclusive approved on division.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We would ordinarily now be on section 235. Prior to getting to section 235, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 56.

WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading)

Hon. D. Miller: I will try to be fairly brief in introducing the bill. Given the events of the last few days, all members are aware of the conditions that have given rise to the need for the government to bring in legislation so that we can once again begin the process of ensuring that there is a good, sound administration in charge of the Workers' Compensation Board. We will also deal with the broader and potentially most difficult issue of trying to regain or instil a sense of public confidence in the Workers' Compensation Board.

Throughout my time.... And perhaps the former Minister of Labour, my colleague on the Reform benches, may have some insights to offer in this regard as well. Despite some very valiant efforts on the part of not just myself but others to try to have a governance system in place that sees the labour community and the employer community represented, plus the provision for two governors who represent the "public interest," it has been a frustrating experience, as that organizational structure has shown its inability to come to grips with the management issues we're talking about.

After all, the Worker's Compensation Board is a fundamental corporation. It has been really part of our culture, as it is in other provinces. People who came before us essentially made a very wise move many, many years ago. The essential trade-off that was made in establishing workers' compensation systems is that individual workers gave up the right to sue their employers where negligence was involved in creating an accident.

This province was one that was developed by some pretty tough people, like our counterparts in Washington and Oregon. Our forefathers and our foremothers, the people who came before us, encountered a very tough land. The work was hard, particularly in the resource sector in the early days. One only has to look at some of the early photographs of the people who were engaged in the forest industry, for example, to see people at work in immense forests with no safety gear, hardhats or hard-toed shoes. It was a pretty tough world.

The deal was struck many, many years ago that essentially advised workers: "In the event that there's an accident, this system will deal with your problem, whether that's retraining, rehabilitation or compensation for time lost from work." Those costs obviously are borne by the employer. The benefit to employers was that there was a system in place. They were shielded from employees deciding that there was negligence -- and they could sue. So those are the fundamental tenets of the system.

I think the adverse publicity over the time I've been minister and certainly prior to that has shaken the level of public confidence in that system. That is unfortunate, because we actually stand up quite favourably when you look at our workers' compensation system here in British Columbia and 

[ Page 16846 ]

do a statistical comparison of the other systems across the country. One of the benchmarks that can be used, for example, is: what is the average level of assessment on employers? How much are employers paying to maintain our system? I didn't bring those figures in; I don't want to debate this extensively. Suffice it to say that our assessment rates are among the lowest two or three in Canada. When you look at the benefit levels paid to injured workers, our benefit levels stand among the highest of any province in Canada.

When you look at the issue.... And we maintain it's a $4 billion corporation, as I indicated. The board has the responsibility to maintain a fund so that people who are injured or who have received a disability pension can be paid. This is an actuarial process. Nonetheless, in British Columbia that fund is right now about 94 percent funded. Saskatchewan stands as the best province in Canada. Their fund, if you like, is overfunded. It's at about 116 percent, as I recall the last figures. Nonetheless, my point is this: British Columbia is on a very firm financial basis.

Just look at the problems that other provinces are having. I'm not commenting on how they acquired those problems, but simply noting that they exist. The province of Ontario, for example, has a $12 billion unfunded liability in their system. Some of the maritime provinces.... Our unfunded liability is probably around $500 million, but compared to $12 billion I'd say it's not bad. Compared to the size of the system, it's about 5, 6 or 7 percent, which is pretty small. Look what's happening recently in Ontario and the Maritimes. Because of the fiscal pressures, decisions have now been taken in the Maritimes and Ontario to reduce benefits to injured workers. We have not had to do that here in British Columbia. I simply cite this, really, if you like, in defence of the system and to suggest that those who characterize the system as a total mess or failure are indeed wrong.

We have had a failure of a government structure. In fact, I have no quarrel with the previous government that instituted this new government structure -- no quarrel whatsoever. I still subscribe to the notion that people with a vested interest in the system ought to be able to come together and assume those management responsibilities: that is the labour community and the business community, and the public interest needs to be represented. The Korbin report is very good in determining or telling a story about why that system came to failure. I just want to throw that into the debate, because it is fundamentally important.

The system we're putting in place under this legislation will see the appointment of public administrators, in essence, to replace the current governance structure. I want to restore as quickly as possible, if you like, the idea of stable management at the system.... I want to say, as I've said in the past, that I do have a great deal of respect for the work that Mr. Dale Parker, the present CEO, has done in a relatively short period of time. In the about eight or nine months he has been in place in that organization, he has.... By the letter he submitted on July 8, he says he is "pleased to report that at the end of the first six months of 1995, administration costs are favourable to plan...." In other words, they are flatlined. Administrative costs are not growing at the board.... "The annual operating deficit is in line with the approved plan and is forecast to be approximately one-half of that incurred last year." These are tangible proof that the administration, charged with administering the operations of the Workers' Compensation Board, is in fact on target. They have a plan and they are meeting the target.

Mr. Parker -- for those who are not familiar with him -- brings a wealth of experience to the current job that he holds. He served 32 years with the Bank of Montreal before his appointment in 1983 as executive vice-president and group executive of commercial banking, managing $10 billion in funds for 4,000 employees. In 1985, he moved to the Bank of British Columbia, and in 1986, he became the bank's president and chief executive officer. Obviously, from '89 to 1992 he was CEO of the B.C. Financial Institutions Commission, which makes investments and invests those pools of funds under the purview of government. So this is a person of very, very high regard in the business community.

We have to pay attention when a person of Mr. Parker's background and acknowledged credentials informs the chair of the board that, given the circumstances, he can't continue. I believe and appreciate that all members will support the move being made by the government in this legislation.

To sum up, the governing structure that we are proposing is a fairly simple one. I want to say, not that it's part of this debate, that I want to examine some options with respect to process. I believe there is too much dissent. I have heard too much anecdotal evidence from people that they are dissatisfied with the way the system has treated them. If working people and employers in this province rightly or wrongly believe that these are fundamental problems that must be addressed, then we have to listen. I am looking at and considering other processes that we might employ to consult with British Columbians on some of these fundamental issues.

I believe that we are making the right move and that we will restore stable management. I also believe it's important to maintain the Workers' Compensation Board system as a public system that is there, that operates efficiently and that has the confidence of the people it is intended to serve. With those remarks, I will take my place and listen closely to the comments of the members opposite.

G. Farrell-Collins: First off the bat, I want to start this debate in second reading by making formal in the House my comments made yesterday outside the House, when asked, that I and the opposition are perfectly willing to have this bill move through all succeeding stages of debate in one sitting -- namely, this day's. I know that there are obviously other members who play a role in giving that approval, but from our point of view, the sooner we act on this, the better. We would be glad to move this bill through today.

Second, I hope that members of the governing caucus who have played an active role will have an opportunity to speak to this, even if briefly. I'm thinking particularly of the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca, who has played an active role in supporting the injured workers of this province. It would appropriate for somebody who has done as much work as he has done to give us some input on his view of where the Workers' Compensation Board should be heading in the next six to 12 months. I look forward to his comments and to those of the third party and independent members.

I'm glad to see this bill come forward, though I would have been happier to have seen it come forward a little earlier. In the time that I've been Labour critic, which is almost exactly 

[ Page 16847 ]

three and half years now, the issues surrounding the Workers' Compensation Board, as the minister says, haven't gone away. They seem to have increased in intensity, in fact, and the workload at the constituency level has also increased in intensity.

The thing that has really come to the light over the last number of years is the level of dissatisfaction, not just of one group that's affected by Workers' Compensation, but of just about everybody who comes in contact with the organization. That includes members of the employee groups in the organization itself, who have expressed on numerous occasions their dissatisfaction with the way things are operating at the board and the effect it's having on their lives.

[5:15]

Injured workers are people who certainly do not feel.... Not all injured workers, mind you. I have talked to many who have been very satisfied with the way the board has treated them, but the people with complex cases that tend to go on for a period of time have been extremely disappointed with the level of service and the level of response time they've received from Workers' Compensation on the finding of files, the returning of calls, the locating of fax messages and the ongoing process of how their case is working its way through the system. The small and medium-sized businesses in particular, but the large businesses as well that deal with the Workers' Compensation Board on an ongoing and almost regular basis, have all expressed similar complaints.

Though I think their representatives have become adversarial, it's interesting to see that the groups that are supposed to be the adversaries in this system -- the individual injured workers and individual business owners -- have found that some of their complaints are the same. They find it difficult to get their phone calls answered -- or to get the phone answered in the first place -- it takes a long time to find information and files, they're left in the dark, they don't know how their case is progressing through the board, they don't know what decisions have been made and they don't find out about them in a timely fashion. Businesses feel that they're not involved sufficiently in the return-to-work process.

One of the major purposes of workers' compensation is to compensate injured workers for their injury and help the vast majority return to the workforce as soon as possible and in the most productive way possible. I think that's everybody's goal. There's frustration on both sides, if I can put it that way -- or perhaps I should say all sides.

What has happened over the last little while at Workers' Compensation is that the organization has become so bureaucratic in itself that the people on the board who really want to make it work and who are there for the right reason, which is to do a public service -- they look at it as a job, obviously, but it's also a form of public service for them -- have been trying hard to achieve their personal goals and the aims of the board but have been hampered by the bureaucratic nature of the board. The appeals process is cumbersome and drags on for far too long, in many cases. The adjudication system doesn't seem to reflect the manual. There's a whole range of problems at Workers' Compensation.

I've used the example a couple times, but for any of those members who have had a chance to see the movie Apollo 13, which came out a couple of weeks ago, there's an interesting clip in there. Believe it or not, while watching the movie I immediately thought of the Workers' Compensation Board. There's an explosion on the spaceship, it's spiralling out of control on its way to the moon and the people at ground control are trying to figure out what they're going to do. They're all saying all the things that are wrong with it: all these things aren't working; this system isn't operating properly. The guy says: "Look, let's just step back here a second and start from a status position. What is working?" Then they proceed to try to identify it.

One can almost take that position with the WCB: let's find out what is working, and let's work from there. We've got ourselves in a situation where the management is behind the Workers' Compensation Board. The board is heading off in one direction, and instead of leading it, management tends to be scrambling and following and trying to catch up. We use a term in aviation. When I used to teach aviation, we said that a student was falling behind the airplane. The airplane was moving a lot faster and things were happening faster than the person who was supposed to be running the airplane. It's never a good position to get into, and it applies in business or in organizations like the Workers' Compensation Board.

We've had the case over the last number of years where a new and creative and somewhat risky governance model was brought in by the last administration just prior to the last election that would see business and labour representatives selected by business and labour. Those nominations would be put forward to the minister, and the minister would have the ultimate decision. Essentially they were from approved lists and from suggestions made by those two groups. There were also to be two public interest governors, whose jobs were to represent the public interest and not particularly one side or the other.

As Korbin and O'Callaghan mentioned in their report, something else was included in that mix. As I said earlier, the government has two things to do with WCB: first, appoint the board; second, give them a mandate. The legislation that was brought forward by the last administration -- I believe it's section 2 -- identifies the duties of board members. It says that they are first and foremost responsible to the groups that put them there -- i.e., the labour governors are responsible to labour; the business governors are responsible to business. Essentially that's what's happened.

Unfortunately, I think the game was rigged against those governors from the start. It was rigged against any opportunity of it working in a successful manner. It was somewhat of a visionary and risky approach, but unfortunately, by giving them an accountable mandate back to their various groups, one ensured that all the bickering that took place in public before was now just taking place at the board level. As a result, over the last number of years we've seen that the board itself has become dysfunctional. It has failed to provide leadership on a whole range of key issues that are facing the Workers' Compensation Board. As a result, the system is no longer functioning.

When Korbin and O'Callaghan came out with the report in April and recommended that 30 to 50 percent of the board members should be changed -- perhaps it was even as high as 60 percent, I don't recall the figure -- I said I didn't feel that that was going far enough. If the board was having anywhere near the problems that the Korbin and O'Callaghan report indicated, it required far more drastic changes than that. My feeling was that even if one could selectively remove people 

[ Page 16848 ]

from the board who were perhaps causing the majority of the conflict -- if one could identify them -- and bring new people into the board, those new people would seek guidance on how the board operates from the people who were already there. As a result, you had a corporate culture which existed on that board which was not going to go away if you kept half of them there and only replaced half of them.

You had to get rid of the entire board and start afresh, so that you also lost that corporate culture, so to speak -- that history and that dysfunctional organizational past that was in place -- bring in new people with a new mandate and a new set of goals, and hopefully encourage and coach them along the way with some quality people who know how boards should work, to ensure that the board became far more functional than the one that existed previously, and could actually start to provide leadership to the workers' compensation organization.

I think at that time it was clear that the problems were substantial. When I read the recommendations coming from Korbin and O'Callaghan, it was clear that my worst fears were true. There was no guidance at the top at the WCB. There was a revolving door of senior executives and chairs, and it required some leadership from the minister and the government directly to get WCB back on track. With the dysfunctional board as bad as it was in this report, it was clear at that point that it couldn't do it itself. Despite the attempt to keep this organization at arm's length from government and despite the attempt to have labour and business run this organization on their own and have them accountable for it, now had come the time for the government to step in. Clearly it wasn't working. This great adventure that we'd embarked upon with the two representative parts of the board hadn't worked properly, and it was now time for the government to act.

It was unfortunate that the minister didn't act at that time. I canvassed the issue extensively with him again in the estimates process this session -- I believe it was in May -- and I asked him what his plans were for the board. He wasn't forthcoming with his plans in detail. I suspect that's because he had some thoughts on what he was going to do, and he didn't want to announce it in estimates and have board members find in estimates that they were on their way out. I don't know, but in my opinion anyway, clearly something was in the works, and he wasn't ready to come forward with it at that point in time.

I think it would have been best, having the strength of this report behind him, if the minister had acted immediately to replace the board members at that time, bring in legislation while there was still time in the House to revise the mandate and the accountability of the board, and get it started earlier. Now what we have is a sort of halfway measure. I commend the minister for finally taking action, but we now have a piece of legislation before us which we'll pass today or tomorrow, I suppose. The session will likely adjourn within the next number of days or so, and we'll have to wait another year before we can actually make those key changes to the governance structure of the Workers' Compensation Board. So we're going to go at least year, I suspect, or pretty close to a year under this trusteeship or administership. I don't know that that's really going to get the Workers' Compensation Board back on its feet and on track, to start providing the leadership that's required.

I'm not convinced that the minister has acted as quickly as he could have. Had he acted in April, I think we would be a little further along in that process now -- perhaps not, depending on what recommendations are brought forward. I certainly look forward to seeing what changes to the governance model are going to come. I suggest that we shouldn't throw out the whole model as it stands; I think the risk was worth taking. The vision was pointed in the right direction, if not clearly in focus, and there's still an opportunity for business and labour to play a part and to bring their various perspectives, their knowledge and their background to the board and have that permeate down, in a leadership way, through the policies and functioning of the board as it currently exists.

So at this point, anyway, I would be loath to see the whole governance model thrown out. I do think, though, that if the minister were to be very careful with the people who are selected to be on the board -- not just take the recommendations of business and labour, but go outside those two groups -- and to look at injured worker representatives and at people who have a background in claims issues, whether it's from private firms or other workers' compensation divisions around North America, who are living and working in British Columbia and who may have some skills and experiences that they'd like to contribute to the board.... I really encourage the minister to get out there and look for individuals -- not just the governance model, but real leaders who have some credibility and some competence in this area, yet don't have a bias.

I know that's sometimes hard to find, but let's get out there and actually look for them. Maybe a smaller number -- maybe five or seven -- of board members who really have an interest at heart of doing a public service, as opposed to just representing the group that they come from.... While they may bring a labour perspective, a business viewpoint or a viewpoint of an injured-worker group, given their experience, they may not be directly accountable to those groups but they would be accountable for their performance to the minister, as other boards are in British Columbia. Yet they bring their own history and experience to the board so that at least we have that knowledge and skill base there, but we don't run the risk of having them report back to their bosses every time an issue is discussed. I think there is some opportunity there. I hope that the structure can continue to work in some form or another. I think it's important that business, labour and injured workers be involved in the governance of the board and in providing the leadership.

I want to say a couple of other things, if I can. The minister refers to the fact that the publicity has shaken the public's confidence in the board. I think those were the terms he used. I would suggest that if the board can be shaken by publicity.... If the problems are there and publicity causes them concern, and causes the organization and public confidence to be shaken, then the problem is not the publicity; it's the state of the board that's the problem. Just making a bad scenario public shouldn't be something we should avoid; in fact, it should be something we encourage. We should encourage bright lights to focus on an organization when it's not doing what it's supposed to do. One can't just say: "Well, let's ignore it; let's put it aside. Let's try and deal with it quietly; let's not have the public involved in it. Let's ignore the problems that exist, and that will keep public confidence in the board." If the confidence isn't warranted, then I say: "Put the 

[ Page 16849 ]

public spotlight on it. Focus attention on it, because that's the only way you're going to get changes at the board." The only way you're going to get changes in the organization is if that public pressure is brought to bear.

I would suspect that Mr. Parker's resignation was a result of concerns raised by outside sources, as he said. I don't know what sources those were. I have my suspicions, or I can make conjectures what they might be. But the fact is that outside sources focusing public attention on the Workers' Compensation Board triggered the resignation of the president, or at least the tendering of a resignation letter by the president. That, in turn, prompted the Labour minister to finally get into action, to finally deal with it in a quick and expedited way, and remove the board and get a shake-up happening at the WCB.

[5:30]

I say that there's nothing wrong with the public seeing what's going on. If you can't defend the organization to the public, then the confidence the public should have in the organization isn't warranted. I would take an alternative view from the minister on that. I think that public attention does nothing but good in this case, and hopefully it will prompt us to react quickly to the board. Complaints have been around for years -- long before I came on the scene, and, quite frankly, a lot longer before the minister came on the scene. These issues were problems at the Workers' Compensation Board, and they weren't being dealt with effectively. Attempts were made, but it wasn't working. I think the fact that public attention was put on the board helped to prod that along.

I hope that the minister acts quickly in coming up with a new governance model, or at least a new board structure, for the Workers' Compensation Board, so that it can get on with doing what it was intended to do, quite frankly, which is to protect injured workers in B.C. and employers also, and to make sure they have a system that they can both rely on, that they both have that public confidence in, that they can rely upon to protect their interests as a business from being sued and pushed down the river because of a claim, and -- most importantly -- that will make sure that injured workers are dealt with in a respectful and fair way, so they can rely upon compensation when they need it, that encourages them to get back into the workforce when that's what suits their claim the best.

I look forward to passing this legislation. It is a small step towards making the changes that need to be made, but it's a significant one, I think. It's a major change right at the top, and what's required at the Workers' Compensation Board is stable leadership at the top. Let's hope that this can at least be a first step along the way to providing it.

L. Hanson: Five minutes....

Interjection.

L. Hanson: I think the member of the official opposition knows what I'm saying. In any case, I will not take a lot of the House's time to discuss the bill before us. The bill simply gives the minister the authority, if he has lost confidence in the administration of the board, to appoint a public administrator. There is no doubt that there is some question by the public, the employer community and the employee community -- the worker community -- about the confidence they have in the board and in the way the WCB has been operating. I suspect that the minister said.... I know that in his opening remarks he suggested: who better to be in charge of the administrative process than those who pay the fee and those who are getting the coverage for it? In principle that is an excellent idea, and I think that the minister will look at that seriously when he finally presents us with what he and the government see as the epitome of a management system.

I agreed with the minister when he suggested that our system here in British Columbia compared to a number of other systems really is, even in today's circumstances, a pretty darned good system that is operating pretty efficiently. I know a number of other jurisdictions that would like to have our organization as it is.

By the same token, I know that the minister, when we give him this authority -- because we as a party are going to support the legislation -- will look with careful scrutiny at the appointments of the trustees who are going to manage the WCB over the next short time. The concern is that whoever takes on that responsibility must provide the usual -- as we've been wont to say in this House many times -- level playing field from the perspective of the employers and of those people who are entitled to and are getting the benefit of coverage in the workplace.

It's very important who the minister puts in place to be this public trustee over the next period of time, because I suspect that whoever that is, they are going to have the responsibility -- and should have -- and the authority to develop some policies that may smooth out some of the administrative difficulties that we are facing. There is no doubt that part of the problem has been the lack of recognition of the main objective, at the expense of the operation of the corporation. Other interests and trying to resolve other things at that level really had little to do with the issue of workers' compensation.

We as a party will support that. We look forward with some interest to seeing who the public trustee is, and I'm sure we will have an opportunity to provide some input into whatever changes the minister may be considering for the ultimate administrative process of the WCB. With that, we will support this part of the change to the WCB.

L. Reid: I'm pleased to enter into debate on Bill 56, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 1995, and to concur with some of the comment that has been raised to date in terms of the governance model of the WCB. I think the issue is: what does the next model look like? What I intend to do in the minutes remaining is touch on some of the points that I believe this minister, and hopefully this government, will address for the future needs of that organization, because I would commit today to saying that the current needs of that organization have not been met.

The current governance structure has not allowed the needs of the organization to be met. No one has taken responsibility for the stewardship of the organization. Both groups have allowed their interests to determine the activity level of the board. In our view, the activity level of the board must be driven by the needs of injured workers in this province and by fiscal accountability, by adequate reporting, by improved communication at the board level and by ensuring that technological advances are in place in that organization.

[ Page 16850 ]

We are masking some huge inefficiencies in that system. What the minister has attempted to do yesterday and today is to put that system on hold and introduce a new system -- i.e., the public trustee, the new appointee, the panel member, if you will, who will look at this system as it unfolds. My concern is that we don't revert back to the old governance structure. I look at this today as buying time, and I think it's a valuable thing to do. I support the minister in his contention that it needed to happen today. I would suggest that it needed to happen a whole lot sooner, because the triggers have been there. The heads-ups were there for this minister over time in terms of the necessity to act much sooner.

However, now that he has chosen to act, I as an opposition member and someone who's taken a real interest in the future of this organization have to know what the next step is. I appreciate that the minister is going to appoint the panel members or member, and that they are going to continue to operate the organization. My fear is that their mandate will not be different from the current mandate of the board of governors. If that is the case, they too will be doomed to failure. The mandate simply cannot exist as it has been laid out. The Korbin-O'Callaghan report talks extensively about the fact that they could never succeed under the mandate they arrived at. The report goes into great detail and talks about the board being asked to operate a governance structure that is more complicated than most other typical governance structures. They were given an unbelievable task, and it's not surprising that they didn't succeed. What is surprising is that we allowed the experiment to go on for upwards of four years, because no one was well served during that process.

I would raise for the minister a number of questions that the Korbin report raised, because I think they must figure prominently in the discussion of the new panel, including who sits on it and whether we return to a governance model similar to the one in place today. We have to have answers to these questions. The number one question is: to whom is the board accountable? We were never clear on that under the existing governance structure, and I trust that we will arrive at the answer to the question of who the panel is accountable to as we move through committee stage of this bill.

The continuing questions that are carried forward in the Korbin-O'Callaghan report ask how you prevent such a structure from drifting into a pure collective bargaining process when it must by necessity and by law operate as a governance structure. That's a really good question. When this new panel member is selected, I want this person be a specialist in governance. We are talking about cohesion and about building something incredibly fine at the board level, and we have to have somebody who has some experience in how that is done. That's not to take away from my colleagues' comments when they talk about the necessity of seeing worker interests and employer interests represented, but my ultimate concern today is who is actually at the table making those decisions.

I don't wish to see this new panel replicate the existing structure, because as many reports have suggested over the preceding four years, that too will be doomed to failure. If the mandate doesn't change, we are not giving any new administrator a fighting chance. I think that's the key that we have to have committed to in this debate today: that we change the ballpark, the parameters and the expectations for the administrators, whether you call them panel members or governors. We have to change the expectation we hold for the decision-makers, and that's fundamentally important.

We also have to remember what brought us to the point we were at yesterday and the point we're at today. It was the discussion of a contract that triggered this debate. It was absolutely the discussion of a contract that did not allow those individuals to continue to attempt to work out any kind of decision-making at the board table.

Interjection.

L. Reid: My colleague from Prince George-Omineca says it was the straw that broke the camel's back, which is an absolutely valid comment. I would commit that in print today. Indeed, it was the contract that allowed the system to blow apart at the seams and finally forced this minister to step in and take some responsibility for the system. I have no issue with this minister ensuring that the mandate is clearer and actually doable. With the mandate we gave those individuals in the past, there was never any chance of success. I think that is an issue that we have to take away from today's debate on the principle of this bill and carry forward into committee debate. If we don't succeed in changing the mandate, all we've done is bought ourselves a year of time. We've masked over the problem. We have taken out a huge band-aid, but we haven't changed anything.

Another concern I want to raise with this minister -- and I trust that he will be able to incorporate my concerns into his closing comments -- is over the contract, which triggered this. The contract has to be a huge consideration for this minister, because it is a huge consideration for people who pay taxes, for employers who fund the organization and for British Columbians. It's a bigger issue than a simple contract negotiation. It determines whether or not people will continue to have public confidence in the organization. I would encourage the minister to address this in his closing remarks. In his opening remarks, he talked about good, sound administration being required; we would support that, but there has to be a clear mandate.

When the minister remarked yesterday that this bill would allow the replacement of the board of governors by a panel of one or more members for a period of up to one year, I would hope that he understood that this would simply buy some time. We would submit that there are some issues for labour around the Korbin-O'Callaghan report that they simply couldn't live with. This minister has nicely taken them out of labour's hands, and they don't have to respond. He has removed that opportunity, and I think that's healthy. I think that buying some time and some distance is probably a good thing. But having chaired the task force on the WCB that travelled around this province.... It's clearly a dysfunctional organization as it stands today. We have power-broking going on to an incredible extent in that organization. We have labour, which votes in a bloc and boycotts meetings. We have governors who are not interested in resolving their differences at the table. I have serious concerns about that.

[5:45]

If I were to highlight my concerns for the minister, it's the contract.... I would ask this minister to assure us in his closing remarks that a contract such as this one will not go forward. It's not realistic in 1995 that that framework document should ever find a home. It's simply not realistic, and surely this minister has to accept this notion.

[ Page 16851 ]

Again, I would suggest that there has been some very fine advice out there about the future of the WCB that has simply not been followed. The worst possible advice has come to this minister over time and, in fact, many individuals have chosen to follow the worst possible advice. But the Liberal opposition will work on the problem, and the problem is to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the WCB. We too believe that it makes sense to have that as a public institution. But public institutions must be accountable not just to those who fund them but to those who receive the service. So the Liberal opposition will assist this minister in working on the problem, because it's only appropriate that the best possible service be available to British Columbians.

G. Wilson: In rising to speak on Bill 56, let me say that the Alliance supports the minister's action. We believe it to have been a necessary action at this time. We have committed both privately and on the record now that we will work with this minister and any others who are seeking to put together a proper management model for workers' compensation.

Quite clearly from our perspective, we have to recognize that the right of an injured worker is not a partisan political issue. It's a very tragic and very difficult issue for families and individuals to deal with. That tragedy is compounded when there is an enormous bureaucracy established. That makes it even more difficult to deal with for an individual who is already suffering physically and often mentally as a result of physical injury, as well as financially. That bureaucracy becomes insensitive to their needs and issues and obstructionist in its views, because it's attempting to live up to a management model and a management system that is struck within the act that governs and regulates it.

Let me say that while we support this minister in this action, I know we would also support the repeal of the Workers Compensation Act and a redrafting of the act. We do not believe that anything short of a redrafting of that act, in terms of not only its governance but its accountability and structure within government itself...that we are going to be able to solve some of the problems we have been faced with.

The Workers' Compensation Board, as any who have been involved with it will tell you, is a rather strange animal. I believe that this strange animal is created largely because it is really not accountable to government per se, notwithstanding the powers the minister has with respect to the board appointments. Neither is it necessarily responsible to the courts, although there is an appeal procedure so that people can take their claim and try to get restitution through the courts.

We have to, in looking at the Workers Compensation Act, strike a balance that provides an opportunity for injured workers in the first instance, when they are diagnosed through their physician and/or specialist, to get the kind of medical treatment that they require first and foremost, and secondly to get the rehabilitation and skills training necessary to make them once again a productive part of our community and society.

Nothing short of the repeal of this act is going to do it. I fundamentally disagree that simply changing board members, restructuring administratively or trying to put new people in the pigeonholes we have now is going to solve the problem. It isn't, because -- and I differ with the minister on this, if I can take our conversations over the last couple of days -- I believe it is a structural problem that we're facing here. It's compounded by the personalities perhaps, the conflict between labour and management, and that involvement in this process; that is compounded. But we believe it is a structural problem.

We have to deal with the structure of the board and the manner by which Workers' Compensation is regulated -- that is, through the act -- in order to solve that problem. I know, certainly, in some of the comments in the Korbin-O'Callaghan report there are recommendations that come forward. We are definitely committed to making sure that between now and when the finalized documents come forward -- perhaps in the next session, in the spring session of this Legislative Assembly, one would hope -- our involvement is productive and constructive, but speaks to an overall change of the structure by which the workers' compensation provisions are governed.

I don't need to spend any more time going through a litany of problems that my constituents have had with Workers' Compensation. I represent a riding in which there are two pulp mills. There are a lot of workers in the woods, and fishers and others who are involved in industry and construction. Those are areas where workplace accidents occur. What we must have as our first goal is a streamlined process whereby injured workers in British Columbia can receive the assistance and help they need. That's number one. We should not have a system that simply puts great frustrations on those workers. Having said that, I think it's important to recognize that the employer area is also an area where we must concern ourselves in terms of cost and implementation of whatever the recommendations are for provisions that allow us access to the kind of services that workers will need. So we need that balance.

I think the minister had to act. I congratulate the fact that he did take decisive action on this matter; I think it was necessary at this time. We have offered whatever services we have and whatever recommendations that might be useful from our experience with our constituents and with the people in Workers' Compensation we have worked with over the last four years. We offer that freely to the minister if it will provide assistance in putting in place a new act that will provide good regulation and sensible programs that are affordable to both the employer and the employee, and, most of all, which provide the kind of relief that so many working women and men in this province need.

A. Warnke: I just have a few comments, since many members, especially the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove and the member for Richmond East, have already touched on a few points. I would say this: a crisis has necessitated an action that has to be taken and is being taken in the context of Bill 56. Certainly no procrastination can be afforded.

Having said that, the WCB's purpose must be kept intact. Indeed, you might say that the Workers' Compensation Board is one of the most essential features of the social contract, if that term may apply in a Canadian context, and it has to be retained as far as we can. More complex issues regarding the workplace are developing, and we need to focus more on these. I sincerely believe that more effort is needed to examine a safe environment for workplace substances and pollutants -- examining low-level exposure over a work lifetime, for example, and recognizing that low-level exposure has serious health consequences. Issues like that need to be addressed. After all, we know that there are more diseases and disabilities 

[ Page 16852 ]

in later life as a result of our complex world. I believe these are the fundamental issues, and they reflect, as well, the purpose of the Workers' Compensation Board, which is to address the needs of workers.

In that context, it is regrettable that so much attention has to be focused on management. But at the same time, the organizational and management structures and systems cannot remain simple anymore, either. In fact, I think Dale Parker has put his finger right on the pulse of what is the matter. That there seems to be in the management style or system of the Workers' Compensation Board a chronic confrontation between factions on that board that represent or believe they represent different interests. Perhaps there is something in that system that is too simplified or archaic and really does belong in the past, and we have to move on to something else that's quite new.

In other words, the adversarial mentality is far too entrenched between employers' representatives and the employees' representatives -- union representatives and so on. This partisan and interfactional fighting or tug-of-war is undermining the effectiveness of delivering service to those who need to be compensated as the result of injury or other situations that workers find themselves in.

It is important, therefore, to retain the purpose of the Workers' Compensation Board, and putting in a public trustee or trustees certainly can be a way to go. I think I echo what my colleague from Richmond East has said: it's absolutely essential that putting forward such appointments does not replicate the interfactional confrontation that Dale Parker has talked about. It's in this context, having served on our committee -- the official opposition committee that went around the province hearing a number of complaints by people about Workers' Compensation Board -- that I also want to echo those sentiments by my colleagues. I also urge support of the particular bill, recognizing it is addressing a crisis for the time being. We must also move forward to more of an understanding of what it takes to really revamp and restructure and to develop a Workers' Compensation Board that really will be essential in addressing some of the fundamental important issues of our time, as more and more problems develop in the workplace.

K. Jones: I'd just like to address the fact that the Workers' Compensation Board is a mess. It has been a mess for a long time, and it still is a mess. This bill recognizes what we've been saying for the past two or three years about this. All members of this House have had it right up to the tops of our heads and over with the types of complaints from constituents that have been brought to our ridings, to our offices and to this House. Injured workers have gone through terrible losses in their family lives through all of their attempts to have fair and equitable treatment under the process, which was intended to give them fault-free insurance whenever they were injured. That fault-free insurance doesn't exist in British Columbia, and it's costing millions and millions of dollars more than it should. We have unfunded liabilities that are growing tremendously; we have a serious failure to have some control over the administration costs; we have a continual reduction in the number of persons being dealt with, and yet we have longer and longer wait times. It doesn't make any sense. Why should this exist?

We had a case, in the spring of '94, of 600 of the 900 headquarters employees making an appeal for an investigation into the Workers' Compensation Board operations in Richmond. In May 1994, the Liberal caucus was so concerned about this problem that we, as a caucus, established a task force that would look into the whole operation of the WCB. As a result of that, after hearings throughout British Columbia and after making a report, which came out in the fall of 1994, recommending that there were serious problems that had to be addressed....

[6:00]

It has taken until this time, after the chairman of the board stepped down; after he gave up his position as president, which he held at the same time as being chairman of the board; and after a new, very competent president, who has tried very hard to put things together, throws up his arms in disgust because the structure isn't allowing him to operate the massive bureaucracy that is there. We also have the situation of a contract that has not been satisfactorily finalized. We have the potential of a strike situation.

We have all of these problems continuously, yet what we have in this bill.... We are going to support it because it's the only thing that the government has brought forward in the way of action, but we have some concerns about whether there will be any difference with this panel of administrators. It says the panel may be one or more. I think the minister should be honest to all the people of British Columbia and tell us whether it's going to be one or two people or whether its going to be a panel of 12 or 13, like it has been in the past. If it's a single administrator, will there be any difference from the role played by Mr. Jim Dorsey when he was the chairman, chief executive officer and president, and had full control of the operations at that time? How is this structure going to be any different from the structure that was already there, which was not able to resolve the problem?

The problem appears to be fairly closely related to the board members who were designated to represent only one factor, not all the interests of the workers and the companies funding this operation. They were not representing all the interests and goals of the Workers' Compensation Board: to provide no-fault insurance without a lot of red tape, to solve a lot of problems in administration, to get people back to work as quickly as possible in order to reduce the lost time and to help people not have their lives disrupted for great lengths of time.

It is through that process and with that purpose that we should be seeing this government bringing forward the appointment of a board that is directly related and focused to those objectives -- not to represent some self-interest groups or specialty areas, but to represent, as a board member, each and every one of them, taking the task of resolving the problems that were there and to work with the objectives that were intended. To me, the crux of this matter is that there is a requirement to have a board that has a purpose and a goal that are not fettered by government in the process, but works with the sole goal of providing services to the working people of British Columbia.

J. van Dongen: I have a few brief comments. I've spent 15 years in the practice of corporate governance, and I spent a lot of time studying it. It's an area of interest of mine, and I want to urge the minister, as other people have, to break away 

[ Page 16853 ]

from the existing structure, the existing approach and the existing mandate given to the board which he has just removed. I don't think there is any question that the structure as it was set up simply will not work. I would go further and suggest to the minister that down the road he should be looking at putting together a board that doesn't take some of those directors from the employees or the employers, but find some credible people of stature who are going to do the job of running that organization.

It's unfortunate that the Workers' Compensation Board appears to have lost a man of the stature of Dale Parker. He is certainly the kind of person that you need to run the operational end as a CEO. Anything that the minister could do to keep him on, or replace him with someone with the same kinds of credentials, would be very positive.

In some of the reading I've done, I also question the involvement of the appeals commissioner as a member of the board. I realize they were there as non-voting members, but I think the board of directors should be a distinct level between the minister and the CEO who runs the day-to-day operation. I think the model that has been proven to work over the years is fairly clean and straightforward.

The difficulty is that this isn't quite the same as a public or private company, but I liken the structure we've had to having the owners and the customers of a business on the board of directors trying to run it. That's not a perfect comparison, but that's the nature of what we've had. I'd urge the minister to look at something completely different -- maybe a couple of business professors or someone from a university. I think a complete departure from what we've had should be considered in this case.

The Speaker: The hon. minister closes debate.

Hon. D. Miller: First of all, I want to say that I certainly appreciate the comments of all members who have spoken on this bill, the sincerity of the remarks that they've made and the advice that they've offered with respect to how we might address this. If I can be permitted a couple of observations, I suppose it's fair to say that if I'm now being criticized -- although not severely -- for taking too long to act, I'm sure that had I acted sooner, I would have been criticized for acting too soon. But....

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: No, that never would have happened. I realize that. Okay, I believe you.

I note that what gave rise to the Liberal review conducted last year was "a petition from 600 of 900 employees." I assume they are the same employees who are hoping that their collective agreement is ratified fairly soon, which the Liberals seem to be opposing. Anyways, those are just little observations.

I want to say, finally, that there's no question that there are some open questions with respect to the future. What I really want to do very quickly is try to restore stability at the senior level of management. I think that's very important, and I appreciate the support that members have shown there.

Just a caution. I suppose the system itself -- one that is paid for by employer assessments, that requires workers to prove that the injury happened on the job and that obviously has a multi-level of appeal -- will always give rise to a certain level of dissatisfaction. I don't think we should simply say that's the way it is and forget it, but it's just a caution that every case is not proof that the system isn't working. I ask members to bear that in mind. I would move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 56, Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

The House in committee on Bill 56; R. Kasper in the chair.

On section 1.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have a couple of questions for the minister. First, with the change here -- basically the firing of the current board and this new panel to be put in place -- I would like to ask the minister who he is going to appoint, but I don't think he knows yet, nor do I think that, if he knew, he would necessarily tell us until others were informed. If he can tell us, I'd be thrilled to know who the administrator or administrators are going to be, but if not, I'd like to know what qualifications he is looking for. If we merely replace them with labour and business advocates again, we've just got a mini-version of what we had before, so I'm curious to understand what type of person he's looking for to be appointed as an administrator or administrators for the WCB.

Second, since yesterday I've heard the minister say that he is looking for a review to take place later this summer and into the fall. It was my understanding that it would be some sort of review of the governance structure, whether formal or informal, for determining what the new system should be. Can the minister tell us what his thoughts are on that at this stage? What time frame does he have for that review, and when should we hear back?

Hon. D. Miller: With respect, I would rather not talk about personalities or people I'm considering for certain positions, and I hope the member appreciates why that would be somewhat problematic at this point.

In terms of the administrators, I must confess that, given the events and the speed at which they happened, my immediate task was to develop a means whereby I could intervene to take action and restore stability, and I have not given a lot of consideration to the particular individuals we might be looking for to serve as public administrators. Your colleague from Abbotsford has offered some suggestions about the qualifications of people who might be appropriate to serve.

Finally, I would say that confidence is really at the heart of this system. I recall the Liberal report last year, which suggested that people should resist the opportunity to play politics with the board, to the degree that it's possible. In fact, I noted the former chair, Jim Nielsen, quoted on television last night, who said in a gruff way: "You know what the problem is there. It's politics, politics from everybody." So to the degree that we in this chamber might resist that temptation -- it's there from time to time, and certainly I understand that -- I think that would be valuable.

[ Page 16854 ]

Again, I think there is an open question about the system. There was an attempt, which I thought was quite worthwhile, to make the stakeholders responsible for the system. It broke down primarily because it never got off to a good start rather than because it was inherently doomed to failure. I still have that view, and I want to consider those and other issues, and see what other processes we might employ on the issue of public confidence, quite apart from the board. I will move with dispatch, and I will commit to advise members opposite at the very earliest opportunity in terms of actions I may take in the very near future.

G. Farrell-Collins: I notice that the minister had trouble remembering what constituency the member behind me was from, and I guess we didn't spend quite enough in the Abbotsford riding if the minister can't remember.

[6:15]

I want to come back to my question. I had asked what the time frame might be for that review. Perhaps the minister can give us some indication of that and, more particularly, of the people whom the minister would appoint as administrators. I probably already have referred to it briefly in second reading, but I just want to state again that in pursuing people for those positions, I think the minister would be well advised, at least during the transitional period, to stay away from well-known business and labour leaders, given the turf....

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Unlike my colleague, I guess I don't have names. I just think that anybody who is identified strongly with either of those groups would probably be inappropriate, given that we've just sent them all to the woodshed for advocating only their positions. It would be better if we can find someone who's perceived to be much more neutral and who doesn't have any particular axe to grind but really just wants to administer it over a period of time.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, but I'm not talking about academics, either. Unlike my colleague from Abbotsford, I don't have quite the confidence in academics that.... No disrespect is intended toward my colleagues who come from that field, either. The member for Richmond-Steveston....

An Hon. Member: You do.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, I guess I do to a certain extent, too. But I just want to offer whatever advice, whatever it's worth. It's probably best to stay away from those people who are readily identified with those two groups.

I do want to ask another question, though, once I get answers to those two, but perhaps I can throw it out now. There is a collective agreement that was to be either ratified or declined yesterday by the board. The board technically still exists but certainly doesn't have any moral authority to do any ratifying of anything. Can the minister tell us what's going to happen and how quickly he intends to bring in those administrators?

We do have strike notice. We have a collective agreement that's been agreed to, but the new administrator may choose to turn down that collective agreement. I assume that authority still rests with that administrator. My reading of the section is that the authority would rest with the administrator or administrators. Can the minister tell us what the status of that collective agreement is and what the time frame is for the review of governance, which he itemized earlier?

Hon. D. Miller: Really, with respect to a specific time frame, very immediately I want to stabilize management. That needs a president-CEO and acting on this act once it's passed, at least initially with one person. That's probably what will happen. Initially I'll get one person in place, so there is a management base for a management structure, and then -- not taking too long -- I'll add the public administrators.

As to a specific time frame or process in terms of the future, I really have to stand here and say I don't have a solid answer on that. There needs to be some care given. Lots of people in the past gave lots of care. There was the Munro report, for example, that led to the current governance structure. We can't quarrel with the process. They took a great deal of time. There was a great deal of representation. They made a report that was subject to a lot of scrutiny, and it was agreed to by everybody. Yet despite that, here we are. So I need to think about it.

I'm kind of struck by what I learned in Saskatchewan, and this really goes to the issue of public confidence. I was advised by the deputy minister there that periodically a retired judge, a person who obviously has a great deal of respect, tours the province and consults with people. This happens every three or four years, I think. He asks the public, employers and labour what they think of the system and how things are running; he then conveys that back. Because of that, I'm advised, there is relative peace in Saskatchewan with respect to the workers' compensation system. This is something that appears to me, at least anecdotally, to be based on the respect that people have for a particular individual. It's not so much where you come from -- academia, labour or business -- but the kind of respect you command. When you demonstrate this over a reasonable period of time, it allows you to weather some of the difficulties.

I've said before that the contract is going to be referred to PSEC to see if it conforms, if it hasn't already; I don't get every detail every minute. If there are difficulties, it will be referred back to the parties. I think my position demands that I avoid making specific comments about collective agreements. We have had, arguably, a reasonable degree of success in facilitating settlements in some very tough disputes, and I commend my staff in the Ministry of Labour. The reason my staff can do it and the reason I can do it when I'm called upon is confidence. If the general public, the employer community or the labour community thought I was only here to satisfy their particular interests, then my ability to be a neutral party would be impaired. That is why I stay out of discussing, condemning or praising specific collective agreements.

My only caution is that in looking at any collective agreement, it is a bit dangerous to take one or two lines. I think members should look at the whole -- what was given and what was gained. In other words, everything has to be done in context. I've answered the question about where it goes. I would expect that it would happen quickly and that we will find out something about it fairly soon. I don't have a specific 

[ Page 16855 ]

time frame for that. There has been a collective agreement negotiated, and you don't want to let things sit. People should know where they stand and what they have to deal with. We'll endeavour to do that as quickly as we possibly can.

G. Farrell-Collins: On the collective agreement that has been negotiated by the negotiators -- certainly not agreed to by the two parties yet, but it was negotiated -- I believe they have come to a settlement. From the employers' side that goes to PSEC, and then it will come back, I presume, to whoever this new administrator is.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, it will come back to both parties, obviously. But if PSEC says that it is within the parameters of what the government is willing to set as policy objectives for collective agreements, does the administrator still have the clout or the ability or the authority under the act and under this amendment to, if they choose, reject that collective agreement on behalf of the management of the Workers' Compensation Board? My feeling is that technically they do. Morally, though, the question becomes: since they weren't involved in negotiating, what sort of role do they have to play? I guess they have a legal obligation under this act, by the powers that are granted to them under this act, to make a determination in the best interests of the Workers' Compensation Board as to whether or not that agreement goes ahead.

Is my reading of that correct? Will the administrator have free rein to make a determination on that? If so, what sort of time frame do they have? Strike notice was given, they bargained, and it's sort of up in the air. I don't imagine the employees are going to want to wait forever, nor do I imagine the Workers' Compensation Board would want it to go on forever. So what sort of authority does the administrator have? And what sort of time frame does the minister expect that administrator to have in which to deal with that collective agreement?

Hon. D. Miller: Interestingly enough -- and I haven't canvassed this absolutely fully -- there is no statutory obligation under the act for the contract to be referred to the board. I think it's a matter of convention. The previous collective agreement in 1992, I'm advised, was referred to the board, but I don't see in looking at the legislation that there is a specific requirement that the collective agreement be referred to the board for ratification.

So the issue of ratification, if you like, or conclusion, from the board's point of view, really does rest primarily with the present CEO. But given what has happened over the last week, there is no question that the chair -- the public administrator as the chair -- the president and any other administrators who may be in position at that time would deal with that in a collective way. My view is that people have to know where they stand. It's not good practice to have people negotiate a collective agreement, even one that's subject to ratification, and then be left in limbo wondering where it is. We'll try to get those answers -- whether it is acceptable with respect to our requirements and whether they have to do some reworking of the proposed agreement -- and I want to do that as quickly as possible.

G. Farrell-Collins: My understanding of the answer from the minister is that while there's no statutory requirement for the board to be involved in the approval of a collective agreement -- and subsequently, with this amendment to the act, for the administrator to be involved -- certainly that has been the case. In most other public sector groups, the board has the final approval of collective agreements. They have the yea or the nay -- thumbs up or thumbs down -- so I expect that to continue. One of the reasons I asked that is that people are hanging. There is a whole workforce that's wondering what's happening, without my comments on whether it's a good collective agreement or a bad one. I do have my opinions, though.

The other contract that was supposed to be determined and ratified, or not, by the board yesterday was that of the chief appeals commissioner. Can the minister tell me if the authority for approval or disapproval of that personal services contract will rest with the CEO or the new administrator? Given the parity under the act for the appeals commissioner and the president, I would suspect that it's generally not the president who approves that contract but rather the board and, in particular, the chair. That contract has been somewhat contentious. Will the new administrator have the sole authority to approve or disapprove that contract?

Hon. D. Miller: I would say yes. The board had been dealing with the issue since I raised it a year ago April and instructed the board to deal with it. Subsequently, in December.... The equivalency clause was negotiated prior to us coming into office. I know that the government's finance committee has been working on a policy framework for executive compensation. They're working quite hard. Without getting into details, I think they have made some improvements. Given that the equivalency is there, I would say that the administrator.... Ultimately we can't continue to function. One administrator allows stability immediately, but we need to flesh that out with other administrators, and public administrators would be the people responsible. Clearly they are there at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and obviously that comes to myself.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm assuming that under this bill -- and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong -- upon appointment of the panel of administrators, the governors cease to hold office. The appeals commissioner is a non-voting member of the board. Does that provision extend to the chief appeals commissioner also, or is it taken as a separate board position in that it's an appeals commissioner first and a board member second?

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: The chief appeals commissioner was technically a governor without vote. Obviously the governance structure itself is being overridden by this change to the act. Therefore, in terms of the role of the chief appeals commissioner as a member of the governing board, there is no governing board; that ceases to exist.

G. Farrell-Collins: The chief appeals commissioner then continues as the chief appeals commissioner, but just doesn't sit on a board and will have no role to play with the administrators.

[ Page 16856 ]

Hon. D. Miller: No, I wouldn't say that. Part of the change that took place because of the Munro report was the establishment of the chief appeals commissioner in terms of equivalency with -- it's quasi-judicial -- the president-CEO. In terms of the direct reporting relationship, the public administrators, if you like, take over the function of the board, but the chief appeals commissioner is not identified in the new legislation as a public administrator and therefore is simply, although in a quasi-judicial role, an employee of the board.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to clarify that. I will give the minister my understanding, and he can correct me if I'm wrong. The board of governors, once the administrators are appointed, will technically cease to exist. Then the chief appeals commissioner will continue her duties as a chief appeals commissioner, but will not have a parallel seat on this panel of administrators, because there's nothing in the act that would allow the chief appeals commissioner to have that position. So the appeals commissioner would continue as a chief appeals commissioner but would not have a role to play or an official position on this panel of administrators. I just want to make sure that that's a correct understanding.

[6:30]

Hon. D. Miller: That's correct, and neither will the president-CEO in a technical sense. But that's not to suggest that the parallel between the functions of the president and the chief appeals commissioner have been diminished in any respect; they have not. They are of equal stature with respect to their role. It's a different role, but the public administrators, through having been appointed by government, are effectively responsible for the running of the system. The day-to-day administrative issues can be handled by the president-CEO. Obviously the appeal issues under the purview of the chief appeals commissioner would continue to be handled by Ms. Munro, who, as far as I can determine from the range of opinions that have been expressed to me, has done quite a good job in her capacity as chief appeals commissioner.

L. Reid: We were talking earlier in debate about the mandate and what it would look like. The interpretation found in the Korbin-O'Callaghan report says that the representative governors' primary duty and responsibility is to represent the interests of their constituencies. The authors of the report, Korbin and O'Callaghan, suggest that that interpretation is wrong and that the Munro report is also in error.

They believe that the governor's primary responsibility is to the organization and to all the stakeholders. Certainly that is the point I attempted to make with this minister during the debate on principle. It would suggest -- and I offer this for the minister's consideration -- that we are looking to expand the thinking, the activity level, of the individuals this minister would appoint to the new role of administrator. In the minister's own comments, he talked about the province of Saskatchewan and a judge, in fact, touring the province, hearing input and taking responses from the different stakeholder groups in the province. I would simply ask the minister: is it his intention to appoint...? Is a prospective judge a likely candidate to head up this panel?

Hon. D. Miller: I certainly can't say at this point. I have not considered any particular names in a serious fashion, judges or otherwise.

L. Reid: In terms of whether or not the minister appoints one, two or three individuals, has the minister given some thought to quorum? Will these individuals be required to work in concert, or will they have the ability to disagree? Where does the authority lie?

Hon. D. Miller: We've had far too much disagreement. I think we need people who are prepared to work together for the good of the system.

L. Reid: From the minister's comments, I'm going to assume that the individuals will have to agree for any action to be taken. For them to have the authority to act, they must agree, whether it's two or three individuals. If it's one, we're well ahead of the game, but if this minister appoints more than one individual, I will deduce from his remarks that they must work in concert and that it will not be an opportunity for a quorum to be exercised.

To continue, section 83.1(2) reads: "On the appointment of the panel of administrators, the governors cease to hold office." Is it this minister's intention to pay severance to the existing board of governors?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't believe it's a requirement. Governors are paid on a per diem basis, not on a salary basis, and they are therefore not on an employment contract. Their ceasing to hold office means that they are out of there, and there is no severance.

L. Reid: My colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove talked about terms of reference, and I appreciate the minister's remarks. I'm simply wondering if there will be an opportunity for this new body, whether it's one individual or two or three, to come together and craft the terms of reference, or will that be something undertaken by your ministry?

Hon. D. Miller: I have not made any conclusions in that regard. Practically, it may be a good suggestion. I don't know at this point, but it is certainly something I would consider.

L. Reid: In terms of the discussion we had regarding Dale Parker, I would simply ask if Dale Parker agreed to stay? Did he gamble and win in this dilemma?

An Hon. Member: Or lose.

Hon. D. Miller: That's an interesting observation, but I really can't comment on this. These are administrative matters, and obviously I can't, as minister, take action or deal with issues until I have the legislative authority to do so. I don't anticipate that it will take too long before we would be in a position to advise members of the House and others about various positions and who holds them.

L. Reid: My colleague touched on the contract, which seems to be the greatest bone of contention around the WCB today. It's my understanding that the base rate is approximately $24 an hour and that we're looking at a benefit level of approximately 44 percent. Can the minister confirm?

Hon. D. Miller: No, I can't.

[ Page 16857 ]

A. Warnke: I have a couple of questions. One is to follow up what was introduced by the member for Richmond East. It's essentially just to get a comment from the minister with regard to the compensation package for the dismissal of the board of governors. Would the minister care to maybe briefly comment on any sort of compensation package?

Hon. D. Miller: I've said that the governors are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and, as such, I don't believe there's any entitlement to compensation. Maybe I should just leave a tiny little corner for myself here. In terms of expectation level or expenses that may be incurred which would require some adjustments, I don't know. But in the main, we're not talking about people who have been hired for a permanent position, but rather about people who are serving on a board. Therefore, in the classic sense, I wouldn't expect that there's any compensation.

A. Warnke: The second question I want to raise is, I guess, in the context of what I sort of highlighted in second reading. I feel that what has really plagued the Workers' Compensation Board at a managerial level is, essentially, the interfactional -- I would describe it as chronic -- tug of war. It's interesting to note, from the Korbin-O'Callaghan report -- my colleague for Richmond East alluded to it earlier -- a phrase stating that part of the problem is that they represent interests of their respective constituents and, indeed, are supposed to. That was part of the purpose of the board. Yet, on the other hand, I quite agree with the minister that part of the problem is that politics is at the heart of the system, which is a result, perhaps, of two factions representing their respective interests.

Therefore I'm just wondering, given that as a background, whether the minister, in reflecting on developing this new panel of administrators.... I've noticed that there is no definite number, recognizing, of course, that this has just been put in in the last couple of days. I'm wondering if not coming to some sort of decision on the number of people on this panel is a reflection of wanting to keep the options wide open. The model could be a triumvirate -- it's obviously not one, but it could be -- or a dozen or whatever. In order to establish confidence in the system, I suppose I'm saying.... I wonder if the minister has given or will give any reflection -- and he wants his options open -- to developing a panel that will get around what I would call chronic contention that has existed to the present.

Hon. D. Miller: Something I was reading earlier today reminded me that while we're here in this chamber debating what has led to a crisis of confidence in the governance structure, and with all the remarks that are made around that, we don't have to go too far back in time to find that this debate was probably replicated around another issue. The history of B.C. is one where people like to speak out quite loudly, and there have been lots of battles about the WCB over the years. Despite that, I want to reconfirm that the system has worked quite well. I appreciate the comments of the former Minister of Labour, the member from Vernon, in speaking to that issue.

I must say as well that events did move very quickly. Certainly I had not kidded myself. I note the opening remarks of the Korbin-O'Callaghan report -- the overview, if you like: "On January 23, the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour requested a review of the structure and operations of the board of governors. Mr. Miller indicated that recent events had suggested the governance system of the WCB might be in jeopardy." So we've been aware of this. Perhaps I should have been a little more prudent and had some people working on some legislation while all of this was going on. But that seems like you're undermining the people you're.... So I didn't do that.

An Hon. Member: But that would be normal.

Hon. D. Miller: Normal? Get out of here.

Faced with an issue that came up very quickly, I needed legislation in a hurry. I said to those people who were in charge of writing this stuff: "Give me something I can use, and give it to me in a hurry." So this is what we've come up with. Effectively, it's a trusteeship. I don't know that I'd recommend searching for too many nuances in it. It's a trusteeship. We've taken the thing over. There are lots of suggestions made about where we might go in the future, and I have to grapple with those very quickly.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just have one quick question. The minister mentioned that the collective agreement had gone to PSEC for analysis. Has the contract of Connie Munro, the chief appeals commissioner, gone the same route?

Hon. D. Miller: No, and neither is there a requirement. Ms. Munro is a senior executive in the organization, and there was certainly some controversy over her contract. I think I took a pretty firm position about those events, which were made public; I asked the board to look at them. I think the governors' finance committee has been looking at that very seriously. Some of the preliminary, anecdotal reports that I've received suggest to me that issues are being managed. I have nothing further of substance to report.

K. Jones: Could the minister tell us whether, as a result of this decisive legislation, Dale Parker has agreed to stay on as CEO?

Hon. D. Miller: I responded to that question earlier. Just for the member's benefit, I'm not really in a position, not having legislative authority to deal with that.... I want to deal with it very quickly, and I require legislation to put some people in place who can deal with it.

K. Jones: The question is a little different from what my colleague asked. It was a question of whether he had agreed, in communications with you, to continue in the role. I understand that his resignation is being held by the board and has not been agreed to.

Hon. D. Miller: It's actually a bit awkward. The resignation letter went to the chair of the board. The board, in effect, no longer exists. Things are really in limbo until we get new legislation. I regret that I can't give substantive answers to the questions the member raises.

K. Jones: In his governance plan for the WCB, does the minister foresee including the chief appeals officer and the CEO or president on the administrative panel?

[ Page 16858 ]

Hon. D. Miller: No.

K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how different this structure will be from the administration that was in place when Jim Dorsey was both chairman of the board and CEO-president?

[6:45]

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Dorsey was doing double duty, if you like, as both chair and president-CEO, because of the dysfunctional nature of the board. For 15 months, they couldn't find and hire a president. Because of that, Mr. Dorsey was doing both jobs; quite frankly, he was doing a commendable job. The situation is entirely different.

K. Jones: Would this new administrator be holding the job of CEO and chairman?

Hon. D. Miller: No.

K. Jones: How long does the minister expect the chairman's job to continue? Is it until there's a replacement, is it a role that may be eliminated, or is it part of this administration panel?

Hon. D. Miller: I'll just repeat that once we have legislative authority, we'll move with all dispatch to try to get some stable management confirmed at the board.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Miller: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 56, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 1995, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Miller: I move the House recess until 7:20 p.m.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 6:48 p.m.

APPENDIX

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

28 [SECTIONS 234.1 to 234.96, by adding the following after the proposed section 234:

Division 2 -- Election Advertising Limits

Advertising limits

234.1 (1) A candidate, registered political party or registered constituency association may sponsor election advertising as an election expense, subject to the applicable election expenses limit.

(2) Other than election advertising referred to in subsection (1), an individual or organization must not sponsor election advertising during a campaign period

(a) such that the total value of that election advertising is greater than $5 000 or a higher amount established by regulation, or

(b) in combination with one or more individuals or organizations, or both, such that the total value of the election advertising sponsored by those individuals and organizations during that period is greater than $5 000 or a higher amount established by regulation.

(3) The limits under subsection (2) apply whether the campaign period is for a general election or a by-election.

(4) As an exception to subsection (2), the value of election advertising that is conducted by sending a document directly to the members, employees or shareholders of the sponsoring individual or organization is not to be included for the purposes of determining whether the individual or organization has complied with that subsection.

(5) An individual or organization must not conduct election advertising if, by this, the sponsor would contravene subsection (2).

Penalties for exceeding election advertising limit

234.2 (1) Unless relief is granted by a court under section 234.3, if a sponsor exceeds an election advertising limit, the sponsor

(a) is deregistered as a sponsor under Division 3 of this Part and is not entitled to be reregistered as a sponsor until after the next general election, and

(b) must pay to the chief electoral officer a penalty of 10 times the amount by which the value of the election advertising sponsored by the sponsor exceeds the limit.

(2) In the case of a sponsor that is an unincorporated organization, the members of the organization are jointly and severally liable to pay the penalty under subsection (1) (b).

(3) A penalty referred to in subsection (1) is effective as follows:

(a) if no application under section 234.3 is made in respect of the sponsor, at the end of the period for making such an application;

(b) if, on the final determination of an application under section 234.3, the court refuses to grant relief from the penalty, at the time of that determination.

Court order for relief from advertising limit

234.3 (1) A sponsor may apply to the Supreme Court in accordance with this section for relief from section 234.2.

(2) An application may be made only within 120 days after general voting day for the election in relation to which the election advertising limit was exceeded.

[ Page 16859 ]

(3) Within 7 days after it is filed, the petition commencing an application must be served on the chief electoral officer.

(4) The sponsor and the chief electoral officer are parties to the application.

(5) On the hearing of an application, the court may

(a) grant relief if the court considers that, in relation to the non-compliance, the sponsor acted in good faith, or

(b) refuse to grant relief.

Division 3 -- Registration of Sponsors Election advertising sponsors must be registered

234.4 (1) Subject to subsection (2), an individual or organization who is not registered under this Division must not sponsor election advertising.

(2) A candidate, registered political party or registered constituency association is not required to be registered as a sponsor if the individual or organization is required to file an election financing report by which the election advertising is disclosed as an election expense.

Registration with chief electoral officer

234.5 (1) An individual or organization who wishes to become a registered sponsor must file an application in accordance with this section with the chief electoral officer.

(2) An application must include the following:

(a) the full name of the applicant and, in the case of an applicant organization that has a different usual name, this usual name;

(b) the full address of the applicant;

(c) in the case of an applicant organization, the names of the principal officers of the organization or, if there are no principal officers, of the principal members of the organization;

(d) an address at which notices and communications under this Act and other communications will be accepted as served on or otherwise delivered to the individual or organization;

(e) a telephone number at which the applicant can be contacted;

(f) any other information required by regulation to be included.

(3) An application must

(a) be signed, as applicable, by the individual applicant or, in the case of an applicant organization, by 2 principal officers of the organization or, if there are no principal officers, by 2 principal members of the organization, and

(b) be accompanied by a solemn declaration of an individual who signed the application under paragraph (a) that the applicant

(i) is not prohibited from being registered by section 234.2 or 234.93, and

(ii) does not intend to sponsor election advertising for any purpose related to circumventing the provisions of this Act limiting the value of election expenses that may be incurred by a candidate or registered political party.

(4) The chief electoral officer may require applications to be in a specified form.

(5) As soon as practicable after receiving an application, if satisfied that the requirements of this section are met by an applicant, the chief electoral officer must register the applicant as a registered sponsor in the register maintained by the chief electoral officer for this purpose.

(6) If there is any change in the information referred to in subsection (2) for a registered sponsor, the sponsor must file with the chief electoral officer written notice of the change within 30 days after it occurs.

(7) A notice or other communication that is required or authorized by or under this Act to be given to a sponsor is deemed to have been given if it is delivered to the applicable address filed under this section with the chief electoral officer.

Obligations of registered sponsor

234.6 (1) The identification of a registered sponsor referred to in section 230 must be a name filed by the sponsor under section 234.5 with the chief electoral officer.

(2) An individual or organization who is registered or required to be registered as a sponsor must maintain records of the following information in respect of contributions received by the sponsor:

(a) in the case of anonymous contributions, the date on which the contributions were received, the total amount received on each date and, if applicable, the event at which they were received;

(b) in other cases, the information referred to in section 190 (1) (a) to (e), with the class of contributor recorded in accordance with section 234.91 (2).

Voluntary deregistration

234.7 (1) A registered sponsor may apply to the chief electoral officer for deregistration in accordance with this section.

(2) As an exception, a sponsor may not apply for deregistration under this section if the sponsor is subject to deregistration under this Part or has not yet paid a penalty under this Part.

(3) An application for deregistration must be in writing and must be signed, as applicable,

(a) by the individual applicant, or

(b) in the case of an applicant organization, by 2 principal officers of the organization or, if there are no principal officers, by 2 principal members of the organization.

(4) On being satisfied that an application for deregistration is authorized by the sponsor, the chief electoral officer must deregister the sponsor.

[ Page 16860 ]

(5) As a limit on subsection (4), if during a campaign period a registered sponsor has sponsored election advertising, the sponsor may not be deregistered until the election advertising disclosure report for the sponsor has been filed.

Reregistration

234.8 In order to be reregistered, an individual or organization must file any outstanding reports and pay any outstanding penalties under this Part.

Division 4 -- Disclosure of Independent Election Advertising

Independent sponsors must file disclosure reports

234.9 (1) Subject to subsection (3), if during a campaign period an individual or organization sponsors election advertising that has a total value of $500 or a higher amount established by regulation, the sponsor must file with the chief electoral officer an election advertising disclosure report in accordance with this section and section 234.91.

(2) An election advertising disclosure report under subsection (1) must be filed within 90 days after general voting day for the election to which it relates.

(3) A candidate, registered political party or registered constituency association is not required to file a report under this section if the individual or organization is required to file an election financing report by which the election advertising is disclosed as an election expense.

(4) A sponsor must file a supplementary report with the chief electoral officer if any of the information required to be disclosed in an election advertising disclosure report changes or if the sponsor becomes aware that the report does not accurately and completely disclose that information.

(5) A supplementary report under subsection (4) must be filed within 30 days after the sponsor becomes aware of the circumstances requiring the report to be filed.

Contents of disclosure report

234.91 (1) An election advertising disclosure report must be in the form prescribed by regulation and must include the following information:

(a) the value of the election advertising sponsored by the sponsor, reported by class as required by regulation;

(b) the amount of the contributions accepted by the sponsor during the period beginning 6 months before the election is called and ending at the end of the campaign period for the election, reported in accordance with subsections (2) to (4);

(c) any amount of the sponsor's assets, other than assets received by way of contribution reported under paragraph (b), that was used to pay for the election advertising sponsored by the sponsor;

(d) any other information required by regulation to be included.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) (b), amounts accepted from contributors must be reported separately for each of the following classes of contributor:

(a) individuals;

(b) corporations;

(c) unincorporated organizations engaged in business or commercial activity;

(d) trade unions;

(e) non-profit organizations;

(f) other identifiable contributors;

(g) anonymous contributors.

(3) If the records of the sponsor indicate that, during the period for which contributions are required to be reported, a contributor made one or more contributions of money that, in total, have a value of more than $250 or a higher amount established by regulation, the report under this section must include the following:

(a) the full name of the individual;

(b) the class of the contributor as referred to in subsection (2);

(c) if the contributor is a numbered corporation or an unincorporated organization, the full names and addresses of at least 2 individuals

(i) who are directors of the organization, or

(ii) if there are no individual directors, who are principal officers or principal members of the organization;

(d) the value of each contribution and the date on which it was made.

(4) For anonymous contributions, the report under this section must include the dates on which the contributions were received, the amounts received on each date and, if applicable, the events at which they were received.

(5) A report under this section must be accompanied by a signed declaration of the individual sponsor or, in the case of an organization, by a principal officer of the organization or, if there are no principal officers, by a principal member of the organization, as to the accuracy of the report.

(6) As a limit on the reporting obligations under this section, the obligations of a sponsor in relation to contributions accepted before the campaign period to which the report relates is that reasonable effort must be made to report the information required under this section.

Late filing of reports

234.92 If a sponsor fails to file a report under section 234.9 with the chief electoral officer within the time period established by that section or by a court under section 234.94, on payment to the chief electoral officer of a late filing fee equivalent to the applicable amount under section 219 (5) (b), the report may be filed within 30 days after the end of the time period under section 234.9 or before a later date permitted by a court under section 234.94.

[ Page 16861 ]

Failure to file reports

234.93 (1) Unless relief is granted by a court on an application under section 234.94 commenced before the end of the late filing period under section 234.92, if an election advertising disclosure report is not filed with the chief electoral officer before the end of that period, the sponsor

(a) is deregistered as a sponsor under Division 3 of this Part and is not entitled to be reregistered as a sponsor until after the next general election, and

(b) must pay to the chief electoral officer a penalty equivalent to the applicable amount under section 219 (5) (b) for each day after the last day on which it may be filed under section 234.92 up to the date on which it is in fact filed.

(2) In the case of a sponsor that is an unincorporated organization, the members of the organization are jointly and severally liable to pay the penalty under subsection (1) (b).

(3) The penalties referred to in subsection (1) are effective as follows:

(a) if no application under section 234.94 is made in respect of the sponsor, at the end of the period for making such an application;

(b) if, on the final determination of an application under section 234.94, the court refuses to grant relief from the penalty, at the time of that determination.

Court order for relief from filing obligations

234.94 (1) A sponsor subject to section 234.92 or 234.93 may apply to the Supreme Court in accordance with this section for relief from an obligation to file an election advertising disclosure report or from a penalty in relation to the filing of such a report.

(2) An application may be made only within 120 days after general voting day for the election in relation to which the report is required or, if the failure is disclosed in a supplementary report under section 234.9 (3), within 30 days after the supplementary report is filed.

(3) Within 7 days after it is filed, the petition commencing an application must be served on the chief electoral officer.

(4) The applicant and the chief electoral officer are parties to the application.

(5) On the hearing of an application, the court may do the following:

(a) relieve the sponsor from the obligation to file the report, or from specified obligations in relation to the report, if the court considers that, in relation to the non-compliance, the sponsor acted in good faith;

(b) grant an extension of the time for filing the report without payment of a late filing fee under section 234.92 if

(i) the application is commenced before the end of the time for filing without penalty, and

(ii) the court considers that, in relation to the non-compliance, the sponsor acted in good faith;

(c) grant an extension of the time for filing the report, subject to payment of the late filing fee under section 234.92, if the court considers that, in relation to the non-compliance, the sponsor acted in good faith;

(d) make any order the court considers appropriate to secure compliance with this Act and the regulations to the extent the court considers reasonable in the circumstances;

(e) refuse to grant an extension or other relief.

Obligation to maintain records

234.95 An individual or organization who is or has been a sponsor of election advertising must

(a) ensure that the records required for the purposes of this Part are maintained in British Columbia, and

(b) retain these records for at least 5 years, or a longer period specified by the chief electoral officer, from the date of filing of a report required under this Division in relation to those records.

Information to be open to the public

234.96 The information filed under this Part with the chief electoral officer since the general election before the previous general election must be available for public inspection at the office of the chief electoral officer during its regular office hours.]

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1995: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada