(Hansard)
THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1997
Morning
Volume 4, Number 19
[ Page 3207 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today are approximately 50 students from St. Michaels University School, a school in my constituency. I'm sure all members would agree that the hope and prosperity of our province will soon rest on the shoulders of young people in our province. On that note, I'd like the assembly to make them welcome.
MILK INDUSTRY AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
The House in committee on Bill 12; G. Brewin in the chair.On section 1.
J. Wilson: Under section 1(b), we have a definition of cattle. I believe this section has to do with the production of milk, and in this new act, as we are developing it, we have now included sheep under the heading of "cattle." Could the minister bring me up to speed on this and tell me how many sheep producers in this province are now milking sheep?
Hon. C. Evans: Just a few.
J. Wilson: I couldn't quite hear the minister as to the number.
Hon. C. Evans: Just a few, hon. member -- a few, a couple, not very many.
J. Wilson: So we have two sheep-milkers in business in this province. Is that what I'm led to understand? Could you tell me where these are?
Hon. C. Evans: That I know of, there is one in the lower mainland and one in the Armstrong area. That's not to suggest that's a complete list.
J. Wilson: By including milking sheep under "cattle," this section would be designed to regulate the sale of ewe's milk.
Hon. C. Evans: That's correct.
J. van Dongen: I would like to get clarification on the definition of "inhibitor." Am I to assume that that definition includes any sort of antibiotics or antibiotic residue in milk and also things like situations where there may have been excessive iodine or other disinfectants used on the farm? Would that definition cover the whole range of disinfectants and antibiotics?
Hon. C. Evans: That's absolutely correct.
Sections 1 and 2 approved.
On section 3.
J. Wilson: Under the terms of licensing, is there a difference in the regulations between the various species that we're milking today in regard to how milk is handled, contained and shipped -- this type of thing? Or are all the regulations the same?
Hon. C. Evans: They're basically the same.
J. van Dongen: With respect to the licence fee -- your proposed section 3(1)(b) -- is the minister intending to put in place a licence fee on the first inspection?
Hon. C. Evans: Not necessarily, but it allows for one.
J. van Dongen: I simply want to express a concern on behalf of the industry. It is felt, particularly on initial inspections -- you're dealing with new farmers, startup situations
[10:15]
Hon. C. Evans: The hon. member's sentiments are pretty much the same as my own. But the section was actually suggested by the industry, because they are concerned that there be a government presence and that the government not be seen to be not available for inspection, should that be required.J. van Dongen: I'm curious about that. I don't think that the industry would have been suggesting a licence fee. They certainly are very concerned that the government does maintain a presence and does do the initial inspection. I think there's a distinction there.
One further question to the minister is: if a licence fee is put in place, will there be consideration given to identifying those dollars for some form of education for, say, new farmers or allocating those dollars to the actual cost of the program, as opposed to general revenue? I think there's an interest in the industry to see that happen if a licensing fee goes in place.
Hon. C. Evans: As it's currently worded, it goes into general revenue. However, there's a promotion fund -- which is assumed to be from penalties, should they occur -- for exactly the purpose that the member is suggesting.
Sections 3 and 4 approved.
On section 5.
J. van Dongen: I wonder if we could just get the minister to clarify section 5(a), particularly the reference to subsisting permit: "Except in accordance with a subsisting permit issued
[ Page 3208 ]
Hon. C. Evans: The Ministry of Health is actually in charge of this section. This section previously allowed the minister to relieve a producer from the requirement that milk be pasteurized, and the Ministry of Health is asking that this section be deleted.
J. Wilson: Does this now mean that we'll see the sale of raw milk?
Hon. C. Evans: Actually, hon. member, I'll tell you the factual answer and an anecdotal answer. The factual answer is no. The anecdotal answer is that in my previous lifetime, I was known to milk cows and sell it to my neighbours if they wanted to buy it. So it's not as if such things never have happened. But they will not happen by permission, according to this. It will not allow for exactly your concern.
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
M. de Jong: I think the question I have is relevant to this section, hon. Chair. I'll simply ask it, and that is on the interplay between this act
An Hon. Member: Moo-oo-ove on there, pardner. [Laughter.]
M. de Jong: This is a serious subject.
Hon. C. Evans: The answer is no. If a person wishes to donate food, even under the terms of the new act that the member refers to, it still has to conform to the regulatory environment around that product -- in this case, milk. It would still have to be pasteurized milk.
J. van Dongen: My question is basically dealing with sections 12 and 13 of the existing act, which remain. I just want to maybe get the minister to confirm that all of the existing standards that are in place will stay in place at the present time. Maybe he could just confirm for the record what changes there are in terms of who establishes those standards. Am I correct in my understanding that some of the standards that previously were established under this act will now be established possibly under the Health Act or some other act in the Ministry of Health? I wonder if the minister could just confirm for the record some of those issues.
Hon. C. Evans: Sections 12 and 13 refer to the regulations of dairy plants. The regulatory environment that existed previously will continue to exist, and the regulatory agent is the Ministry of Health.
J. van Dongen: So that deals with dairy plants -- sections 12 and 13 of the existing act. What about the on-farm regulations and standards? Where will they be, in terms of the existing act? Will they all be established under the Milk Industry Act or under the Ministry of Health?
Hon. C. Evans: The on-farm regulations remain under this act.
Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.
On section 10.
J. van Dongen: Section 10 deals with the repeal of section 23 of the existing act. That is the section dealing with imitation milk products. I understand from people in the industry who were in some of the discussions with the ministry that assurances were given by ministry staff -- I'd like the minister to confirm this, if he would -- that these sections dealing with imitation milk products would not be repealed by cabinet order until appropriate new wording has been drafted and put in place under the Agricultural Produce Grading Act. I understand that this was the commitment that was made. We would just like to try and get something on the record to that effect.
Hon. C. Evans: I'm pleased to confirm the commitment that the hon. member asked about. He is correct, except that I believe the regulation that he's looking for will come under the Food Products Standards Act. However, the gist of what he's asking for is correct -- that the regulatory environment around imitation milk products will be in place before the provisions of this act are proclaimed.
Sections 10 and 11 approved.
On section 12.
J. van Dongen: Section 12 deals with testing, and it talks about the minister designating laboratories. Would this be on an ad hoc basis, as required? And just to clarify, this is something different from the certification program that the ministry has now. I understand that the certification program will be discontinued. How is this different from that program?
Hon. C. Evans: The laboratories will be required to meet national standards, and they will be accredited on an ad hoc basis, providing they meet the national standards.
J. van Dongen: The minister's response gives rise to an issue that was pointed out to me some time ago. I don't know if it's relevant now, but there was some concern at the outset, given the drastic extent of the changes that were contemplated initially in terms of the regulation of milk and milk production in British Columbia, that possibly because of very limited testing and standards, British Columbia products may not qualify or wouldn't be recognized for certain export situations. I wonder if the minister could clarify that.
Hon. C. Evans: That's a really good question. We're going to retain all the national standards that would apply in order that our product be exportable anywhere that Canada's product is exportable.
J. van Dongen: This might also be the appropriate time to ask the minister about the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that was recently announced. I have an ad in the Vancouver Sun. I gather it involves a new approach or some reorganization in terms of federal agencies dealing with food inspection. I wonder if the minister has any information that
[ Page 3209 ]
he can provide in terms of what those changes mean for British Columbia. If there is any connection, how would we connect, in terms of this legislation, with this new federal inspection agency?
Hon. C. Evans: There is no connection with the farm side, which is the side that will be handled within this ministry. There will be a connection with the federal initiatives on the health side, which is the processing side. Rather than me speculate about how that will be worked out -- since it's an issue in progress with the federal government -- I would like to offer the member, or any other members who want to follow it through, full access to me and staff as the federal changes take place, so that we can follow that process together.
Sections 12 to 16 inclusive approved.
On section 17.
[10:30]
Hon. C. Evans: I certainly appreciate the diligence of the Clerk in reminding me in his discreet way that I move the amendment to section 17 standing in my name on the order paper.[SECTION 17, by deleting the proposed section 17 and substituting the following:Amendment approved.Section 33 is amended
(a) by repealing subsection (1), and
(b) in subsection (2) by striking out "the composition of" and substituting "the results of an analysis of".]
Section 17 as amended approved.
Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.
On section 21.
J. van Dongen: Yeah, just to discuss this a little further with the minister
Hon. C. Evans: The gist of the answer would be yes, but I would express it a little differently. This allows for the industry, should it decide that it wants to have additional inspections and desires to provide those inspections
J. van Dongen: I appreciate the minister's answer. I'm looking particularly at a short phrase in the second line, where it says: "
This wording also contemplates the possibility of some other agency possibly taking it over -- in which case, we do not have, at the present time, things like an appeal mechanism, etc., such as is being set up and proposed by the government in the beef industry on brands inspection, for example. So I would want to express the concern that this phrase, the way I read it, provides a lot of scope to the government to contemplate other options, some of which may be fairly incomplete or could conceivably be fairly incomplete in terms of a good process.
This is also a point in time to reiterate very clearly the concern of the farmers themselves -- and certainly the concern of the members on this side of the House and, I suspect, the members on the other side of the House -- that government does have a role to play in protecting a very clear and serious public interest with respect to the safety and quality of milk. I just want to make those comments for the record and invite any further comment from the minister that he may have. But I think that this section gives a fair bit of scope to cabinet to do a whole range of things without any sort of further discussion in this House, and I just want to express my concern about that.
Hon. C. Evans: As sometimes happens in these situations, the government and the opposition agree utterly. The words are: "
I also want to say, although I didn't quite hear it, that I think I agree with the member also that it's relatively the same issue with brands inspection -- that so long as government is devolving a previous government role to the industry so that excellence is achieved by the people who need the service, then that's a good thing. If we're taking a part of government and giving it to someone who doesn't have an interest in a healthy outcome, then that's not a good thing.
J. van Dongen: I appreciate the minister's comments. I think this is an appropriate point to also add a comment about resources. We certainly talked about the government's responsibility to protect the public interest on milk safety. That does involve resources. I want to express two comments that were made to me recently that speak to the issue of resources, because it's one thing to have the legislation, to have the legal authority to do things; it's another thing to ensure that there's a minimal level of funding there to actually carry out what's intended by legislation.
The first comment would be that there's been some comment -- and the comment has been made publicly, and it concerns me a little bit from that perspective, and I think it probably would concern the minister, also -- that there has been some upward drift in bacteria counts of milk, even in the last six or eight months. I simply draw that to the minister's attention.
I also mention it from this perspective. I hope, as these changes go in place, that we ensure that we do, through staff, very carefully monitor trends of all aspects of milk quality as
[ Page 3210 ]
it's being measured through the testing processes, because I think it will be important and critical to ensure that what we all intend to happen continues to happen in terms of milk quality.
The second comment with respect to resources is that one of the minister's staff was seeking support from the industry recently for travel costs to some other part of Canada to attend a seminar dealing with whatever -- milk quality or, I assume, some issue related to the kind of work that they're in.
I think that given the competitive nature of the farming industry and the very serious economic stress, which is not always obvious to the public, not obvious to us
It seems to me that it's quite inappropriate, when we're down to three or four staff, that those staff have to be seeking funding from the industry for travel. I just don't think that's appropriate. I question the commitment of government to providing some sort of minimal adequate resources when I see that happening. So again I just want to draw that to the attention of the minister and use it to illustrate the point that the legislation, if it's used properly, I believe, will work effectively, but it does depend on resources as we go down the road.
Sections 21 to 24 inclusive approved.
On section 25.
J. van Dongen: This may be a very minor item; I just don't know what it is. I wonder if the minister could just tell us what is being repealed here. I'm just not aware of what that section of the Animal Disease Control Act says.
Hon. C. Evans: What's being repealed is section 3(1). The wording is -- and I'll just read it, because it's short: "There shall be in the Ministry
Sections 25 and 26 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Evans: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 12, Milk Industry Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete with amendment.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported, then, government minister?
Hon. C. Evans: By leave now, Mr. Speaker.
Leave granted.
Bill 12, Milk Industry Amendment Act, 1997, read a third time and passed.
Hon. A. Petter: I call committee stage of Bill 17.
CAPITAL REGION WATER SUPPLY
AND SOOKE HILLS PROTECTION ACT
The House in committee on Bill 17; G. Brewin in the chair.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.
On section 4.
M. Coell: I have a number of questions regarding section 4. On the commission, I wonder if the minister could outline how that commission is to be established, how it's appointed and who will have jurisdiction over that commission.
[10:45]
Hon. A. Petter: Let me try in general terms, and then if the member has more specific questions, I'll endeavour to answer them.The commission is being established essentially on the same representation model as the capital regional district itself. All municipalities that are users of the water supply will be represented on the commission, along with the unincorporated area. There will be a weighted voting on the commission that corresponds to the weighted voting on the CRD itself, and the commission will be accountable through this CRD structure. So in that respect the commission appointments correspond, in the way that they operate, very much to the capital regional district itself -- which the member is even more familiar with than I am.
The appointments of the commission will be made by the councils of the municipalities who comprise the municipalities that are members of the capital regional district who draw water from this water district, plus the representative of the unincorporated area. The councils can decide to appoint whomever they wish. Some may choose to appoint the representative who also sits on the CRD; some may choose to appoint someone else.
M. Coell: Is it possible for citizens to be appointed or for municipalities to hold elections for those positions? Or is it seen that it will be members of council who are already elected?
Hon. A. Petter: The proposal is that the members of the commission be members elected at the local level. There was a recommendation in the Perry report, which I'm sure the member is familiar with, that there be some kind of double-ballot system at election time through which people would get a chance to indicate who of the people running for council they would also like to see serve on the water commission, should they be successful in their run for council. That's a proposal that I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs is considering, along with a broader proposal which the municipality of Saanich has brought forward -- and others have mooted from time to time -- which is that of allowing a double-voting procedure for the capital regional district itself. That, of course, then raises the question of whether other regional districts would want to do that, as well.
In the meantime, the appointments will be made by council. We will be asking councils to afford the public some
[ Page 3211 ]
opportunity, presumably through a public council meeting, to indicate their preference as to how appointments should be made by the council, but the council will have the say over appointments. But we are prepared to give further consideration to the proposal of some kind of double-ballot system involving the commission, or the CRD and the commission, in time for the next election cycle at the municipal level.
Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.
On section 7.
M. Coell: The assets of the water district. I'll have maybe two questions. There are the assets in the ground that the water district has been paying for, for many, many decades. Are all those assets now to be in the hands of the new water commission and the district?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, in the name of the capital regional district.
M. Coell: The water district in the Western Communities. How the services were put in differs from the services in the core areas in that water district personnel were the people who put the infrastructure in the ground in the Western Communities. And in the core area it would have been municipalities, contractors for the most part. So they're now going to be treated equally, and the liability for all of the in-ground services would be borne by the new body equally. So if something goes wrong in the Western Communities, it's taken care of by the commission as a whole. Or if something goes wrong with the system on the peninsula, would the same rationale be used to fix those facilities?
Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it -- and, again, the member may want to follow up if I don't cover it in sufficient detail -- the assets, including the distribution assets, do become the property of the CRD. But in respect of the distribution networks, there will be a separate governing structure with respect to the Western Communities distribution network that will have a say over issues such as rate structures, for example.
M. Coell: The above-ground assets -- the land that was owned by the city of Victoria, Saanich, Esquimalt and Oak Bay -- are being transferred to the CRD. I know there was some consideration of the value of those properties. Are they just being transferred for book value of a dollar, and is there any consideration of compensation or, in the absence of that, recognition that those lands are being transferred for a dollar?
Hon. A. Petter: First of all, the properties the member refers to are not now the property of the municipalities; they were the property of the greater Victoria water district, which is a public body. The answer is that they're being transferred through this legislation from one public body to another public body, and there is no issue of compensation from the government's point of view. I know there have been a few who've tried to make such an issue.
The view that we have taken, based on legal advice received and the opinion reflected in the Perry commission, is that this is a public asset. It was held as a public asset by one public body; it is now going to continue to be held as a public asset by another public body. Therefore there really is no issue of compensation as between one group and another.
M. Coell: I thank the minister for those comments. And I would concur with those comments, as well.
As greater Victoria has grown, that water system has expanded to meet the needs of the people that are here today and undoubtedly will meet the needs of the people who will be here 50 years from now, as well.
With regard to the commission, does the province see any further input from the province at this point? Are you turning it over, and will the CRD run the operation without any more input from the province at this point?
Hon. A. Petter: There is the issue of regulations. Draft regulations have been circulated to the municipalities, and we're looking forward to their comments on those regulations. Once those regulations are signed off and passed, and the legislation is proclaimed, for the most part the matters devolve to the new commission and the CRD. There is provision in the draft regulations, as I understand it, for some ongoing discussion concerning, for example, a strategic plan in the province providing some direction to the CRD concerning the expectations the province has concerning general matters of management. But the specific matters of management and some of the thorny issues that go along with it become the purview of the commission, in accordance with the requirements set out in the legislation and the regulations.
Sections 7 and 8 approved.
On section 9.
M. Coell: I just want to make a point, and section 9 is probably the perfect place. It's the matter of the road going through the watershed. I would hope that the province can deal with that before turning all this over, because the water district has been trying for a number of years to have that road shut. It is extremely dangerous, and we are very lucky that we haven't had an accident in the watershed. I would make the point that while this is happening, if the province could turn it over with that completed, it would be a great asset for the new commission.
Hon. A. Petter: Let me answer in the following way. First of all, I concur very strongly with the sentiments expressed by the member that as quickly as we can possibly achieve the closure of that road, the better everyone will be. Staff have been working -- in fact, advertisements have been posted in the paper -- to that end. There are issues around the road closure in terms of access, in terms of assorted rights by various parties, that have to be resolved.
What I want to say to the member is that the question of the transfer will not impede what progress we can make as quickly as possible on the road issue. I would ideally like to see it resolved before any transfer, but we will not hold up either the transfer or the road, one for the other. The goal here is to effect the road closure and to effect this transfer of responsibility in an orderly way. The province has no intention of relinquishing its responsibility with respect to the road closure, whether or not the transfer has occurred. We are working very quickly; work is underway right now through the Ministries of Transportation and Highways and Municipal Affairs to try to effect that road closure. That work will continue and will not be slowed down for any reason, other than the reason of dealing with the problems that we have to overcome in order to close the road.
Sections 9 to 15 inclusive approved.
Schedule approved.
[ Page 3212 ]
Title approved.
Hon. A. Petter: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 17, Capital Region Water Supply and Sooke Hills Protection Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
[11:00]
Hon. A. Petter: I call committee on Bill 7.OFFENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
The House in committee on Bill 7; G. Brewin in the chair.
On section 1.
G. Plant: There are a few questions which arise with respect to this act. Some could perhaps be asked at any point, but I'll ask them now.
As I understand it, one of the objectives of this act is that the amendments that are contemplated by it, that will be made by reason of it, are necessary as a precondition to the proclamation of the victim surcharge levy. Am I correct?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: I also understand that it's the intention of the government to create a new form for violation tickets and that the implementation of this bill will require that violation tickets have a separate line on them which shows the amount of the surcharge levy in addition to the amount of the fine. The new violation ticket will also show the total amount owing. Is that generally correct?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: No. There would be one amount mentioned on the ticket, but at the bottom there will be a note saying that a 15 percent levy is included in that amount.
G. Plant: So the one amount will be the aggregate of the fine and the levy. Is that correct?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: Just dealing with a technical issue before I return to the question of amounts: will there be any other change to the ticketing process as a result of the implementation of this bill?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: No.
G. Plant: One of the ways that the act works together with the Offence Act
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, no.
G. Plant: So it's the same offences, both before and after this bill, that will be subject to this process -- or is there a change? I saw the minister's staff shaking their heads, and I'm used to being wrong. I was afraid that I had managed to get something wrong. It would, of course, be even more delightful to know that the Attorney General had got the answer wrong, but either way it doesn't really matter, I suppose.
So the ticketing process will be more or less the same, except that there will be a change to the form, which now shows an aggregate amount of the fine and the levy. It also indicates to those who receive tickets that the ticketed amount includes a levy. As I understand it, the levy is 15 percent of the fine portion of the ticketed amount. Is that correct?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: I want to pursue an issue related to relief from hardship. I know that the issue arises at several points in the act, and I hope that the Attorney General will indulge me and allow me to pursue the issue now. There is currently in the statute books an opportunity to claim relief on the grounds of hardship from either the fine or the surcharge levy -- or both. I understand that one of the effects of this bill will be to limit the right to claim relief from hardship to the fine portion of the ticketed amount. Is that correct?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The net impact is the same if one succeeds in the hardship application with respect to the fine. The ticketed amount is then appropriately reduced, including the fine surcharge.
G. Plant: I think the Attorney General may have just answered my next questions. One option is that the applicant could obtain relief from payment of the entire amount of the fine, on the basis of hardship. In that case, would I be correct in assuming that the levy would also be, in effect, eliminated?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: I am told, and I must admit that I don't know whether this is so or not, that the exercise of the hardship discretionary power might result in the reduction of a fine rather than in dispensing with it altogether. If that is the case, then the question arises: does the levy continue to operate as a percentage of the amount as reduced? Or does the levy remain 15 percent of the original fine amount?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The levy reduces, as well.
G. Plant: Did the Attorney General earlier say
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. The levy floats, and the levy is reduced appropriately.
G. Plant: I'm sure British Columbians will be delighted to know that there is a floating levy.
Those are my questions on section 1.
[ Page 3213 ]
Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.
On section 8.
G. Plant: According to the explanatory note for sections 8 and 9, hon. Chair -- and I'm sure you'll be interested to know this -- the intention of sections 8 and 9 is to include victim surcharge levies in the discretionary powers of a judge under section 82 of the Offence Act relative to the timing of payment. I wonder if the Attorney General could explain how that will operate.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That applies to the judge's discretion to extend time to pay. These sections simply mean that the judge has the discretion to extend time for the surcharge to be paid as well.
G. Plant: The scenario that occurs to me is someone who is convicted of a violation asking to have the opportunity to pay the fine on one date and the levy later. Is that something that the judge would have the power to do?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Theoretically that is possible. Let's say the total ticketed amount was $115. The judge could say, "You pay $100 in two weeks and $15 three weeks hence," or any other permutation or combination thereof.
G. Plant: I hope I can get the indulgence of the Attorney General to return to something I asked a minute ago, and maybe try to make sure I have him on record on this issue of the floating levy. At no time would the levy as charged to someone ever be anything other than 15 percent of the fine levied by the judge.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's correct.
Sections 8 to 24 inclusive approved.
On section 25.
G. Plant: I'm never certain how much interest may eventually be created in things that initially look to be innocuous, but the general intention of sections 21 through to 25 of the bill are to create a regime for part payments and the interest that accrues on them, in cases where people make only a part payment and there's still a balance owing. I gather that the primary intention of these provisions is to ensure that the surcharge levy is included in the total amount on which interest will run, in respect of unpaid amounts.
Secondly, when we get to section 25, we find that a priority is set out there in respect of how part payments will be applied. The priority is set out there that: first, the accrued interest will be reduced or eliminated; second, the unpaid amount of the levy will be reduced or eliminated; and finally, payments would be applied to the unpaid amount of the fine portion of the required payment. Is that a relatively accurate, although general, summary of these provisions of the act?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.
G. Plant: There is, I think, a policy decision implicit in the decision to give the levy a higher priority than the fine. I wonder if the Attorney General can explain the policy decision to us.
[11:15]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe that this is a policy decision. I think this is more of a technical requirement, as I understand it. If there is no base fine amount left to be paid, the other payments, theoretically, are not required to be made.G. Plant: Am I right, though, that interest will run on any unpaid portion of the levy in addition to the unpaid portion of the fine?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: So the issue, actually, is not why interest has the highest priority but why the levy has a higher priority than the fine amount. I'm assuming that it's because there had to be a choice made between them. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe it is simply a technical thing. But frankly, I was expecting the Attorney General to say something warm and comforting about the fact that this priority reflects the importance of the victim surcharge in the mind of his government. But, of course, having failed to give me that explanation, I'm sure there must be some other explanation for it. However, I guess that that deals with the technical issues I had in respect of those provisions.
Sections 25 to 27 inclusive approved.
On section 28.
G. Plant: Again, what the act is seeking to do here is not to change people's obligations so much as to clarify that the regime of collection and payment obligations that formerly applied to fines will now also apply to the victim surcharge levy. Is that correct?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
Section 28 approved.
On section 29.
G. Plant: One of the things that this section does is to repeal a provision of the Victims of Crime Act that would otherwise allow relief from payment of a victim surcharge levy on a person under the Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act. I wonder if the Attorney General could explain the logic behind that decision.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There was a discrepancy in terms of the young offenders. This amendment makes it so that a young offender paying a violation ticket fine or a court-ordered fine would be treated the same and would pay the surcharge.
G. Plant: I'm interested in the rationale for the decision to change from a situation where young offenders were exempt from the levy to a situation where they are. I may not quite understand the process as it used to be, but presumably, when section 8.1 of the Victims of Crime Act was originally enacted, granting some form of exemption in respect of fines imposed on persons under the Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act, there was a good reason for it. I'm not sure what has happened to change that good reason.
It may be that I just don't understand how the thing is working, but I'm looking at section 8.1 of the Victims of Crime
[ Page 3214 ]
Act, and subsection (3) says, the way I read it, that the victim surcharge levy would not apply if a fine was imposed on a person under Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act. Presumably that was done for a reason, and something has happened to cause the government to change its approach on this issue. I'm interested in the explanation.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: If we had not made this, if we didn't proceed with the amendment, the situation would be that pursuant to any provincial offence a person would pay a fine surcharge, while a court-ordered amount would carry no surcharge. That would be a discrepancy, and we want to make sure that all young offenders, whether they are convicted pursuant to a provincial offence or any other offences, carry a surcharge.
G. Plant: If I could put it this way, there was almost an incentive under the old regime not to pay a ticket but rather to dispute it, thereby going to court and being ordered to pay a fine -- but in those circumstances, being immune from the levy. Is that the sort of logic of the problem?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
Sections 29 and 30 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I ask that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 7, Offence Amendment Act, 1997, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. D. Streifel: I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. D. Streifel: I have guests today from the sunny community of Harrison Hot Springs. We have Ms. Miriam Basten and her class from Harrison Hot Springs Elementary School. I bid the House make them welcome.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call committee on Bill 8.
BRITISH COLUMBIA NEUROTRAUMA
FUND CONTRIBUTION ACT
The House in committee on Bill 8; G. Brewin in the chair.
On section 1.
G. Plant: Section 1 of this bill is a definitions section, and one of the terms defined is "British Columbia neurotrauma fund." It is defined as something called the British Columbia neurotrauma fund established by the Rick Hansen Man in Motion Foundation for certain purposes. As I understand it, the foundation is an ordinary society -- ordinary in the eyes of the law, incorporated under the Society Act. Am I correct in that understanding?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: What is the neurotrauma fund? It said in this definitions section that it is something established by the Rick Hansen Man in Motion Foundation. Does the fund now exist?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the fund does not at this time exist but is being established as part of the tenth anniversary celebrations of the Man in Motion World Tour that are going on across the country.
G. Plant: And I'm correct that the fund is being established by the society, that it's not a fund being established by government.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.
G. Plant: Does the government have any ongoing communication with the society with respect to the establishment by them of the British Columbia neurotrauma fund?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that my ministry has studied the business plan with respect to this fund. It would be established as part of the activities of the society, as a separate fund within the society.
G. Plant: Is there, in fact, a business plan that the government has been looking at -- that it's been discussing with the foundation -- that deals with the question of what the foundation intends to do with this fund over the next little while?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: As part of the submission made to government seeking this funding, we were made aware of the plans and proposals for this fund.
G. Plant: So I would be correct in assuming that, in effect, the government -- by bringing this bill in and by establishing the contribution -- has essentially approved of the foundation's business plan.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: The bill does not seek to create any formal government relationship between the society and government in the sense of, for example, appointments to the board of the society or those kinds of things. Am I correct in assuming that the intention of the government is that the foundation will operate as an independent society at arm's length from government?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. Of course, there is the reporting relationship enshrined in section 2(3) of the legislation.
G. Plant: We'll look at that reporting relationship in due course. Does the society have on its board of directors any official representation from government?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: No.
G. Plant: The minister was kind enough to explain how a business plan was presented to government, which has led the government to make this decision. I'm sure I'm able to make inquiries of the foundation. But to the minister's knowledge, is the business plan -- from the perspective of government -- a public document?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
[ Page 3215 ]
[11:30]
G. Plant: Does the government have a process for requesting, obtaining, reviewing, discussing and analyzing business plans on an ongoing basis as the contributions are made? For example, will the foundation be submitting business plans to the government ahead of time on an annual basis, so that every year the government can satisfy itself that the work of this foundation -- particularly the operations of the fund -- will be consistent with the government's objectives for it? Or is thereI know that there is -- and we will get to it -- financial reporting stuff, but the financial reporting requirements seem to operate generally after the fact. I'm interested now in asking: what is it that government will know at or before the beginning of the year about how the foundation and the fund will operate?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is all part of the reporting relationship that's enshrined in legislation. Obviously we would be receiving audited financial statements every year. As part of those statements, I am certain that the society would give its projections and plans for the next year. In that report, societies usually have what they're going to be doing and what they did the last year.
This society is a very high-profile society that is doing extremely valuable work. I am certain that from time to time the Attorney General will be able to seek that information if he or she -- if it ever happened to be she -- so wishes.
G. Plant: Without in any way wishing for the early departure of the current incumbent of the position, I can say that I look forward, as much as I am sure the current incumbent does, to the day when the Attorney General of British Columbia is a woman.
I think what the Attorney General is saying is that he is content with the formal, legislated reporting requirements that are contained in the bill, all of which appear to be retrospective -- that is, they are things that are reported on at the end of the year. I understand the Attorney General's comments with respect to the fact that this is a high-profile organization. And all of us, of course, wish it well.
The task of government, I think, is to recognize that its role includes providing a superstructure or a framework of rules that help ensure that problems don't arise, that help ensure that the kind of problems no one wants to see occur never do occur. I do want to leave with the Attorney General a concern that he and his ministry do more than simply rely on the legislated requirements of section 2 of the act, but rather take a fairly active role in ongoing communication and planning with the foundation and the fund. Perhaps I could have the Attorney General's assurance that this is his intention.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It would be quite appropriate for the Attorney General to be receiving information from time to time, not necessarily just at the end of the year. It would be quite appropriate for the society as well to forward future plans to the Attorney General on an ongoing basis. We believe that in situations like the one we are currently discussing, the societies have an ongoing close relationship with the minister responsible. I am assuming that this will be the case in this matter as well.
S. Hawkins: First of all, I rise in support of this bill. Having been a neuroscience nurse, I'm certainly aware of the impact of spinal and head injuries on victims. It's laudable that some kind of program is being set up.
I don't read anywhere in this bill that the moneys, the public funds, going to this neurotrauma fund are actually going to stay in B.C. Is there some directive that perhaps the Attorney General's ministry dealt with, with the society, that the funds actually coming from B.C. are going to stay in B.C.?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: We are expecting that money will flow into this neurotrauma fund from all parts of the country. The neurotrauma fund will attract money from all over the country -- from other provinces as well -- in addition to the $2 million that this government is providing. Therefore the benefits of the research, whether done in British Columbia or in any other part of Canada, would flow to all Canadians. There is no provision that this sum of $2 million in exact terms be spent in British Columbia. But I can assure the hon. members that from what I read in the press and from what I'm aware of, there would be a lot more money coming into the Man in Motion fund from all over the country, and this fund would not just be $2 million. It would be more than that, I'm assuming.
S. Hawkins: I thank the Attorney General for that answer, but I know that there is a campaign from the Man in Motion people to have moneys from other provinces go into this fund. This is the first time I've heard that this fund is an exclusive fund for moneys to come into from all parts of the country. I guess my concern again is: is there any guarantee that the money that British Columbians are putting into this fund is actually going to be used for research or benefits for victims and programs in B.C.?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I agree with the hon. member that that is not specified within the legislation, but it is my hope and expectation that when the fund grows beyond $2 million, which it is bound to with the pledges coming in from all over the country, more than $2 million worth of benefits would flow to British Columbians.
S. Hawkins: That is certainly the hope of this side, of members over here, because we certainly know the impact that injury and the victims of neurotrauma have on our health care system and in other parts of programs in B.C. So that is something that we will be watching, because I think it is important that if we're expending public funds to that degree in B.C., hopefully British Columbians will get the benefit of that.
G. Plant: I want to pursue a topic that occurs to me as a result of the dialogue that just took place. I think it's the hope of Rick Hansen and others that other provinces and territories in Canada will take similar steps. But am I right in the assumption that British Columbia is the first province to make -- shall we say to legislate -- a contribution to this fund?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: As time goes on, it may well be the case that other provinces contribute and other provincial contributions may be higher or lower than those made by British Columbia. If we reach a point sometime down the road where we have a fund or a foundation that is national in scope, where British Columbia is the most significant contributor -- for example,
[ Page 3216 ]
because none of the other provinces or territories have legislated this sort of contribution -- then I hope that the Attorney General will in that context continue to bear in mind the comments of my colleague the member for Okanagan West in respect of how the fund should operate in terms of its effect on British Columbians. I don't know if the Attorney General wants to comment on that.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I will certainly keep that in mind.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
G. Plant: What section 2 does, among other things, is that it legislates the amount of the grant that will be made to the fund according to a formula. The formula operates such that the first-year contribution, which is to be made on or before March 31, 1998, will be the lesser of $1.6 million, or 20 percent of the money paid to the government under section 8.1 of the Victims of Crime Act.
There's a number of questions here. Am I right that section 8.1 of the Victims of Crime Act remains unproclaimed?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: Is there an expected or hoped-for date of proclamation?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: July 1.
G. Plant: Am I right in assuming that the reason for the difference between the amount of the contribution in the first year of the fund and the larger amount of the contribution for the second and following years of the fund is nothing more or less than an arithmetical calculation that reflects the fact that the government doesn't expect to have a full year's worth of operation of the levy during the fiscal year that we're now in?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.
G. Plant: While this may be, in some respects, a question more properly directed to estimates, am I right in assuming that the government's current projections for the revenue from the special account levy are such that 20 percent of that amount will in fact be about $1.6 million?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
G. Plant: How was that number chosen?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, we have an estimate of the annual revenue from these surcharges. Mr. Hansen provided us with a list of offences that he believed were relevant in neurotraumatic injuries, and our estimate of the surcharge flowing from those offences came to about $2 million -- a proportionate amount of that.
G. Plant: The principle that I think the Attorney General has just expressed is this: all of the levy collected from offences that can in some way be related to the risk of neurotraumatic injury will be dedicated to the fund.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Not all of it -- a portion of it, up to $2 million. The revenue from those surcharges would be larger than $2 million.
G. Plant: How was the $2 million chosen?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: After discussions with Mr. Hansen, the government felt that $2 million was an appropriate and significant amount towards this endeavour, and we believed that it was appropriate for us to do that.
G. Plant: Did the business plan that was presented to government include a list of projects that would cost $2 million on an annual basis?
[11:45]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to the proposal, there was no price tag attached. Government also has to look at what it can afford in terms of the total surcharge, because there are other needs. Sections 3 to 8 of the Victims of Crime Act mandate certain services. We had to look at what was available and what was appropriate. At the end of the day, it was believed that $2 million would be an appropriate contribution for the kinds of endeavours that Mr. Hansen wanted to engage in under this fund.G. Plant: Just to unpack some of that answer
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There were no specific projects identified with specific costs as part of the proposal. This was a proposal to do certain kinds of things within the context of the general research and work that that society does, and it was felt that $2 million would be appropriate to give to this society to do that work.
G. Plant: Did the foundation come with a business plan that said, in effect: "We'd like a certain amount of money from British Columbia as the basis for then going to the other provinces and putting together a total national package"? Is that the kind of discussion that went on? I must admit I'm still not clear how the $2 million figure was settled on.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There was the expectation that money would flow into this fund from other parts of the country. Based on that, a proposal was made to British Columbia as to what Mr. Hansen believed would be an appropriate contribution from British Columbia to set an example for the rest of the country. There was no specific price tag attached. Relevant offences were proposed; we looked at that list; we dealt with the issue. We felt a portion of the surcharge flowing from those offences would be appropriately given to this fund.
G. Plant: The reasoning about the allocation of offences has no effect on how the contribution is made. For example, if in a particularly mysterious and unusual year there were no offences in the category of offences that was presented on the list that justified the allocation for neurotraumatic injury, but rather all of the offences were for other matters, the foundation would still receive the 20 percent of money paid to government under the Victims of Crime Act -- or $2 million, whichever is less. This was just an internal way of rationalizing the amount proposed to be allocated to the fund.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: In fact, the offences that were mentioned as relevant
[ Page 3217 ]
offences constitutes the majority of the moneys coming into this fund. The ceiling was not established at the maximum of the surcharge from those. It was simply felt that a certain portion of that surcharge should go to this fund. Within the context of other services that we have to provide, we believe that we could not afford more than 20 percent of the total money coming into that fund.
G. Plant: I think someone reading a transcript of our exchange, perhaps someone who was less inclined to support this initiative than I am personally, might think that the 20 percent figure and the $2 million figure were numbers that were pulled out of the air. I understand what it means to say things like: "This was as much as we thought we could afford, given the other demands that we expect from the Victims of Crime Act and the services provided for under that act." But we don't have a business plan with any price tag attached to it. We have an attempt to rationalize an amount on the basis of the attribution of fine revenue from particular fines -- but according to a formula that would see a much larger allocation to the fund. I'm not sure that we have anything more articulate or developed than that as a theory as to why this amount was chosen.
I certainly don't want to be unfair to the Attorney General. I'd like to give him another opportunity to explain, in a way that perhaps would go further than he has gone up until this point, why the number is $2 million, as opposed to $3 million or $1 million or $20 million. If there is no better way of explaining it than he has offered us to date, we'll take that, and people will read and make their own decisions accordingly.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me emphasize that this was not a business decision made by the government of this province. This was a public policy decision made to assist the Man in Motion fund to do the work that they're doing.
In '97-98 the estimated revenue would be about $7.2 million, and 20 percent of that is about $1.6 million. In '98-99 the estimated revenue is about $11 million, and in no subsequent year would Mr. Hansen's fund get anything more than $2 million -- or 20 percent, whichever is less. So a decision was made based on projections and based on the appropriateness of the work that Mr. Hansen's organization does.
It was, above all, a public policy decision -- only secondly and thirdly a business decision.
G. Plant: I'm sure that the Attorney General is right to say that, but I think that one of the things we all need to bear in mind is that the climate in which public policy decisions are being made is changing. I think the Public Accounts Committee of this House recognizes that it is a climate that has to change in order that we as legislators can ask questions of government about how it makes decisions that are public policy decisions and require of government that it articulate rational principles for the decisions it makes.
Obviously this is not a business decision. I don't think that anyone would say that it's a business decision, but that doesn't mean that it's not a decision that can be made without a business plan, a plan of business, a plan of action: here is what we intend to do; here are the criteria that we intend to establish that will allow us to determine on an ongoing basis whether this contribution is serving the public policy principles that motivated it; here are the factors that we will examine on an ongoing basis, the things that we will look at to be sure that we are in fact spending money the right way.
This is not something that is unique to the neurotrauma fund, and by asking these questions, I'm certainly not intending to suggest that this fund be treated any differently than any other fund, grant, project, service or program of government. But I do think it's important that we try to ask those questions, that we try -- especially those of us on this side of the House who are really on the outside -- to make sure that when government makes decisions like this, decisions which it will defend and here defends as public policy decisions, it is in fact doing the kinds of things it ought to do in order to reach reasonable decisions. Obviously, by choosing to collect certain amounts of money here and to devote them to one purpose, the government is making a decision, by implication, not to support other purposes. I'm sure there are plenty of those around that could be served.
By no means do I wish in any way to call the Attorney General onto the carpet unfairly or inappropriately, or to hit a hot button, to use a cliché, but I do think that when we're talking about millions of dollars of taxpayer money, admittedly coming from people who are in a special class of taxpayers, I suppose -- people who have committed offences -- it's important that we ensure that government explains why it's doing these things. So that's the rationale for my having pursued that line of inquiry.
I have some questions about subsection (3), which contains reporting requirements. They don't look like an audit, and I'm not sure about the technical requirements that allow the government to request audits of societies like this from time to time. Is there a process or a mechanism in place that would allow the government to conduct or require the foundation to conduct audits from time to time if that need should arise?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: In organizations such as this, I believe that a case in point would be the Legal Services Society. Yes, the Attorney General can ask for audits. But I understand that this organization has Arthur Andersen, chartered accountants, do an independent financial audit every year, and I'm assuming that that audit would be included in the report to the Attorney General every year.
G. Janssen: I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
G. Janssen: With us on the premises today are a number of members of the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists on their trusty iron steeds for the ninth annual MLA motorcycle awareness ride. I ask all members -- and staff, of course -- to join us on the front lawns to celebrate this wonderful event.
G. Plant: I'm supposed to be putting a helmet on my head in order to do something very exciting -- ride a motorcycle. With that in mind, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
[ Page 3218 ]
Hon. U. Dosanjh moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12 noon.
The committee met at 10:13 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR
(continued)
R. Neufeld: Just to recap a little bit, the minister will recall yesterday's questioning regarding non-mechanical arrest systems -- I believe that's the right term -- for heights over ten metres. I was given the information that there were 7,000 injury claims arising out of falls in 1996. The minister confirmed that there are no statistics to show whether those falls were on level ground or one metre or ten metres above ground, so many of them could be actually someone just walking across the floor and falling. Also, if I remember correctly, when I asked the last question about how many of those claims originated in the oil and gas industry, I was given the number of 20, with no figures to support whether the 20 falls were from above ten metres or whether they were someone walking across the ground and falling.
Where I'm coming from is
Again, there were 20 falls in the oil and gas industry in northeastern British Columbia because that's where all the work happens, and 19 of those falls could have been someone walking across a lease and falling down because of rough ground. To initiate some kind of a non-mechanical arrest system in an industry because of 20 falls seems to me to be just a little bit drastic, so maybe the minister would like to carry on and explain a little bit more. He may have some more information for me about the 20 recorded falls in the oil and gas industry in 1996.
Hon. J. Cashore: What I said yesterday was that there were 20 falls from elevations and 11 falls that were, as the hon. member says, from somebody just walking across a level surface. So there were 31 in total in the oil and gas industry, and 20 of those were from elevations.
[10:15]
R. Neufeld: Could the minister confirm the elevation for me? I see him shaking his head, so the elevation could mean anywhere from a step to ten metres. Would that be correct?Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. The answer would be any elevation above a level surface.
R. Neufeld: I wonder if I could impose on the minister's staff to give me -- you can sever all the private information -- the reports of those 20 falls so that I can see for myself exactly where they took place and from what heights. Would that be possible?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. It will take some time, but we will do that.
R. Neufeld: In the oil and gas industry last year, 1996, there will have been -- and I'm not sure of the number -- thousands of workers on thousands of different job sites throughout the northeast performing their work. Does the minister feel that 20 falls in relationship to the number of people working and the hours worked and the productivity should result in trying to make industry come up with some very expensive -- and they probably won't work all that well anyhow -- issues to try and alleviate those 20 falls?
Hon. J. Cashore: To give a little more data with regard to oil and gas well drilling, in 1996 there were just shy of 13,000 days lost in that industry. There was over $1.3 million in wages involved in that year. There were 135 claims and the categories of those claims -- as well as those two categories of falls -- included: struck against, 6; struck by, 18; caught in, 5; strains, 36; abraded, 3; harmful substances, 7; transportation, 8; and miscellaneous, 21.
R. Neufeld: Could you tell me how many days were lost in relationship to those 20 falls, and what those 20 falls represent in the area of the $1.3 million loss in wages?
Hon. J. Cashore: That's not broken out in this report, but we will get the basic data. I wonder if I could pass a copy of this Workers Compensation Board annual report over to the member.
R. Neufeld: I have a copy of the annual report, thank you very much, and I have looked at it.
I'm going to get off the subject now, but I just wonder if the minister really feels that, given some of the statistics that go around, what took place with the 20 falls would really justify the kind of expense that the industry is going to have to go to just to work in British Columbia. Let's remember that much of this same equipment that is used in the oil and gas industry is used across western Canada, not just in British Columbia, so they have to do some special work to be able to come to British Columbia. When you talk to the industry, they have to do all kinds of special things for WCB when they come to British Columbia, yet they seem to work in Alberta. I'm looking for Alberta's statistics on lost days and those kinds of things in the oil and gas industry, and they make British Columbia look pale in the amount of work that goes on. I still haven't got the information on the lost days and those kind of things. But does the minister agree that this is significant enough to warrant these companies going across Canada trying to find engineering firms to build this kind of equipment?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.
[ Page 3219 ]
R. Neufeld: Thank you very much for that answer. I appreciate that, but I don't think the industry is going to appreciate it very much. I said at the outset that I don't think we should have any injuries but that those injuries are going to happen, regardless of what WCB does. I know we have to try and work very close to safety, but there comes a time when, you know, obviously
I guess the other one
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.
R. Neufeld: It absolutely amazes me that the minister would just say yes, that for every power pole across the province of British Columbia we're going to have to have an arrest system. When we come down to looking at some of these things and see the cost that's involved
It just amazes me the way the minister responds to those questions and just flippantly thinks, I guess, that this is going to be absolutely no cost to industry, no cost to people and no cost to those who receive the service. I mean, it's just absolutely amazing that he would stand and say, yes, every power pole is going to have to have this system.
Hon. J. Cashore: I think if the hon. member will check the Blues tomorrow, he will find that he just asked me for a yes-or-no answer. I gave him a yes-or-no answer, and now he's accusing me of being flippant.
I would point out that these power poles would be systems in which the worker takes this safety equipment with her to that location. The fact is that this equipment is there, based on analysis that seeks to ensure that lives are not lost and that injuries do not occur.
That the hon. member and I can still respect each other and have different views on this is, I think, a fact. I really don't think it's necessary to impute motives to me on the basis of the fact that I have given answers which are the honest answers I've been requested to give, and that they would somehow be characterized in the member's comments as being other than that.
R. Neufeld: I apologize to the minister. I guess today is just one of those bad days. I didn't mean to get under your skin or make you lose your cool a bit, but that's fine.
Maybe we'll get off that area. I'd like to know, or get from the minister
Hon. J. Cashore: If it were the case of an individual, they would contact the tribunal and say that they want to appear.
R. Neufeld: I quite understand how that happens. Can you tell me under what parameters WCB would make a submission to that tribunal?
Hon. J. Cashore: WCB could request standing with regard to a particular tribunal, and then the tribunal would decide whether or not to grant standing.
R. Neufeld: So we know that WCB made a submission to the tribunal. Under what conditions did WCB make that submission? Was it approved by the board? Or was it an individual who works for WCB who made a submission on behalf of WCB totally on their own?
Hon. J. Cashore: The tribunal would have the information with regard to who made those submissions. We don't know.
R. Neufeld: The minister knows full well that WCB made a representation to the tribunal in Fort St. John in regard to the variance. I want to know, and what I'm asking is: under whose authority was that submission made, and was it approved by the board of WCB before it was made?
Hon. J. Cashore: I don't think it has been made clear. Perhaps the hon. member can clarify if his question is in reference to the tribunal hearing on the oil and gas issue.
[10:30]
R. Neufeld: I apologize if I haven't made it clear enough. It's the Employment Standards Tribunal in regard to the variance in the oil and gas industry. I don't have the date right here, but it was held in front of the tribunal in Fort St. John. There was a submission made by WCB to that tribunal in opposition to the exclusion of the application for the variance. I'd like to know whether it was the board of WCB that requested someone to go and make that application, and I'd like to know how the process goes. I think I've been clear enough about what happened. I would just like to know how it proceeds through WCB.Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, we don't have that information.
R. Neufeld: Could the minister tell me, then, that the WCB -- and you have your officials here today -- totally supports the submission that was made to the tribunal in Fort St. John on the variance and how the authority went for that submission? I can come back to this a little later on. I can photocopy this information, which was given to me by your ministry, the Ministry of Labour. I can photocopy it and give it to you later so that you can maybe look at it, and we can clarify it a bit more.
Hon. J. Cashore: We'll undertake to find out about the WCB submission, and we will get back to the hon. member.
R. Neufeld: Okay, I'll leave that issue for now, and we'll come back to it at a later time before estimates are finished.
I would like to carry on with the tribunal and some of its findings and maybe get a little more information from the minister on a number of areas that I think are of serious concern. I'd like to know, first off, how many staff -- and I went through the information that was supplied by the Ministry of Labour -- will be stationed in the northeast to ensure
[ Page 3220 ]
that employers are following the recommendations that have been laid down by the tribunal. I understand that they will take effect sometime in July.
Hon. J. Cashore: That hasn't been determined yet.
R. Neufeld: Could the minister confirm how many people are in the northeast now who are directly related to the Labour ministry -- that being the whole North and South Peace?
Hon. J. Cashore: Would that be within the employment standards branch?
R. Neufeld: Yes, it would be the employment standards branch.
Hon. J. Cashore: We have one officer, and that officer is located in Dawson Creek.
R. Neufeld: Would I be correct in assuming that it would be only employees of the employment standards branch who would be responsible for enforcing the labour standards or the variance on the companies in the north?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.
R. Neufeld: I understand that there has been no decision made around extra staff. We can assume, then, that one person in Dawson Creek will be responsible for enforcing labour standards across the whole oil and gas industry, which covers approximately one-third of British Columbia. Would it be correct to assume that?
Hon. J. Cashore: There is a team that is currently working with the industry on this issue.
R. Neufeld: I understand that there is a team; I'm aware of it. If we want to go to the team for a while, is the team there to work with industry to find out how they can work with the new standards or how they're going to enforce the new standards?
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, it was the former -- how to work with them.
R. Neufeld: Do the minister and his staff have the number of employees, on average, who work in the oil and gas industry in a year in the northeast? We all know that during the winter months, there are about four months of the year when the work increases tenfold compared to the rest of the year. Does the minister have the information on how many people do work in that industry, on average, through the whole year?
Hon. J. Cashore: No, we don't have that information. It's not something we track.
R. Neufeld: Could the minister then explain
Hon. J. Cashore: There are a number of different variables, depending on the region of the province that it's functioning in, but to a considerable extent it's based on complaint-driven figures.
R. Neufeld: If it's driven by complaint-driven measures, then if there are no complaints, no one is hired. Is that what takes place?
Hon. J. Cashore: If there are no complaints, we would assume that the industry is complying as a result of our efforts to enable them to come into compliance.
R. Neufeld: If we don't have the information on how many workers there are in the northeast
Can the minister tell me what rights the Labour ministry of British Columbia has to go into our neighbouring provinces of Alberta, the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories to find out whether those companies are complying with the labour standard rules in British Columbia? What authority do we have?
Hon. J. Cashore: I don't know what lies behind that question. We don't exercise any authority to go into other jurisdictions.
R. Neufeld: Where I'm trying to get to is: in British Columbia and in the northeast
If we have no authority to go to the payroll records of hundreds -- probably closer to a thousand or more -- of companies in Alberta to find out whether they're complying with our labour standards, because it's only complaint-driven
What seems to consistently happen -- whether it's in taxation, in labour issues or whatever -- is that we tend to put roadblocks in front of companies that work out of British Columbia. It seems as though government would rather have those folks across the border working out of Beaverlodge, a small community, or Grande Prairie, a city. And the minister may or may not know it, but there are companies that are now moving from Fort St. John to headquarter in Alberta and perform the same work.
[ Page 3221 ]
That does nothing for the employees -- nothing. It destabilizes their employment, because they're going to have to go to Alberta. I guess we don't want them in B.C.; we don't want British Columbia employees. It does nothing to stabilize the industry here, because what we're saying is: "It's easier for you to operate out of Alberta."
When I hear the fact that we have no authority in the Labour ministry to ask for payroll records of companies out of Alberta, when there are thousands of them through the year that will come into British Columbia and do work that British Columbians should do, and that there's no way we can stop this
Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't be paying fair wages, but I want to add that British Columbia is the only jurisdiction in Canada that requires the payment of double time. So I'd like the minister to respond. How are we going to look at that? Or are we just going to let the chips fall where they may and carry on?
Hon. J. Cashore: I don't know where this assumption came from -- that to get this information we'd have to cross the border. Companies that do business in B.C. have to provide us with payroll records, and if work is done in B.C., it's subject to B.C. laws.
R. Neufeld: Actually, I'm going by what the minister said: if there's no complaint, there's no investigation and there's no people. Are you saying that every Alberta company that crosses from Alberta to British Columbia on a yearly basis must provide the Ministry of Labour with their payroll records? Is that what I understood?
[10:45]
Hon. J. Cashore: If we do an audit or if there's a complaint, yes.R. Neufeld: Again, if we do an audit or a complaint. Now, if you do an audit
Hon. J. Cashore: If they're working in B.C., yes.
R. Neufeld: Can the minister then tell me how many that originate in and have their head offices in Alberta companies have been audited in the past year?
Hon. J. Cashore: We'll see if we can get that information.
R. Neufeld: That information would be very interesting to me, because I have dealt with the ministry's office in Dawson Creek on a number of occasions about a number of issues in the province. We seem to have a bit of a problem even keeping up with British Columbia because we're understaffed, not because the person isn't capable. There's not enough people to do the work that's required for the province of British Columbia.
So I would assume that there would be very few audits ever done on an Alberta company. Could I ask, then: if there have been audits done on Alberta companies -- we'll come back to that a little bit later, because I really would like that information before estimates are completed -- were they because of complaints or because of initiations by the Ministry of Labour?
Hon. J. Cashore: I won't guarantee that we can get that before estimates are completed, but we will get that to the hon. member.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that response. I think all of us probably know in our hearts what the answer is. Can the minister tell me: does he really believe that an employee who has been working for an Alberta company for ten or 15 years, who is making relatively good wages in a province that seems to be booming with business and who travels into British Columbia on the odd occasion -- maybe 50 to 100 times a year -- and takes work away from a British Columbia employee, is really going to file a complaint with the Labour ministry in British Columbia on a small issue or on something like that, which will initiate an audit?
I think it all tends to lead to the fact that it won't happen. Very likely, it won't happen. What's going to happen out of those decisions that are made without trying to work with compatible jurisdictions is that the employees, the communities, the businesses and, in the end, the government of British Columbia are going to suffer over the long term over decisions such as this -- taking away the variance for the oil and gas industry. Is the minister concerned about some of the negative effects that this is going to have?
I know it's quite different to sit down here on this little old island and talk about this issue. But I can tell you, Mr. Minister, that if you were in Fort St. John doing these hearings -- and he's quite aware of all the people who have written to the ministries saying exactly what I'm saying, that it's going to be detrimental -- you'd have these rooms filled with employees and employers saying: "Please reconsider these decisions. We work much closer with Alberta than we do with the rest of British Columbia by the nature of our business."
In fact, it must be on this government's mind, because when the Island Highway project was put into place, there was a specific paragraph put in the agreement that no Alberta companies could compete -- and that's way over here on Vancouver Island. So when we go to the northeast, there seems to be a different idea about how we do business. I'm afraid that there's not going to be any audits, exactly as it has been in the past, because it's impossible. You can't hire enough people to do all the audits.
Maybe the ministry doesn't understand the huge nature of the business. We can't do enough audits in the Ministry of Finance to get the 7 percent sales tax and all the things that happen. Let's remember that it's a $2.4 billion-a-year industry in northeastern British Columbia -- $2.4 billion -- and much of that business is going to transfer to Alberta over time, more than there is now. But there seems to be no concern or willingness to work with industry and employees to come to some kind of terms.
I say that again, knowing full well that British Columbia is the only province or territory in all of Canada that applies double time in labour standards. If I could get a bit of a feeling from the minister, I can take those feelings home to those employees who have been born and raised in Fort St. John, who have worked in the oil and gas industry all their lives, who do not want to go out to a remote camp and spend two weeks working eight hours a day. They really want to work as
[ Page 3222 ]
many hours as they can, so they can make lots of bucks and have a longer time period at home and don't have to travel back and forth on roads that are unfit for four-wheel drives. It's not just employers; it's also employees who are concerned about what's going to happen to their livelihoods in the northeast. I know it's a little long for a question, but maybe the minister could comment on it a bit for me.
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member said something to the effect -- I wrote it down here, but I'm not sure if it's exactly verbatim -- that there seems to be no interest in working with the industry. He's already acknowledged that we have a team up there working with the industry. I think the hon. member is making a point based on his perspective. I respect that.
The fact is, though, that we have B.C. law and we uphold B.C. law. We don't expect workers to come here from Ontario and be governed by Ontario law. We don't expect workers to come here from Alberta and be governed by Alberta law. We expect that when they come to this province, they're governed by B.C. law.
R. Neufeld: I accept the answer. Two points. First, there is a team working in the northeast to try and figure out how in the world we're going to apply these rules, not what their ramifications are -- two totally different issues. Second, we expect that workers who come from Ontario or from Alberta should abide by British Columbia law, but that's where it gets a bit difficult to understand.
When you have a moving industry, either a trucking organization that
What I'm trying to tell the minister is that no one with those Alberta companies, which are working constantly, coming into British Columbia for two weeks, doing the work and then leaving again -- and that might be the only time they enter British Columbia's jurisdiction -- will be making a complaint in any shape or form -- no one. And there's no way that we in British Columbia can go and search out those areas -- at least I don't think so, unless you want to hire thousands of people, but that's not the message we're getting from the government of the day. We work all up and down the border with Alberta, back and forth constantly.
Maybe I'm being too hard on the minister. Maybe the ministry is starting to think about how they're going to apply these rules, because they have postponed the date when the rules are going to come into place a number of times. So there's obviously a movement within the ministry to try and work it out. Can the minister tell me whether they've been able to work it out with the Central Interior Logging Association or the Western Professional Truckers Association or the B.C. Trucking Association? How are these labour standards going to apply? I understand the date is put forward again. Could the minister maybe explain a little bit why some of these dates are being extended?
Hon. J. Cashore: We're working with both of those, as we are with oil and gas.
R. Neufeld: Would it be the same for the West Coast Taxi Association and the taxi drivers? Have you postponed it for a while to work with them, also?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.
R. Neufeld: Well, the taxi association and the logging industry don't have the movement between provinces like the oil and gas industry. And that's the message I'm trying to get home to the minister: there is a tremendous movement of goods and services and people and industry across our border between Alberta and British Columbia, and most of that takes place in the northeast. In fact, I would say that most of it takes place in the northeast because an awful lot of economic activity takes place there, but I notice that even the committee that was sent out by your government to look at deregulation of the trucking industry found that any community along the border was looking for a more level playing field. I talk about the Kootenay area and the Cranbrook area, because they're close to Alberta and they're close to the U.S. -- and that's in deregulation of the trucking industry.
Obviously it is a concern that you need some type of level playing field. The level playing field doesn't have to be zero wages; the level playing field has to be comparable wages. I've never been one to stand in this House and say that people shouldn't be paid a decent day's pay for a decent day's work, but there has to be some consideration in the whole scope of things. If wages are the complete issue with the minister, then maybe we should be looking at resolving some of the unfair tax situations between British Columbia and Alberta. Would the minister look favourably at those issues?
Hon. J. Cashore: That's a question for the Minister of Finance.
R. Neufeld: Does the minister recognize that there has to be a level playing field between Alberta and British Columbia for industry in the northeast to survive?
Hon. J. Cashore: One of the realities of Confederation is that there are those anomalies that exist along borders. Efforts are made in other ministries within government to address interprovincial issues. Of course, a level playing field is always a good goal, but there are certain facts, with regard to the reality that there are borders, that speak for themselves.
L. Reid: There are a number of issues I wish to cover this morning, and I want to start with the Workers Compensation Review Board. I can share with the minister two vastly different experiences I had in attending hearings at that location. My questions will centre around what I perceive to be one that was held in a very professional manner and one that was held in a very unprofessional manner, to the extent that panellists were screaming at the claimant who was attempting to make her presentation. So my questions will centre around the criteria for selection.
What is the training of those individuals? How are they selected?
[ Page 3223 ]
[11:00]
Hon. J. Cashore: The chair has a rigorous selection process. There is training on site, and usually a year of on-site training is required to enable that individual to be fully up to speed.L. Reid: We are talking about what is termed a quasi-judicial tribunal, independent of the Workers Compensation Board. My understanding is that each of those panels is probably made up of three people. Is any one of those individuals guaranteed to be a lawyer?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's not guaranteed, but predominantly the majority of panels do have lawyers. From my own experience, I would just point out that I chaired the mental health review panel for the province for 11 years, and there was always debate over whether or not the chair of the review panel should be a lawyer because of the need to have that kind of legal input. Given the fact that I was involved in some evaluative processes that were done by the Canadian Psychiatric Association, no correlation could be shown there between the presence of lawyers and the standards that were measured to identify some measure of success. I think there has to be access to that legal perspective, but I don't think it's necessarily the case that in a lot of these quasi-judicial processes, there absolutely must be a lawyer as a panellist.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comment, but I can assure the minister that the level of concern expressed to me as a result of these panel decisions is around a lack of credibility. If something is going to be termed a quasi-judicial process, it seems to me that we have to ensure that the credentials of the individual making that decision are first off evident to the claimant coming forward and are consistent across all the panels. Again, if there are three individuals per panel, what is the training of the other two members of the panel if we are assuming that intermittently one of them may be a lawyer? What other expertise do the two remaining panellists bring to that process, in terms of rendering a decision?
Hon. J. Cashore: They take training on how to conduct panels, how to write decisions. There is built into the training the very valid recognition, I think, that they shouldn't be too legalistic, being a quasi-judicial process.
I am very concerned to hear that the hon. member actually witnessed a hearing -- if I understood it correctly -- where panellists were actually screaming. I think that's really unacceptable, and I'm very sorry to hear about that. I'm glad to hear that that wasn't the case in the other one.
I don't think the hon. member is saying this, but I just want to observe it; I don't think that someone being a lawyer would necessarily mitigate against an individual being subject to whatever it was that happened in that case. I would assume that that could be anybody.
L. Reid: I'll resist the temptation to go down the road of how many ill-mannered lawyers we know. In terms of this particular issue -- and this is where I began the discussion yesterday -- it is about accountability and credibility. I appreciated the minister's response that these individuals are having ongoing training. My concern is what experience they bring to the job. I don't know very much about the appointment process. I'm very keen to learn something about it today. I want to know how long an individual is appointed to that role, if that's an order-in-council appointment and what the turnover on those panels is. Are we looking at individuals who stay in those roles for 20 years? Are we looking at a two-year appointment process that expires and someone else comes into place?
These are not the first concerns that have been raised to me directly regarding the review board. It seems to me that it's a closed shop -- that no one really understands how the process works. If there are ways to shed some light on it today, I'm certainly open to that.
Hon. J. Cashore: I think the experience tends to come out of labour and employment backgrounds in terms of the experiential aspect of that. These are OIC appointments, and the majority of them are generally three-year appointments.
L. Reid: If this minister was in our caucus, he would have been long separated from the change in his pocket. Stop jingling that.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm sorry. I'll take that out and put it on the table.
L. Reid: In terms of a three-year appointment, my question is: how many people would
Hon. J. Cashore: There is no limitation on terms. The chair would make a recommendation, with the individual having been reviewed prior to any recommendation of continuation.
L. Reid: That leads to my next comment in terms of performance reviews. I would be very intrigued to learn how that process works. Who are these individuals accountable to? Is it Michael O'Brien, who currently heads up the panel of individuals who serve on the medical review? What kinds of evaluation tools are in place? It seems to me that when complaints are brought forward, he receives the complaints, but no action is taken. There was no action taken when I brought forward the concerns. He met with me -- thank you very much -- but there was no next logical step.
Hon. J. Cashore: I need to clarify whether we're referring here to a medical review or a WCB appeal.
L. Reid: We're referring to the Workers Compensation Review Board.
Hon. J. Cashore: They are responsible to the chair -- in this case, Michael O'Brien.
L. Reid: Who is Michael O'Brien responsible to?
Hon. J. Cashore: He's appointed by OIC. There's an executive liaison responsibility because it is an independent entity.
L. Reid: If the minister could define "executive liaison responsibility," in that
Hon. J. Cashore: In that instance, you should talk to the ministry about it, and we would be able to take action.
[ Page 3224 ]
L. Reid: Perhaps the minister could be more specific. Direct me: if it's not the Minister of Labour, who in the ministry would be the most appropriate resource?
Hon. J. Cashore: The assistant deputy minister for labour relations.
L. Reid: I appreciate that guidance immensely. Again, I think it's one of these organizations that tends to benefit by keeping the public at arm's length, by saying that they do operate as an independent quasi-judicial forum. But when it come to accountability, the path to reach any level of accountability is very unclear.
I can assure the minister that I put these questions directly to Michael O'Brien and was told that he was the last stop on the road to some level of accountability. I had some serious concerns with that, and I certainly appreciate the minister's information. I will be happy to follow that up.
The next issue I wish to proceed with this morning is that of the WCB ombudsman. My dealings with Peter Hopkins have been exemplary. I think he's done a very, very fine job. My concern is the volume of work. The fact that when this process began
Hon. J. Cashore: There's been no performance review, because it's still in the first year of operation. There is one office person working with him, and there will be an evaluation following the first year.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comment. However, the first year has concluded; that year ended on April 15, of 1997, so basically it is over. It was indicated to me that the report would be done by the end of the first year. I appreciate that the minister says it's forthcoming. When he next rises, perhaps he can be a little more specific. Do we expect that by September or December, or when might that be?
To raise another question to the minister, many individuals have sought advice in that office, and the office continues to advance the issue of fair practice. Mr. Hopkins is there to advocate fair practice within the ministry. I support that; I think that's a very good thing. But in terms of the volume of work, it seems to me that part of the evaluation will also include whether additional resources are required.
From my follow-up with Peter directly, I know that the percentage increase in contact is just enormous -- the number of people seeking what they perceive to be an impartial view, somebody to guide them through the process. That suggests to me that again the waters have been muddied, in terms of people understanding how best to process their way through. So he performs in a variety of roles, not the least of which is simple direction of claimants through the process. His workload in that area can probably be alleviated by the board taking more responsibility for making the system more user-friendly.
Does the minister have a comment on how to resolve the issues of the folks who are truly there because they require advocacy in terms of fair practice?
Hon. J. Cashore: As of April 30, about a thousand calls have come into that office.
With regard to the performance review question, it would be appropriate for that performance review to comment on the adequacy of resources. That would certainly be an appropriate parameter of that review.
[11:15]
While it is correct that the appointment was on April 15 of '96, the office was not operational until early July. Therefore, in terms of the actual operation of that office, it hasn't completed a year. I would expect that that review would get underway shortly after that. I would hope it would be concluded before the end of the year. I don't know enough to be able to give more specifics on that.L. Reid: Another question that I raised last year in estimates was around the confidentiality issues for the ombudsman's office of Peter Hopkins. I'd had a number of constituents from across the province come forward and ask if there was what they deemed to be private information that was FOI-able. Were others able to request their files or records through freedom of information and protection of privacy?
At that point I think there were some concerns that the freedom-of-information part of the act was perhaps more effective than the protection-of-privacy part. Does the minister have any thoughts on whether the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act works today for the internal ombudsman of the workers compensation system?
Hon. J. Cashore: I wonder if the hon. member will agree to us having the ombudsman actually respond to that. We don't have information with us with regard to the experience during that year in relation to FOI. But I don't want to let the matter drop, so I'd like to arrange some sort of a follow-up process that would be agreeable to the hon. member.
L. Reid: I have no difficulty meeting with Mr. Hopkins; I have done so routinely. I think it's perhaps more of a legislative question than an internal operation question, and I'm happy to receive the information from the minister at a later time. The question is not just the number of inquiries that have had FOI ramifications, but more so, has Mr. Hopkins been able to guarantee confidentiality to the claimants who come forward under the current legislation? I will commit that question to the record, and I await a response.
If we can move for a moment to rehabilitation -- vocational rehab -- lots of concerns have been expressed to me around outside agencies by individuals who have been directed for their rehabilitation to an outside agency. It's my understanding that a new structure was put in place. At the end of 1993, a decision was made to eliminate the vocational rehab services department, which necessitated vocational rehab consultants directing their clients to a variety of services around the province.
Lots of constituents have concerns about the calibre of the service, the quality of the service, the length of the service. I was assured last year that there would be some kind of ongoing evaluation that would allow not just claimants but MLAs, constituency offices and the public to come back and look at the dollars that were expended on behalf of claimant X and at what the success rate was. I have not received any additional information regarding that, but I do know that it's a vast sum of money that is expended on an annual basis for vocational rehab, and the level of satisfaction with that service is inconsistent. In lots of cases, there has been no satisfaction gained at all.
[ Page 3225 ]
My understanding is that the vocational rehabilitation management structure was put in place in mid-1995. Since we're heading to mid-1997, it seems to me that there should be some information available as to whether this new structure makes sense for claimants. Are they receiving reasonable service in terms of their needs to be rehabilitated, to ensure some kind of effective, speedy return to work? They tell me that the costs of vocational rehabilitation are enormous and are often deducted from any disability award they might receive. So they're paying for service they are not happy with, and they don't appear to have any control over the quality of service they receive. Perhaps the minister could kindly comment.
Hon. J. Cashore: The Upjohn institute, which did the original work in preparing for this service, is conducting a re-evaluation, and the results of that re-evaluation are due this month. We will make sure that goes to the hon. member.
L. Reid: I appreciate the opportunity to review that material when it comes forward. I would submit for the record that I trust that the evaluation will look at the length of term that those agencies are contracted for and whether they have to demonstrate any kind of success. Optimally, it would make good sense to see whether those people are still employed a year later or even five years later. The word I get back from the board is that the board has never used continued employment for five years post-return to work as a measure of success. Because of the many employment variables in today's environment, a sustained return to work is more accurately measured after three to six months.
I have cause for concern, because the people who come to my office are the ones who are no longer employed after three to six months, are no longer able to access any kind of vocational rehab, don't believe they were rehabilitated appropriately in the first place and have basically been left high and dry. These are the same people who have mortgages, children, university tuition to pay -- all those things.
For me, it seems to be one of the bigger black holes of the organization. If you're intending to invest a huge amount of resources in an individual but are only concerned with them three months after they return to work, I'm not convinced that the employers in this province are getting a fair shake in terms of value for dollar. I'm not convinced that the dollars are being spent appropriately.
I will read the report when it comes. I think that's probably a fair place for me to start with this exercise. But if I can direct the minister to be very cognizant of rehabilitation questions around the board as they come forward
If there's any way for this individual member of the opposition to be provided with a list of the agencies that the board contracts to, whether there's some kind of performance evaluation around their success rate and whether there are individuals
Again, you and I don't accept that notion. If we end up in a service delivery model
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, we will get that list and make it available to the hon. member.
I do want to say for the record that I think the comments being made by the hon. member are very insightful, and we take them seriously. I think we have to look at this experience. Obviously a lot of very genuine personal research has gone into this, and it's very important that we not lose sight of these comments. We need to look at them alongside what I think will also be perhaps some similar comments that come out of the royal commission process.
L. Reid: In terms of the next issue I want to cover, the workers compensation system suggests in their documentation that there were fewer claims filed in '95-96. I trust that this information is being tracked, but my question would be: how many claims were refused in '95-96 compared to '94-95? When that information becomes available for '96-97, I would appreciate knowing whether there has been a change in that trend as well. Perhaps the minister could kindly comment.
Hon. J. Cashore: While we're looking for a data-based answer to that, I do want the member to know that I have had this point raised with me on many occasions: has there been some kind of change in the disallowal criteria that therefore means it's comparing apples and oranges? I want to know that, too. I don't know that at this point in time. I want to find out; I'm going to find out.
L. Reid: I really appreciate the minister's interest in that area as well, because it seems to me that both sets of information need to be reported concurrently. The changing criteria is of interest to me, if indeed that's the case. I look forward to receiving that information, because the minister can appreciate that if you look at society's obligation, there is one pool of taxpayers' dollars. The contention from a number of injured workers who come forward is that we may be able to shuffle them off the rolls at WCB but they end up in the welfare system -- in the social work system -- so we're not enhancing their quality of life in any way. If that is true, we are indeed misleading the public about the true costs of the workers compensation system in British Columbia. I will absolutely look forward to receiving that information.
Just a question that I was asked to bring forward and, again, I'll refer to the actual legislation. It's the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 1995. Section 6 says that the panel of administrators must be paid out of the accident fund. I'm intrigued to learn why the accident fund was chosen as the vehicle for payment. Was there any other source of revenue? The question comes from an individual who is under the impression that moneys accumulated from employer assessments are used to pay for future pension entitlements and other benefits for disabled workers. They have some concern that the funding of the panel of administrators could perhaps have come from another source. Will the minister comment?
[ Page 3226 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: As I understand it, the entire system is supposed to be paid out of that general fund, because in that sense it's a self-sufficient process. But I'm sure we will get some comments on that.
Just in relation to the earlier question, the note I have here says that, traditionally, disallowed claims have accounted for 3 to 4 percent of the total claims filed in any year. Since the first quarter of '95, the disallowal rate has been rising and today stands at 4.9 percent. Again, I'm not saying that the criteria have changed; I don't know that to be the case. But that's a very interesting change, and I've heard about it from a number of people who feel there's something wrong there. So we want to get to the bottom of that.
L. Reid: Thank you very much, minister. I will certainly await the information.
It's my understanding that funding for the royal commission will come out of the Ministry of Attorney General. Please clarify that. If that is indeed the case, was this minister involved in the budget preparation? And if possible, will this minister share a copy of the budget for the royal commission with this opposition member?
Hon. J. Cashore: No, we don't prepare the budget. We have been involved obviously at the conceptual level in terms of the discussions around setting up the royal commission. But I've had no direct involvement in that actual budget exercise, which comes under the AG, and I do recognize that the AG estimates are concluded.
L. Reid: I have no difficulty in securing that information directly from the royal commission, if that's the most appropriate vehicle.
[11:30]
In terms of other issues I want to cover this morning, the minister mentioned administrative inventories in one of his responses. When I go back through the record, it suggests that there have been four conducted on the workers compensation system: 1991, $79,000; 1992, $147,000; 1992-95, $86,000; 1995-96, $149,000. That suggests to me that a great deal of money has been spent for a total cost of roughly $600,000 in administrative inventories and subsequent follow-up. I raise that because my interest goes back to the accountability question I raised yesterday: has there been reasonable implementation of recommendations following any one of these four inventories?I'm happy to commit their names to the record -- that was perhaps remiss of me. They are:
1. "Workers Compensation in British Columbia: An Administrative Inventory at a Time of Transition";
2. "Medical and Rehabilitation Programs in Workers Compensation: An Administrative Inventory in British Columbia";
3. "Occupational Safety and Health in British Columbia: An Administrative Inventory";
4. "Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia Assessment Department Administrative Inventory."
That certainly goes on to the book that I have with me, which is: "The Workers Compensation System of British Columbia: Still in Transition."
So there's upwards of $600,000, and my question specifically to the minister would be around cost-benefit analysis. Have the values of these inventories been evident? Have any of the recommendations been implemented, and is there some kind of ongoing status about that level of investment? Both the minister and I know that we have constituents around this province who have pension entitlements of $28 a month, and when the press release comes out that the Workers Compensation Board has commissioned yet another study that costs in excess of $100,000 typically, and closer to $150,000 on average, it causes contrast discussions to be raised. So if the minister could assure me that there have been some cost-benefit analyses done and that these have indeed been useful documents to the future of the organization.
Hon. J. Cashore: The four studies provide information that's needed in order to be able to develop a strategic plan. That has been followed up internally, and it has informed the development of that strategic plan.
L. Reid: Is the strategic plan readily available?
Hon. J. Cashore: It was published in April of last year, and we'll make sure that the hon. member has a copy if she doesn't have one.
L. Reid: I do appreciate the offer.
To extend the discussion, when individuals phone up and request a copy of the strategic plan, is it mailed to them?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, we do that on a regular basis.
L. Reid: I trust that this will continue to happen, because I know that I've had claimants phone and request it and they have not received it. So if it's in short supply, or if I now have the last copy, I'd be interested to learn that.
In terms of a number of status reports I'm looking for this morning, I've been to a number of briefings around the E-file, the electronic claim filing system. It's constantly in progress, and I ask that we appreciate the nature of an evolutionary direction for any organization. But is there any status report the minister can provide today on how well that system is working and whether or not it has been broadened beyond the Coquitlam centre, which, I believe, is where it originated?
Hon. J. Cashore: The E-file pilot project was tested and evaluated at the Coquitlam service centre, as the member has pointed out, during 1996. It has been introduced to other locations this year, with a complete rollout to all service centres by 1998.
L. Reid: Can I confirm from the minister's comments that the pilot phase has ended and that there has been an evaluation done?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, that is correct.
L. Reid: From the minister's comments, I believe he said that at the end of 1998 all the locations of the board will be serviced electronically. If that truly happens, I will be the first one to commend the board, because certainly so much of the frustration around the board has been trying to track paper files. To go and be presented with rooms full of files, with tables stacked floor to ceiling
[ Page 3227 ]
My question, specifically in terms of technology, looks at those very large files, the ones that are two or three feet high. Will this electronic filing tracking system be able to manage that volume of paper? The original understanding I had is that it was going to track the very simple straightforward cases. But to put that volume of information on an electronic tracking system is nigh onto impossible. If that's changed, I would welcome that information as well.
Hon. J. Cashore: It's designed to handle it prospectively. There is historical material that will not be put into that system. It is designed to handle it from day one on.
L. Reid: I believe the minister's term was "prospectively" -- that is, from today forward and, I guess, from 1998 forward. What happens to those files that will not form part of that process? It seems to me that over the last six years, I'm looking at exactly the same files right down to the same claim number and claimant, and their material is not moving in the system. What happens to those individuals?
Hon. J. Cashore: There will be some files that will have to be moved around to the appropriate people. Obviously, if there's an active file, there will be certain information that's introduced, and there will still be some ongoing need to move some of that material around.
L. Reid: There are three other initiatives I might just touch on briefly, because I'm interested to know how they're working. One of them is the extended claims registration hours. Apparently, now people can phone up the board beyond business hours and begin a claim -- similar, I believe, to the ICBC scenario. On the 24-hour automated claims information line, my question to the minister will simply be: is it similar to the ICBC process currently underway?
Hon. J. Cashore: It was piloted in Coquitlam, it is up and running and it is working well. Again, after it's been in operation for a year, it should be evaluated.
L. Reid: I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that it only applied to Coquitlam today.
Hon. J. Cashore: No. What I said was that it was piloted in Coquitlam, but the system is now up and running. It's in about half the lower mainland locations at the moment.
L. Reid: Hon. Chair, that begs the next question, which is similar to the first question I posed around the E-file. Will it be the end of 1998 before all locations within the province are using that system?
Hon. J. Cashore: It is rolling out in a similar fashion, but we anticipate that it will be about the middle of 1998.
L. Reid: I'm just going to ask the minister to confirm what I asked about the 24-hour automated claims information line. Is a similar implementation time line in place for that as well -- mid-1998?
Hon. J. Cashore: We expect that by the end of '97.
L. Reid: Just to wrap up this section. Claims representatives was one of the new initiatives I was exposed to in my last visit to the board. I think it's a wonderful direction. I think it's really important that people can form some kind of connection to the person that handles their claim. It shouldn't be a different person every time they call. There should be an ability to speak to the same person, because, frankly, you and I enjoy that luxury when we get to phone around to different public offices once we have that connection. It makes good sense to see if you can build some kind of rapport and have that person take a little personal interest in your particular situation, your particular file. I would be interested in an update on how that's working, and if indeed that covers all the claim centres around the province.
Hon. J. Cashore: It's being piloted in Prince George at the moment, and that model is being evaluated with the possibility of implementation more broadly by the end of the year.
L. Reid: Noting the hour, I would like to move that this committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:43 a.m.