[ Page 1665 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. G. Clark: I have several people to introduce today. First of all, we have some people visiting from Toronto: John Walsh and Isabel Walsh. Then we have Mr. Norman Wilkinson, a friend from Osoyoos; and Doug Lowe and his son, Cody Lowe, who are friends from Richmond. I ask all members to make them welcome.

W. Hurd: I am pleased to have the opportunity today to introduce two good friends of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- and two constituents of mine -- Don and Louise Hutchinson. Don is a successful artist in my riding, and Louise is a councillor with the city of White Rock. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them into the Legislature today.

G. Brewin: I have two groups of people in the members' gallery to introduce today. We have three very distinguished visitors. Paul Studer is the consul general of Switzerland at Vancouver, and he is accompanied here by his wife, Anita Studer. Helen Sourani-Potamianos is the consul general of Greece at Vancouver; she is shortly returning to Athens after spending four wonderful years in Vancouver. I ask the House to please join me in welcoming these distinguished visitors.

L. Reid: I have two guests in the gallery today. Lori Liptrot is visiting from Vancouver, and Leanne Ballard is visiting from Australia. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Joining us in the gallery today are two good friends of mine from Quesnel. Steve and Caroline Hilbert are accompanied by their daughter Sarah. I'd ask all members to make them welcome.

I. Waddell: I'd like to introduce Reg and Eileen Chan, who are here from Quesnel. They are friends of my legislative assistant, and they are here on vacation. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

C. McGregor: It is my pleasure today to introduce two very special guests: my parents, Bert and Shirley Woodbury. They are visiting us here today from Kamloops. They are former residents of Victoria and longtime watchers of the Legislative Assembly. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

K. Krueger: I'd also like to extend a welcome to Mr. and Mrs. Woodbury.

G. Farrell-Collins: They can't hear you.

K. Krueger: That's a rare event.

It is my pleasure today to introduce to the House one of Kamloops's finest, Sgt. Peter Sharpe of the RCMP. He's in charge of traffic in the city of Kamloops. He is not wearing his red serge, and he is probably embarrassed by the introduction, but I'd like the House to make him welcome.

G. Janssen: Visiting us today are Randy Greencorn of Victoria and Tanis Perry of Esquimalt. They are both employees of the Ministry of Finance. They are partners in, may I be bold enough to say, a partnership made in heaven.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Present in the gallery today is my executive assistant, David Walton, who is visiting the government in Victoria. Would the House please make him welcome.

G. Brewin: I have a constituent in the gallery by the name of Grace Race. She is joining us today with her friend Leona Anderson from Alberta. Would the House please make them welcome.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon we have John Anatooshkin, who happens to be a constituent in Burnaby-Willingdon. John retired in the mid-eighties as administrator of the carpentry workers' welfare and pension plans, which were established in 1965. John will have been a member of the carpenters' union for 50 years this October. Will the House please make him welcome.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, over the last few days the government had admitted that Ali Mahmood received 300,000 IPC shares for free. No one in government or Hydro seems to know why these free shares were given to Mr. Mahmood or what services were rendered by Mr. Mahmood in return for them. We learned today that that gift of shares may be the subject of an RCMP investigation.

We also know that on June 3 and June 4, Mr. Mahmood was in Vancouver trying to broker another deal between IPC and BCHIL. My question is to the Premier. Why would the government or B.C. Hydro even consider dealing with Mr. Mahmood when his activities were the potential for an RCMP investigation?

Hon. D. Miller: It's disconcerting in the least to have a Leader of the Opposition, who holds a position of some responsibility in this province, rise and make allegations with respect to an RCMP investigation, which he has absolutely no ability to substantiate. There is absolutely no basis for the leader to make that statement.

This is the second time now that the leader has made an irresponsible statement with respect to this project. He said that the World Bank was not going to advance funds pending an RCMP investigation. Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from the World Bank which absolutely refutes the statements and allegations by the Leader of the Opposition. It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition has an obligation to at least try to check his facts before he rises in this House to make statements which he cannot back up.

G. Campbell: There is only one group in this House that has checked any facts with regard to B.C. Hydro, BCHIL and IPC, and that's the opposition; it wasn't the minister responsible. The minister who was supposedly made the minister responsible for everything has become the minister who knows nothing, hon. Speaker.

What we do know is that at the end of April, Mr. Laxton was representing B.C. Hydro in Pakistan in Mr. Mahmood's bedroom. We know that at the time, Ali put forward a number of proposals that could possibly lead to a settlement of the lawsuit. Again, what we learn is that on June 3 and June 4, Mr. Mahmood -- who this minister says he knows nothing about and doesn't know what we've been giving him 300,000 shares 

[ Page 1666 ]

for; and the chairman of B.C. Hydro has no idea what Mr. Mahmood is doing -- was evidently trying to broker another deal between BCHIL and IPC which would allow the Malakand project to go ahead.

My question is to the Premier, the man responsible for this government. Can he tell us why Mr. Smith -- or why anyone else associated with B.C. Hydro -- would be considering any further dealings with Mr. Mahmood?

Interjections.

G. Campbell: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker. I was really hoping the Premier would answer the question, and I know that he has passed it off to his minister.

I'd also like to know if the Premier could confirm today that no further projects which include B.C. Hydro expertise will be fronted by Mr. Mahmood until we know whether or not there is an RCMP investigation and until we know what those 300,000 free shares were given to Mr. Mahmood for.

[2:15]

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I must say that this is rather pathetic. These guys are running blind; they're desperate for publicity; they will say anything, do anything. Let me quote from a letter from the World Bank.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: They don't want to hear. They want to run on rumour: they want to run on innuendo. But any time we have facts, Mr. Speaker, they don't want to listen. My colleagues want the facts; the public wants the facts. The only people not interested in the facts are sitting there on the Liberal benches.

The Speaker: Could we have the facts?

Hon. D. Miller: I just want to quote very briefly a letter from the World Bank received today: "The review of the Raiwind project has so far clearly demonstrated that the project is technically sound and financially viable."

The Speaker: Perhaps, members, now that we've got the energy out of our system, we could have a little more quiet for both questions and answers.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, the only thing that has been pathetic about this whole case has been successive ministers not paying attention to the business of British Columbians. This is the Minister of Employment and Investment. Is John Laxton fired? "Yes, he is." "No, he isn't." Who is Ali Mahmood? "I don't know." Why did we pay him 300,000 shares for doing nothing? "I don't know." What's going on in his ministry? "I don't know." If there's one pathetic figure here, it's the Minister of Employment and Investment.

Perhaps, since the minister is reading from the World Bank, he can read from the letter. Maybe the World Bank has told the minister who on earth Ali Mahmood is and why he got 300,000 free shares.

Hon. D. Miller: Those questions were asked and were answered in committee.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't know why the opposition doesn't want to talk about the fact that British Columbia once again has the best credit rating in Canada. Mr. Speaker, as I look over on those benches, there is one question that leaps out loud and clear...

K. Krueger: Who is Ali Mahmood?

Hon. D. Miller: ...and it's a question I've heard talked about in the hallways: who will the next leader of the Liberal Party of B.C. be?

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps one day soon the Liberal Whip will allow the member for Kamloops-North Thompson a question and give some relief to those at this end of the House.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Frank Wolfe, a Treaty 3 Indian from Ontario, was charged last May with shooting two deer and a calf elk out of season. A Provincial Court judge in Dawson Creek threw out all the charges. The man involved indicates that he intends to continue to hunt out of season. Does the minister support the original charges laid by his conservation officers, and will he instruct his conservation officers to continue to lay charges in similar circumstances?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The answer is yes, I support the conservation officer's charges. The Attorney General ministry is investigating whether there are grounds to appeal this judge's ruling.

The Speaker: Powell River-South on a supplemental -- or Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: We're getting closer together, but not that close.

The Speaker: I'm sorry, member. It was the heat of the moment.

J. Weisgerber: My second question is also to the Minister of Environment. Mr. Wolfe was charged with seven counts. One of them included the discharge of a firearm off a public highway. That's not an aboriginal question; surely it was a question of safety. Yet incredibly, the ministry failed to present evidence in the case, and the judge was obliged to dismiss the charges. Will the Minister of Environment or the Attorney General explain to this House why the Crown failed to present evidence with respect to discharging a firearm off a public road?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not aware of the particulars of the case. I'll take it on notice and bring back the answer.

P. Reitsma: The people of upper Vancouver Island have now waited over two years for their CT scanner. This government has completely mishandled the decision of where to locate it. With New Directions now on hold, the scanner is on hold, too. This CT scanner has absolutely nothing to do with New Directions and everything to do with patient care.

[ Page 1667 ]

My question is to the Minister of Health. Why should it be delayed for another minute?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, hon. Speaker, the North Island CT scanner is not on hold. There is some discussion going on among the various communities about the location of the CT scanner. The government is committed to putting the CT scanner in place, and there is a process in place among the communities for choosing the exact location.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In fact, the communities themselves are having input into this, and I hope that pretty soon the communities reach a resolution about the choice of location. Of course, our government is fully committed not only to the funding of the CT scanner but to health care throughout this province, unlike the opposition.

P. Reitsma: Here we go again. They've been talking for three years, and it's another astonishing display of this government's halitosis of the intellect, as far as I'm concerned. I know why they don't like scanners: if you scan their priorities and their promises, they are empty. There is nothing to them.

The Speaker: Question, please.

P. Reitsma: Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that 3,000 patients a year must travel to Victoria or Nanaimo for a CT scan. Last year, an inquest into the death of...

Interjections.

P. Reitsma: This is serious; I wish you'd listen. I mean, patients come first, don't they?

...Joseph Peters found that a CT scanner in North Island could have saved his life. The delay of a decision on where to locate the CT scanner is a classic example of how the NDP have failed patients in this province.

I notice the members for North Island and Comox Valley are listening. Can the Minister of Health tell us why patients of upper North Island have to wait, while the NDP sort out the mess they've made with our health care system, before they can finally get their CT scanner?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I may be wrong, but I thought that hon. member was once a mayor of a community, who actually asked for input into health care delivery in the North Island area. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe that was then and this is now -- which is typical of the Liberals on health care issues. But I could be wrong; I'll check on that. I actually don't know what his biography is.

Once again, this government is committed to the CT scanner in the North Island. The communities themselves have been unable to agree on its location. The Ministry of Health has now given them assistance in the form of a consultant to get a system for the placement of the CT scanner. This government has also put a CT scanner in the area of Nanaimo. We have funded CT scanners in this province at a rate that is unprecedented across Canada, even in light of the federal off-loading.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to table a letter from the World Bank concerning the Raiwind project.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the '95-96 B.C. Health Research Foundation annual report.

A. Sanders: I seek leave to present a petition from the constituency of Okanagan-Vernon.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

A. Sanders: The petition reads:

"We the undersigned demand that the government immediately amend the section of the Employment Standards Act which will categorize the programs of the Vernon and District Association for the Mentally Handicapped as work, and require payment of minimum wage to participants or force radical changes or closure to occur. Instead, an exemption or grandfather clause should be implemented which allows these valuable work-like programs to continue."

The petition contains 2,700 names.

Hon. J. Cashore: I move Motion 41 standing in my name on the order paper as printed.

[That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to examine, inquire into and make recommendations on:

the application of key issues arising out of the Nisga'a Agreement-in-Principle to treaty negotiations throughout British Columbia;
how progress can be made towards treaty settlements with aboriginal people beneficial to all British Columbians.
Further, that the House authorizes the committee to provide opportunities for all citizens of British Columbia, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, to express their views on these matters.
In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the said Committee, the Committee be empowered:

(a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;
(b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;
(c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;
(d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee; and
(e) to permit television broadcasting of any public hearings the Committee may have;

and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and, upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.]

[ Page 1668 ]

In December of 1993, the B.C. Treaty Commission opened its doors, and since that time 47 first nations have become involved in tripartite treaty-making. In February of this year an agreement-in-principle was reached with the Nisga'a. The historic signing of that agreement was the culmination of 20 years of negotiations, which were joined in by British Columbia in 1990. When the negotiators return to the table to draft the final document for ratification, those discussions will be governed by an openness protocol, as is now the case with virtually every negotiation taking place in the province. The Nisga'a have been exemplary in their honourable approach to negotiations, and I want to acknowledge that.

Public meetings throughout the province have made it clear that British Columbians still have a lot to say about the issues raised by the Nisga'a agreement and the potential impact of those issues in other areas of the province. There continues to be a need for more education about treaty negotiations, and people want to make their views known both on the Nisga'a agreement and on negotiations in general. That is why I have asked this House to authorize the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to reach out to the citizens of B.C., both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, to obtain their views about the settlement of land claims.

[2:30]

I believe that resolving these century-old issues is vital to the social and economic prosperity of our province. Uncertainty over the lands in British Columbia is simply unacceptable. Economists have estimated that more than a billion dollars of investment capital stays outside the province because of uncertainty over the land question. That issue of uncertainty is one of the most frequently raised topics during our consultations around the Nisga'a agreement. Other issues frequently raised include the size of and access to settlement lands, entitlement to fisheries, wildlife resources and forest use, and the nature of aboriginal self-government.

The select standing committee, under the capable leadership of the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, now has an opportunity to reach out to citizens of all regions and to present a report that will prove valuable in informing our deliberations at treaty tables. The standing committee is made up of individuals that are well suited to listen to the concerns, the ideas and the hopes of British Columbians. Therefore I respectfully ask that the House pass this resolution so that we may more fully involve all British Columbians in the future of our province.

M. de Jong: Long weeks have passed since the Lieutenant-Governor stood in this House on June 25 and proclaimed -- accurately, I think -- during the throne speech that British Columbians expect the people they elect to work together to find solutions. In the days since then, British Columbians have waited patiently, I would suggest, for evidence of this government's commitment to providing a new, enhanced role, as they put it, for MLAs. They wanted to know that that was more than simply post-election or pre-session rhetoric.

They didn't find that evidence, Mr. Speaker, in standing committees that stood idle and stood ignored, and they certainly didn't see that evidence of a new approach in the guise of the appointment of a health care review committee that excluded members of the opposition and was restricted to government members.

But today the government is taking some tentative steps, which will hopefully help lay the foundation for an approach to the issue of treaty negotiation that seeks to capitalize upon the experiences, expertise and backgrounds of all the members of this House and of British Columbians right across the province. For that reason, this is a welcome announcement.

This opposition pledges itself to the task that lies ahead. There can be no quarrelling, in our view, with the fact that the time has come to achieve a final and lasting settlement with first nations people, so that the sense of isolation that they feel from the rest of Canadian society will exist no more. We will work diligently with members opposite to find the means by which we can dismantle those obstacles which have prevented aboriginal peoples from reaching their full potential within Canadian society and to find a place for them to work to forge a new relationship between natives and non-natives, built around the principle of true equality.

We will listen to British Columbians, because that is what this committee will be all about: listening to the views of British Columbians who have desperately sought a means for gaining access to this treaty negotiation process. We won't always agree. I can assure the minister that we won't always agree. The minister knows that on a number of key issues, we on this side of the House hold fundamentally different views on the course these negotiations, be they Nisga'a or the other Treaty Commission negotiations, should take.

I think he knows that those differences won't disappear simply by activating the standing committee. We're not satisfied with a number of the provisions in the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle, and we will utilize our membership on this committee to articulate those concerns, but more importantly, to listen to the concerns of British Columbians who also have some reservations about the present status, the present form of the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle. Where those differences exist -- and we on this side of the House want to emphasize this -- they are genuinely held by us and other British Columbians. They signal no less of a commitment to the objective of achieving resolution than that which I know the minister himself holds.

We say let us proceed. Let us begin this exercise that will hopefully provide British Columbians with the forum for discussion and input they require and deserve. When we return to this House with the results of our deliberations, let there be no doubt in the minds of any hon. members that from the very outset on this side of the House, our commitment was to provide constructive input throughout the process, and that our commitment to that process is genuine and unqualified.

J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure to rise and speak to the motion. Let me say, first of all, that I commend the government, and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs particularly, for taking a step in starting the consultation process with British Columbians perhaps in a more genuine way than has been the case, with Nisga'a particularly, up until this point. I believe that taking the agreement-in-principle, travelling around British Columbia and encouraging the people of this province to consider the agreement as it's proposed, to consider how it would apply in their community, is an important step.

Since the agreement was first released, I've urged and encouraged people to read the Nisga'a agreement not with a view to its impact in the Nass Valley, but with a view to the impact in their community were that agreement to be implemented with the band or tribal council that is most closely adjacent to their community. It causes us, then, to think about the issues of the size of the settlements and the costs of those settlements, and the implication of the fisheries agreement, which is undoubtedly part of that agreement. It gives rise to 

[ Page 1669 ]

considerations of the impact of self-government, the scope of that self-government and the cost of self-government. This committee provides us with an opportunity that I think is an important one.

The questions around the functioning of the committee remain unanswered. Will the committee, for example, be prepared to consider what many believe to be impossible precedents within the Nisga'a agreement for urban or suburban settlement? Will the committee consider recommending to the government modifications to the Nisga'a agreement, rather than trying to persuade aboriginal leaders and others to modify subsequent treaty demands? I think many would argue that it would be better to ensure that Nisga'a is a precedent that other parts of the province can live with.

The question has to arise: will the committee be prepared to recommend to the government substantive changes? We can only wait and see. Will the committee be independent and require or look for unanimous consent on the recommendations, or will the committee depend on its majority on the committee to push forward recommendations some time next year? These are important questions.

There is a great opportunity presented here. I acknowledge that and commend the government for it. There is an opportunity to hear from British Columbians on an important topic. The question is: will the committee listen and will the committee respond? Again, those questions can't be answered today.

I heard the minister say -- and it caused me some concern -- that there was a need for more education. In the code words that fly around this place, it seemed to me to suggest that what we had to do was get out and do a better job of selling the agreement that the government had entered into. Hopefully, that's not the objective. Surely, the objective this time around is to hear from British Columbians.

There's no question that this committee represents less than the ultimate solution that I see -- and that would have been to put Nisga'a to referendum; to allow British Columbians an opportunity provincewide to have a direct say. Nonetheless, it is, I believe, a positive step, and we can only wait and see how the committee functions, deliberates and what kind of recommendation it brings back.

I'm looking forward to the exercise. I'm looking forward to travelling around this province, and I can assure British Columbians I'm going to listen, and I expect other members of the committee will as well. Thank you.

I. Waddell: I just wanted to say a few words, as one who will be chairing the committee. First of all, I want to thank the minister for his kind words and note his dedication and the accomplishments he's made in this portfolio. I was there when he signed the agreement-in-principle with the Nisga'a. I congratulate him for his hard work.

I also want to thank the member for Matsqui for his constructive remarks. I notice that he wrote, in an article in the weekend Sun of February 24, 1996 -- a page 6 article: "It should establish" -- meaning the government -- "an all-party legislative committee that can hold public hearings across the province." We're doing that, and I guess he can claim some credit for that.

I also want to thank the member for Peace River South. I think his presence on the committee and his contribution can be particularly valuable to the committee, and I listened closely to what he said.

This is a big agreement, and it's a big task. This is the Nisga'a agreement here. The terms of reference raise a number of issues. The terms of reference of the committee talk about application of key issues arising out of the Nisga'a agreement. The minister spoke of some of them. There are additional ones. Does the Canadian Charter of Rights apply? Does the Indian Act? Is the Indian Act to be faded out, and how? How do we get finality and certainty after land claims are settled? What about land ownership, and other parties? What about forestry resources and the application of even some of the acts of this Legislature, like the Forest Practices Code? What about historic sites and access to lands by non-aboriginal people? Then, of course, there is the great question of fisheries; the question of wildlife and Nisga'a government; the role of self-government and the judicial system; and finally, questions like taxation.

All these questions have to be examined by the committee. As well, we have to examine how progress can be made towards treaty settlements beneficial to all British Columbians. So that means Nisga'a plus; it means adding onto that, as the member for Peace River South said. Finally, our job is to listen to the people. In the terms of reference, the House will note that we have made provision for televising the proceedings. That probably means cable, but the committee will decide that.

I want to add and say that the committee will listen and hear British Columbians. I think the education, in a way, will be part of the process. We'll educate ourselves and be able to educate other people -- not taking out to educate them, but listening and hearing from them. That is my dedication to this.

Finally, I want to say that we will convene the committee early next week, and we will try to involve all members of the House in running the committee so that we will have full and fair hearings. As the member for Matsqui said, and as was said in the Speech from the Throne, we'll work together to find some real solutions to one of the greatest problems facing British Columbia and Canada -- one of the greatest issues. Thank you.

G. Wilson: I rise to speak in favour of the motion and to congratulate the government for the initiative of what is likely to be an extremely risky venture. I say it's a risky venture, because what this motion demands is that the members of this Legislative Assembly have reached a level of maturity that will allow them the opportunity to be able to deal with an extremely difficult and very complex issue. Frankly, judging by the courtesy extended the previous speaker, I'm not so sure we're there. However, I think it certainly has the potential to be successful. This committee is chaired by the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, who has both federal and provincial experience, something that I think will prove invaluable to this committee, as there is both federal and provincial jurisdiction. I think that that is worth noting.

Interjections.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I'm sure that other members have an opportunity to enter into debate. If they would like to at least allow me the courtesy of finishing my remarks, that would be useful.

Secondly, I would say that it includes a former minister of aboriginal affairs -- in fact, the first minister of aboriginal affairs -- in the form of the member for Peace River South, who is now the leader of the Reform Party. I believe that will provide a certain historical perspective with respect to the context within which treaty negotiations have generally proceeded. I think both of those are positive issues.

[ Page 1670 ]

[2:45]

But I want to flag a word of caution to those committee members and the members of this Legislative Assembly, the creature of which this committee is now, that there is no provision within our rules for minority reports. Therefore it would seem to me that what we are embarked upon is a risky venture indeed. I think the Nisga'a people who have involved themselves for many, many years in negotiation expect that there is going to be a process by which the agreement will be reviewed, understood and explained to non-first nations peoples of British Columbia so that they may have an idea of exactly what is contained within that agreement-in-principle.

Let me say that I hope that as a matter of course -- given the language of this motion, which says that this committee is to examine, inquire into and make recommendations -- prior to the movement toward making recommendations, there will be a thorough examination and understanding of the language of the agreement-in-principle by members of that committee. Having just gone through an election campaign where I have heard members, some now elected to this Legislative Assembly, speak out on the agreement-in-principle and demonstrate -- in my judgment, as someone who has spent a great deal of time in review of this particular agreement -- a lack of understanding of what the agreement-in-principle actually provides, I think it's incumbent upon the members of the committee to at least come to a base of terms of reference with respect to what that agreement-in-principle actually says, before they embark on the broader notion of listening to the people of British Columbia.

Secondly, I hope that as a matter of course -- as one of the first areas to visit -- this standing committee will in fact seek, with the permission of the chief of the Nisga'a people, an opportunity to visit Nisga'a lands, to tour the lands in question, to meet with the people that this agreement will govern, so that they have an understanding for the flavour and the nature of the region within which the Nisga'a people live, and an understanding of the nature of the history of those people as a functional part of the history of British Columbia. Only when they have that context will they understand the significance of the language and clauses included in that agreement. I hope that, as a matter of course, that is something that will be undertaken.

Lastly, let me say that this motion provides for this committee to embark on a much broader set of terms of reference than simply an examination of the Nisga'a deal. It also allows recommendations to be made with respect to progress toward treaty settlements with first nations people, and it allows this committee to retain personnel to work with them on that.

I caution this government and this committee that that is an extremely dangerous proposition, because we have now an extremely fragile negotiation underway with many first nations people. Notwithstanding the fact that recommendations may be made to this House, it must not be interpreted that somehow this committee is now able to direct the process of government negotiation from outside of the agreed process that exists between the federal and provincial governments and first nations people. That's an area that has been expressed as a concern by some first nations people to this member. It's something that I caution this committee and the committee chair about, because it is an extremely delicate process that this committee is now going to have to undertake. It truly will require the maturity of all members of this House, outside of the partisan flavour that often accompanies the presentations and representations in this House, if this committee is to be successful, something that I truly hope it will be on behalf of all British Columbians.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I'll call on the minister, whose comments will conclude the debate.

Hon. J. Cashore: I want to thank all members of the House for their contribution to this debate. I look forward to this opportunity to see the collective wisdom of the House applied in something that we do together. With that, I look forward to seeing the interim reports and the final report in a timely manner.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave, I move that Mr. Tim Stevenson be substituted for Mr. Rick Kasper on the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs; that Mr. Rick Kasper be substituted for Mr. Tim Stevenson on the Select Standing Committee on Transportation, Municipal Affairs and Housing; that Ms. Erda Walsh be substituted for Ms. Evelyn Gillespie on the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs; and that Ms. Evelyn Gillespie be substituted for Ms. Erda Walsh on the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministries of Employment and Investment; Municipal Affairs; and Small Business, Tourism and Culture. In this House, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Labour.

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

On vote 42: minister's office, $403,000 (continued).

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, before we begin, I wonder if I could have leave of the committee to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. Sihota: I noticed in the gallery during the course of that debate on the motion that a former neighbour of mine, Chris Devlin, came into the chamber to watch the debate. I know he has an interest in these affairs. I must say that I also noted that he was seated with Mr. Jack Woodward. I just want Chris to know that he is, of course, measured by the company he keeps. With that said, would all hon. members give a warm welcome to both Mr. Devlin and Mr. Woodward.

L. Reid: When we finished this debate just prior to the break today, we left off with some issues that had been raised by the Canadian Injured Workers Society, which is found in 

[ Page 1671 ]

Prince George, British Columbia. We posed the question to the minister regarding the appeals process. The second issue of concern would be disability awards.

"Disability awards are presently assessed as a percentage of the worker's disability, not upon his or her employability. The mandate of the WCB is to consider and assist the injured worker's employability and to ensure and provide financial and medical support to the claimant in order to help him or her achieve the highest possible future level of employability."

They summarize, hon. Chair, by saying:

"...the most urgent and pressing matters to be considered for change within the programs and administration of the WCB are those pertaining to the appeal process and the manner in which disability awards are assessed. The injured workers of our province cannot, in at least these two areas, wait through the protracted process which the formation and commencement of the royal commission seems to have become."

These two areas of concern, appeals and disability awards are "the most likely to cause the ultimate psychological, physical and financial breakdown of the chronically injured worker -- often resulting in his or her complete personal disintegration and the loss of home, family and even the will to live."

I've put the entire quote into the record because I believe the questions that they have posed around disability awards are worthy of a response, and I would ask the minister to do so.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, let me make a number of points. First of all, in response to some questions the member asked this morning -- the ombudsman's office, the budget, the administrative inventory and the costs -- let me just put on the record that the 1996 budget was $160,000. That consists of salaries and benefits of $136,000; travel, $3,600; furniture, $4,400; and other, $15,000. That would be their preliminary budget. On the administrative inventory, the costs were about $100,000 (U.S.) for that fee-for-service and about $13,000 for travel.

With regard to the last issue that the hon. member raised, I think I received, if memory serves me right, a similar letter from the same group. My only response is that those types of issues now, in my view, ought to be before the royal commission. All I can do is again advise the House that this debate should, in my view, be before the commission and its deliberations, and those points which the hon. member has read for the record will be before it then.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's response. However, the individuals concerned are saying that it cannot wait another year or two for the outcome of a royal commission, and I am very sensitive to that concern. So my question around employability is whether or not this is a policy decision that could be reached by the current panel of administrators at the Workers Compensation Board. Let me be as specific as that. Could they make a determination today, based on disability awards and employability as opposed to functional loss?

Hon. M. Sihota: Technically, they could. So the answer to the question is yes, they could. Will I encourage them or direct them with the prospect of a royal commission and given the broad policy implications of this employability-disability issue? No.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's honesty, yet the minister knows that this will not warm the hearts of individuals currently involved in the WCB. In terms of the failure to move on this question, would the minister at least ensure, with respect to the question I posed earlier, that the dollars continue to flow until the appeal process has been resolved? That's the issue these folks have in terms of the anguish of family disintegration. They're not able to pay their mortgages, and they can't keep their families together. All their energy, time and resources are going into fighting the WCB.

I notice the Minister of Environment is nodding in agreement. This is a concern. If indeed the minister is not able to encourage the royal commission to take this on, awaiting the outcome of the royal commission, in the interim, is there a short-term plan?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm going to reflect on that, based on what the hon. member has had to say. I just don't want to give an equivocal answer one way or the other today. I just want to reflect on the points that she's made and on what staff have indicated to me. In due course, I will advise them of my view on it.

[3:00]

L. Reid: Allow me to thank the minister most sincerely for that response. I think if these individuals were convinced that some meaningful discussion was going on in terms of their very livelihood, that would certainly add something to the flavour of the discussion.

The minister and I have touched on the commencement date for the royal commission, and we've also touched on whether or not it should be a judicial appointment. Two other questions remain on behalf of the Canadian Injured Workers Society. They have actually put forward to this minister some additions to the terms of reference for the Workers Compensation Board, and I believe the minister has them before him. Certainly I would ask if indeed the minister has any desire to proceed in terms of new subsections (g) and (h) under No. 1: "the right of judicial appeal or litigation by the WCB client and/or beneficiaries thereof," and "the right of litigation by WCB clients and/or their beneficiaries for past acts of negligence or malpractice."

These individuals have been denied full appeal process under the law by the very nature of the Workers Compensation Board. The Canadian Injured Workers Society has asked for an expansion of the terms of reference in this particular regard, and I'm wondering if the minister has folded that into his thinking, if he indeed intends to have the royal commission look at that area.

Hon. M. Sihota: Again, I will discuss the policy implications with staff and then correspond with the organization.

L. Reid: Again, I thank the minister for that. They only have one addition to the terms of reference, and I ask the minister to respond to that one as well. It's under No. 6: "To report the findings and make recommendations on the matters included in these terms of reference and on any matters deemed by the commission to be relevant and important" -- this is the insertion -- "including the right of individual WCB claimants and/or their beneficiaries to pursue litigation in cases where malpractice is alleged." So I'm going to accept the minister's comment in response to the earlier question, and ask if he could indeed look at both of those in terms of a need that the Canadian Injured Workers Society sees as being critical to any future success for a number of cases that are still outstanding.

One more point that they raise is: will the terms of reference and extensions thereto be binding upon the parties involved? Maybe we could just take the question in two parts. Certainly this House will receive the report of the royal commission. The Canadian Injured Workers Society is interested 

[ Page 1672 ]

to learn if any of those recommendations will be binding. Does the minister have any sense that any of the changes will be implemented?

Hon. M. Sihota: My assumption would be that some of the recommendations will be implemented, but it's hard for me to speculate on what is contained in the crystal ball. I'm going to take this one step at a time. My own view of the matter is: let's get the commission up and running first. I'll have it up and running as soon as you give me your advice as to whether you think it should be a judge or not. So it's in your hands.

L. Reid: Certainly I think the minister's response was fairly hopeful. I think that the Canadian Injured Workers Society can have some degree of expectation around a decent outcome.

Another area that needs some attention this afternoon is the job search and retraining portions at the Workers Compensation Board. This is coming from the Injured Workers Human Rights Group of British Columbia. Let me put it on the record for you, and you can craft your response. Their contention is that sending injured, not yet fully recovered, people out on five job searches a day without any proper training or no special leads as to where to go is ludicrous. Their contention again is that WCB has every company in all of B.C. on registration. Would it not make some sense to work on getting some registry of available work suitable for an injured person? Businesses are saying: "Get people to work and off WCB claims." So why not help them do just that, so people can get some dignity back into their lives? Set up a proper training program to work three ways: injured worker, WCB and business, rather than what is the case now. If a person fails to find work, they are told that no further funds will be given them from the Workers Compensation Board and that they can go on to social assistance. So now the last of a person's pride is gone, and what have we got? Whole families are in total despair, without any purchasing power, putting more strain on the ever so fragile economy. And business is paying twice: once for assessment to WCB, and then through taxes to keep social programs alive. Does this make sense? I think not. Furthermore, the injured worker is the responsibility of the Workers Compensation Board, not the social welfare system. Would the minister kindly comment?

Hon. M. Sihota: We do provide job skills and training assistance to the injured worker. We do have access to the kinds of data banks the hon. member referred to, and the worker can access those data banks through the assistance of their rehabilitation worker.

L. Reid: I referred earlier to a comment by Mr. Tysoe regarding the monitoring process around the WCB. One of the conversations I've had recently suggested that Saskatchewan does have an automatic, permanent, revolving review process that happens every two years or every four years, and it will be relentless. There will not be the necessity to call for a royal commission or to strike another committee or another group to look yet again at the compensation board. In Saskatchewan, it's going to be an automatic, permanent process. Has the minister given any thought to ensuring that this process happens here in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Sihota: We have provisions under section 3 of the Labour Code and under section 7, I believe, of the Employment Standards Act which allow for an ongoing review process. Certainly, in that context, that's something we've done when we've come up with a legislative package, so it's not unprecedented in the labour field. It might be useful for a minister to have that ability so as to make sure that we don't have to have massive upgrades of legislation. I just want to draw to the member's attention that those precedents do exist.

L. Reid: I appreciate that the precedents do exist. My concern is that they don't currently exist for the Workers Compensation Board. So if the minister could perhaps wrap his mind around the Saskatchewan model and report out soon as to whether that would make sense for us, I would be indeed grateful.

One of the other areas I want to touch on this afternoon is around recurring or chronic back pain and the Workers Compensation Board. It takes up a great deal of time and amounts to a great deal of frustration on behalf of the workers, I'm sure, as well as the claimants. It seems to me that some of the points I made earlier around not having a decent data analysis program and not doing sufficient research probably compound the problem and contribute to the fact that how one back-pain claimant is treated varies dramatically from the next. It seems to me that there needs to be some consistency in the process and some ability to gather that data and measure those people's performance: you know, year 1 after an accident, year 5, year 10. Certainly the Workers Compensation Board has that capability. They just don't do useful things with the data today.

It seems to me that so many of the cases that each of us has in our offices come back to chronic pain, typically back pain. I know that when I chaired the task force for our caucus on the future of the Workers Compensation Board, we talked about having any clinic that operated from the Workers Compensation Board tied to a major teaching hospital so that only the best practice would be in place for patients. It seems to me that we've wandered all over the map when it comes to care of patients with significant back pain, and we don't yet have a reasonable, consistent model. I don't know if the ministry or the policy department of the Workers Compensation Board is looking at that. But if I could have the minister's comments, I would be pleased.

Hon. M. Sihota: I concur that many of the problems MLAs get relate to repetitive strain injuries of the neck and back. But interestingly enough, about 25 percent of the claimants who come before WCB are with back pain. It's kind of interesting, because you don't get that sense when you're in your constituency office. You would think a lot of them are dealing with repetitive strain injuries as they relate to the neck and the back. This is, of course, a difficult area of medicine, because often the injury is related to muscle strain and scar in muscle that's not readily detectable through traditional methods -- X-rays don't pick up muscle tissue.

The claims are therefore dependent upon subjective as well as objective indicators. I think the commission does try to engage in an effort to have some consistency on objective variables in the application -- for example, basic things: asking a claimant whether they can put on their socks, clean a bathtub, touch their toes or sit for extended periods of time. All those objective variables can easily be tested, and the pain is palpable and identifiable.

On other occasions there are more subjective components to it. Sometimes it's not as evident on a test as to the degree of pain; different people have different pain thresholds. That sort of brings into it a subjective element that can't be attended to 

[ Page 1673 ]

on an objective basis. There are common approaches that people take within the board to make these assessments. Sometimes the cases just come down to the vagaries of individuals and one's subjective analysis of that individual's condition.

Sometimes a decision is made to reject a claim because a physician is suspicious of a claim that's made. Sometimes there is basis to that; sometimes there isn't. Again, that's a human function that a physician will engage in. I think there has to be some latitude for that kind of stuff. Sometimes a decision is made because the applicant or claimant is incapable of adequately explaining the impact, through language barriers, lack of knowledge of English or the lack of ability to communicate effectively, and therefore is wrongfully denied a claim. The system tries to catch those mistakes where they occur. I don't believe that you can make these determinations based on exclusively objective variables. In this area, medicine often is more of an art than a science.

Having said that, I do agree with the hon. member that there's of course a benefit in ongoing training and discussion, methodology and treatment techniques -- internally in the board, in relationship with preventive work in the field with employers, and also in the need to establish relations with medical facilities like hospitals, along the line that the hon. member suggested. On that latter point, indeed, there are relationships that the Workers Compensation Board has established with existing hospitals and medical institutes to ascertain from them their assistance from time to time in helping to deal with these problems which are both objective and subjective in nature.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments. It may be bold of me to suggest, but I think probably he and I both would like to see some kind of back pain clinic at the Workers Compensation Board become a centre of excellence. I think that's the goal.

Certainly when you read through various reports of constituents around the province, it's almost a timing issue. By the time they are sent for any diagnostic workup, months have elapsed, and any kind of evidence of an immediate injury has been obliterated. Simply, as the minister stated, soft tissue damage is difficult to detect. And it's only worsened by waiting three, four or five months before asking for any kind of CT scan, MRI or sophisticated X-ray tool.

I would very much like to see the Workers Compensation Board be proactive around that. It saddens me when I read report after report, and it's: "Well, if it still hurts in six months, come back and see us." When we're talking of soft-tissue damage, you've pretty much obliterated most of the causes at that point, which only compounds the medical review process and the appeal process. As the minister agrees, I believe, it is difficult to sort that out if too much time elapses.

My particular question would be around the AMA guide for disability. As a schedule of disability, why has it not happened that that is in use for the Workers Compensation Board? It seems to me that that would be an interesting and useful way to standardize the discussion around disability awards and to standardize the discussion around functioning level and employability.

I mean, the guide is there. All through the research I've read in the last number of weeks, it's mentioned, but nobody has picked it up and run with it and said: "This is the grid; this is the process we are going to put in place." I would ask the minister why not.

[3:15]

Hon. M. Sihota: Actually, the AMA guide is used, but it's just not used exclusively. In my view, that's the correct position, because there isn't a monopoly on diagnosis, preventive or treatment techniques with regard to these types of injuries, which both the hon. member and I would agree can be both objective and subjective in terms of their evidence.

Indeed, as the hon. member pointed out in her comments, causation is often difficult to pinpoint. A worker will always tell you it's because of a situation at work, in terms of repetitiveness, for example. Since the bulk of an individual's time is at work, they would associate any symptoms with that experience -- and often the onset is there.

It may be that from time to time, on issues of causation, there is a sense that a pre-existing condition is more responsible, but the degree to which that should be a factor, of course, is a matter of debate. It's known as the thin skull principle, I guess. You take a worker as you find them, and some are, unknown to them, in a different situation than others would be. This issue of the AMA guide and some of these issues of causation and treatment are clearly matters that should be considered by the royal commission.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comment, but I need to disagree on that point. It wasn't whether or not the AMA guide should be used exclusively; it's whether or not it should be used selectively. That seems to be the scenario today, that if three individuals today all had a similar injury, one of them may have access to that decision-making tool, and the other two may not.

So again, in terms of consistency, I'm not saying it's the only tool; I'm saying it would be a useful starting point for the majority of those cases. It seems when you go through the injured workers' organizations, they have oftentimes 1,200 or 1,500 members. Only one or two of the cases actually refer to that document, and if it indeed is going to be in use at the Workers Compensation Board, I would only speak to the need to use it comprehensively -- certainly not as the only tool, but as a starting point across the system to give some kind of continuity.

I have a number of questions regarding medical decisions that are reached by claimants' own specialists that are absolutely disregarded in the process, and I would put that on the table for discussion. I have to wonder why oftentimes there are cases -- and I have cases in my office, as I am sure other members have in theirs -- where a Workers Compensation Board determination was rendered by a general practitioner absolutely contrary to the opinion of a specialist who has seen that patient numerous times. I don't know why that happens. I can't explain that to my constituents, because it is absolutely illogical that we would go on almost a drive to mediocrity as opposed to seeking the best advice of the day. I would trust that the minister has an explanation.

Hon. M. Sihota: I've seen cases where the general practitioner believes that the person has a real, sustained injury, and the specialist disagrees. I've seen cases where the general practitioner doesn't believe the person has an injury, and the specialist thinks otherwise. I've seen cases where the specialists disagree among themselves as to whether or not the injury is real or imagined, if I can use that example. There are a lot of "duelling banjos" out there in the medical industry, because sometimes it's as much of an art as it is a science. We have this notion that physicians will all agree because they're all trained 

[ Page 1674 ]

the same way, and it's just one body and should function like all the other bodies. But it perplexes me, too, that there is a difference of opinion, specialist to specialist, let alone GP to specialist.

We've got a medical review system -- a panel -- that tries to figure out these duelling medical opinions, and it's perplexing to me, sometimes, why it is that they pick one over the other. Sometimes I like the decision. Sometimes I don't. It depends on which side I'm on. But my experience in terms of dealing with these issues, particularly when I've gone with constituents to hearings of the medical panel of review, is that so much turns on the claimant's evidence as to what the impact of the injury actually is.

Another explanation -- the member has asked for an explanation -- is sometimes that reports aren't perfectly written and one flaw in a report.... You know, someone as a specialist or a GP had a day at the office when they were stressed for time, or spent an inadequate amount of time with somebody, overlooked something, and therefore came to a conclusion that means either you've got to go back to square one, or the flaw gets magnified in the system as someone latches onto it and roots their decision within that one opinion. So another explanation is that sometimes it's just the vagaries of the medical profession as people move quickly through their offices. That sometimes explains these perplexing opinions.

You try to craft a system where you can take these differences of opinion, put them in front of a board, and come to some kind of resolution. As I said at the outset, the perception that the board has is that the system works. The perception that MLAs have is that the system doesn't work. And since we're MLAs, and they're the board, there's a royal commission.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comment about who agrees and who may not agree with a particular decision.

The question specifically was: why are some of those opinions not sought? It was not whether or not there's agreement around the table. What happens -- and the minister probably knows this full well -- is that oftentimes the claimant's own specialist's opinion is not considered at all. They don't even open the envelope -- not to mention that that's the height of rudeness in terms of invalidating the relationship the physician probably has with that patient. It doesn't make consistent sense across all the dealings of the board.

Sometimes, if you're the patient, your specialist's opinion will be considered valid. Other times, they don't want to hear from the person. If you are the claimant looking in, trying to figure out how that process works, it doesn't work consistently. I made the same point earlier in terms of people being treated differently across the process, and my point, when it came to the AMA-scheduled disability, was the inconsistency. This is the same point. Most times, specialist opinion is disregarded. I'm not sure the minister answered that question.

Hon. M. Sihota: The opinion should be sought.

L. Reid: I know the claimants will be absolutely delighted with that. Because it seems to me if....

Hon. M. Sihota: It's only my opinion.

L. Reid: Yes, but yours is the opinion of merit here today, hon. minister, because if this royal commission's going to work, it will be because you're prepared to drive the process. And you already agreed that you were prepared to do that.

My point around the medical review panel, if we can move ahead to the next stage of the medical process, is that for our claimants -- for constituents in the province -- to have any kind of certainty around the process, they must be believe it has some credibility.

What I'm interested in is the appointment process of practitioners to the medical review board. It's my understanding there are hundreds of them and that they're called in on a selective basis, two or three at a time, to respond to particular decisions. My concern is that I don't believe that they are often qualified to do that. Why GPs? Why not specialists?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's not very often I have a lengthy discussion with my staff in front of everyone else. The reason I had that was that I remember this issue coming up before. I actually had to appoint a number of the people to the medical review panel, and I wasn't happy with the process then. This clearly is an issue that should be before the royal commission -- very clearly. Again, because it's going to royal commission.... My own sense of it was that the appointments were too open-ended. My own sense was that a greater level of vetting may have been required. Having said that, as for the specialists, those lists are developed by the medical college.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's reflection on his having difficulty with this particular issue in the past, because it's a huge issue for members of the Liberal opposition when it comes to deciding whether or not a medical review panel is warranted. Indeed, why are there staff physicians at the Workers Compensation Board? It's my understanding that something like the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia takes a medical opinion. If they want a second opinion, they ask for one. They don't have a select set of physicians that process you through some kind of assembly line.

It seems to me that this may be the crux of some of the issues that the royal commission may have to deal with. The issue that comes from claimants in the province is yes, they have their own physicians, they have their own specialists. Would it not make better human decision-making, and also better fiscal decision-making, to allow those reports to come unfettered to the board? As to filtering them through a medical review panel when the qualification of those individuals is questionable, we are not convinced that the average GP is qualified to make a determination on someone's specialist problem. I appreciate that the minister seems to be in agreement, but I would like some assurance that before the royal commission starts and finishes, that this issue can be on the table at some policy forum for discussion. I think it's very valid.

Hon. M. Sihota: If you want that assurance, the hon. member is free to go to the Workers Compensation Board and meet with the panel of administrators and put it on the table. I don't have any problem with that. They should feel the pressure point. I don't know if it's in your riding, but it's close to your riding....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's your second home, the WCB office. I wouldn't want to confess to that, but.... [Laughter.] When you're going down to Richmond, anyway.... I know where it is. If you need some help, I'll give you the address.

[ Page 1675 ]

L. Reid: It warms my heart that you know where it is.

Hon. M. Sihota: I go to Richmond from time to time.

You asked about staff positions and used ICBC as an example. I've seen the world from that fence, too. I'm not too sure that it's much better in terms of the differences of opinion and some of the shopping that goes on there as well. This clearly is a royal commission issue. The member is correct in raising it, and she's correct in saying that often as we go through these files, at the end of the day the sense you get as you track file after file is that it seems to come down to this point. I agree with her on that assessment.

[3:30]

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's candour, in that the process we have today is what we'll have until the commission concludes. What is the selection process when this minister appoints people to the medical review panel? Does this minister indeed look at qualification?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes. In fact, the last time I did this, my recollection was that they actually gave me -- because I asked for them -- all the CVs of all the doctors. I remember the stack coming in. So, yes, I do look at them, and actually did go through many of them, because I share some of the concerns the hon. member has. I actually took the time to go through them. I remember that.

I'll tell you a funny story. I remember doing it because I was flying to Ottawa on the constitution negotiations. I got on the plane, had nothing else to do on the flight, so I read a lot of these before I signed them off. I remember that very vividly.

L. Reid: What are the criteria for placement on there? Is it just GPs, or is there an ability to say that 50 percent of those physicians must be specialists? Is there any kind of framework that allows the selection of a particular physician to respond to a particular case?

Hon. M. Sihota: If you go back to 1993 or 1992, I think it was, I asked for a report. It became known as the Jenkins report. I'm sure I asked for it. If I didn't ask for it, I agreed that it had to be done. The Jenkins report started to deal with this issue. It started to lay out some of the parameters. It clearly needs to be moved along, if I can put it that way. I believe that the royal commission can speak to that. I would be happy to take that up, and then a panel of administrators would also.

L. Reid: When the minister suggested that I could present myself in front of this panel of administrators, no question, I absolutely can. If the minister would be there as well, that would be a useful discussion.

Interjection.

L. Reid: You haven't spent hardly enough time in Richmond, hon. minister, and you'll spend a whole lot more. Frankly, you could run there next time -- run.

In terms of the specific question: what about the process today? I appreciate your reference to the Jenkins report. I don't have it before me. When you appoint these individuals, I'm going to suggest that the baseline is that they are all general practitioners.

Interjection.

L. Reid: I'm hearing that they're not even general practitioners. Give me some sense of the compilation today of these 100 or so medical review individuals.

Hon. M. Sihota: For clarification, there are about a dozen medical review panels, and those are appointments the government would make. Some of those are general practitioners, and some of those are specialists. Then on the panel itself are specialists. Those specialists are selected from a list of specialists prepared by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. So we're not talking about a hundred or so people here; we're probably talking about a dozen, maybe a dozen and a half. I think that's where there's some confusion on the hon. member's side.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's clarification. However, the minister is correct: I'm going to require more clarification on this. The information I received not a week ago was that more than 100 individuals are appointed to the medical review panel, and when a particular decision needs to be heard, two or three or four of those individuals at a time are brought together from that list, probably on availability as opposed to competence or qualification. Is that not the case?

Hon. M. Sihota: I think the list you are referring to is the list that the College of Physicians gives us, which contains the pool of specialists who are then part of the medical review panel; but the chair of the panel is what we appoint. The college gives us the list of the physicians. You're right, some of them will be there just on the basis of availability.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's indulgence on this question. Am I to understand that the minister appoints approximately 12 chairs in any given calendar year?

Hon. M. Sihota: Fifteen.

L. Reid: Say 15 individuals. Can I assume that these individuals are practitioners? Are the 12 or 15 whom this minister would appoint specialists or GPs?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's mixed. Some are GPs and some are specialists. I don't renew them every year. Some of them have terms, and some of them don't. That's an issue we've started to deal with. These won't come up regularly; they just come up from time to time. In fact, they come up rather infrequently.

L. Reid: So all the ministerial appointments to the medical review panel start out with a basic medical degree, and I can assume they are all physicians. I guess the minister is not clear, either, in terms of how long the appointments would be. Would some of them be lifetime appointments, or would all of them be three to five years?

Hon. M. Sihota: No. Some of the appointments that this government inherited in 1991 were literally lifetime appointments. That's a situation we inherited. From there, we started to bring about some changes to put some limits on these, and I think it's now a five-year term.

L. Reid: When this minister inherited these appointments and any subsequent appointments -- and I understand that additional appointments were made in 1992 -- was there any evaluation process in place? Did you go back and look for any kind of accountability, in terms of marking some trends or establishing some patterns in those individuals' decisions? 

[ Page 1676 ]

That is an issue that is woven through all the reports. First off, it astounds me that it's a lifetime appointment; but it seems to me that if it is, someone at some point has to come back and do a performance evaluation. Does that happen?

Hon. M. Sihota: When I got into this, I was as astounded as you were, hon. member. Because I had the same concern that you did, it surprised me, so we started to bring about some changes. Those changes came as a result of the Jenkins report, which started putting in these accountability measures and some time frames, and doing a better evaluating process in terms of the panels. They were done for precisely the reasons that the hon. member has just raised in this House, the same basic reasons that motivated me.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's suggestion that we're motivated by the same rationale. The minister has now been in government almost five years. Has any evaluation framework been put in place? I appreciate that he shares my concern, but has anything happened as a result of his concern?

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, it's ten years, not five. There were just a few lousy years over there. But that is government, and the hon. member shouldn't discount herself: she is actually government.

There is a peer review process, with feedback, that occurs now. I'm sure the royal commission will comment on further requirements in that regard.

L. Reid: I'm prepared to accept the peer review process. I hope that this minister would look very carefully at an external review process with a definitive time line -- i.e., every two years, every four years; again, a permanent revolving review process. As the minister agreed earlier in debate, a lot of these decisions come solely to rest at the medical review door, and there are differences of opinion.

I think the credibility of the appointed individuals has a lot to do with how we reach the uncertainty around some of these questions. So can the minister do anything to discover whether or not these people are evaluated on a regular basis, and who receives the report of their evaluations? Does anything happen as a result of those evaluations? Frankly, the answer to any of those questions would warm my heart.

In terms of the appeal division, there is some question about the impartiality of that board. We certainly are of the view that it needs some kind of continuity. It doesn't need the revolving door. Earlier, I listed the number of the people who have passed through that organization. As a whole, I don't want the same thing to happen to this process. We hope that the process will be public. Right now, it seems that it's almost impossible to receive information and to have something that's not so loosely defined for the public as to why decisions were reached. That's still a significant issue through all the materials of the Workers Compensation Board.

There are vague references to all kinds of precedents all over the map, but at the end of the day, so much of what is decision-making is highly subjective. That causes me concern, because there is no ability to cross-reference, to cross-check and to go back and determine whether or not those are valid, legitimate decisions. I think the minister has indicated in his earlier remarks that the independence is valid, but it has to be public as well. The people must be aware of what information is used to reach those decisions.

Lots of concern comes forward about the number of appeal levels at the board, and there is a lot of concern about duplication of services. Again, one of the better examples is the medical review panel. It is an absolute duplication of services when those reports are available from the claimant's own physician and the claimant's own specialist. So again, we are asking employers in this province to pay a vast amount of money for duplication of service, because we're not prepared to channel that information appropriately. I think the minister would have some difficulty disagreeing with that, because I do believe that how the Workers Compensation Board handles information leaves a great deal to be desired.

One of the specific questions I need to pose to the minister this afternoon is the death rate for workers in the province.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. M. Sihota: It is 0.1 percent.

L. Reid: I appreciate the response. I wonder if the board has ever done anything around tracking the number of suicides of individuals who are WCB claimants. The number that I have before me is 191. I would be appreciative if the minister could respond.

Hon. M. Sihota: We don't have that number.

L. Reid: In terms of data that might be useful, could the minister ask the Workers Compensation Board to go through files and find out how many claimants have taken their lives? I think that would be a very telling statement in terms of self-esteem, self-confidence and absolute disintegration of their lives, when they're not prepared to go on. I think the number is incredibly high. I would appreciate any clarification around the process, and I hope that each and every one of those deaths receives considerable attention from the Workers Compensation Board.

Again I will reference Occupational Safety and Health in British Columbia: An Administrative Inventory. I asked about deaths that have occurred in the workplace in British Columbia, and the minister did respond to that question. I want to know if any of those deaths have found their way into the coroner's office for a review. On page 61 of this report it says:

"The coroner is vested with the power to investigate fatalities, hold public inquests into the circumstances surrounding a death and make recommendations that might prevent similar fatalities in the future. WCB field officers and engineers are often involved in coroners' inquiries through accident investigation and the provision of information."

My question is specifically whether or not any of the deaths that have occurred in workplaces in British Columbia have ever been referred to the coroner's office.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.

L. Reid: Perhaps the minister would be so kind as to indicate how many and in what time line.

[3:45]

Hon. M. Sihota: Wherever it occurs, we do that. We could probably go through the workers' compensation system and try to give you a number. When I said yes, I didn't mean that we had one, so I can say yes. It occurs whenever.... It's dealt with seriously at the Workers Compensation Board, and wherever a situation arises where it is warranted, it happens. We can try to get you a number. But I want to give the assurance that that was a substantive yes.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comment. What I want to know is if the process is consistent. Is each death referred to the coroner for investigation?

[ Page 1677 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: No, only when the coroner says that it is a work-related issue.

L. Reid: Again, for clarification, my question was specifically about deaths on the jobsite in British Columbia. I would assume that those are work-related deaths, so each of those would be referred to the coroner for investigation.

Hon. M. Sihota: Coroners review those cases, and then we get their report when their recommendations are made.

L. Reid: Just for my certainty on this question, are all of those deaths referred and reported back to the minister?

Hon. M. Sihota: In every case where there is a traumatic death at a worksite, the coroner will attend, and we will get a report from the coroner when the report is issued by the coroner. Remember -- and I want to make sure this is absolutely clear -- we're not talking about a coroner's inquiry in every one of these cases. A coroner's inquiry don't happen in every death in British Columbia, let alone workplace-related ones or whatever. That is a determination that the coroner makes. But when there is a traumatic death at a worksite, the coroner will attend.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comment. That was my understanding -- that the coroner attends every death, and if he or she sees issues that need to be raised, he or she has the ability to investigate. I think we're still on the same wavelength. If that report suggests further investigation, what happens to the report? Does it come back through the Workers Compensation Board? Does it come through the ministry?

Hon. M. Sihota: When the report comes back to WCB with recommendations, we act on the recommendations.

L. Reid: Is there any place that any trend found in those reports could be made available? I know they look at workplace negligence and all kinds of things. But does anybody compile that information, and does it have any bearing on future policy development at the Workers Compensation Board?

Hon. M. Sihota: Of course it does. Of course it has a bearing on future policy determinations made by the WCB. If a trend emerges in a particular industry with regard to safety equipment that should have been there and wasn't, for example, then those kinds of steps are taken to make sure that as a matter of policy we tell the industry -- or we pass a regulation, or whatever the case may be -- directing industry to put in those kinds of safety provisions or materials in place. That is the way the system works.

L. Reid: If I were to seek the origins of that information -- i.e., process X is going to be put in place as a result of X number of deaths in X number of places -- where is that information, and why is that information not public?

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't understand the question, because it is public in the sense that if we go through a situation, we then receive a recommendation -- that's public. We then implement a policy. We will often have to go through a regulatory review process to get that done. A regulation is passed. One could track the system. If the hon. member has a specific concern with regard to a specific incident, to see whether or not there was a resulting policy change, she should simply write to me, and I'll find out for her.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's offer. Where I'm headed with this -- and the minister probably has found the same thing when he reads through various Workers Compensation Board cases -- is that once there's been a death, the family members have said they don't hear anything more about it. They don't know what happened; they don't know whether or not it's spawned any kind of change; they don't understand anything more than they've read in the newspaper about it. If this is a public relations issue, perhaps that is the best place for it to go within the board. But there is negligent follow-up, I believe, when it comes to ensuring that family members understand that the death wasn't in vain. Basically, very little happens today to keep those people apprised of why the death occurred and what changes might result.

I leave that with the minister; I think it is a valid comment. I know that he's probably found it in a number of reports and a number of letters from constituent family members who have said: "We didn't hear anything more about it." I think that's valid, and I think if the organization is truly going to address its issues of being a user-friendly, customer-focused organization, communication is certainly a significant issue.

Another issue I wish to raise is the qualifications of adjudicators. That again is a significant trend through many of the case files that he and I have both read. What do they come to the board with, what is the hiring practice of the board, who gets to be an adjudicator, and what on-site training is put forward for those individuals?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's open competition. Someone applies for the job; they state their experience. They are evaluated on their experience; they go through an interview process. Selection criteria are established. They are assessed for the position; they are hired. They are on a period of probation. Ultimately they become an employee of the system, and they get ongoing in-service training. My own assessment of the system -- to be candid with the hon. member -- is that I don't think that's where the problem is. I honestly don't believe that's where the problem is. I think that the points she made earlier on about the medical systems and some of the debate we had there are far closer to the mark, from my observations, in terms of where problems may lie. I think, generally speaking, the adjudicators do a good job.

L. Reid: They present at some type of open competition for employment. What are the criteria? What is the Workers Compensation Board looking for in an adjudicator?

Hon. M. Sihota: There are criteria, and they are based on knowledge, skills and abilities. If the hon. member would like the criteria that are there, I'll make sure staff send her a copy of them.

L. Reid: I would appreciate receiving that information. If I might elaborate on this point, my concern around adjudicators is often they are the first line of individuals who meet with claimants in the province. What astounds me in some cases is that they don't seem to have any ability to determine any kind of risk assessment around that individual. I mean, these people are in dire straits. It's not a bank teller situation where they say: "Next." These are people who truly need to be heard.

My questions are entirely legitimate when it comes to needing to know how these people are trained. I think that's the missing piece. I think something like the Justice Institute of 

[ Page 1678 ]

B.C. offers some very fine programs. It is currently -- today, I think -- in discussion with the Ministry of Social Services for the same type of programming for social workers in the province. When you look at the claimant, the individual who comes before you, can you determine what type of service that person needs? That's what an adjudicator does. It seems to me that perhaps the information the minister is willing to provide will shed some light on this question, but I'm still concerned that those first contacts that individuals have with the Workers Compensation Board leave a great deal to be desired.

If I might, I'll share an anecdote with the minister regarding the building itself. A huge sign, the first thing you see when you come in the door, says Security. Why doesn't it say Information, like every other public building in the province? The building conveys negative messages, and you're not even in the door. If I can leave the minister with any impression today, it would be our contention that the building, the people, the service and the system need to be user-friendly. They need to convey that they're actually prepared to hear what you have to say when you come in the door. So that's my contention around the adjudicator training. That piece, I believe, is missing. If the minister can shed some light at a future date, I would absolutely welcome his comment.

Perhaps the minister would wish to take this particular issue on notice, and that's absolutely fine. I'm interested to discover what has happened to a Weldon Brake, chief of the medical appeals division. The information that's been shared with me is that this individual has been off work for over a year. Certainly it's been alleged that he's been on full pay since his departure. What's happening? Is there a severance package here? Is there an issue that needs to be addressed? Who is handling this individual's caseload while he is not present at the board? I would welcome the minister's comment.

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't agree with the hon. member's points about adjudicators. She has to understand, hon. Chair, that they have to apply the act and the regulations, and that they don't necessarily have the kind of discretion that sometimes is required. I don't think that's where the flaw in the system is. So I disagree with her, but that's fine -- we disagree from time to time here. In this case, the royal commission will referee that one, so we'll leave it to that royal commission to determine whether we need some changes at the adjudication level. If we do, then obviously those changes will be made.

On the issue of the personnel matter, I have not had any briefing on that matter. I'm not in a position to be able to answer a personnel question on the floor of this Legislature.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's response. I will ask two more questions, and if he could provide the answers at a future point, I would be delighted.

With reference to Weldon Brake again, the questions put to me and seeking a response are: has this individual been on full pay even though he's been off work? Was there any kind of internal review? If the decision has been overturned, who was involved in having it overturned? What is the amount of the severance package? I leave that for future consideration.

The president of the United Association of Injured and Disabled Workers, Ralph Dotzler, who believes heart and soul that this organization can have some humanity, has posed a number of questions. There was a response earlier to the MLA for Surrey-White Rock, my colleague, about rehabilitation expenses. There is a rehab agency, Buxton Consulting, that acquired some $260,000 for their work with WCB claimants. The question of the United Association of Injured and Disabled Workers is: what is the job placement rate for that amount of money? In terms of the rehab consultation fee of $260,000-plus -- again, back to our theme of today, which is accountability frameworks -- does the board receive a report on how many of those individuals were employed after rehabilitation? How long were they employed? Did they stay employed for upwards of five years? Those are the targets that we are looking for, in terms of determining success from this organization.

[4:00]

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, a supplier service is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I can't give you an answer for that here, but I can tell the hon. member or the organization that has asked her to ask the question that they should write to the Workers Compensation Board. I'm sure they'll get an answer. If they don't get an answer, then at that point it should be brought to my attention. I have a suspicion that either the letter hasn't been written or the letter hasn't been responded to. Let's find out first whether or not the letter has been written, and then we'll find out from there.

L. Reid: For the minister's information, the letter has been written. There was no response, and it has now been brought to the minister's attention. I will ensure that the minister receives a copy.

Again with the broader accountability framework discussion, does the ministry or the Workers Compensation Board keep track of the job placement rate for the consultation services they purchase? I think that is a critical discussion point. There are a myriad of agencies that provide service to the Workers Compensation Board. The dollars flow out; the individuals engage in some kind of activity. Does somebody at the end of the day say: "With the dollars we invested in your organization, how many people actually got a job?" If the minister is not able to respond today, I will accept that, but I think the job placement rate for the expenditure of dollars has to be one of the first spokes in the accountability wheel. This is what we're spending -- what are we getting for it? Again, I urge the minister to address that at a future point.

We touched earlier on the internal ombudsman. I believe the minister was going to come back with a response as to the confidentiality question, the FOI request. I will assume that's coming at a later point.

In terms of where we head next, maybe I'll get some clarification from the minister around the future of the three-person panel that has been appointed, leading up to the royal commission. Will those three individuals that are present today stay in those roles until the commission sits or until the commission concludes, or is there a time line on their employment?

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, they're there for at least a year, which hopefully will be enough time for the royal commission to do its work. There are three, but there might be a fourth one. I'm contemplating making another appointment to that.

L. Reid: So, if I might, Cynthia Morton, Douglas Kerley and, I believe, Wolfgang Zimmerman are the three current panel participants, and there may indeed be a fourth at some point. It's my understanding that they were appointed in July 1995.

Hon. M. Sihota: They have been renewed for a year.

[ Page 1679 ]

L. Reid: Correct. So that would take us to July of 1997. So the minister believes that the legislation, the recommendations of the royal commission, will be before this House prior to their appointment expiring.

Hon. M. Sihota: The minister hopes that.

L. Reid: Is it the minister's desire that Cynthia Morton retain that role in addition to the role that she has recently been assigned by this Legislature? Is it possible for her to fill both those roles?

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't discuss personnel issues. I can tell you that there are personnel issues there -- I'm not saying with just Ms. Morton; there may be with others. But I'm not going to discuss personnel issues.

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

L. Reid: If I might be so bold, I am referencing the transcript of the Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia's strategic plan. Page 1 refers to prioritizing and making intentional decisions and then talks about a review process on a regular basis. I simply want to know what that means. Is that every three months, every 15 months? How often can we be assured that someone is going back to see whether or not any of the decisions that have been discussed have actually been realized?

Hon. M. Sihota: In every case there is a review process, and generally the reporting back occurs every quarter.

L. Reid: I want to spend a few moments on administration costs. Between 1988 and 1993, administration costs increased from $88 million to over $184 million. We understand that administration costs continue to be at an all-time high. What are the numbers between '94 and '95, and what is being done to reduce these costs?

Hon. M. Sihota: Administrative costs at the Workers Compensation Board have remained stable for the past four years at about $188 million, despite increases in demand.

In legislation that my government introduced, we extended coverage to 18,000 new employees and another 150,000 workers. We in this province have the highest percentage of workers covered by a workers' compensation system of any province in the country. I believe that your party actually voted against that.

As a percentage of total income in 1995, the Workers Compensation Board administrative costs were just over 13 percent of total costs. For the hon. member's edification, the ratio in 1994 was 15 percent. The hon. member should know that those costs fall right within the Canadian average.

On the other side of the equation, assessment premiums for most employers in British Columbia -- 67 percent, in fact, two-thirds -- either remained the same or went down in 1996. I know that the hon. member has seen the annual report that was tabled in this House, and she's therefore well aware that we expect these rates to moderate further in 1997. The employers in this province pay among the lowest WCB assessment premiums in the country.

L. Reid: In 1991, 42 percent of all wage loss claims received their first payment within 17 days. There was lots of press around, and everybody was totally excited by that. In 1995, the percentage dropped to 30 percent. What was the pay lag in 1995, and how is it stacking up for 1996? What is the Workers Compensation Board doing to address that?

Hon. M. Sihota: Currently, 50 percent get their pay within 17 days, and the objective for 1996 is 60 percent.

L. Reid: I think one of the things that may assist with the time line around pay lag is the electronic file process that is underway in Port Coquitlam. My question specifically on the process, the E-file program, is: is the board simply looking to replicate a paper process on computer, or are there indeed some red flags, some triggers in the system, that would allow files that have no issue around them to be processed automatically? Is that being built into the system in any way, shape or form?

Hon. M. Sihota: We are re-engineering the system to ensure that those cases can be expedited.

L. Reid: I thank the hon. minister for that, because otherwise it's just a huge futile exercise to take what we have on paper today and put it on a system. If there are some ways that the process can become more efficient, I would welcome them.

When we did the official opposition review panel, there was a serious difference -- a serious discrepancy, if you will -- between the level of service offered by various offices in the province. There was a difference between Prince George, Richmond, etc. Has anything happened to rectify that situation?

Hon. M. Sihota: That is happening. There are improvements. I think the royal commission should clearly be commenting on any advice that they can give the government in that regard.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's response. To be more specific, it's my understanding that in Richmond it was 42 days, and in Prince George it was something like 22 days. So the fact is that there's improvement happening. Can the minister put that into numbers of days?

Hon. M. Sihota: We'll get the hon. member a breakdown on the offices so that she herself can have that information to do the comparative work.

L. Reid: I want to spend a moment or two on the health and safety regulation process that I believe is underway for this fall. I believe it starts September 11 in Richmond and concludes after a whirlwind, provincewide tour on October 4 back in Richmond. I'm not convinced that a month of airing is all that will be necessary for this process. Has there been any discussion or has any decision been made about lengthening that process, giving more time for public input?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, there has been discussion. I've given it thought, and my answer is that I don't think there's a need for it. The reason is that the public and the stakeholders have had ample notice of the fact that we are going to be getting into this issue. Most of the issues are ones that they are familiar with. The time frame is reasonable, and my experience in the past has been that ultimately the world reacts to those time pressures, and it reacts well. They're reasonable, and they're doable, and the issues are clear.

[ Page 1680 ]

L. Reid: So what I'm hearing is that the minister has no intention of lengthening the process, if indeed he wishes to hear from customers, complainants in the process, stakeholder groups, employers, agencies, etc. At the very least, perhaps the minister can look to put in place a number of evening public hearing processes. It astounds me that if indeed the whole intent is to get people back to work, those individuals who are at work are denied any access to any kind of public hearing process, because it's held from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. I don't deny that it's public, but it's absolutely restricting in terms of who might participate. So if the time line is as tight as it is, probably less than a month, has the minister given consideration to ensuring that everyone who wishes to be heard at least can come after working hours?

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. M. Sihota: I have asked staff to convey to the panel that they should consider evening meetings.

L. Reid: I trust that will actually happen, because certainly there are people who want to be participating in that process. It seems to me that the royal commission is going to report in November and then again the following June. This particular component.... The minister has referenced every other response today with: "That's an issue for the royal commission." Why is this not? Why are we advancing so mightily on this particular agenda item and not the others?

Hon. M. Sihota: I didn't make that decision; I inherited that decision.

L. Reid: The inheritance response is interesting. That doesn't mean the decision cannot be changed. Has the minister given any thought to putting this into a package and having it all report out in six months' time?

Hon. M. Sihota: I have given it consideration. At this time, I'm not persuaded that it should be changed. That's not to say that somebody won't come to me in the future and say: "Look, for these reasons -- and they're compelling -- it should be changed." But at this point there's no intention on my part to change them.

[4:15]

L. Reid: So the inheritance comment was just a ruse. If you wished to change them you absolutely could. In terms of....

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, no, I think I told you we could.

L. Reid: I think that's a valid statement.

I want to spend a moment, if I can, on stress-related injuries before the board. It comes up repeatedly in terms of whether or not those are compensable injuries. Does the board have a plan to state that they are, and if so, how does the board intend to pay the costs of those injuries?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not going to make a determination on that on the floor of the Legislature. I know that this is a significant public policy issue, and I will leave it to those better qualified than myself to deal with it. There is a panel of administrators; they do have some policy basis to make some decisions. There is a royal commission; I'm sure this issue will come up there. But I'm not going to give direction to the WCB at this point with regard to that issue.

L. Reid: We've heard the rumour that the WCB's proposed ergonomic regulations are now complete. If that's the case, when will we receive a copy?

Hon. M. Sihota: The first time I heard that rumour was right now.

L. Reid: Then perhaps the minister could verify over the next number of days whether or not that set of ergonomic regulations is complete.

Hon. M. Sihota: I guess I was just being kind of cute. The rumour perplexes staff too. In other words, it's not true.

L. Reid: Well, that's candour for you. I appreciate the minister's honesty in that regard, and I look forward to the completion of those regulations, if that is not the case today. Certainly, I thank the minister for his comments on the Workers Compensation Board, and I look forward to a very collegial response from this minister, because I do believe that he and I share a number of similar concerns. My colleague from Abbotsford has a number of questions. I thank the minister and the staff for coming.

J. van Dongen: I certainly don't want to repeat anything that my colleague raised, but just to emphasize a few points and ask a few questions. I want to say, first of all, I'm pleased that we have an experienced minister in the position of having responsibility for WCB, because I think that's important -- particularly when you have critical problems, as we have in that organization. I want to make reference for the minister to my comments in response to the throne speech. There were a number of comments in there that I'm not going to repeat but simply want to mention for his reference.

I think the biggest problem area is with long-term disability cases. That's where you've got the long, extended times dealing with a case. That's where you've got the difficult medical decisions. That's where we've had all of the problems that have come into my constituency office. I agree with the previous member for Richmond East that it's in the implementation area where the difficulties are. Everybody, I think, wants fair and proper treatment for claimants, but it's really in the implementation, as it gets down the line, where the difficulties are.

I'd like to start out by asking the minister if WCB has a specific definition of service quality, and if so, what is it?

Hon. M. Sihota: On page 16 of the annual report, which I tabled in this House, they lay out a series of goals to the year 2000. On page 15, they talk about the transformation of delivery of worker services. They talk in the report of the desire to redesign the service delivery approach; implement a new claim file processing system, case management and service standards; introduce workplace disability management; and integrate effective return-to-work initiatives, including work care guidelines, standards, protocols and evidence-based treatment.

Let me say this, because I don't think that's what the hon. member's getting at. Whether there was a definition or not, the issue that's before us today is whether or not, as makers of public policy -- as elected officials -- we intuitively believe that the quality of service is at the level that it should be. We make that assessment with regard to all ministries of government. We look at residential tenancy, at employment standards, at social services, the Medical Services Plan. All of these 

[ Page 1681 ]

are agencies that are in the business of customer relations and therefore are visited by the population of British Columbia on a regular basis.

In some of those instances, we have concerns about service quality and the way in which we deal with our customers. In others, we don't. In the case of WCB, I think there's a common perception among all elected officials that the quality of service is not what it should be. That's not to be overly critical of staff, and I'm not trying to trigger morale problems at the board. I don't think the hon. member is, either, when he asks that question. But that's our perception as elected officials, based on our experience.

As I said earlier on, that is one of the reasons why there will be a royal commission. I am not satisfied that it's at the level that it should be. Our government isn't. That's why the Premier made the commitment toward the royal commission.

J. van Dongen: In light of the minister's answer -- and I do have the annual report here -- I want to say one thing first of all. As legislators, we pass legislation, but then we also are responsible for its implementation. We don't implement it, but we're responsible for it.

If there's a general failing in government, it's in the measurements of performance in implementation. The fact that there is not -- and I don't think there is, and certainly the minister hasn't pointed it out -- a clear definition, which staff both in the front line and higher up in the organization have on the wall in front of them, that defines service quality, something that they are targeting in terms of the ultimate delivery of WCB to people who get injured, is part of the problem. We've had some fairly superficial efforts to address the issues of service quality with things like the SuperHost program, which is mentioned in the annual report. What's really fundamental here is a much more focused, deliberate effort first of all to define service quality -- what it is, what we expect -- and then to measure actual performance to achieve that.

I want to make one other comment in passing that I think is very relevant, and the minister referred to it. Certainly speaking for myself, I am not here to malign in any way the efforts of any staff at WCB. I think that's very important. Some of the comments that were recently made by a senior member of the Crown corporations secretariat are totally appropriate, in that there is a risk for civil servants in making difficult decisions. It is our responsibility, as elected people, to help reduce that risk and support people who are operating in good faith to make the right decisions on behalf of the people of this province.

I suggest to the minister that it is fundamental to get a handle on a very specific definition of service quality that will be developed as an ethic within the organization. Just to follow up in this area a bit, the annual report on page 12 talks about customer surveys having been done in the Coquitlam claims region. What kind of surveys have been done, and what is being measured in those surveys?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sorry I didn't hear the question, because our House Leader was here and that's why I had to talk to staff for a moment. What we look at is speed, client satisfaction and efficiencies, and those are the parameters we measure.

With regard to the statement on the wall of every employee at WCB, this statement is part of the vision and is there for all employees:

"The WCB will be: recognized as a leader in workplace safety, return-to-work rehabilitation and timely compensation services for workers and employers; known to treat injured workers with integrity and respect; responsive to market needs for products and services; financially secure and fully funded; known to be effective and efficient; acknowledged as providing a positive work environment; recognized as achieving a reasonable balance among the interest of workers, employers and other stakeholders; respected by employers, workers and other stakeholders for its performance."

That's what's on the wall.

J. van Dongen: On the survey that was referred to in the annual report, was that a one-time survey, a pilot project? Is there an ongoing, in-house survey program that is being done on all claimants?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, hon. member. It is an ongoing process involving surveys.

J. van Dongen: Again, just to reference an earlier comment, there seems to have been a lot of focus in the past year or so on the E-file project, and I think it is a good focus. But I am wondering whether there has been any specific initiative to try and deal with the longer-term disability cases by analyzing on a special project basis within the organization where all the problems are in terms of the actual process and the decisions that are being made. It seems to me that it is critical that quality decisions are made the first time through the organization. I have concerns when there is a high level of appeals where decisions are overturned. It was indicated to me by the past chair of the panel of administrators that a high number of decisions were being overturned. That tells me that there is something wrong, probably in the initial decision-making process. Has there been any special initiative to deal with these longer-term problem cases that are caught up in the system somewhere and haven't necessarily even reached an appeals stage?

[4:30]

Hon. M. Sihota: In longer cases -- in other words, cases that go on for 85 days -- the answer is yes. There has been a decline in the allow rate on the appeals. So those are both good indicators, hon. member.

J. van Dongen: On page 14, there's a reference to implementation of a performance-based salary program for management employees, and it talks about selection processes and that sort of thing. Going back to an earlier discussion, are there specific programs in place with specific criteria to measure the performance of adjudicators and lower-level staff?

Hon. M. Sihota: There is a regular process and there are standards. I can actually get the evaluative material sent to you so that you can see it for yourself and comment on it.

J. van Dongen: In my experience, in the total scheme of things, there would be a limited number of cases where you'd run into certain staff members who displayed a pattern of performance and decision-making that left a lot to be desired. I know that they are now being dealt with by the organization, but it seems to me that one of the tests is that the internal measurement processes aren't working if a case ends up in an MLA's office. In a high number of the cases, contrary to the opinion expressed earlier by the minister, it is the performance of the adjudicators which appears to be very central to the difficulties. In the last, say, two years, has anyone within the staff of the Workers Compensation Board ever lost their job as a result of non-performance?

[ Page 1682 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know, but I'm sure someone may have lost their job, and you know, management will do their thing. If they haven't, maybe in the last two years things have been fine. But you can fire all the people you want from WCB and replace them with whoever else you want. The fact of the matter is that there will still be winners and losers in the system. There will still be cases that are accepted and cases that are rejected, and it is inevitable that the cases that are rejected will show up at the offices of MLAs. That has to be factored into the perception we have. Notwithstanding that perception, we've gone to a royal commission process. Hon. member, if you want to know if anybody has been fired in the last two years, write me a letter, and I'll get you the answer.

J. van Dongen: I can appreciate that the minister finds some of the questioning tedious, but it seems to me that this is one of the fundamental areas of concern about performance.

Just to follow up, the minister talked earlier about the level of discretion that an adjudicator has. Certainly an adjudicator and the whole organization are expected to make all of their decisions within the terms of the legislation. That provides a broad set of goalposts for the decisions to be made. If you analyze the impact on the individuals involved, there is a great deal of that person's life and livelihood hinging on a decision that the adjudicator has the power to make.

For example, they have the power to reject any medical viewpoint given to them and ask for second or third opinions. They have that power within the terms of the act. I think that the exercise of discretion is an important area, but it's also a very difficult area. I agree with the minister's comments that the evaluation of medical problems is very often more of an art than a science. But I suggest that it's in those two areas -- i.e., medicine being an art rather than a science and the proper exercise of discretion -- where we need to be doing more work generally within government, but particularly within the WCB. I'll leave my comments on that issue at that.

I just have a couple of questions on the financial statement. On page 20, looking at the expense column, I'm particularly interested in the figures that are reported for short-term disability, long-term disability and survivor benefits. Do those figures represent cash payouts in their entirety or do they include a certain amount of administration?

Hon. M. Sihota: They are actuarial and cash payouts. Administration is reported further down the line.

J. van Dongen: On page 27, there is a significant increase in assessment penalties from last year. I wonder if the minister could explain the source of that increase. Is it improved enforcement or some big fines? What's the explanation?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, it's a year-to-year variation, so it just looks higher this year than in previous years. It fluctuates; it depends on how we're doing.

J. van Dongen: In the strategic plan, there's a reference to statistics indicating customer satisfaction. It says 70 percent are satisfied and 30 percent are not. What is the basis of those figures?

Hon. M. Sihota: It was a survey that was done about a year ago, I believe, by Canadian Facts.

J. van Dongen: Is there a breakdown between short-term disability cases and long-term disability cases in that survey?

Hon. M. Sihota: No -- at least we don't think there was.

J. van Dongen: Would the minister be willing to make the detailed information with respect to that survey available -- the questions that were asked and the compilation of the responses that were received?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, we can do that. In fact, there was a breakdown that showed that in the Fraser Valley, there was almost a 90 percent positive rating.

J. van Dongen: It must have been because of some active MLAs.

The strategic plan also talks about a small business project, and certainly I think that's a good thing for Workers Compensation to embark upon. Agriculture will also be interested in that. I am wondering what the status of that is. Is that study still to be implemented? Is there a time frame on it?

Hon. M. Sihota: Actually, there was a breakdown -- you are right -- to look at the activity of MLAs, and it did show that some on one side of the river did a better job than others on the other side of the river. I'll leave it up to you to decide which side of the river did better than the other. I think you know what my biases are.

There hasn't been full implementation. There is some ongoing work occurring in that regard.

J. van Dongen: I hate to disappoint the minister, but I deal with cases on both sides of the river.

I have one final comment that really sums up what we've talked about a little bit. This is in the publication "All About the WCB," where we talk about WCB divisions. The fifth line item there is "human resources corporate development division." I would suggest to the people at WCB and to the minister that maybe we should take out "corporate development division" and put in there "service and sensitivity development division." I'll leave it at that, hon. Chair.

I say that seriously; I say that very seriously. I think there is a lack of focus on the people in the organization. I concur with the comments from the member for Richmond East; when you go into the building, as I have, you get all these negative messages. I've talked to people that have gone there and have been absolutely intimidated. So I make this suggestion very seriously, and I'll let the minister know that I will also be making representations to the royal commission.

Hon. M. Sihota: I thank the hon. members for their comments with regard to the Workers Compensation Board, its activities and its challenges. They are enormous, and I think the board has a flavour that there is a level of frustration on both sides of this House with regard to this agency, and they know that they have a challenge. I think they feel, at times, they are being unfairly criticized -- I'm not too sure if even I share that view -- and I think that the royal commission will assist in solving some of the challenges that are there. I think we should give the royal commission the opportunity to do its work.

I would hope that I can have the legislative enactments that will flow out of the royal commission's initial report before this House at this time next year. If that doesn't happen, I'll be happy to oblige the members with an explanation. Hopefully, the commission will bring about the kind of public policy change that we need.

[ Page 1683 ]

I want to take this opportunity to thank staff from the Workers Compensation Board who were in attendance here today to assist in responding to the questions.

L. Reid: I will also take a minute to extend my sincere appreciation to the folks who have offered guidance and insight around the Workers Compensation Board. I am more than prepared to work with the minister, if there's anything we can do to humanize and depoliticize the Workers Compensation Board.

[4:45]

J. Dalton: I've sat through all of the discussion on WCB and certainly filed some things away for my reference. I want to put two points on the record; the minister needn't respond to either. My colleague from Richmond East made observations on these two important points. First, we must make sure that we don't fall into the trap of using the royal commission to neglect the day-to-day WCB operations, and I'm sure the minister -- I see his acknowledgment -- would agree with that. I'm hoping that his time lines are realistic. Good for him if he can put the whip to the process and get on with it. That's fine.

My colleague has made, I think, a good observation. I would mention that the minister might consider an amendment to the Workers Compensation Act to allow a continual review process such as we have in section 3 of the Labour Relations Code or section 7 of the Employment Standards Act. I understand from the discussion that other jurisdictions have something comparable. So I would like those two things to be placed on the record.

Just for the committee's information, we're now going to take a bit of an abrupt turn, I guess, or get off the rails or on the rails, because for some strange reason West Coast Express is in the minister's portfolio -- although most of transit, of course, has been taken elsewhere. My colleague from Richmond Centre will deal with that issue.

We have an informal understanding, at least with the Government House Leader, that we will reconvene at 7 p.m. and will get back on to Labour issues and hopefully conclude those in a timely fashion this evening.

D. Symons: There's a number of questions I'd like to ask regarding West Coast Express, and I think a fair amount of them revolve around ridership and costs involved with that particular venture.

I have some concerns. I see that West Coast Express is under the Ministry of Labour when we have a listing of the responsibilities of the various ministers, and yet we find that B.C. Transit is under the Minister of Small Business. When I look in the estimates for the West Coast Express subsidy and so forth, I don't find it there. All I find under the Minister of Small Business is the estimates for Transit. But I gather that West Coast Express has been severed from Transit. Therefore I'm wondering where I would find the subsidy that is going to West Coast Express.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's in the Transit budget.

D. Symons: At this time, I suppose it would be legitimate in this committee to ask questions of the minister regarding that particular part of vote 44 that comes to the West Coast Express. I wonder if he might be able to tell us what the amount of money going to West Coast Express out of the.... I believe the vote for B.C. Transit is $287 million, roughly. What portion of that will be allocated to West Coast Express?

Hon. M. Sihota: Its budget is $31.8 million. That's not to say that's what will be spent.

D. Symons: I didn't hear the last bit of the minister's response.

Hon. M. Sihota: As always, I believe it will come in under budget.

D. Symons: Now I understand what you were saying there. Thank you.

We can move on and look at a little bit to do with the ridership and so forth. There's been a great deal of speculation in the press regarding that ridership and comments by various persons. We've had comments by the previous minister responsible, now the Premier of the province. He was saying back in December of '94 -- before the rail was up and running, when it was in the process of being constructed -- that they were expecting a ridership of 530,000 riders during the first five months of operation. You said those would be new riders. If you added the people who are going to be taken out of current transit, he had a figure of 730,000 during those first five months of operation. Those figures should now be in. Those were estimates a year and a little bit ago. Could you possibly give us what the actuals are?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's almost a million, to this point.

D. Symons: That's a million during the period from the startup of the rail on November 1 until March 31. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Sihota: That's up to date. I thought the hon. member would have liked relevant information, so I gave it to him right up to date.

D. Symons: Would you mind severing it for the period that ended the last fiscal year, for the first five months of operation, just so I can get a comparison between the projections that B.C. Transit was using for starting this rail service and the actuals compared to what they were projecting?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's approaching 600,000.

D. Symons: Since there were roughly 100 days of operation to the end of that fiscal year, you're saying there were roughly 6,000 people per day riding that rail.

I wonder if you might be able to tell us how you manage to determine what that ridership is. How do you count ridership? How does B.C. Transit or B.C. Rail go about counting and coming up with figures when you give ridership numbers?

Hon. M. Sihota: It comes from fare machines.

D. Symons: Does West Coast Express at any time actually count bodies at the stations?

Hon. M. Sihota: As with any transit system, they will do that on a random periodic basis, and that's what occurs.

D. Symons: When those random periodic checks are done, how do they compare with the figures you're getting from using the farebox numbers?

[ Page 1684 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: They reinforce the farebox numbers.

D. Symons: When B.C. Transit proposed West Coast Express through the government, I assume they did a business plan and a cost-benefit analysis at that time. Would it be possible for me to get a copy of the study that would have been, I suppose, given to the Transit board and to cabinet to make the decision to go ahead with that particular project?

Hon. M. Sihota: If it's a cabinet document, it may be protected by confidentiality provisions, so I'm not too sure if the hon. member can get access to it. I'll have to ascertain whether or not that's possible.

D. Symons: I would gather from FOI that it has now been acted upon, and therefore I think the confidentiality would have expired. If the minister would check into that, I'd appreciate a copy of it.

I have a person who inquired of West Coast Express -- it used to be with B.C. Transit -- in the early part of this year as to the ridership. He finally, after much delay, managed to get a copy of the figures from West Coast Express. He said that the average daily ridership up to January 31 was 2,533 return riders. That's in great variance to the number of 6,000, roughly, that the member gave me earlier. Apparently these were figures given out by West Coast Express.

He then asked for an up-to-date one and was told at that time -- this was back in May -- that West Coast Express refused to supply any new information until June. Can you confirm that the figures up to January 31 were an average daily ridership of 2,533 -- less than half the figure I was given a few minutes ago?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, I can't. I think the hon. member should listen to what I have to say and compare that to what his friend had to say, and he'd find that the numbers are very similar.

D. Symons: Well, the friend is Keith Morgan, who writes a column in the newspaper. Apparently he applied for that information through West Coast Express, and they supplied him the numbers. That was the reason for my question. There seemed to be some difference in there.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should read what Mr. Morgan had to say and listen to what I had to say. He'll find out that the numbers aren't anywhere near as far apart as he'd suggest.

D. Symons: I wonder, then, if through either your ticket sales or your body counts, you could give me an average daily boarding at each of the various stations, starting at Mission, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody and Maple Ridge. Would you have those figures? And would you know which ones, after boarding, continue through to Vancouver and which ones stop off -- go from Mission into Maple Ridge or something of that sort? Is it for local commuting?

Hon. M. Sihota: I just want to remind the hon. member, first of all, that there is a difference between daily ridership and return trips. Let me also say to the hon. member, based on his question, that we don't have the breakdowns here. But I can tell him generally that there is a high volume of people who will travel from the suburban areas into Vancouver and vice versa. We've done very well there. There's a very strong ridership to downtown Vancouver and vice versa. There is significantly less travel between Mission and Maple Ridge, let's say -- between one suburb of Vancouver to another.

The Chair: Hon. member, might I remind you to address your comments through the Chair.

D. Symons: I have a question, if we can go back to the figures I read a little bit earlier, about the projections of the ridership by the now Premier. You seem to confirm that his projections were correct. One of the figures he put in there was the large number that were going to be new riders on West Coast Express. I would think that if those people were drivers coming into Vancouver, before West Coast Express, that should have then translated into less traffic, say, at the Pitt River Bridge. That's one screen point we could use in judging ridership, and it doesn't seem to have happened. Listening to traffic reports before West Coast Express was up and running, we found that traffic at 7 a.m. was backed up to the Harris Road crossing. And when we listen to the traffic reports this week, as I have, we find that the traffic seems to be backed up roughly to the same point.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, that may be attributable to all the work that the government is doing on the Mary Hill bypass.

D. Symons: Yes, I'm not quite sure which side of the Pitt River Bridge the Mary Hill bypass is on, but....

Interjection.

D. Symons: Okay. We will see whether that's the case indeed. I will look at the other side of that also; if that's the case, then we'll be looking at greater improvements when you finish off the Hastings-Barnet people-mover, which is also under the government's direction right now.

We also have -- I'm just moving about a few places here -- an operating and capital budget that was put out when this proposal was first put up. Again, in the remainder of '95 into the '96 fiscal year, the operating budget for B.C. Transit -- now West Coast Express -- was to be $10.48 million, and the local share, $3.95 million. Debt-servicing costs, which were going to be for B.C. Transit or government, were $4 million, making a total operating budget of $14.48 million for B.C. Transit and a local share being roughly $4 million. That's based on projections a year before the rail was up and running. You now have had it up and running. I wonder if you might be able to give me the figures that would correspond to these projections once the rail was running. What were your operating costs? Can you separate it out into what B.C. Transit, or in this case West Coast Express, was responsible for, and the local share in the debt service costs?

Hon. M. Sihota: I should say to the hon. member that transit ridership east of the Pitt River Bridge has increased by 500 percent since the introduction of this service. It might be more useful to rely on that figure than to stand by the bridge and count if you don't know which way the Mary Hill bypass is situated as it relates to the road.

The expenses are more than we had anticipated. They are $10.95 million.

[5:00]

D. Symons: Was the $10.95 million the West Coast Express share, as the government's share of that, or was it the local share? Or is that the sum of the two of them?

[ Page 1685 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: That was a good question, and I'll tell the hon. member that those are the total expenses.

D. Symons: We have an agreement between the government and the Vancouver regional transit authority on a funding formula for the operation of it through the communities along there. The funding formula basically has 68.6 percent of the operating costs being paid for by government and the remaining part being paid for by the local transit authority. Could you tell me if that operating cost also includes the debt-servicing charges and other aspects, or is the government picking up that portion of it?

Hon. M. Sihota: The best answer I can give the hon. member at this point is that debt servicing is covered by the province.

D. Symons: I gather that there has been a change in the period in which West Coast Express is going to amortize its capital costs. Initially, it was going to be over a 20-year period, but it has been extended to a 30-year period, and that has kited the total costs of the operation, if you include the interest that's going to accrue to that debt over that extended period of time. I gather that the total cost was originally estimated to be $180 million for a payback on capital cost, and it's now $360 million. It has basically doubled. Would that be correct?

Hon. M. Sihota: Because of the financial arrangements, it was a benefit -- to the tune of $3 million -- to the organization to amortize over the 30 years as opposed to the 20.

D. Symons: I wonder if the minister might give me the actual total costs, including interest charges, over that 30-year period.

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't have that information at my fingertips, but I'll see whether or not it can be produced.

D. Symons: It's one figure I thought would have been available, since there has been change recently. When those changes are made, this should be one of the criteria that would be taken into consideration -- that when you are changing your financing period for a payback of that sort, you end up looking at the various costs in the end run and the total cost of the project. It's like taking out a mortgage on your house. Do you take a 20-year or a 30-year one, and what's the total cost going to be that you are putting into that project?

Interjection.

D. Symons: You'll get it to me. I would appreciate that very much.

The rationale for changing that period is that it manages to reduce the yearly payments you are going to be making on that. Is that correct? Is it going to end up affecting the way in which you can spread out the operating or capital costs over a longer period of time? Or will you end up paying more? Initially, it was a $9 million payment on the debt. What will the payment be now that you've rescheduled it?

Hon. M. Sihota: The reason for making these changes is that we are in a better position, to the tune of $3 million.

D. Symons: By the minister's logic, then, if you take out a 30-year mortgage rather than a 20-year mortgage on your home, you're in a better position.

Hon. M. Sihota: No. Let's use the house example. You may be better off with your house over a 30-year mortgage as opposed to 20-year mortgage if the terms of the mortgage allow you to make a smaller payment at a lower rate of interest, such that after 30 years, you would have paid less interest than you would have paid after 20. Then you're better off.

D. Symons: I'm just trying to follow the logic here, and I'm not too sure. I've had a few courses in commerce, and it seems that if you change the period, at the end of that amortization period you're not going to end up paying less interest, as the member seems to be suggesting. To me, when you stretch that over a longer period of time, if you look at amortization tables, you'll find that the interest you're paying goes up considerably by extending that length of time. The interest you're paying year by year is smaller, that's true. But the total amount of interest you've paid.... You're extending the payments and prolonging the time that you owe the principal. It stretches out the figure that you're going to be paying in principal and interest. For a much longer period, you end up paying considerably more. It pretty well doubles. Is that not correct?

Hon. M. Sihota: Maybe later on, or some time when we've got a casual moment, we'll pull out one of those little mortgage books you can buy at the local store. There's a big difference between paying 20 percent for 20 years and 10 percent for 30 years -- you may be better off.

D. Symons: I'm not too sure whether the minister was paying 20 and 30 percent; we're talking about 20 and 30 years. I don't think the interest rates between those two would vary to the extent the minister seems to be implying. Maybe if you have rescheduled it, you could tell us what the interest payments were with the old way and what they will be with the new way.

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't have the terms and conditions of the two separate arrangements here before me. But I can tell the hon. member that the bottom line is that we're $3 million better off as a result of these new arrangements.

D. Symons: I won't press that point any further. I think we're going to differ on your interpretation of whether that's $3 million better. On a yearly basis, I can see it. But over a longer period of time, it balances out the opposite way, I would think. I'll have some people who are more knowledgable in finance than I look at that and see whether you're right or I am right. Maybe we'll discuss it casually, as you say, some time in the future.

The most recent information on travel patterns seems to imply.... Again, I've gone back to saying your figures are off. If that's the case, then that would affect the cost per rider above and beyond what they're putting in the farebox. Regarding the subsidy that's going on per rider, per ride each day, what figure does West Coast Express have at the current time?

Hon. M. Sihota: You're right. If there are fewer riders, then the subsidy is higher, and if there are more riders, the subsidy is lower. If there are 2,500 riders on a daily basis, then there's a big difference between that and 6,000, let's say. I know the hon. member has been reading the news reports, and I'm not too sure that they did their mathematics right.

[ Page 1686 ]

Let me put it this way. Our estimate of the subsidy is around $17, not the $50 or some profound figure that others have suggested. I'm sure the opposition wouldn't suggest those numbers at all.

D. Symons: I gather that the $17 you're referring to is a one-way. Or is that a return? I think you're comparing two different things at that point. I'll just go on a little, and then you can answer that as well. Perhaps we can move on and maybe complete this by the time we rise.

The initial figure for the startup, the construction costs and everything leading up to the beginning of commuter rail was $103 million. In the process of asking questions in the past, we found that the rolling stock wasn't included in that. Can you give me an idea of what those initial startup costs were? I gather you're paying for leasing the railcars, and the operating service adds another $21 million onto that. Could you tell me how much the capital costs have been to date? What will the lease on the railcars end up being? What are you paying CP for track usage and for supplying all the other supplies?

Hon. M. Sihota: The infrastructure usage fee paid to CP Rail is $3.8 million, the rolling stock is $3.1 million, and debt service is $11 million.

D. Symons: I wasn't quite asking for debt service there, the $11 million. I was asking for the actual capital costs that have gone into it. A figure of $103 million was given as the capital costs for putting commuter rail in place, and I was wondering how close you came to that figure. While we're talking about the leasing cost of $3.1 million for the railcars, I gather that when commuter rail began, Bombardier was not able to supply the cars needed. They basically supplied some go-train cars in exchange for their cars. Have all the cars now arrived from Bombardier? Could you come up with a capital cost figure?

Hon. M. Sihota: The capital cost was $117 million, and the Bombardier vehicles are now in place.

D. Symons: I wonder if we can go to the agreement with CP Rail. You gave me a figure earlier of $3.8 million as the annual cost. Is that the track usage? Now you have train crews, conductors, people on the trains, and station staff. Is that part of the CP...? Do they supply all the basic portal-to-portal employees that are needed to operate the train? How is that broken down? What exactly do we get supplied from CP Rail?

[5:15]

Hon. M. Sihota: No, they don't supply the staff. They do provide some of the other matters that the hon. member referred to.

D. Symons: Then in that $3.1 million, is that the track usage only, or does that include the train crews? I believe the engineers on the train are supplied by CP Rail as well. Or is that a separate agreement?

Hon. M. Sihota: The $3.8 million was the infrastructure usage fee paid to CP Rail.

D. Symons: Might the minister give me what the charge for the train crews supplied by CP is?

Hon. M. Sihota: Is the member asking for a breakdown on crews and fuel and the like? Does he want a breakdown on each of those items?

D. Symons: I was not quite thinking of that, but it wouldn't be a bad idea, so I'll say yes, thank you.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'll get you that breakdown.

D. Symons: I realize that might not be at hand, and I'd appreciate that very much.

One of the outcomes of setting up commuter rail -- and I suppose it's always a problem when Transit moves into an area where transit was supplied before by a private sector provider -- is the problem of that provider suddenly losing the base for its business. It seems there were two or three people providing transit service -- more or less an express bus service -- from some of those points on the northeast sector into downtown Vancouver. Of course, they were doing it strictly on their own. They weren't getting any subsidy at all from the government and were charging roughly from Maple Ridge and Mission what commuter rail is charging. There was nothing out of the public purse at that time -- no taxes or anything subsidizing it. When you put in a commuter rail system at quite an expense, these people now have been basically put out of work. They've lost the base for their ridership. Yet they were providing a service at the same cost that the commuter rail is providing it, but commuter rail is being heavily subsidized by about two to three times what they're putting in the farebox. That wasn't the case when they were riding the buses.

Do you give any sort of compensation or in any way assist those firms that were supplying a service that was needed? Now the need is gone, but indeed we're paying, one way or another, roughly three times what the people were paying for that service beforehand.

Hon. M. Sihota: On the last point, it's apples and oranges. They were paying for a bus; now they've got a high-speed train -- a comfortable way to travel, a little cappuccino as they're going there. That's worth something, too. This is a high-end service. It's not some bus banging around in traffic, switching lanes, letting your coffee spill over, not allowing you to take a few minutes to go back and shave. These trains are on time 98 percent of the time. It's pretty good service, if you ask me; it's worth paying a dollar or two for that. So you've got to factor that in. This is a competitive world, and we introduced a service. That service is there, and other people were free to compete against it. They wanted to run their buses, and they're entitled to do that.

D. Symons: Somehow I think the minister missed the point. Maybe I didn't make the point well enough, and that is the fact that when these private firms were providing that service, only the user was paying for it. Now what we have is the taxpayer paying for the service. The person who buys a litre of gasoline is paying for the service, because 4 cents from that litre goes to operating a transit system. People are paying for that service on their hydro bills. They are not necessarily the people using the service, but those who are using it are benefiting in the sense that they're getting your first-class service, with cappuccino and all, for the same price they were paying before when 

[ Page 1687 ]

they were paying the full shot of the cost of the service. So that was sort of the direction I was going in. But obviously....

Interjection.

D. Symons: Well, these people were going in a private bus, not a car. At least, some of them were, and others were in their cars. I appreciate, for the people who were driving cars, that they are getting a faster service. But what is happening with the bus service, I would gather, is that if you put in HOV lanes all the way, which is now going to happen when the highway is open along Barnet-Hastings, they would be able to get in roughly in the same time that commuter rail is going to take them there. So the time saving is not going to be all that great.

I'm just reading from a letter of June 30, 1995, from B.C. Transit, referring to that impact on the Vancouver regional transit system. This involves one of those bus companies that is impacted by decisions of B.C. Transit. The B.C. Transit staff believe that those overloads may reflect the combined impact of commuters from Abbotsford and Langley, who formerly used Brewster's service, and a growing ridership on existing Vancouver regional transit system bus routes between Langley and Surrey due to the opening of the Surrey SkyTrain extension in March '94. Abbotsford customers are now likely to drive to the Walnut Grove park-and-ride, and so forth, to board Vancouver regional transit system buses.

It goes on to imply at the end that, if required, it will be brought forward to the commission through the normal quarterly service plan process that there are going to be impacts both on the private sector operating them and on people who will no longer have the transit service that was available to them before. Because of these changes in routes, they will no longer have that service available to them.

I note that routes 701 and 190 were both eliminated, and people that were taking those routes before commuter rail was up now have to take route 160, which had its terminus moved to a less convenient location. So people who were able to take buses before now find those services no longer available. Route 159, the New Westminster bus to Port Coquitlam, has been dropped, so again another cross-service that people were able to take before is no longer there. There is no service, which they formerly had, to go into New Westminster from Port Coquitlam. Commuter rail doesn't do it for them. So in rejigging the bus lines to feed commuter rail, you have disadvantaged others and put them back in their cars.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, you know, it's not a perfect world. It seems to me, hon. member, if you want to talk about expanded bus service into those areas, that clearly this a matter you should engage the minister responsible for B.C. Transit on. Some of these decisions are fiscally driven. We have to maintain the highest credit rating in Canada; we now have that. It is confirmed by the bond-rating agencies today, and I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance for that. So these kinds of issues have to work in a fiscal envelope. I would encourage the hon. member to discuss that with the minister responsible for B.C. Transit.

D. Symons: When I get the business plan and some of the figures that the minister is going to supply to me, I guess we'll be able to look more carefully at the fiscal envelope in which West Coast Express operates.

I gather that West Coast Express keeps its books somewhat differently than B.C. Transit -- and the problem of how they handle capital costs. B.C. Transit lists these lease fees, etc., as part of their operating expenses. Is that also done with West Coast Express?

Hon. M. Sihota: It is. If I may say so, the hon. member is asking some good questions. Given the time -- we've only got a few minutes left -- I just want to get this on the record before we wrap up. The hon. member should feel free to come down to my office and talk to me about some of these things. We'll have staff come in. I don't want him to feel that just because we are wrapping up at 5:30 today, he won't have the opportunity to ask me questions. He is more than welcome to meet with staff, especially around these technical issues.

D. Symons: I thought you had staff there that would know the manner in which they deal with capital costs, lease costs and so forth -- that they are counted in as part of their operating costs when you discuss operating costs. So if that's not the case, I am sure you will be getting that to me.

How long is the CPR lease? You've got a lease arrangement with CPR. When does it come up for renegotiation?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's a 20-year lease, and there's a five-year agreement with regard to the crews.

D. Symons: I wonder if I might ask the minister if there are provisions for increases built into that lease, either provisions to renegotiate or provisions built into it that mean that whatever rate you're paying on trackage today is going to or can increase in the future.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that question the first time around; I recollect now that you asked it. There's a cost-of-living formula built in, so the numbers do change on an annual basis. After 20 years, we have the ability to renegotiate and renew the contract.

D. Symons: I'm wondering if the minister can give me the operating cost recovery rate for commuter rail.

Hon. M. Sihota: Taking into account -- and this may not be the way the hon. member wanted the question answered -- the debt service numbers and the rolling stock numbers that I gave him, and assuming a conservative estimate for revenues of about $5 million, the net cost would be about $25 million. That's based on those assumptions and those conservative revenue projections.

D. Symons: I wanted that figure so I could compare it with other modes of transportation in the greater Vancouver area.

Part of the problem in the capital cost being a little more was the acquisition of right-of-way, land for the stations and so forth. I wonder if you might give me the total costs of that land acquisition and station construction.

Hon. M. Sihota: On the hon. member's last question, if you want to compare it, make sure you compare it on the same basis that I just laid out. Otherwise it's just going to be apples and oranges. I'd hate to get into a debate with you where we're accusing each other of different ways of calculating.

Land and access leases this year account for $254,000 in our budget. I don't have the capital acquisition costs for rights-of-way. We can try to get that for the hon. member.

[ Page 1688 ]

D. Symons: We're very close to the end of the questions I have here. I had things down here, and we covered them, in a sense, in our questions. So let's just do one more page, and then I think we've done everything at this point.

I have one last question to do with the operating budget for this coming year. Could you give me the total cost per annum that you're anticipating for this coming fiscal year -- or the year that we're now in? That would be the operating cost, capital debt cost, etc. -- the total amount that you're putting down as costs attributed to this particular operating year.

Hon. M. Sihota: It would be in the $30 million range.

And if that's the member's last question, I'd like to move that the committee rise and report progress and seek leave to sit yet again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted asks leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions and progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that this House stand recessed until 7 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 5:31 p.m.

The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.

The committee met at 3:06 p.m.

On vote 22: minister's office, $374,615 (continued).

G. Wilson: I committed that I would go directly to the heart of my questions and not take too much time, and I intend to do that. Before we broke for lunch, the minister said that sometimes when you want to get a real project done, you have to have dogged determination by an elected member of government to keep this project moving forward.

Such a project does exist, at least in my heart and mind, and that's to move British Columbia Railway to construct a line that would terminate in Powell River, and to develop a deep-sea port facility there. I realize the economics of it at the moment, and I understand the terrain, and I'm not going to get into hypothetical or future-policy questions. But in developing what I hope will become a serious set of reasons for considering this proposition, what I do want to know is the extent to which British Columbia Railway has been involved, either directly or peripherally, with the Squamish first nation in terms of the land claim they currently have, which affects virtually all the terminal lands that currently have the railway track, and some of the B.C. Rail facilities in North Vancouver and, indeed, I believe, also Squamish.

I wonder if the minister might tell us the degree to which B.C. Rail is involved with that and the degree to which there is some long-term planning with respect to what the implications may be, given the statements that have already been made by the Squamish first nation in terms of their desire to see what will happen to that land.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised there really have not been any discussions with the Squamish nation and B.C. Rail vis-�-vis land claims, so it appears not to have arisen, at least between the Squamish nation and the railway, as an issue.

G. Wilson: Maybe in that respect it's a little bit difficult to delve too much further into it if B.C. Rail actually is not involved, except to say that it's commonly acknowledged that within the first nation's claim are virtually all of the North Vancouver lands that currently house the railway track. My understanding certainly has been, from meeting with and talking to different members of the Squamish first nation -- people who are in positions of authority -- that clearly they don't see it in their economic benefit to allow the railway to remain. They would prefer to see the railway track removed, at least in part, so that it would allow different economic opportunities to occur in that region, which, from their point of view, I can understand; it makes perfect sense. In which case, we may want to seriously consider looking at alternatives, at least in part, for that track. I wonder to what degree B.C. Rail has, actively now, a forward planning process that might start to look at major track development. If that's in fact ongoing, to what extent might that include looking at the establishment of another port facility on the coast?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, it's clear that there has not been that discussion to date. But going back to the broader question of the land claim and the issue of private lands, I stated earlier that our policy is that fee simple lands are not on the table with respect to negotiations. I think it's important to note that every set of negotiations is unique because of the circumstances -- geography, the land ownership patterns and those kinds of questions.

The cost-sharing formula of the federal government recognizes that in that there is a formula with respect to land and cash. And therefore in some circumstances, the resolution of the claim will be more cash-oriented because of the inability to bring land to the table. Given our policy, it's clear that you can see -- and I don't want to be presumptuous or anything with respect to any future negotiations -- that those are the kinds of issues that will be the framework for those kinds of discussions. As much as it may be desirable from someone else's point of view to have land freed up from its current industrial use for potential other uses.... I suppose there are other alternatives besides moving the railway, and that is looking for other potential on other lands in terms of development. You don't want to foreclose any options, but we do have as a central policy that we're not prepared to put fee simple lands on the table. We did in the Nisga'a claim allow the takeback of Crown lands that were under licence. That's a slightly different issue. This is fee simple land.

G. Wilson: Well, not all land is owned fee simple, and there are areas where, clearly, that kind of a negotiation will 

[ Page 1689 ]

have to take place. I don't want to be presumptuous either, except to say that it would appear -- and if I can take off my political hat for a moment and put on my academic hat -- that clearly we are looking, if we are to take a long-range view with respect to the transportation of goods and commodities and the expansion of export facilities.... We are within the next decade or decade and a half going to, I think, start to feel the pinch with respect to the port of Vancouver and their capacity to compete, and, notwithstanding this member's hometown of Prince Rupert, we are going to need expanded port facilities on the coast.

I put it to this minister that now is the time to dedicate some dollars to start to do the work that is necessary to look at the feasibility of developing another deep-sea port facility on the coast of British Columbia. I also put to this minister that the most natural place for that to occur is Powell River, and that the land claim issue is only one issue that may in fact precipitate our starting to think in much broader and longer-ranging, far more reaching terms with respect to dealing with those issues. So I put to the minister whether or not that's something that he would entertain, whether, recognizing the economy of it, it is something that might be entertained or not.

Hon. D. Miller: I certainly, again, don't want to foreclose any future options with respect to port development on the coast, but it does seem to me prudent that we consider the port-related issues that we currently have on our plate. Now, certainly the port of Vancouver, I think, is reasonably healthy. There is a change in federal policy in terms of the former National Harbours Board. There will be three CPA ports: the Fraser port, Vancouver and Prince Rupert, and while we have underutilization of port capacity, it seems to me more prudent at this time to turn our attention to that question, some of which we discussed this morning, and to see what we can do in an economic way to stabilize those operations, and continue and improve and increase the throughput.

[3:15]

It's the viability of those existing ports, not to mention the very serious issue that the member has, I think, talked about earlier, and that is the abandonment by the federal government of all of the small craft harbour ports along this coast. We have to turn our attention to that as well. We are doing some work there, and the member and I have talked about doing more work, all of this, of course, within the fiscal context of not wanting -- indeed, not being able -- to simply walk in and fill a vacuum left by the federal government. So I really think that, in terms of priority -- you always have to prioritize your work -- from my way of thinking, the immediate challenges are the ones that I have just talked about.

G. Wilson: I guess my last point on this -- and I bring the minister back to when he said what is needed is dogged determination to make a project occur -- is that I remain absolutely convinced that we will, certainly within the next 20 years, if not the next 15 or so, be looking at the need to develop another port facility. I say that because of what is going on in the port of Seattle, what we start to see now in terms of the regional economic development of the Cascadian concept and movement, the Georgia Basin initiative and all of those kinds of things that are occurring. Given that there's already a tremendous desire -- in fact, I understand that some people would even like to sell off B.C. Rail to throw into this pot.... The move of American investors to pick up track so they can move commodity south and eliminate the possibility for our ports to remain economically viable.... If we are to be competitive, we may have to take what might today seem like a foolhardy venture.

I remind the minister of Pine Pass and the vision of a former government that said, "Yes, we need to extend the railway north," and of the very concept of Canada, in terms of the degree to which the railway played an important role in opening up and providing economic investment. There is an opportunity now for the government to look ahead and recognize the need for us to remain competitive. One of the ways we can do that is to have enough vision to start to put in place the planning that's necessary.

I hope that the minister might take my comments seriously, because they're meant seriously, recognizing it is a long-term project. If dollars can start to be put together, at least to start to look at the engineering feasibility, because it's not easy terrain.... At this point it would seem a foolhardy project, but many said that of the Coquihalla, many said that of many other projects that have been undertaken and that have proven to be most economically valuable. I believe this to be one that really warrants serious consideration, and I hope the minister will take my comments seriously.

Hon. D. Miller: Perhaps I'll close by simply saying that I do take seriously, as the economic minister, the opportunity to expand the economy in all parts and every region of this province. I'm not embracing the notion that the member has put forward, but neither am I saying that I'm not prepared to consider any of those questions. It is important that we have balanced economic growth and opportunity throughout the regions of the province, and I'll be working to try to ensure that that does take place.

G. Wilson: By way of a final comment, I'd like to make the minister a deal. If I can attract two major international investors into Powell River, I'd like this minister to undertake to seriously consider a railway line as a functional part of that long-range economic development plan.

R. Neufeld: First, I'd like to apologize to the B.C. Rail people that are here today -- having to keep them over in Victoria through lunch to this afternoon for what will probably be a fairly short question-and-answer session.

I would like to deal a bit with the constituency of Peace River North. My colleague from Peace River South and I agree on many things, and I just want to start off, for the record, by saying that Fort St. John is an integral part of grain movement out of the Peace country also. In fact, shortly after we left here I made sure I told him that Dawson Creek was not the only terminal to move grain from the Peace River. Fort St. John was also a terminal.

I would like to start off by asking the minister some questions about the strength of the rail from Dawson Creek to Chetwynd in comparison to rail from Fort St. John to Chetwynd. I believe that's probably part of a major issue about how much heavy rail traffic can be handled by that part of the rail from Dawson Creek to Chetwynd. Do I understand correctly that it is fairly light rail and that it would take extensive upgrading to be able to handle heavy traffic?

Hon. D. Miller: I want to say, first of all, while I appreciate the apology to my officials, I've not received a similar kind of sentiment from anybody over the last while -- nor do I expect it.

An Hon. Member: You must be disappointed.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not disappointed.

[ Page 1690 ]

It appears that there is an exactly equal split in the Reform caucus.

R. Neufeld: It's that Peace River.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

Let me try to describe the policy, perhaps without getting into the details. B.C. Rail's policy is not to allow the capacity of the rail bed to be an inhibiting factor with respect to increasing traffic volume. In other words, we would never turn volumes away simply because we say that we are not capable of carrying the traffic. So if the volume is there, if the capacity is there, we will ensure that the trackage strength -- and I'm not familiar with the technical side of that question -- is sufficient. There is no lack of capacity at the current time.

R. Neufeld: I know B.C. Rail has done extensive work in where the grain would come from to facilitate the 300 cars that are anticipated to move grain from the North and South Peace. Could the minister inform me of where that grain would enter British Columbia? I'm trying to get at if it would all go through Dawson Creek. Is that what B.C. Rail is anticipating? What portion would be anticipated for either Fort St. John or Dawson Creek? Knowing the highway system into Alberta, I can imagine that a fair amount of it is going to come through the Fort St. John way, especially with the construction of the Beatton River crossing. I would assume that that's part of the system in the highways to accommodate that kind of traffic. Maybe the minister could just tell me how much they feel is going to come to either destination.

Hon. D. Miller: First of all, the rail line spends about $30 million annually on maintenance and upgrading the railbed. The corporation currently is working with Cargill in the Fort St. John area for additional trackage for grain movements and grain into Fort St. John and Dawson Creek. Your colleague from South Peace talked about this earlier, about the kind of circle that.... A lot of the movement of that grain into those two centres, both Fort St. John and Dawson Creek, is by truck.

R. Neufeld: Maybe I wasn't clear with my question. B.C. Rail has undertaken studies to determine the amount of tonnage that would come through either Dawson Creek or Fort St. John. What I'd like to know is: from those studies, what is anticipated in tonnage to come through either place, either Dawson Creek or Fort St. John, to take care of the approximately 300 cars that B.C. Rail anticipates to put on line to move grain?

Hon. D. Miller: No, we don't have that information here. We did look. I talked earlier about a kind of catchment area in terms of bringing volumes of grain into load centres at both Fort St. John and Dawson Creek. But with respect to the split, we don't have that information available. If it is available, I'll certainly ask B.C. Rail to pass that on to you.

R. Neufeld: Going on from there, what happens every year.... Even this past year with the 50-some cars that B.C. Rail had in its fleet and the others they got from CN, there was a lot of difficulty getting those cars to Fort St. John, in particular, getting them spotted, moving them to port and getting them back again. In fact, it's an age-old problem; it's certainly not new. Again, what happens in the wintertime when the farmers can haul their grain.... Towards spring, when the price is up, there are no cars. They can't get it in, and about the time we get cars, the road bans come on and the farmers can't move it to the railhead.

I understand from speaking to B.C. Rail officials that much of the difficulty comes from interlining with CN in Prince George and because of some trackage problems in Prince George and also in transferring over the CN line to go to Rupert. What can be done? Like I say, this is an age-old problem. We must be able to do something to alleviate that problem because if we are going to get more cars and more tonnage, the problem is just going to get bigger. That's not going to help us a bit. I don't think just buying more grain cars is going to be the total answer.

Obviously there has to be some kind of deal, or a better deal, made with CN, or maybe looking at increasing B.C. Rail's trackage and taking the track over from Prince George to Prince Rupert. I can see the minister smiling, because that would certainly pick up the tonnage in the Prince Rupert port. Have there been any thoughts given to that?

Hon. D. Miller: Again, I'll just deal with the primary issue. It is our feeling that with the acquisition of 200 new cars from the federal government, plus the 50 that we've purchased, we will be able to substantially resolve that problem. The problem as it exists now is that you get shorted by CN Rail -- the cars aren't there. If we own our own larger fleet, then we think we can overcome a lot of those problems. I don't want to go out on any limbs here, but I can tell you that my own view, instinctively -- and it's not something I've had any discussion on with B.C. Rail at this point -- is that I'd love to buy the CN north line. I think it would make a lot of sense. I'm saying that without knowing what the economic issues are and everything else, but I've got to tell you that my instinct tells me that would be a good purchase to make. Whether CN -- and I don't know if they run that line in the interests of British Columbians, necessarily -- are interested in parting with that asset, I don't know. I think there may have been some discussion in the past.

It seems to me, from a British Columbia perspective, that if we, upon analysis, determine there could be improvements in the way that line is operated to the benefit of British Columbians, in terms of the movement of volumes out of the Peace River or wherever, and it's not being utilized in a way that we think makes sense for British Columbians, then I think we should make the case. But those are issues that I have to become a little better informed on, and I will be.

R. Neufeld: I guess I say those words, too, without having any information on whether CN even wants to rid itself of that line. All I know is that, as I read in the paper all the time, there are all kinds of rail lines either in CP or CN that they seem to want to drop, and this would be a natural for British Columbia to take over, if it's possible, especially with the forest activity that's taking place in the north. We know that many places are having their annual allowable cuts -- and the minister will know quite well, as the previous Forests minister -- cut back. In the northeast especially, they're not being cut back but in fact are being increased -- in some cases, quite substantially. I think that there's probably room to look at issues such as that.

I still go back to the fact that even if we pick up 250 cars, we're obviously anticipating a tremendous amount more grain to accommodate buying those 250 cars. So the problem of interchanging at Prince George to the CN line to go to Rupert is still going to be in effect; it's just going to manifest itself in a larger fashion. If we have 300 cars and the same amount of grain, I guess you can leave a car sit there for ten days and you'll be able to move the grain. But I'm assuming that 

[ Page 1691 ]

we're anticipating quite a movement of tonnage of grain out of both the North and South Peace to go out and buy 250 cars.

[3:30]

I would hope -- and I take the minister's word on it -- that he will look at maybe acquiring that portion of line, if it's possible, to try and facilitate shipment of British Columbia products on a British Columbia rail line. I, unlike others, believe that the rail line and B.C. Rail should stay as a Crown corporation, but I don't believe that the Crown corporation should be messing around in the trucking industry, and I've put that on record every year. I believe that. I know the minister thinks it's an integral part of B.C. Rail. I don't, and neither do most of the trucking companies in the province of British Columbia. I don't think we should be involved in development of malls or those types of things at all. I think there's plenty of room for the private sector to take care of that. But when we're talking about rail lines and those kinds of expenditures, that's something that opens up country and provides jobs that we need -- and good-paying jobs -- for people in British Columbia.

I'd like to go on to some rates. From what I understand -- and the member for Peace River South touched briefly on it -- the rate per tonne to move grain from Dawson Creek either to Vancouver or to Prince Rupert has been changed. I have read an article where Mr. Tim Ayling has been quoted with some rates that have changed. I'm just going to read them: "Prince Rupert by rail has been lowered from $32.41 to $29.57 per tonne.... Meanwhile, the price to ship to Vancouver went up slightly under the agreement from $24.33 to $25.76." That's apparently an agreement that's been reached between CN and BCR. The rate that CN charges from Dawson Creek -- because it, of course, doesn't come into Fort St. John -- is exactly the same going around by Jasper and down south, as I understand it from this article, knowing full well it's about 200 miles farther. Or has someone misquoted Mr. Ayling?

Hon. D. Miller: I'd ask Mr. McElligott to respond.

P. McElligott: That's a complicated question. There's no easy answer. The rate setting on grain by Canadian National is geared in such a way that they want to get the long haul. They would like to haul as many tonne-miles on their railway as they possibly can. So, often, even though from certain parts of Alberta -- if they routed it over our Dawson Creek subdivision in an effort to get grain out to Rupert -- there would be a 200-mile advantage in doing that, in order to preserve the long haul and carry the entire movement on a CN train, they will route around us.

We can control the rates between Dawson Creek and Prince George, and between Dawson Creek and North Vancouver, but how CN decides to price its business on the Prince George-Prince Rupert section of the line, or, for that matter, to route around us completely and take the entire move through the province of Alberta.... These are commercial decisions made within the offices of CN. While we have ongoing discussions with them to try to put together a rate package that makes sense, they have economic incentives to price their services in such a way as to discourage movement on B.C. Rail.

R. Neufeld: I guess that worries me a bit, because I understood from previous discussions with B.C. Rail officials and yourself last year that we would have an economic advantage of 200 miles, that CN would have to move grain farther to reach the port. That would facilitate the purchase, or the investment, I should say, of buying 200 to 250 cars. What I read, which was quoted by Mr. Ayling, is that in fact CN does move grain from Dawson Creek around and into Rupert -- even though it's 200 miles farther -- for the same price that B.C. Rail will move grain from Dawson Creek to Rupert going south through Prince George.

If we're going to encourage any Alberta grain to come to Dawson Creek or Fort St. John, we have to encourage the trucking end of it also, because if we're going to move grain out of Alberta 150 miles by truck -- some of it's 200 miles -- there obviously has to be some freight differential there; otherwise it's going to be more advantageous for grain farmers in Alberta just to go into Grande Prairie and put it through the grain system there, into CN, and go around. That's some of the difficulty I'm having with what's happening in some of the prices I'm seeing quoted here.

Hon. D. Miller: I think Mr. McElligott offered a good explanation of the tariff structure. The fact is that in a deregulated environment companies will pursue initiatives that are in their own self-interest but may not be in the broader interest. I think that's fair to say. Notwithstanding that, the feeling in B.C. Rail is that the acquisition of new cars and trucking in the volumes that I talked about, in the collection area, is something that will work and will result in increased throughput of grain on the BCR lines and more efficient handling of that because of the ownership of extra cars.

R. Neufeld: I have just a few questions about the line from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson. I've been informed that B.C. Rail charges the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for the use of the Fort Nelson rail bridge across the Sikanni Chief River. If that's the case, could the minister provide me with how much that charge is per year?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, it comes as a surprise to the two officials I have here, but we will check into that and advise the member.

R. Neufeld: Another bridge on the B.C. Rail line that I already talked to Mr. McElligott about earlier is the bridge on the Fontas River, and I believe he has some information now.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. McElligott will respond.

P. McElligott: The Fontas River Bridge is one of three wooden trestle bridges in the Fort St. John-Fort Nelson subdivision. The condition that you referred to earlier is one of soft-soil conditions on the sub. I have talked to the chief engineer of railways since discussing it with you.

The issue is that the approaches, particularly at the southern end, are sinking a little bit. We're talking about three or four inches. The Gutah Creek Bridge was the worst of the three bridges on that sub; it was completely rehabilitated last year. Fontas had routine maintenance last year. We are going back in this fall to do routine maintenance on that bridge structure again. The company's bridge inspector reviewed it as recently as two weeks ago. The south approach is a bit low. We don't believe it's a problem. If you've got more recent information, we'll certainly follow it up. We are working on it; 

[ Page 1692 ]

we are watching it. We will be going back in again in the fall for routine maintenance, and we'll raise it if it gets low enough.

R. Neufeld: The sale of BCR-held land in the community of Fort St. John is something that I broached before with officials from B.C. Rail. But I've never really been given a response of yes, no, we would look at it, or we would be favourable toward doing those kinds of things. Specifically in Fort St. John, there's a fair amount of land that's held by B.C. Rail. It's been held by B.C. Rail for many years and in fact is leased out. There's a number of farmers that actually have some cattle on leased land from the BCR. They would really like to purchase that land, if possible. They've been on it for quite a long time. I just wonder how the minister feels about BCR divesting itself of some of its excess land. Not all of it is excess, but I'm sure there's part of it that is.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm tempted to rise and say maybe. But I really think the issue is that some of that land may be required to implement some of the planning that we've talked about -- for example, the Cargill issue that we're pursuing. I think that as a general operating philosophy, B.C. Rail has an obligation not to foreclose their own options for the future. But within that broad policy framework, it seems to me that they're prepared to discuss particular parcels of land.

That's a very general statement; you'll appreciate that the first priority of the company is their own operation. But they clearly recognize the integration of that operation in areas like Fort St. John. I think that's as precise as I can be.

R. Neufeld: Those are basically all the questions I have on B.C. Rail. I don't know what the procedure is. Are there some official opposition members that still have some B.C. Rail questions?

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: I'd like to just carry on into another area.

I talked to the minister earlier about asking a few questions about energy and mines. Although I know you don't have your staff with you, I think that probably you can answer some of these questions.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm just checking bases with respect to procedure. My understanding is that the member for Peace River North has some questions with respect to an energy issue, and the member for Parksville-Qualicum has some questions with respect to the lighthouse issue, and that would substantially conclude this portion of the estimates. Hopefully, following that, we can move very quickly into Municipal Affairs. I have officials in the back of the room now. I think the member for Parksville-Qualicum has been waiting patiently with respect to his issues, so perhaps we could start there.

P. Reitsma: It won't be all that long, actually; it's more for the record. As I mentioned, we have established that you are a former mariner, and so was I for at least three and a half years. It has always comforted me to see the lighthouses. It gave me a lot of comfort and trust. To me, this transcends all political stripes and political parties. I want to make a couple of comments.

The first lighthouse in 1859 was a private one owned by Captain Nagle; that one burned down. It precipitated the first lighthouse on Fisgard Island. For 120 years on the west coast of Canada, ever since that first light at Fisgard lanced through the night, no vessel went to wreck and not a single life was lost due to the negligence of the lightkeepers. They are reliable, they are trusted and they are great comfort to people. However, their SOS is now going out and it is "Save our stations," rather than in the past when an SOS saved people. Automatic involvement and automation is really mechanical; it's devoid of any feelings and human understanding, and automated light stations will never be able to pick up a flare, see people in distress or see accidents coming.

[3:45]

Rick Bryant, the bureaucrat directing the west coast automation plans, wrote: "Automatic stations, buoys, etc., are prone to failure during severe weather and are not quickly restored, as well as the fact that individual readings are often missed." The result is a total lack of confidence in the system. Flawed and erratic technology is intended to replace staffed lighthouses with a long track record of safety, reliability and dependability. The human lightkeepers, their range and quality of human observation, delivery of safety services and up-to-date and minute weather reporting cannot be matched by mechanical devices. There are some solutions, and I'll get to those in a moment.

In the Province on May 24 all three leaders were asked: "Will your government take over responsibility for maintaining staffed light stations on the B.C. coast?" Again, I really wish to be non-political, although our party is on record, like with the fisheries, of getting this into B.C. The Premier mentioned: "I'm going to make sure Ottawa lives up to it." Yesterday he wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to stop the automation of the lighthouses. He mentioned: "Keeping our coast safe is a high priority for me, and that means keeping lighthouses staffed."

On May 17 the Premier took a swing through the North Island and gave support to his candidate, Glenn Robertson. At that time, Cape Mudge lighthouse keeper Jim Abram, who is the president, came to address our caucus. I understand he has seen you in your office as well. Mr. Abram was all smiles after the Premier announced that the NDP would fight to keep the lighthouses on the coast staffed. The Premier said that although he doesn't know if he can save all the lighthouses, the NDP is working on coming up with an option that means most staffed lighthouses would remain open: "We want to work on an option which preserves the staffed lighthouses, the human beings, the real people that are working up and down our coastline, to deliver the safety services." Three weeks earlier, after hearing from the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. minister stated that the NDP was protesting the lighthouse destaffing.

I'd also like to quote from the NDP party policy on this, February 16 and 17. It was resolved in terms of maintaining the staffed lighthouses: "Be it further resolved that this convention urge the provincial government to participate in an intergovernmental study to maintain continued staffing...." It was done by Oak Bay-Gordon Head. I certainly know the emphasis that the NDP, as we do, put on conventions and resolutions coming from the floor.

Would the minister clarify what his government is now doing to stop the destaffing of the lighthouses in B.C.?

Hon. D. Miller: I certainly appreciate the member's questions, because this is an issue that in my view is truly bipartisan. There's overwhelming support certainly from coastal people with respect to the issue of lighthouses. For those who may not have that much familiarity.... I haven't 

[ Page 1693 ]

read both of the books, but I have gotten a fair way into two books by Don Graham, who was a lighthouse keeper. They're a fascinating history of the province with respect to at least the marine history and the individual light stations. I think they're available commonly in bookstores and maybe even on B.C. Ferries.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. So they're well worth reading if one wants to get a sense of that history.

We have made representation to the federal government with respect to the retention of staffed lighthouses. I was dismayed, and expressed that to the federal government at the meeting I held on June 14 with Mr. Bryant of the Canadian Coast Guard -- not acting commissioner; that's a fellow named Michael Turner -- a senior official in the Coast Guard, and Mr. Tuisignant from DFO. We met here in Victoria on June 14. I had attempted to get an earlier meeting, but for whatever reason, those officials were unprepared to come to my constituency in Prince Rupert. But be that as it may, we finally did meet.

I advised the federal government at that point, in a very straightforward way, that I was once again putting the position of the province forward -- that we and many others, not just the government but really a broad-based group, did not agree with the destaffing decision. And I put in a very straightforward and simple way the request of the Premier and this government -- and, I think, the opposition parties -- that they cease. Their indication was that they had no intention of doing that. I repeated that and talked about, for example, the Senate committee that had come to the same conclusion. Senator Carney from British Columbia has been quite active on this issue, and we've had occasion to have some brief discussions.

Notwithstanding that, they clearly have moved ahead on the first eight. I want to read from a letter that I received about a month ago from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with respect to the remaining 27. I'm not suggesting for a moment that this is a satisfactory resolution of the issue at all, but rather I want to inform the members of the process, if you like, and just sort of set the stage a bit.

My ministry had conducted a study -- KPMG, I think, had done the study -- on the issue of the costs of maintaining the lighthouses in a staffed way, the anticipated savings that the federal government had indicated would be realized through destaffing and some of the capital costs. It tried to really analyze that from an economic or cost point of view to see whether their numbers were sound. There were some indications, primarily from Mr. Abram, that questioned the numbers. Nonetheless, we took all that information into account, did a study and essentially verified the federal numbers.

I also must say, with respect to the Province article the member referred to, that we have also taken a position as a government that we are not prepared to commit provincial resources on an ongoing basis to maintain what arguably is a federal responsibility. We are faced with that issue in a wide variety of areas -- in the ports, the small craft harbours, the airports. We just simply could not sustain a position whereby we, as a matter of policy, said that whenever the feds vacate the field, no matter what the area is, we'll simply move in. From a fiscal point of view you simply can't operate on that basis.

So getting to the letter, there is an active committee, as I understand it, that the Coast Guard has on the issue of destaffing, and I just want to read a couple of paragraphs from this letter. I'll certainly make a copy of the letter available to members opposite. This is from Rear Admiral Fred J. Mifflin.

"We are well aware that additional work will be required before plans can be finalized and submitted for my approval for the destaffing of any of the remaining 27 staffed stations, and in some cases, the development of either technical solutions or alternative community-based arrangements may take several years yet. May I also note that Coast Guard officials would be pleased to directly consult with your department's officials, as the appropriate B.C. government contact point, prior to finalizing and submitting to headquarters any plans for further destaffing beyond the present limited program of eight sites.

I should also re-emphasize a point which Mr. Turner made during the discussion regarding our future plans. While we have now proceeded with the destaffing of the first four sites (though there are still personnel living on two of these as a temporary measure), we remain open to any alternative arrangements that might allow other organizations to occupy the lightstation site and buildings after the aids to navigation systems have been remotely monitored, and thus retain a human presence in the area where this would support local community or provincial objectives."

I'll just skip over a bit.

"Allow me, therefore, to reiterate Mr. Turner's suggestion at the June 14 meeting that your officials participate directly with the Coast Guard and the lightkeepers' representatives on the alternative-uses team charged with ensuring that other groups are encouraged to consider the use of our lightstation properties in ways which the local marine community feels would be useful."

It goes on from there. And I really cite the letter... I'm not suggesting for a moment that this is a satisfactory resolution of this issue. But going back to what the Premier said -- going back to what I've said with respect to the fiscal pressures -- it is the result of our discussions with the federal government. We have agreed to participate in the alternative-uses committee. We have commissioned -- if I'm not mistaken -- a study to look at issues around alternative uses. Ideas have been presented to me, both in letter and verbally -- for example, the use of some of these lands as parks, and there may be some potential there.

Again, I don't want to preclude any decisions that might have cost implications for the government of British Columbia. Just as a matter of interest, I was over on Mayne Island for the first time several weeks ago and there is a very attractive light station there, which is in fact a tourist attraction. Again, those are areas that might have some potential.

So we're prepared and we are participating with the federal government in the alternative-uses committee. I think it's fully representative of both lightkeepers and others, and that is the current information. I haven't received any sort of briefing in the last number of weeks on the issue, but that is my best summation of the current status of that particular issue.

P. Reitsma: Thank you minister. Rick Bryant is actually the bureaucrat directing the west coast automation plans.

The apparent savings are something like $1.8 million over 18 months -- although I know the NDP has questioned the cost savings stated by the Coast Guard. Have any discussions taken place after June 14? Are any ongoing, and would the minister involve members opposite, as well?

Hon. D. Miller: There may have been. Mr. Caple, I think, in my ministry is the representative. He is, at least, the official in the ministry who I have used on this file. There is an alternative-uses committee. We are represented on it as the government of British Columbia. I don't know in that context 

[ Page 1694 ]

whether or not I could get a representative from the caucus. It seems to me these are government decisions. But certainly we want to keep people fully informed about issues as they arise. There is a process now, obviously, with an alternative-uses committee that's comprised of people who have those interests, for that information to be passed on to various interest groups. But certainly the member should feel free to contact my office at any time to see what information is current on this file.

P. Reitsma: In terms of ongoing discussions -- and I'm quoting from the Nanaimo Daily Free Press on June 19 -- you had some comment in terms of federal off-loading, and I suppose that's fine. It said:

"Ironically, Miller's comments came on the heels of word out of Ottawa late last that week" -- which would be around the 12th of June, or around there -- "that the federal government is scaling back its destaffing efforts because of those talks. Jacques Lorqued, Coast Guard's acting director-general of marine navigation services, said only minor preparatory work was being done so that in the event of a deal between the two levels of government, re-staffing stations could be done with minimal effort."

That was my question earlier. I hope further negotiations will be going on.

Is the Peat Marwick study public, or could it be made public?

[4:00]

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I'm aware of the Nanaimo Free Press article, and it really is quite consistent with what I've outlined in the correspondence I received from Minister Mifflin.

With respect to that study, I'll have to check to see whether or not that's public. If it's something that we're prepared to make public, I'll certainly make sure that a copy is forwarded to the member.

P. Reitsma: Why would it not be made public? I would assume there's nothing of secrecy in there. If there are some numbers, I don't think the numbers really would have to look good or bad for the government. I think they should look factual to the cost. I would hope that it would be made available.

Hon. D. Miller: No disrespect, Mr. Chairman; it's really just an abundance of caution, I suppose. I don't know that there is any particular reason why it wouldn't be made public. I occasionally make decisions on my feet. Sometimes I don't. In this case, if the member would give me the opportunity to canvass that very briefly, I could find out by later today whether or not it is and try to get a copy in his hands if it is.

P. Reitsma: So it's up to the minister to determine whether or not the information contained is releasable, I suppose. I really do it for a matter of safety and in the public interest, and to put that sector of business and the population at ease, so they know what is going on. The reasons for the buy, or non-participation, are going to be in there.

Would that report contain -- or has an analysis been done on -- the cost to the provincial government if the provincial government were to take over the lighthouses?

Hon. D. Miller: No, it really dealt with -- although the costs were clearly there -- an analysis of what the federal government had indicated their savings would be. I can't recall the numbers, but essentially the arguments presented were that there would be certain savings on the destaffing side, there would be a requirement for capital investment on the automation side, and that would result, over time, in an annual net savings -- I think it was in the $3 million to $4 million range, but again, I don't want to be quoted from memory. So it was really an analysis to attempt to verify the numbers that were being used by the federal government with respect to anticipated savings on their part.

P. Reitsma: I cannot put into numbers, of course, the loss of life. I would just hate to imagine an oil spill on the coast and the cost because a person that should have been there and could have been there wasn't there. The cost of one life, and the economic impact of an oil spill, I would suggest to the minister, far outweigh, including the human cost, the million or two that might be saved.

The Premier had indicated earlier that the provincial government would take over the lighthouses if it could find the money. What attempts has the government made to try to find funding? Attached to that, has the minister considered the option of either a fee for boats, commercial and recreational, or a marginal one -- I think 0.4 cents on the litre -- for aviation and marine fuel? I think it would generate a great deal of money.

Hon. D. Miller: I represent a constituency that runs from the midcoast of Bella Bella-Bella Coola all the way up to Stewart, and no one is more aware than I about the issue of maintaining staffed lighthouses and the sort of passionate feelings that go along with that. I appreciate the argument the member is making, but I reject the, I suppose, onus in some respects, and I guess this is an obligation of government.

There are always compelling arguments, believe me, with respect to budgetary issues. As a minister, I've faced that over the last five years. Really, I think the position I've outlined is not a callous one; it's not one that disregards the importance attached to these stations at all. It is simply a matter of fact with respect to maintaining a position that we can't.

The federal government has withdrawn fire services from various airports in my constituency. Some might argue that they shouldn't, and some might argue that the B.C. government should move in and fill that void. There are a host of areas where those arguments can be deployed, but the budget is the budget. We've been beat up here for the last couple of weeks on those issues, and I guess it's....

R. Neufeld: Your wounds are showing.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: Well, that's all right. You've got to give and take. What goes around comes around -- believe it.

I do appreciate the member's depth of feeling on this question. I think I've outlined, in a very straightforward way, the steps we've taken. It's fairly clear that while eight of the light stations in very close proximity to heavily populated areas are being destaffed, the remaining 27, which are in more remote locations, continue to be staffed. The letter from the Coast Guard indicates that there's some time with respect to that issue. There is a process. Surely we ought to allow that to try to reach some conclusions with the stakeholders, the participants, the representatives, the lightkeepers, the province and others prior to rushing into judgment about any fiscal questions the province might face in this regard.

P. Reitsma: I, too, am very passionate about it, because where I come from, Parksville-Qualicum, we have many fisher-

[ Page 1695 ]

men. A tremendous amount of tourism is derived from recreational boats, of course. Coming from the old country -- Holland, of course -- the navigators and what have you.... Having been a mariner for almost four years myself, we know what the water can do. You know the stories about the boy with the finger in the dike. If they didn't have any dikes, most of Holland would be underwater.

However, I'm passionate about it, and I so disagree with the minister. Really, if there is a want, there is a way to do it. I submit to the minister that when you're talking about a provincial marine park, that's a possibility. It's good for tourism, as well. There are many federal and provincial ministries: Fisheries, Environment, Tourism, Transportation, Education, Manpower, Public Works, Employment -- multibillion-dollar departments. There are industries contained in those that I just mentioned, as well. If there is a will, there is a way to do that.

The government can -- and no disrespect -- put aside $6 million, $7 million or $8 million, under pressure, to buy Jedediah Island, which for many is seen as a rich man's retreat because only those who have boats can visit it, unless we're going to have some ferries to there, and the government can, under pressure, come up with $7.7 million to, in my riding, buy a couple of acres of property on Craig Bay because of the protest. I think the levying of 0.3 or 0.4 cents on gasoline for marine and aviation, with a fee on recreational and commercial boats, could go a long, long way, and I know that people are for that. It's maybe a motherhood issue to have a manned light station; we will never do better with an unmanned one.

Has the minister considered a supplementary boating tax on marine fuel at all?

Hon. D. Miller: With all respect, we have canvassed.... I think I've repeated now on a couple of occasions that our position is not to.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the arguments here, but, you know, the member was up in question period demanding that the government provide money for a CT scanner and complaining because that had not been forthcoming. I believe there have been critics out there of the government's taxation, and the member is saying -- and I appreciate his argument -- that we should increase taxes and take on this responsibility.

I submit that while these issues are important as individual issues, surely there has to be some broader context. Going back to the final question raised, the member, prior to asking me to stand and say, "Yes, we're prepared to raise taxes and spend more money," would want the points raised in the letter.... The very things that he talked about himself -- looking at the potential for alternative arrangements -- surely that process that is there now with the stakeholders is exactly what the member for Parksville-Qualicum is asking for. Should we not, as a matter of prudence, allow that process to identify opportunities while we have time? While the federal government has said it will take some time, and may take several years, we should allow that process to try to work. Rather than me attempting to respond to the member to agree that we should raise taxes and take over that obligation, wouldn't that be a more prudent course, now that we have this...?

I think we have to be steadfast in watching the federal government, but I would suggest that when you have the fiscal responsibility, you want to look at all those options and examine all those options before making some commitment to spending additional money, and we will certainly do that.

P. Reitsma: Just some concluding remarks. I don't want to rehash question period, but the fact of the matter is that in 1993 a CAT scanner was promised; the funding was put aside. The absolutely hollow argument that a couple of the committees and New Directions and other people are tossing and turning, not knowing which way it has to go or where it has to go, has nothing to do with it. It was promised in 1993, the funding was there, and we would like to see the promise kept.

In terms of the manned light stations, I appreciate what the minister is saying. My only hope is that he stands up, the government stands up, not just diligently but in full force for them. Whether it is through provincial marine parks, or whatever, things can be done. I again submit to you, very hastily and very fast, Jedediah Island was bought and so was acreage in my area -- Craig Bay. It can be done if it needs to be done. I hope the minister will be very diligent, I hope he'll get involved and keep us posted as well, because it's extremely important to us.

R. Neufeld: I'll deal with one issue first, and it's in relationship to the lighthouse situation. As the minister of everything.... I have in my constituency some federal obligations that have been left. The minister is probably not aware of them, but there are two airstrips along the Alaska Highway that have been there since the highway was built. They used to be maintained by the federal government -- I don't mean paved; they are gravel strips. But they are long ones that can accommodate Hercules and that type of aircraft. They have been used extensively for taking people from ambulances, if there are car accidents along that lonely stretch of road, and are also used extensively by Forests for fighting forest fires -- for fixed-wing or for helicopters. In fact, they store an awful lot of fuel along those airstrips. The federal government has said they are going to look after them no more. All they did before was grade them maybe once a year to keep the trees down.

What they are talking about doing is putting huge Xs in the airstrip, painted in white paint. As I understand from people who fly small aircraft -- and there are an awful lot of them that ferry between the U.S. and Alaska, and follow the Alaska Highway -- they have a place to land if they are in trouble. That indicates that this airstrip is not in operation. I know that they took out the two windsocks, one on each airstrip. I mean, it's really simple things. I don't know why they wouldn't just leave the poles and the windsocks there, but they took them out. And they won't grade them anymore.

I don't know. I'm not talking about millions. It wouldn't be expensive for the government to look seriously at doing a contract with the contractor on the federal highway to go in at least once a year and grade the trees off so that those airstrips can continue to be used for the purposes they are used for.

Secondly, the federal government is talking about now ditching the strips, putting them totally out of commission. If we could even have the government accept responsibility for them in some fashion and work with some groups that use those airstrips to grade them once in a while, so it doesn't cost the government some money.... But at least get them out of federal hands and into provincial hands so that we can use them for emergency purposes. Would that be something that the minister would look at favourably?

I broached the situation with the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I was turned down flat, so I am approaching the minister of everything on this issue to find out whether there is something that can be worked out that would be comparable and help everyone.

[4:15]

[ Page 1696 ]

Hon. D. Miller: Well, she is a lot tougher than I am.

Really, the only thing I can suggest is that the province does maintain a program of support for community airstrips, the air transport assistance program, or ATAP. I can't recall what the budget has been over the last number of years. As I recall the distribution, a lot of that money has gone to northern airstrips in northern communities -- like Dease Lake, Masset in my own constituency, and other northern communities. Some of them are modest grants: $30,000, for example, for a sealing program and those kinds of things.

Really, all I can suggest is that if the areas are within a regional district or adjacent to municipalities, there may be some discussion about an application for some modest assistance through the air transport assistance program. I'd be happy to have officials talk to you about how those applications are handled. I think they go through the regional districts, if I'm not mistaken. That may be something you can pursue.

R. Neufeld: Thank you very much. Briefly, I want to touch on the Sierra-Desan road out of Fort Nelson. I don't know whether the minister is up to date on it. It's a longstanding issue of a road, part of which is owned by the province and part of which is owned by private companies. Part of it was built by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in the late seventies or early eighties.

It's been a political football between Highways and the Ministry of Energy and Mines for almost that many years. No one wants to accept responsibility for it, and no one wants to maintain it. What has happened is that we have turned away a tremendous amount of activity. By activity, I mean business that would take place in that area that would be supplied by British Columbia companies. Wintertime is when most of the work takes place in that region of the province, with its close proximity to the Alberta border and to two paved roads in Alberta. The oil companies will open a road from Alberta in the wintertime when it's frozen, and instead of coming through British Columbia or being hauled on trucks and cat equipment used out of British Columbia, equipment comes out of Alberta -- in fact, a tremendous amount of it. There's not only a loss of tax, there's a loss of employment and a loss of investment for those operators that work out of Fort Nelson or Fort St. John.

Energy and Mines has worked with the users of the road and come up with a proposal of maintenance and upgrading. The maintenance is estimated to be about $600,000 a year, of which the government is going to pick up $300,000, and industry, through a complicated system, the other $300,000. There is also a proposal to the TFA for about $4.5 million to upgrade the whole road to a much better standard, which is sitting with the TFA right now and which will come into place, hopefully, this fall.

As I understand it, Energy and Mines has been.... Actually, when the NDP were elected they first wanted to give the road up, and they almost did. They have cut the maintenance back dramatically and are spending about $200,000 on maintenance. It's interesting to note that when we're going to partner, it's going to cost $600,000. Over the last four years about a third of the money has been spent on maintenance, so obviously it has deteriorated terribly during that period of time. I understand that the $200,000 is going to run out in about November, and the money that's been budgeted for the maintenance of that road is gone.

I talked to the Minister of Transportation and Highways at length about it, and they really don't have an obligation. They administer the contract for what used to be Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I tried to get a commitment from the Minister of Transportation and Highways that they would look favourably at spending some more money, because we can't just quit maintaining it in the fall; that's when much of the activity is really going to start taking place.

I wonder if the minister, who is responsible for energy and mines, is willing to look at trying to find some more money from some other place to be able to at least finish the fiscal year, so that we can maintain that road and encourage the development that has taken place in that part of the province.

Hon. D. Miller: I did deal with this briefly in estimates last Wednesday. Has it been a week?

An Hon. Member: Seems like just a couple of hours.

Hon. D. Miller: Time flies when you're having fun, Mr. Chairman.

Much to my surprise, that prompted a news release from the Liberals, and I was very pleased that they have prompted me to promise further info on a proposal to cost-share maintenance of the Sierra-Yoyo-Desan road. I'm just being cheeky there.

An Hon. Member: It's in Hansard now.

R. Neufeld: Maybe we have to supply him with the agreement.

Hon. D. Miller: Yeah, right. All northerners.... I think I've talked about that earlier, and we all understand the conditions up there. But the member is substantially correct with respect to the issues around maintenance and budgeting. While I can't make a commitment, that is an issue that we have been looking at with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority and the industry. Petro-Canada and Mobil currently maintain about 47 kilometres of that road. It's about 200 kilometres -- 192 kilometres -- and we do the remaining about 130, although it's not really classified as a provincial highway.

There is a proposal to start in '97-98 to jointly, through the agency I talked about, fund the maintenance of the entire road on an ongoing basis, and to finance the upgrading of the non-highway, the 131-kilometre portion, to a uniform six-metre width of industrial standard. Those costs would be funded by industry.

The fiscal situation is pretty tough. I'm not standing here making promises, but it does appear that the energy portion of the ministry, working with MOTH, the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority and the industry, are looking at ways in which they can both upgrade and provide for the ongoing maintenance of the road. I'll certainly, as the minister responsible for energy, mines and petroleum resources, be carrying a file. I also wear a couple of hats; I'm on the TFA as well. But like I say, that minister of Transportation and Highways is pretty tough, so I don't know. I might get beat up again, but I'm getting used to it, Mr. Chairman.

So I will take it seriously. We will pursue it, and if there's anything positive to report, I'll certainly keep the member informed.

[ Page 1697 ]

R. Neufeld: I know the Minister of Transportation and Highways is pretty tough, but she has basically agreed that this is a good proposal, Mr. Minister, and that it should go through. I don't think she's in the crowd, so.... But she does agree that we seriously have to look at that road and deal with it. In fact, for the minister's information, it's a road that is in almost bad enough condition, with the amount of traffic it takes -- hundreds of loads a day -- in the wintertime, that WCB is looking seriously at closing it down because of the deterioration of the road.

Those are serious issues. I mean, those are putting men's and women's lives at risk, because all kinds of people and all kinds of activity take place out there that we have to be cognizant of. I know I bring it forward every year, and it is an integral part of the energy part of your ministry and does bring a substantial amount of money into the province of British Columbia. The minister knows full well that drilling is up, sales are up and the energy sector is paying more constantly into the coffers and is even willing to go ahead and start going along with some funding with TFA to improve the road.

So I would hope that the minister would look favourably at this fall and that we don't just say: "Well, the money's run out. I'm sorry, folks, we can't really look after this anymore." And I think I got that assurance from the minister that he's going to look seriously at being able to carry over until at least next spring, until the fiscal year ends, so that we can maintain it in a half-decent fashion.

The other issue I have is the Tatshenshini. I just wonder if the minister could provide me a quick breakdown on what compensation -- and maybe that's the wrong word, but maybe I'll just use it anyhow -- was given to Royal Oak Mines when their property was expropriated in the Tatshenshini. I've read different articles in the newspaper, not always believing what I read in the newspaper. Maybe the minister could inform me, and not to the nth degree, but at least of the government's position on how they reacted to Royal Oak Mines and what happened with them in the Tatshenshini.

Hon. D. Miller: I didn't, obviously, anticipate this, but let me try to put it this way. We have worked, I think, in a very good way with Royal Oak to come up with a commercial deal with respect to the Kemess mine development project, and that is proceeding. Without giving any numbers, there is a balance of cost-sharing between the provincial government and Royal Oak Mines. Royal Oak Mines is committed to major expenditures for that development, which will provide good job opportunities in central British Columbia.

So we have come to an agreement with Royal Oak Mines, and that agreement is proceeding. I don't have the numbers here. I'm not sure what we've released with respect to that. Again, I certainly will provide, or ask my officials to provide, any information on this question that we can to the member.

R. Neufeld: I thank the minister for that, and I look forward to receiving that information.

I realize that the minister doesn't have his staff here, but does he know how many small placer miners and those kinds of people were affected by the creation of the almost-one-million-hectare Tatshenshini park?

Hon. D. Miller: No, I don't have that information here. With all due respect, I had not anticipated that we would get into discussions on these questions. Again, it's information that I would be quite happy to ask my ministry to provide to the member.

[4:30]

R. Neufeld: I'm not aware of how many there are, either, but there are a substantial number of small placer miners. In fact, one resides in my constituency...

Hon. D. Miller: There are probably some big ones, too.

R. Neufeld: Yes. I guess not small, but small in operation.... who had his land expropriated. Under the Expropriation Act, the government is supposed to value the property as to what they think it's worth, pay that to the person they have basically expropriated the property from and allow an appeal. That's all written in the Expropriation Act; it's in the legislation. To date, this gentleman I know has had a hard time, even through his legal firm, getting a response from the provincial government as to what they're going to do.

That was in 1993. We've gone through a number of seasons where these people can't work anymore. All they're looking for -- and I know it's all this gentleman is looking for -- is some kind of closure to something that's costing them a lot of money in legal fees probably, and, I would assume, the province and the people of British Columbia. I wonder what action you, as the minister responsible for mines, could take to get on with dealing with many of these smaller enterprises.

We've obviously looked at a commercial deal with Royal Oak Mines. We've done that, and I'm not going to dispute it. I agree with what the minister says. I think it was probably a fairly good saw-off with Royal Oak. But when you look at it, we've dealt with the bigger person, and we're leaving all the smaller ones, the ones who create jobs and provide revenue to the province. I just wonder what the minister's position is on the fact that the government of the day is actually breaking its own expropriation rules.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't concede that we're breaking any rules at all. The member mentioned expropriation of property. I think he might more properly wish to talk about rights, as opposed to property. I think they are different. You can get into an endless argument on that question as well. As I recall, there were broad commitments made by the then Premier, Mr. Harcourt, with respect to the interests of those holders of rights in areas where decisions had been made to create parks or protected areas. Where that is precisely, I'm not in a position to say today, but I believe commitments were made in the past. The ministry clearly has an obligation to move forward and deal with the question. I'll do some checking. Perhaps I can get some update for the member with respect to that question.

R. Neufeld: I'll provide the minister with the correspondence I have in regard to the person that I'm talking about here, to see if we can't get some type of closure. In fact, it's interesting that the legal firm wrote a letter to the Ministry of Attorney General in April 1995 and still hasn't received a response. Obviously, there are some fair-sized problems here that have to be dealt with.

The last question I have has to do with an order-in-council effective April 1, 1996. The Minister of Employment and Investment is charged with the administration of the Pipeline Act. The Pipeline Act, as I understand it, and I've 

[ Page 1698 ]

dealt with it in years before, used to be under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Does that move the Pipeline Act away from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs into Employment and Investment -- actually, into Energy and Mines, where it rightfully should be?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, Energy and Mines. But if it's any comfort, I'm also the Minister of Municipal Affairs, so....

An Hon. Member: And numerous other things as well.

Hon. D. Miller: Aye.

The Chair: Shall vote 22 pass?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

C. Hansen: It was our understanding at the start of the Employment and Investment estimates that we were going to go through the various ministries, given that the minister's vote is part of the first vote, yet that minister's vote basically will be applicable to all of the ministries involved. Is that not the understanding we had at the start?

Hon. D. Miller: My understanding is that we would move on to other ministries -- they are new votes -- and that we were required to pass all of the votes under the Ministry of Employment and Investment prior to moving on. I have staff available from Municipal Affairs, and I'd like to move on to that next ministry.

F. Gingell: You want to move on to Municipal Affairs. If you just call the vote that excludes Municipal Affairs, that's fine. Or we can do Municipal Affairs.

The Chair: We're just doing Employment and Investment votes now.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

F. Gingell: Whatever's convenient.

Vote 22 approved.

Vote 23: ministry operations, $133,740,672 -- approved.

On vote 24: Crown corporations secretariat, $10.

Hon. D. Miller: Ten dollars?

An Hon. Member: That's your salary.

Hon. D. Miller: Yeah -- worth every penny.

Vote 24 approved.

Vote 26: resource revenue sharing agreements, $810,000 -- approved.

F. Gingell: Do you have vote 25 in there?

Hon. D. Miller: Where is it? Oh, it's not here?

C. Hansen: On a point of order, is that particular vote not transferred to the Ministry of Finance? I think it was reconciled as the addendum.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I think you're right. Well, we can take a recess.

The Chair: We'll have a five-minute recess to sort out this difficulty.

The committee recessed from 4:40 p.m. to 4:44 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

On vote 45: minister's office, $339,135.

G. Abbott: It's a pleasure to rise and participate in the discussion of estimates as the Municipal Affairs critic for the official opposition. I've had the honour and the pleasure of spending 17 years in local government, and I do want to say at the outset that I was always very much impressed by the staff of Municipal Affairs in my dealings with them over that time. The minister certainly has a very excellent and very capable staff at Municipal Affairs, and he's very fortunate to have them.

I think it could also be said that I've also been very impressed over the years with the various Ministers of Municipal Affairs as well -- at least most of them. Certainly I'd have to say that I'm very much impressed by the present minister, as well. The remarkable ability of the present minister to juggle a number of portfolios continues to amaze. Clearly, government could be streamlined even more judging by.... Just kidding. No, we'd better not do that.

[4:45]

At any rate, I do look forward to a thorough and candid discussion of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and its goals and expectations for the coming year. Ministry staff generously provided myself and others with a thorough technical briefing a couple of weeks ago, so we won't need to preoccupy ourselves with too much detail there. What I look forward to discussing is the philosophy underlying the ministry's goals and expectations for this year and perhaps the years ahead, as well as probably a few questions of more mundane detail.

With that, the first area I wanted to discuss is an area which caught my eye in one of the ministry publications. I think it was the '93-94 highlights of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. One of the sections was entitled "Empowering Local Government." I think that's probably a good theme to begin on here. I know the minister likes occasionally to wax philosophic about issues, so I'll provide him the first opportunity here by asking the question: what measures have been undertaken, or are currently under consideration, for either reducing the involvement of the provincial government in local affairs, or enhancing local autonomy in areas in which the province previously held a role?

Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the member's remarks with respect to staff. I have had some municipal experience as a councillor in Prince Rupert, and in my short time in the ministry, I think this is a very well-run and very efficient ministry. People know their business, and they deal with an amazing amount of detail, which I've come to discover means that I do an amazing amount of signing.

Notwithstanding that, there is an initiative underway for protocol recognition with local government. I have had an 

[ Page 1699 ]

initial discussion with the executive of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities with respect to that. The Premier has conveyed, in a letter in June, his support for that initiative to the UBCM. We have had initial discussions on some of the points, which really arose out of a broader initiative at the municipal level that could be described as a demand that they be recognized as a third order of government in Canada. I don't agree with that; I think, from a constitutional point of view, that's not appropriate.

Notwithstanding that, it is important to try to define the relationship between the provincial level of government and municipal level of government. We are looking at a number of points with respect to the protocol, the principles of the relationship and the consultation process -- although I could be accused, and was a few short weeks ago, of not being particularly good at that.

We will be pursuing those initiatives with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, and I look forward to further discussions with those representatives at their annual convention in Penticton later in September.

G. Abbott: I do commend the efforts of UBCM and the ministry to arrive at that protocol. I believe I was the one who was perhaps rude enough to suggest that section 35 of Bill 8 might, in some ways, offend elements in the protocol. I would still hold to that view, but I'm still nursing the view at this point that section 35 of Bill 8 was something of an aberration in the general flow of things between Municipal Affairs and municipalities in this province. It will be an anomaly that we won't see repeated. Who knows? Perhaps we'll know better by the end of estimates whether that's in fact the case.

When I first got involved in local government, the Municipal Act was probably about half the size it is now. Are there any initiatives underway or contemplated with respect to simplifying, amending or abridging the Municipal Act in order to make a simpler, more streamlined document than it currently is?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, we do.... I think there is a history of trying to look at various parts of the Municipal Act. It is a very large document; there's absolutely no question about it. But it is important in that it governs the activities of municipalities and regional districts. The member is also aware that -- maybe because of that complexity -- every year we traditionally end up with a MEVA, an act essentially forgiving minor transgressions on issues around zoning and the like.

There is an ongoing attempt. It's a challenge with respect to the legislative calendar; it's always difficult. You try to shape your legislative agenda. We don't have a regularized system, so the member will appreciate that some legislation takes an inordinate amount of time. That tends to squeeze the calendar. But there are ongoing examples, as well, where we are attempting to get out of the business. I talked about signing. A lot of the issues that I have to finally approve are essentially zoning issues in regional districts. If you're going to recognize the ability of regional and municipal government to act and follow the Municipal Act but nonetheless make decisions on their own, the thinking is: why do you have to have the minister approve sometimes very simple and innocuous zoning issues? So we're trying to move to get out of that regulation or oversight as well. We are working very closely, we're aware of the complexity of the act and are always working to try to simplify it.

G. Abbott: I think the move in that direction is commendable. Obviously there are always reasons for regulation, and at times these things need to be studied in a number of ways before changes are undertaken, but I'm pleased that the general move of the ministry isn't in that direction.

Next I want to refer to some questions. This is one section from a document entitled "Modernizing the Municipal Act 2." It's a publication of the Union of B.C. Municipalities from 1992. This reflects as much as anything a lack of imagination on my part that I'm going to be asking questions that they've previously asked. In asking these questions, I'd like to get a sense of where the province stands in relation to some relatively longstanding issues in relation to the deregulation of provincial controls on local government. I'll read the preamble here and then quickly run the questions by the minister. The preamble reads:

"The Municipal Act contains a confusing and restrictive set of provincial controls over local government powers to regulate the commercial environment within municipalities. Provincial intervention over shop hours and licensing powers are out of step with the need to allow communities to manage their own affairs."

That's the context of these questions. The first of some of the questions which follow from that is: what is the ongoing interest of the province in setting special hours for the operation of service stations? Is that something that is now in the past or is it something that the province is still working on?

Hon. D. Miller: I would agree with the sentiment expressed. They are obsolete, but not as obsolete, perhaps, as.... I recall years ago when I was in England where they had some arcane laws. For example, you couldn't sell sugar on Sunday -- truly bizarre. At the time, they probably had some economic reasons why they were there. There are lots of those. They're obsolete and it's part of the earlier question with respect to trying to get some of those issues removed from the Municipal Act.

G. Abbott: Thank you. I'm surmising from that that while nothing has specifically been addressed there, it probably will be part of a broader initiative correcting some of these kinds of anomalies.

A second question which was posed here is: why can't a local government set closing hours on a zone-by-zone basis and permit late night and special-event shopping if it chooses? This may be a matter of the past, but I would be interested in whether it's been addressed.

Hon. D. Miller: I think the answer is: why should we be in it? My view is that there are many areas where we shouldn't be. I don't know if the issue is one where we should try to define those powers or, in a general way, simply take away any specific restrictions that the act has -- for example, shopping hours -- as opposed to trying to define in a more detailed way areas where municipalities can regulate. So it's a matter of forum, really. I don't think the answer is different from the one I gave for the last question. It's simply a matter of how you approach it.

G. Abbott: One of the questions which came up with some frequency when I was a member of the Columbia-Shuswap regional district board was the question of the extension of business licensing to regional districts as a power. As I recall, that extension of licensing powers still has not been extended to regional districts, and I would be interested in whether the minister is looking at that as a possibility. If indeed he is, at what stage is that?

Hon. D. Miller: There apparently was a mixed response or a division of response from regional districts on that ques-

[ Page 1700 ]

tion, and I guess the issue is one that might fall into regulatory issues or tax issues. Given that, I'm not certain we could say there has been any progress made. No, there really hasn't been any progress made with respect to that particular issue in regional districts.

G. Abbott: The upshot, then, would be that if and when regional districts still want to assume, be given or be extended that kind of power in the future, they should be actively canvassing the minister to try to extend it. The question, I guess, is whether it is still under consideration, or will it have to come back as a new initiative on the part of local government, should they wish to have that power?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, traditionally, in pursuing those kinds of issues where there is potentially a mixed reaction -- in other words, where there are some who may not want it and some who do -- we tend to rely on UBCM to be the authority that conveys, if you like, a consensus view. I think we're still looking to UBCM on that particular question.

There are complex issues around regional districts. I know, from my own recollection, maybe there is no simple answer to that. In some of the more remote areas where you have small, unincorporated communities, you have advisory committees. There is this constant question about whether the advisory committee should be the authority with respect to a local area and the regional district should simply follow it. Interestingly enough, within the regional district we have the same argument that you might have between a regional district and the provincial government, and I know they have not resolved those kinds of questions. Some have systems that work; in others, you find a constant tension between those advisory committees and the regional board, which comprises representatives from the entire region, including municipalities. So I think when you go down any chain, you'll find those kinds of issues. We are looking for UBCM to be really the authoritative voice with respect to any particular changes at our level.

G. Abbott: In the publication I have been referring to, the modernized Municipal Act, they kind of summarize their direction. I would be interested in the minister's comments -- again, I guess, from a philosophical perspective -- and I'll quote:

"A new approach to municipal legislation has been endorsed by UBCM. This would be a useful area in which to implement the principle that local government should have wide enabling authority to manage their communities and that the provincial government should only restrict the authority where there is a specific, identifiable provincial interest. Rather than set out specific narrow powers, as is now the case, the Municipal Act would simply provide the basis for local government to determine by bylaw what was needed in each community."

I would be interested in the ministers' comments with respect to that general direction.

[5:00]

Hon. D. Miller: Again, I do think that is a more complex issue. The municipalities are creatures of the provincial government by statute and because of that, there is a broader responsibility that the provincial government has. Obviously decisions made by the municipal governments impact on individual citizens, and if you look at any other act that governs our affairs in this province, you'll find avenues of recourse, etc. So I think there are some complex issues here with respect to individual rights that need to be accounted for. I think it is fine with respect to a statement of principle, but when you actually get deeper into it, you will find some complexities, and perhaps it's not that simple.

G. Abbott: I agree with the assessment by the minister. The one point I would make is in respect to the kind of constitutional issue about municipal affairs being a power of the province, under section 92 of the Constitution Act. The Constitution Act, of course, is in evolution, and I have the sense that the relationship between municipalities and the province is also in the same kind of evolution. One hundred years ago it was not unusual -- it was not commonplace, but it was certainly not unusual -- for the federal government to use its powers of disallowance and reservation in what is known now as the Constitution Act to kind of bridle the provincial governments and set them right when they felt the provinces were straying.

My sense is that municipalities and regional districts are growing in the same way. Over time they've obviously developed very capable administrations, and one sees on councils and boards a level of sophistication that.... I don't know if it has always been there; perhaps it has. But there is a greater recognition that within a certain sphere, interference, control or guidance is less acceptable than it might have been some time ago. I'm drawing a parallel between the evolution of our constitutional arrangements between the federal and provincial governments and those between the provincial and municipal governments. Would the minister care to comment on that?

Hon. D. Miller: Any relationship is complex, whether it is an individual relationship or between entities. I think that in British Columbia, our municipalities are probably less regulated than almost any other jurisdiction in Canada. I think Alberta and B.C. stand out in that respect.

I use the term "two-way street" sometimes. It is a two-way street. It is not just the provincial government regulating municipal governments; issues flow both ways. We find, for example, in terms of fiscal issues.... If you have looked at any of the debates, I think you will find that there is an absolute demand, in terms of fiscal transfers, of: "Don't do anything unless you absolutely consult us." I think it is fair to say that that characterizes the municipal position.

Between the federal and provincial governments, we've seen, over the last couple of years, an example where the federal Parliament, which has its role, made some decisions that impacted provinces. It wasn't a question of consulting; it was a question of the federal Parliament simply doing what they wanted to do.

I just think that you have to recognize the complexity of the relationship that flows both ways. Notwithstanding, I think the situation in B.C. is quite good. There is not a huge campaign. I think we are moving along on track fairly well, and there is this protocol, and hopefully we can continue to move forward.

G. Abbott: I think that adequately takes care of some of the general directions of the ministry.

I want to turn, again very briefly, to a relatively specific area. It involves what might be termed a municipal government institution, the Municipal Finance Authority, and some of the things it is involved in. In particular, I wanted to address a question about a relatively new activity that has been undertaken by the Municipal Finance Authority, and that is group leasing for municipalities and regional districts through a pool created and administered by the Municipal Finance Authority.

[ Page 1701 ]

As I understand it, this pooling is very much a win-win situation in terms of the municipalities and regional districts getting leases on equipment that they need at a more reasonable rate than might otherwise be possible. It also generates some revenue for the Municipal Finance Authority. The question I have revolves around the extension of that ability to provide pooled leasing to universities, schools and hospitals through the Municipal Finance Authority. I gather that there has been no problem in terms of MFA providing that service to municipalities and regional districts. I gather the ministry treats that as interim financing. Is there a statutory authority that has to be extended to the MFA in order to provide it to universities, schools and hospitals?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, there is. In fact, we're in favour of moving in that direction with respect to municipalities and the institutions as well. With any luck, that may be possible to do in 1997.

G. Abbott: So the MFA could anticipate that statutory authority might be provided to them in 1997, and they can plan accordingly?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, but just a note of caution. I did talk about how the legislative calendar is sometimes challenging to get.... It has been my experience in the past, when issues that have been around for a long time.... It is just that our system dictates that in terms of the length of sittings and the like, you can't always be guaranteed that certain legislation will be passed in a timely way. It kind of crowds the calendar. But, yes, we want to move forward.

G. Abbott: I'd like to turn now to the federal-provincial-municipal infrastructure program. As I'm sure everyone knows, that program arrived a year or two ago. It provides for one-third, one-third, one-third funding for a variety of municipal infrastructure projects. From my perspective, it's been an excellent program. It allowed the small municipality that's my hometown to put in a sewer system they had been trying unsuccessfully to put in place for a long time. I want to ask the minister, first of all: what is the ministry's assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the current infrastructure program?

Hon. D. Miller: I think it's been a marvellous program -- I talked about it at some earlier stage -- in that it has allowed the municipalities and regional districts to move forward to undertake projects they might otherwise not have, under the cost-sharing formula that exists between the province, municipalities and regional districts. The stimulus provided by that has not only created a significant number of jobs in British Columbia, but has allowed the upgrading of basic infrastructure in many parts of the province.

Just using one example, I represent a small community in midcoast Bella Coola, which is the smallest regional district in the province, with a very low tax base. As a result of the infrastructure program, they were able to move forward on a water system. For almost 15 or 20 years in that community they've had a deficient water system that had required boil orders in the hospital and those kinds of things. So it really has allowed a lot of those infrastructure projects right across the province.

I think some credit should go to the federal minister, Mr. Eggleton, and former Premier Harcourt, who were largely instrumental in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for advancing that concept. It was taken up by the Chrétien government, and we applauded that. We negotiated very toughly with them to ensure that the majority of the funds went to these kinds of projects. I think 90 percent of the funds allocated to British Columbia were dedicated to infrastructure projects -- I see 85 percent written down here; that's pretty good -- unlike in other provinces, for example, where in some respects they went to favourite projects -- political projects, if you like. We tried to stay true to the original principles as defined by FCM, and I think it's been an outstanding success. I think we are budgeting almost $40 million this year. Some of those projects have not got going as quickly, but that's normal in terms of dealing with municipalities and their ability to gear up and get authorities at the local level.

G. Abbott: I concur with the assessment of the program. I think it has been a great success, and certainly tribute should be extended to all those who did the pioneering work on it.

I'll combine the one part of the question, which perhaps was or wasn't addressed -- weaknesses or deficiencies that the minister may have seen in the experience with the current program -- with asking the minister at the same time whether there are currently any discussions underway or contemplated with respect to another infrastructure program with a different focus.

Hon. D. Miller: I recall a number of years ago former Premier Harcourt -- at UBCM, I think -- making an offer to the federal government to do Infrastructure Works 2. There has been some reporting that the federal government potentially may be interested in pursuing that -- no details at this point.

This was asked of me in other parts of the estimates. We can't make any kind of blanket commitment; we're certainly interested. Clearly we have fiscal pressures. All of those questions need to be brought to bear in determining whether we can move forward. But primarily, if there is an initiative at the federal level, we want to examine that and look at its applicability. If there is, in theory, a new program, we continue to allocate it on the basis that we have the existing program. Those are questions that we've yet to really discuss.

There are other, I think, useful projects in the province that would add to the economic issues. It may be that if there is a new project, Infrastructure Works 2, we could look at some of those questions. But it's very premature, and I'm not in a position to, in a theoretical sense, say: "Yeah, we're there for X number of dollars." We're certainly prepared to look at anything that comes our way from the feds.

G. Abbott: That's certainly as sufficient an answer as I was looking for. I was curious as to whether discussions were underway, and it would appear that the province is certainly receptive to that kind of initiative from the federal government -- if the federal government is in fact interested.

The one issue which I've seen in hand with a new municipal infrastructure program is the question of whether it might apply to roads and bridges and that kind of thing. Would the minister have any comments with respect to that?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't want to exclude any potentials. It is clear that, notwithstanding the success of the current program in terms of basic infrastructure -- water and sewer -- there is still a huge demand out there for additional water and sewer projects. We have ongoing programs in terms of cost-sharing with municipalities and regional districts. We've had some huge projects that are...well, we use the term "black 

[ Page 1702 ]

holes" in terms of cost. But clearly there is an ongoing demand, and I think there's an economic argument that those basic underpinnings in any community contribute to the ability to develop their economy.

G. Abbott: I certainly agree that that's the case. There is still a tremendous demand out there for new sewer and water projects. I wasn't advancing the thesis that the next infrastructure program should be devoted to bridges and highways; I'd just heard that and was interested in whether there was anything to it.

[5:15]

I want to turn to a somewhat different area here briefly, and that is the issue of municipal regional district liability related to the building inspection function. This is something which comes back to revisit like an old friend on a regular basis here. It's an issue that's been around for a while and is likely to be with us for a while, as well. But it's obviously a very important issue to municipalities and regional districts and one that I do need to canvass, because I know that a number of them are very concerned about this issue and frequently like to see in what direction things are evolving with respect to liability issues.

I think it was probably about three years ago now that the ministry published what might be termed a position paper -- I think it was entitled "Options for Renewal" -- which looked at some of the issues surrounding building inspection liability and canvassed the municipalities and regional districts for their views. Those came back. Could the minister advise where the province has gone, metaphorically speaking, on this issue since that time?

Hon. D. Miller: It is a complex topic and the member may be right: it may be around for some time to come. There is a safety systems review. I think it is a complex topic and, of necessity, perhaps slower than some would like. But we are pursuing that issue.

G. Abbott: Could the minister -- again, I guess this reflects my ignorance here -- just briefly outline the safety inspection review and what's come of that?

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Harkness may just provide me with some information while I'm on my feet, but essentially, as I indicated, the topic is a complex one. It involves, as the member does appreciate, all those who might have been involved: builders, inspectors, etc. There's a series of task forces involving those people who are working on individual issues that will be fed into the larger consideration of the review.

I am also advised that there is at least a year to go in terms of the kind of work that's taking place before we can get to any kind of position. I don't know if it would be the absolute decision position. It clearly is a complex challenge and one that's ongoing.

G. Abbott: I suppose the hope in this for the ministry, then, is that at the conclusion of that review or process there will be an improvement in the position of the municipalities with respect to liability issues. Take the time to canvass Mr. Harkness's view, if you wish.

Hon. D. Miller: That's correct, but let's not forget that municipalities are part of this. It's not as though it's a review that we alone are responsible for, but it really is one that involves all the parties. Therefore they are, I think, quite aware of the complexity and perhaps the slowness issues.

G. Abbott: The next related question that I have is with respect to the issue of building inspection liability. This is a theme that was put forward very forcefully by the Municipal Insurance Association: how to reconcile the different treatment of the building inspection issue on the part of the Vancouver Charter on the one hand, and on the part of the Municipal Act on the other. I realize that the Vancouver Charter's treatment of it is the product of the efforts of an MLA from Vancouver some years ago who managed to get a change to the Vancouver Charter to that effect. How does the minister propose to deal with the different ways in which the issue was treated in those two fundamental documents in municipal life?

The Chair: Noting the hour, the minister...

Hon. D. Miller: What?

The Chair: We're adjourning at 5:30.

Hon. D. Miller: We're adjourning at 5:30? How come?

The Chair: It was prearranged.

Hon. D. Miller: But we're moving here. It's going like a hot knife through butter.

Mr. Chairman, the member's right. We simply have to accept that there's an anomaly. It was a private member's bill in 1987, and more power to them.

I'm also advised, just before I make the motion, that the safety system review is moving along. They're in the process of defining roles and responsibilities in the safety system and options for delivering safety services in the future. There will be reporting out to UBCM, and ultimately we're looking at reduced liability for municipalities.

Mr. Chairman, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:21 p.m.

Copyright © 1996: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada