[ Page 3229 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

B. McKinnon: It gives me great pleasure again, for the third time this week, to announce 27 grade 5 students from Pacific Academy in Fraser Heights, in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale, and their teacher Mr. McLarty. I bid the House make them welcome, and I hope they enjoy themselves today.

H. Lali: Today visiting us in the galleries are 12 aboriginal adult basic ed students from the Chehalis Indian reserve near Merritt, in my riding, and their teacher Ms. Taylor. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Reid: In the gallery today is a dear friend of mine, Karen Legeer, visiting from White Rock. She is joined also by our legislative assistant Ms. Terri Cunningham. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

The Speaker: Malahat-Juan de Fuca.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. A thousand pardons.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It could have been worse.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Excuse me, members. I never thought I'd have to intervene to ask for order in introductions, but could we. . . ?

M. Sihota: I must say, hon. Speaker, that a number of thoughts cross my mind, but I think I'm better off to just simply advise you that visiting us today are a number of students from Royal Roads University, which, of course, is located in my constituency and is an institution we're very proud of.

Interjection.

M. Sihota: Yes, in the constituency of Esquimalt-Metchosin, that is.

Those students are Navi Dhami, Rosanne Dardano, Kevin Hilscher, William Fry, Geoff Griffiths and Doug Racine. Would all members please give them a warm welcome.

M. Coell: Visiting us today is Jenny Thomas, a student at Arbutus Junior Secondary School. Would the House please make her welcome.

J. Smallwood: I'd like to introduce three people that are very important to me. I actually have two sisters-in-law in the gallery, Jean Smallwood and Deb Smith, and one other very important visitor, an eight-year-old niece, Kimberly Smith, who incidentally is an extraordinary public speaker. I would like the whole House to make my three important people welcome.

G. Wilson: In the galleries today is Mr. Harvey Martin, who has come down from Kelowna for business in Victoria. He also is the vice-president of the PDA. I would like the House to make Mr. Harvey Martin welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have two sets of introductions I'd like to make today. First, two gentlemen who worked hard on my campaign and others -- they're the young people who get into politics and make it work -- are here: Bindra and Tejindar Parhar. They are in the gallery today, and I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Also we have a group of newspaper editors with us today: Kevin Laird from the Nanaimo Daily Free Press; Keith Norbury from the Goldstream News Gazette; Alana Jorde, Esquimalt News; Paul Lidgate, Peninsula News Review; Bjorn Stavrum, Business Examiner; and George Le Masurier. I'd ask the House to make them all welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Present in the gallery are Anne McLean of the Canadian Bar Association and law student David Robbins. Would the House please make them welcome.

S. Hawkins: I'd also like to extend a welcome to Navi Dhami, who is a constituent of mine and also an e-mail pen pal, and his classmates from Royal Roads. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Oral Questions

B.C.'S CREDIT RATING AND
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

F. Gingell: When the NDP was elected in 1991, the total provincial debt stood at less than $18 billion. At the end of this fiscal year, it will be over $30 billion. Sooner or later, you reap what you sow. By downgrading B.C.'s credit rating, Moody's Investors Service has cast a vote of non-confidence in the ability of this NDP Finance minister to manage B.C.'s money. Will the Minister of Finance show some honour, do the right thing and resign?

Hon. A. Petter: I didn't see the member rise to congratulate this government last week, when Dominion Bond Rating Service came in with its rating, maintaining B.C.'s rating. I look forward to his subsequent questions and comments, because I'm sure he will reference to this House that Moody's rating today, while it is a notch lower, continues to be the highest rating of any province in Canada, along with Alberta; that Moody's notes that this province compares favourably not only with other provinces but internationally in terms of our investment record; and that Moody's notes that one of the reasons they decided to make this step was because this government insisted on maintaining its priorities, the priorities of funding health care and education.

F. Gingell: I remember that Dominion Bond Rating Service put this province on credit watch. Today the international financial community has cast a thumbs-down on the NDP's fiscal incompetence. When a Minister of Finance presents a budget that causes a major bond-rating agency to issue a credit downgrade, it's a sign that something is seriously wrong. If the Minister of Finance won't do the right thing and resign, will the Premier do what's necessary to restore confidence in British Columbia's fiscal matters and fire his poor, beleaguered Finance minister?

[ Page 3230 ]

Hon. G. Clark: I didn't hear the member opposite call for Paul Martin's resignation when Canada was downgraded in 1995. The members opposite here have demanded. . . . Well, I know that half the opposition wanted him to resign, because they're Reformers; the other half, they're not sure about. . . .

This Liberal opposition has stood in this House every second day or so and demanded that we build more schools, that we spend more money on education, that we spend more money on health care and build more hospitals. The reason that Moody's is concerned is because we maintained our investments in health care and education and because we're investing in school construction in this province. Even at that, our credit rating remains the highest in Canada.

[2:15]

The NDP have missed every financial target in their debt management plan. They tore it up before the ink was dry. Two consecutive phony balanced budgets raise questions in the minds of citizens concerning this NDP government's veracity, and now it has affected our credit rating. Will facts like this, Mr. Speaker, be the right message for the Minister of Finance to understand that he simply has to resign and let someone else take over the ship of state?

Hon. A. Petter: Once again we hear from the slash-and-spend Liberals. One day they want to spend; one day they want to slash. What are their priorities, hon. Speaker?

It's true: Moody's in its decision today noted that one of the reasons that it decided to drop the credit rating a notch -- albeit it remains the highest in the country -- was because British Columbia has not refocused its budget priorities and funding for priority areas will continue to increase. In other words, health care, education, hospital and school funding will continue to increase. And the reason for that is while the opposition believes that the priorities of government should be determined by one New York credit-rating agency, this government believes that the priorities of British Columbians should be determined by British Columbians themselves.

G. Farrell-Collins: What the people of British Columbia believe is that the government should tell them the truth when they table a budget.

Hon. Speaker, not even a year ago the Finance minister stood in this House and said: ". . .while projecting a surplus of $87 million and a reduction in total government debt of $99 million. . . . Our commitment is to maintain B.C.'s number-one financial ranking in Canada. Through wise and judicious management. . . ."

The surplus was a hoax. The budget was another broken promise, and this minister has broken the commitment he made less than a year ago to the people of British Columbia. Will he -- somebody on that side -- finally do the honourable thing and take responsibility for this government's misleading of the public over the budget?

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, the opposition seems to have missed the point. Even with this rating today, B.C. has retained its number one rating of any province in Canada.

I invite the member to review not just today's rating but the rating last week from Dominion Bond Rating Service, which noted that its rating was based upon a realistic medium-term financial management plan introduced by this government.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I expect that the downgrading we have today is based on the fact that this government misled the bond-rating agencies last year about their debt management plan. We now rank with that terrible province the people opposite talk about, Alberta. The difference is that Alberta is going up and British Columbia is going down.

This isn't about where we are; it's about the direction we're headed. This minister and this government have missed every single financial commitment they've made to the bond-raters around the world. When the minister goes next time, does he really expect the people to believe him, the bond-raters to believe him, the investors to believe him? Or should they believe what he said in the paper on the day he tabled his last budget -- that he doesn't expect anybody to believe him?

Hon. A. Petter: What this is really about is priorities. It's about priorities. The Moody's bond-rating agency notes that funding for priority areas will continue to increase and that this government has not refocused its budget priorities. That's correct, hon. Speaker. We have maintained our priority in terms of investing in education. We've maintained our priority of investing in health care. That's what the people of British Columbia elected us to do.

The question is: what are the priorities of the opposition, who one day stand up and ask us to slash spending and the next day say we're not spending enough? If there's a credibility question in this House, it sits on that side of the Legislature.

LICENSING OF ELECTRONIC BINGO

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for gambling. It has to do with bingo. There is a new game in town; it's called linked bingo. Players now linked by satellites will be able to engage in the mother of all bingo games, because they will be linked to one of the largest pots available in history. Will this minister tell us: is the British Columbia Gaming Commission now licensed to allow linked bingo in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not certain with respect to linked bingo, but the Gaming Commission is authorized to proceed with electronic bingo, which has the same implications -- in other words, linking various communities up to a single game.

G. Wilson: In the minutes of the B.C. Gaming Commission of February 5, they say: "The chair has sent a letter to the minister advising that linked bingo was approved, and the commission would like to proceed as quickly as possible." Hon. Speaker, the difficulty with linked bingo is that it will allow people to play the game. . .and it will be directly at the cost of the charities who are so dependent upon bingo as their source of funding to do charity work.

Will the minister now confirm that he received correspondence from the commission asking for a licence to proceed, and whether or not he has said yes to that request?

[ Page 3231 ]

Hon. D. Miller: To the contrary, the expansion of both charitable and other forms of gaming will provide more opportunities and more revenues for charities. The member. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Miller:. . .is aware that currently the bulk of the revenue obtained through charitable gaming does go to very worthwhile charitable projects, and there will be opportunities for enhancing that revenue. In fact, my officials are discussing that with the charitable organizations on an ongoing basis, and I've not heard any negative feedback with regard to those discussions.

B.C.'S CREDIT RATING AND
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

I. Chong: The people of British Columbia expect fiscal responsibility from this government. Moody's has downgraded our credit rating, based solely on the NDP's complete mismanagement of B.C.'s economy. Moody's has called for a more aggressive budgetary plan than the feeble attempt at cost control made by this Finance minister.

Will the Premier today fire the Finance minister and introduce a new budget, one that will restore confidence in B.C.'s finances?

Hon. G. Clark: It's a very, very simple answer. I want to know which schools the members opposite would close. I want to know which schools in which ridings that we are building right now that you say we should stop.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, please.

Hon. G. Clark: We are in the process right now in British Columbia of building 100 schools or additions to schools. We are spending the bulk of borrowed money on building schools. I want the members opposite to come clean with the voters of British Columbia and tell us now which ones they want us to stop construction on -- because that's the implication of this line of questioning, in complete contradiction to everything they've said in the last month or two.

I. Chong: Well, the unfortunate thing about this government is that we have a plan and you don't.

Hon. Speaker, this Premier and this Finance minister continue. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order, members! Members, I cannot hear the question, and that's simply not acceptable. Oak Bay-Gordon Head, please continue.

I. Chong: . . .to display their financial ineptitude. Moody's also states: "Unlike other provinces which had embarked upon major austerity programs earlier, B.C. has not refocused its budget priorities."

My question is: will the Finance minister admit that his promises to cut and control the cost of government were nothing more than a scam and a sham at the expense of B.C.'s reputation around the world?

Hon. A. Petter: I will readily admit that this government has not refocused its priorities at the behest of one credit agency or anyone else. Those priorities remain the priorities of British Columbians: to invest in schools for our kids; to invest in hospitals for those who are sick; to invest in education programs. But I'm interested that the member didn't quote. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. A moment ago I said to one side that I must hear the question. And now I must hear the answer. Please, members.

Hon. A. Petter: What we have done with this budget and this plan is to meet those priorities and to continue, as Moody's itself notes, to enjoy a relatively low debt burden that compares favourably with other Canadian provinces and foreign subnational borrowers. That's what we've done, because we believe in the future of this province. We've maintained our priorities. We don't change them every day -- slash, spend, cut, reduce -- as the opposition over there does.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Please, let us hear the member for Delta South.

Standing Order 35 Motion

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members! Members on both sides. Members, we must have a little respect for one another in this chamber. Please let us hear what Delta South's motion is about.

F. Gingell: . . .domestic debt. This matter really is urgent; it has to be done now. Moody's action at noon today will cause all future borrowings of this province to cost more, unless this government sends a clear message to all credit-rating agencies and investors that they do indeed recognize that this downgrade is the consequence of their fiscal mismanagement.

Timing is important; nay, it is critical. This government must seize this opportunity to commit to mend their ways and send a clear message today that will begin to bring to bear the fiscal discipline we need to protect the essential services that British Columbians rely on every day. Perhaps it is time for a steadier hand on the wheel. No one wants this ship of state to founder on the rocks.

[ Page 3232 ]

Mr. Speaker, I have given notice of this motion, which I would now like to move, as this is a matter of urgent public importance. I further move that this House do now adjourn, awaiting the ruling of the Speaker, rather than the tradition which has happened in this House that we wait 24 to 48 hours for a ruling of the Speaker on this most urgent public matter.

The Speaker: Excuse me, Government House Leader. Before I recognize you, I must clarify with the member for Delta South.

Did I understand correctly, member, that your motion was that the House adjourn for the Speaker to make a ruling? Because if so, that isn't in order, and I would give you the opportunity, then, to move the motion pursuant to our standing order 35, if that is indeed your intention.

F. Gingell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the second portion of my motion is not in order, then I withdraw it and restrict my motion: that this matter be debated as a matter of urgent public importance.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I appreciate the clarification.

[2:30]

I suspect, hon. Speaker, that what the opposition is really doing is bidding for time to prepare for their skit tonight, and that's it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, members. Members, according to established practice in this House, it is the habit of the Chair to examine the matter somewhat more carefully in the quiet of one's chamber, so I shall do that. But I shall endeavour to report back to the House as expeditiously as I possibly can.

I thank the member for giving me notice of the motion, and I thank the Government House Leader for her intervention as well.

Orders of the Day

BRITISH COLUMBIA NEUROTRAUMA
FUND CONTRIBUTION ACT
(continued)

On section 2 (continued).

G. Plant: I'm delighted to see that the Attorney General's complement of staff assisting him has expanded, and I'm sure that will be a very considerable assistance to him as he deals with the questions that we have.

I want to draw the Attorney General's attention to the fact that in subsections (1) and (2) the draftsperson has created an obligation. It's an obligation to pay the neurotrauma fund a grant in a certain amount, and the language used in the section is mandatory. Each provision says "the Attorney General must pay to the British Columbia Neurotrauma Fund" certain amounts of money.

Now, the expression of an obligation to pay in this context is difficult -- at least, I'm finding it difficult -- to reconcile with the Attorney General's powers under section 9(4) of the Victims of Crime Act. That section is entitled "Victim Surcharge Special Account." Section 9 of the Victims of Crime Act continues the special account, and it makes arrangements for how money is to be paid into that account by the Attorney General. It is the money in that special account which the Attorney General must pay to the British Columbia neurotrauma fund -- not all of it, but some of it; we've already talked about the formula that calculates the amount of the payment.

Section 9(4) of the victim surcharge special account provision says: "The Attorney General may pay money out of the special account to do one or more of the following. . . ." There are three subsections: the first is to defray costs incurred in administering the act, the second is to pay costs associated with the administration of the special account, and then the third -- at least, as it's presently worded -- is to defray the costs of victim services or other prescribed services to victims.

So the way the Victims of Crime Act works is that there is the special account, and the Attorney General is obliged to pay money into it. Then he has the power -- a discretionary power -- to pay money out of it. He is not obliged by section 9 of the Victims of Crime Act to pay money out of the special account for any of the statutory purposes set out in detail in subsection (4). He merely has the power -- a discretionary power -- to do so.

That contrasts with the obligation that we find in section 2 of the bill that we are now debating, which does make it mandatory for the Attorney General to pay to the neurotrauma fund certain amounts. It's not clear to me how these two provisions in different statutes will work. It looks to me as though the Attorney General is in a position where he may choose not to pay to defray the costs of administering the Victims of Crime Act, he may choose not to pay costs associated with the administration of the special account, but he is always and in any event obliged to pay money to the neurotrauma fund. That doesn't seem to me to be a coherent statutory framework. I'm wondering if the Attorney General can explain what appears to me to be a contradiction.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There's no question that on the face of it there appears to be a contradiction, but when one really looks at both pieces of legislation and puts them together, there is no contradiction. The fact is that this specific statute 

[ Page 3233 ]

mandates the Attorney General to pay money to a specific organization. Then, of course, whatever is left in the account. . . . The Attorney General then has the discretions that are indicated in the Victims of Crime Act. I don't believe there is a contradiction. One simply says that $2 million or a lower amount must go to a particular institution. With respect to the balance, of course, the Attorney General has the discretion within the Victims of Crime Act.

G. Plant: On the Attorney General's reasoning, then, what we have in section 2 of Bill 8 is an obligation which requires the Attorney General to pay money to the neurotrauma fund, and in section 9 of the Victims of Crime Act, the Attorney General has certain options which, as I understand his explanation, are available to him after he has satisfied the obligation that exists in section 2 of Bill 8. Is that an accurate enough restatement of the situation as the Attorney General understands it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That is accurate, qualified simply as follows: that the projected revenue with respect to this account is estimated to be at about $10 million a year. So there is always going to be that money available for those discretionary purposes.

G. Plant: What we are looking for is the source of the power to make the contribution to the fund. We find it in Bill 8 expressed in section 2 in mandatory terms. For those who look through the statutes to try and find how the Attorney General gets the power to make the payment to the neurotrauma fund, they find it in section 2, and they find it expressed in mandatory terms. Therefore, we look to subsection 9(4) of the Victims of Crime Act, and we find other things that the Attorney General may do with the money in the special account. Again, is that more or less a correct summary?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is correct, somewhat. Theoretically, what the hon. member is saying is correct. But that is not to say that the discretions vested in the Attorney General would mean that other obligations under the Victims of Crime Act would not be looked after. It is my understanding that projected revenue is going to be $11.3 million for 1998-99, and we will have more than enough money to look after the obligations. The Legislature, if this bill passes, would have seen fit to mandate a certain amount of money to a specific organization for specific purposes.

In that regard, I was able to get my ministry to dig up the presentation. The purposes that money would go to were mentioned in the proposal, and in fact, I was somewhat incorrect in advising the hon. member that there was no price tag attached. The proposal given to the ministry in 1995 -- I haven't seen the latest proposal; I haven't been able to access that in this short period. . . . Potential annual expenditures from the proposed research fund were to be as follows: six independent research scientists/clinicians, $576,000 per year; six research associates, $360,000 per year; ten post-doctoral research fellowships at $40,000 each per year; ten graduate student scholarships at $20,000 each per year; ten research grants and laboratory equipment grants, $500,000 per year. And that would amount to just over $2 million.

The understanding given was that any unspent money would be used for annual capitalization of the research fund to offset any future charges against the fund. Now, this kind of proposal is not etched in stone. This was the proposal that was made to us at that time, and the society may see fit to change it a little bit. The major thrust of the utilization of this fund is going to be research.

G. Plant: I appreciate the effort of the Attorney General in obtaining that document and reading from it to us. The question is: if the focus is research, does the Attorney General know if the focus is on conducting that research in British Columbia?

[2:45]

G. Plant: That's helpful also. Through the hon. Chair, I thank the Attorney General. I return then to the issue that we were canvassing before the Attorney General provided us with the 1995 information -- it sounds like a bit of a business plan -- about the ways in which the foundation proposed to spend and how much they proposed to spend.

On the issue of the relationship between the Victims of Crime Act provisions in respect to the victim surcharge special account, on the one hand, and the provisions in Bill 8, I had the advantage of a technical briefing from some of the minister's staff with respect to Bill 8, and I appreciated that opportunity. I think I was told at the technical briefing that there was a concern around whether or not the current provisions of the Victims of Crime Act would permit contributions to the British Columbia neurotrauma fund. So it was considered necessary to enact provisions in Bill 8 that would make it clear that the government and the Attorney General in particular had the power to make payments from the special account to the British Columbia neurotrauma fund. Is that correct? What I have recited is what I recall I was told at a technical briefing with respect to how a part of this act came into being. I just want to be sure that my understanding is correct.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Section 9(4) of the Victims of Crime Act would be amended, of course, if this bill passes. That amendment is not just aimed at being able to provide funds to this specific organization. It is also aimed at broadening the spectrum of activities or services that can be funded for research and the like. If the hon. member looks at section 9(4)(c), it simply says: ". . . defray the costs of victim services or other proscribed services to victims." It would provide no moneys for training service providers, no money to do any research or analysis of those kinds of issues. So we needed to broaden that, and hence it's being broadened.

G. Plant: We are looking at dealing with the British Columbia Neurotrauma Fund Contribution Act -- it's not, for example, a Victims of Crime Amendment Act -- an act, which is intended to give government the power and indeed to confer upon the Attorney General an obligation to make an annual grant from the victim surcharge special account for one purpose only. That purpose is grants to the British Columbia neurotrauma fund established by the Rick Hansen Man in Motion Foundation. It seems to me that purpose is achieved by section 2 of the bill, which, as I understand from the Attorney General's explanation earlier, he regards as imposing on him an obligation to make the very payment -- the very grant -- which is the subject matter of this piece of legislation. 

[ Page 3234 ]

Once we have established that the Attorney General has this obligation, once the bill establishes the formula for calculating the amount, once the bill identifies the recipient of the grant and imposes on that recipient some obligations in respect of reporting its activities, it seems to me that the purpose of the British Columbia Neurotrauma Fund Contribution Act is not only fulfilled but exhausted.

We are moving into a discussion of section 3 of the act. I'm happy to do that in a formal sense, but I just want to be clear as we do that. . . . I'm grateful that the Attorney General has confirmed for us that in section 2 of Bill 8 we find the obligation to make the contribution to the British Columbia neurotrauma fund. So when we move on to section 3 of this bill, we're going to be moving on to something quite different, I would suggest. Those are my comments on section 2 of the bill.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

G. Plant: Now we get into the provision that I think takes us beyond the principle of the bill into a new area where we are trying to change the use of the special account -- the victim surcharge levy. As I understand it, the purpose here is to amend the existing section 9(4)(c) in the Victims of Crime Act, which the Attorney General read for us a moment or two ago, and to replace it with the provisions in section 3.

My first question is to ask the Attorney General to explain why he considers it necessary, in the context of an act which is dealing with the British Columbia neurotrauma fund contribution, to impose on us this change to the Victims of Crime Act.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am told that my ministry has given an opinion that it was important to broaden the scope of section 9(4)(c) to be able to legitimately mandate a specific amount. I differ with that opinion from the ministry. I think that the mandate specified in section 2 overrides the previous general act. Therefore we may not need to broaden this particular section of the Victims of Crime Act just to provide for that grant.

It has always been the intention of the government that that account was intended to fund other initiatives to benefit victims of crime -- such as research, evaluation of programs, development of program standards, training, etc. -- if we had not dealt with this in a related statute. Of course, it was included in this because of the ministry's opinion, and there are no designs here, other than it was their opinion that it was appropriately included in this because it was required. Whether or not it was required for that purpose, it was required to broaden the scope of what we could do under the Victims of Crime Act, and that's why the amendment was included here.

G. Plant: I thank the minister for the answer. I can't help but observe that it appears that the Attorney General and I may share the same legal opinion in one respect. That is, if there is a legal issue about whether there is an enforceable obligation in section 2 of this bill which would, by virtue of the specific way in which it is expressed, override any limits in the generality of the language in section 9(4)(c), I think he and I are of the same view that section 2 in fact accomplishes all of the purpose. It is interesting that others have a different view.

We may be right; they may be wrong; they may be right. I know that I often find it difficult to actually enumerate the occasions where I was wrong, but I'm sure others can do that for me much faster and with a great deal more accuracy.

M. de Jong: I once thought I was wrong, but I was wrong about that.

G. Plant: I'm getting the support from my colleagues which I expected on this important question.

To sort of move forward in this debate -- and we're going to have to spend a minute or two on it -- I think that section 2 of this bill does everything the government can legitimately want in terms of achieving the stated objectives of this bill, which are to empower and fund the British Columbia neurotrauma fund.

Now we are into a slightly different area. We're now looking at the Victims of Crime Act, and I guess the government is saying that when it enacted section 9(4) in 1995, I think it was, the people who wrote the statute didn't quite foresee the kinds of services the government now wants to fund under this provision. I think that's unfortunate in a way, because there probably was a debate about the Victims of Crime Act in 1995. There probably was a debate about whether and how and why it would be useful to have a victim surcharge special account. There probably was a debate about the kinds of things that could be done with the money in it. That debate presumably took place in the context of section 9(4) as it was then worded, which seems to me to be fairly carefully drafted in a way that limits the use of the money to victim services -- something that back in 1995 I expect was considered to be a fairly clearly understood idea.

In fact, when I look through the Victims of Crime Act, I find that victim service is defined as "a service that is designed to assist victims and is provided or funded by the government." Now I find that if we are to amend section 9(4)(c) in the way that this bill contemplates, we're going to be expanding the scope of the act and the way that that surcharge could be used. Frankly, that raises a political concern, because this government already has available to it a number of special accounts and funds which were set up for a purpose that was probably praiseworthy and was probably even approved by the opposition when the account was established. But we find that government has been unable to resist the temptation to use the money for purposes unrelated to its originally intended purpose. I think that people on this side of the House, having accepted the notion that there is to be a victim surcharge account, having accepted the notion that the purpose of that account is to allow for the payment of grants that will be used to defray the costs of victim services, are entitled to now look at section 9(4)(c) as it is proposed to be amended and say: "What of this? Why do we need to change this?"

I want to spend a minute or two looking at how it's being changed, because the wording that is proposed is that the surcharge would be used to "provide funding, directly or indirectly" -- and the term "indirectly" already expands the available scope of the use of the levy -- "to a service or project, all or any part of which may benefit victims. . . ." So pause there: "all or any part of which" -- that is, even if the smallest part of the service or the project were something that might benefit victims, then it would be within the scope of the new power that the Attorney General will have to spend this money. That's already a very broad expansion of the ability to spend this money.

[ Page 3235 ]

[3:00]

When I think about what those words might mean in context, I find the challenge is to identify something that this government does that would not be caught by that provision. Teachers in classrooms provide services that might lead to the development of services that may benefit victims; health care professionals, social workers, economic development officers, the job protection commissioner -- the list goes on and on of things that the Attorney General will be able to spend this money on if this section is enacted.

I must say that I examined this question in the context of the next section in the act. The next section in the bill repeals section 16(2)(c) of the Victims of Crime Act. What that provision says is that the services that are to be paid for, if you will, pursuant to section 9(4)(c) are to be done by way of regulation. That is, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council prescribes, by regulation, services to victims, which are the subject matter of 9(4)(c), so that those of us outside the inner circle of government would be able, on a regular basis, to at least see a regulation that attempted to enumerate, describe and define the kinds of things which the government could do with this money.

Well, now the government wants to repeal that, wants to take away that restriction on how it can spend this money. So we have not only a tremendous expansion of the ways in which the money could be spent, but we have a little bit less publicity, a little bit less accountability, in terms of making public how the money will be spent.

I think the first thing I want to do is to ask the Attorney General why it is necessary, from his perspective, to expand the provisions of 9(4)(c) so broadly, in order to give effect to the purposes of the British Columbia Neurotrauma Fund Contribution Act.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member and I agreed that the opinion given by the ministry may be wrong. However, assuming that the opinion provided by the ministry was correct, it is important that we broaden the scope of this particular section that we're talking about, 9(4)(c) of the Victims of Crime Act.

The opinion given indicated that research was not a service to victims of crime -- just as a for instance. It was also indicated that some neurotrauma victims may not be victims of crime per se; therefore "all or any part" wording was required. So from the point of view of the fact that there was an opinion provided by the ministry, based on that opinion, this amendment was crafted to the existing section, which was somewhat narrow. I hope that that puts in context for the member the broadening of the scope of this particular section.

In terms of the accountability, in terms of the repeal of section 16(2) of the Victims of Crime Act, at the end of the day, this is the place where these issues are scrutinized. If the Attorney General makes the grants over a year, we come into the estimates and you have all the time in the world to question the Attorney General as to why a particular grant was provided, why it wasn't provided, and what criteria were used.

I am certain that to provide all of the services contained and described in sections 3 to 8 inclusive, and for the other grants, there would be criteria established by the Attorney General ministry -- in fact, in consultation with the victim services groups, because it's important that we consult the community that we are going to serve. So there would be accountability; there's no question about that. I understand that with respect to the development of Bill 8, the victim services groups and advocates were consulted, and they knew that we were doing that.

This takes away a certain amount of money into a specific fund for people, all of whom may not be victims of crime -- but some may be. So all of that has been done in consultation with them, and they are aware of this.

This act, the Victims of Crime Act, has been so well publicized and is so well known to the victims advocate community that I'm sure, even more than the hon. member in the opposition, that they will hold the Attorney General's feet and the government's feet to the fire to ensure that we provide them with the services we've promised them in this legislation.

G. Plant: In the last part of the Attorney General's comments, he hit in part on the problem, which is that what we have is a Victims of Crime Act. I think most people would understand that to be an act that deals with victims of crime, not people who, by a horribly unfortunate accident entirely of their own making, are permanently disabled. So we have a Victims of Crime Act that is the vehicle by which the government takes what I think is the moderately extraordinary step of adding a surcharge to a wide range of fines levied under provincial legislation. What it says to all those who are at risk of committing offences under provincial law is: "If you commit the offence and you are convicted or plead guilty -- or however you get an outcome -- you will not only have to pay the fine but you will have to pay this thing called the victim surcharge levy."

I'm sure that most people who are told that will assume that this is related to the imposition of the Victims of Crime Act, the provision of rights and remedies and all the right things that are done under the Victims of Crime Act, and will expect that this levy is being used for purposes related to the provision of services to victims. Now we find the government coming to the House and saying: "We wish to use a portion of this money for a special purpose. The special purpose is to make contributions to the British Columbia neurotrauma fund." This is an important purpose which engages our interest and our sympathy as private citizens in communities all throughout British Columbia. It has engaged the interest of the government. That government has said, "We are prepared to allocate a portion of the victim surcharge levy, to make a contribution, on an annual basis, to this neurotrauma fund," presumably because the work of the fund. . . . Although in the short term and long term it will extend the reach of its benefit to include people who are victims of crime and people who are not, its overall purpose is sufficiently important that, as a matter of good public policy, this is something that we should support.

I'm willing to go with the Attorney General that far down the road. What I'm having trouble with is going as far down the road as the Attorney General wants us to go. In answer to my question a moment ago, the Attorney General said: "Well, 9(4)(c), as it was previously drafted, had some limits in it." There was an opinion to the effect that it wouldn't allow us to fund research work, training or certain kinds of services that 

[ Page 3236 ]

could be directly useful to victims of crime and victims generally -- that problem with the old section is that it is a little too restrictively drafted, and therefore we need to expand it a bit.

Here's where I think I have a different approach towards these things than some who are responsible for drafting bills. I'll tell you what my approach would be. Tell me the specific things that you think you need to do with this money: research, training, funding post-doctoral grants, that kind of thing. Enumerate those. Work from the most restrictive up. Create a list of the specific things that you think need to be added to the list as it was, and then give the Attorney General the power to spend this money on those additional things. That would be my approach.

The approach taken by the government in this bill is the other approach. The other approach is an approach which says: "Every time we have an impediment to our complete, free exercise of unfettered power and discretion, we should do what we can to get rid of it."

We've had examples of this already this week. We amended the Correction Act. For a century the Attorney General Act had statutorily assigned responsibility for prisons and correctional institutions to the Attorney General. The government wished to reassign responsibility for corrections for young people to a new ministry -- the Ministry for Children and Families. What they could have done was simply amend the Attorney General Act to carve out that limited exception and then assign it to the Ministry for Children and Families, but that's not what was done. What was done instead was to take away the statutory assignation altogether and replace it with an order-in-council power, which is something that happens much farther from public scrutiny than the debate that takes place on the floor of this House.

So again we come back here, and instead of dealing with what the government may be able to defend as the legitimate need to expand the scope of funding under the Victims of Crime Act, by doing so in an incremental, careful, cautious and limited way, we've just basically taken the strings and cut them altogether. Now the Attorney General will be in a position to provide funding on the broadest possible range of projects -- projects which may only have the thinnest connection to services that may ultimately benefit victims. Frankly, I think that's the wrong way to approach lawmaking. It's wrong as a matter of process. It's wrong as a matter of principle.

I think that if this government wants us to debate the limited ways in which it's necessary to expand the use of the victim surcharge levy, then we should have that debate in the context of an enumeration of what those specific purposes are. And we're not going to have that debate, because section 3 doesn't do that.

So I go back to what the purpose of this act was. The purpose of the British Columbia Neurotrauma Fund Contribution Act was to require the Attorney General to make an annual grant from the victim surcharge special account to the British Columbia neurotrauma fund established by the Rick Hansen Man in Motion Foundation. We on this side of the House support that principle, we support that purpose, but I don't think that we are prepared to go further here. So the question is: how can we best give effect to that purpose without taking the route that is chosen by the draftsperson of section 3 of the bill? I think the way that is to be done is to make an amendment to section 3 of the bill, and I am now going to do that.

[3:15]

[Section 9(4) of the Victims of Crime Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.478, is amended by adding the following as subsection (d): pay grants as required by the British Columbia Neurotrauma Fund Contribution Act.]

In order to overcome the apparent potential problem in terms of whether or not section 2 of Bill 8 goes far enough to allow the government to in fact make this contribution to the British Columbia neurotrauma fund, I propose adding an additional subparagraph to subsection (4) which would expressly empower the Attorney General to make the grants from the victim surcharge special account that are required by the British Columbia Neurotrauma Fund Contribution Act. And I so move.

On the amendment.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The amendment leaves the question of section 9(4)(c), which remains narrow and does not provide the discretion to the Attorney General to provide grants and funding for research or indirectly related services that might be important to victims. Therefore this amendment will not do what the amendment to section 9(4)(c) is intended to do, in addition to providing a way of making the $2 million grant available to the neurotrauma fund.

M. de Jong: As I've been following the debate. . . . I'm not sure I understand the Attorney General's response to the proposed amendment. As I understand it, this specifies with the greatest possible particularity that the power the Attorney General is seeking is conferred on him and that there would be no doubt about the ability to make the requisite transfer of funds. What I hear the Attorney General saying, though, is that Bill 8 actually has two purposes: one is to provide for the fund that everyone is in favour of; but he also seeks to correct an error or to expand the provisions of pre-existing legislation.

That might be okay. But the concern that we have, as the member for Richmond-Steveston has previously alluded to, is that in opening that door. . . . This Attorney General may not have the creativity and imagination that we have seen from other ministers or may see from other Attorneys General or other governments in the future, but in swinging that door open in the way that would be done by the wording as it presently exists in the act, the potential is there for having exactly the opposite effect of what we want in passing this bill. So I'm not sure that I understand the Attorney General's response or that he has addressed the purpose of the amendment as it exists. And the part that I do understand troubles me somewhat.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'd like to say that this amendment is redundant in the way it's presented, because with Bill 8 and the section 9(4)(c) amendment included in Bill 8, all of what 

[ Page 3237 ]

this amendment by the hon. member proposes to do is already done -- and more, in fact, is done. Therefore the amendment that's being made by the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston is redundant; it's unnecessary because section 2 as well as section 9(4)(c) as amended would take care of the concern of the hon. member. What the hon. member is saying is: don't broaden the scope of section 9(4)(c); leave it narrow. If there is any doubt, we should add a subsection (d). What I'm saying is that we need the broadened scope of section 9(4)(c) both to provide the $2 million to the neurotrauma fund and to broaden the scope for other purposes that are mentioned in that proposed amendment.

M. de Jong: I think it's the "and more" that has members of the opposition intrigued and perhaps a little troubled. No one's quarrelling, as we've said, with the purpose of the act. The amendment removes any doubt that that will be accomplished. But I don't think the Attorney General is in a position to provide the House today with any assurance that access won't be made to these funds -- or that an attempt to access these funds won't be made by any one of the many government departments, all under the guise of serving what might be a very useful purpose but what might actually be seen by others to represent a need to overcome budgetary shortfalls in other governmental departments. So I think that when the Attorney General says we accomplish our goal and more. . . . If he says that seeking to comfort us, he's having the opposite effect, because therein lie our concerns.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The purpose of broadening the scope of section 9(4)(c) of the Victims of Crime Act is twofold. First, to ensure that what we plan to do with the neurotrauma fund is doable -- that we are able to provide that sum of $2 million both through section 2 of Bill 8 and through section 9(4)(c) of the Victims of Crime Act. As well, if one looks at the current section 9(4)(c) in the Victims of Crime Act, it is appropriate that we broaden the scope to make sure that we are able to do all of the various things and projects that we need to do with respect to victim services. Because section 9(4)(c) as it is today is simply very narrow, and it does talk about victim services or other prescribed services to victims.

My ministry has given me the opinion that research, evaluation and analysis aren't services to victims. What we want to make sure of is that we're able to do some of those things. The hon. member has legitimate fears, but if those kinds of fears were expressed every time a section of particular legislation were passed, we would never pass any legislation here. There is a large amount of discretion vested in many ways in many pieces of legislation. At the end of the day, the ultimate scrutiny is on the floor of this House during estimates and during question period.

G. Plant: I think it is the experience that we've had with those many other places where this discretion has been exercised that gives us the concern that we have. There is a Health special account. It was established to reduce waiting lists for certain kinds of surgery. As I am informed, it is now used for virtually every purpose imaginable under the Health Act.

The lawyers of British Columbia were told by this government: "We are charging sales tax on your accounts in order to fund the legal aid system." That wasn't done. The lawyers of British Columbia and their clients believed that by paying an additional 7 percent on legal fees, they would in effect be endowing the operation of the Legal Services Society in a way that would elevate it from the financial difficulties that it has experienced and that it continues to experience. That was not done.

The problem comes when we hand carte blanche powers to a government that says: "Trust us. We will exercise them wisely, and if we do not, you can come and challenge us in the estimates debate. You can ask us questions about how we've exercised powers, and you can hold us to account for our failure to exercise these powers properly." I think that we should not be giving governments, generally speaking, those kinds of powers. I think we should be careful when we give government powers. I think we should be careful when we create funds that add to the cost of life in British Columbia for its citizens by imposing surcharges. We should be careful to be sure that there are rules in place that are enforceable about how those funds are spent.

The Attorney General spoke eloquently a moment ago about the need to broaden the purposes for which the special account -- the victim of crime surcharge levy -- could be spent. He spoke about research; he spoke about training; he spoke about specifics. Those may all be perfectly legitimate ways to spend the money raised by the victim of crime surcharge levy. They may be ways of broadening the scope of the kind of work that can be done with these moneys in a way that will, in a tangible and measurable way at the end of the day, provide some benefit to victims -- either by reducing their pain in some way, giving them access to new procedures and processes, or perhaps in some cases preventing the situations which cause them to be victims from arising in the first place.

But we should be exploring those on a case-by-case basis, specifically. We should have a bill that says that section 9(4)(c) is to be amended by specifically enumerating these additional victim services. It's not difficult to do that. In fact, grass-roots people create these techniques and use them all the time. They're already there in the Victims of Crime Act. There is a definition of victim service: " 'Victim service' means a service that is designed to assist victims and is provided or funded by the government."

The Attorney General has received legal advice which I'm not sure that he accepts and I'm not sure that I accept. But his advice is: that definition doesn't go far enough in order to permit the contributions to the British Columbia neurotrauma fund. Well, we've resolved that.

[3:30]

If we need to come back and debate whether or not the Victims of Crime Act was properly drafted in the first place, we should do so with a specific list of the kinds of things that the government now thinks, two years later, ought to fall within the meaning of the term "victim service." Not very long ago, only two years ago, a definition was brought to this House in a bill that was a product of careful consultation and that was much thought about, and I'm sure it was debated here in this House.

[ Page 3238 ]

The government took the time to devise that program. Maybe it's not devised in the statute in a way that will allow it to do the job that it needs to do, but we should have that debate. But I don't think we should have that debate on the basis of a section that blows those criteria out of the water, that allows the government -- perhaps not this minister, but perhaps his successor -- to spend this money any way the Attorney General wants, and we won't find out about it until long after it's spent. We won't find out about it, if at all, until estimates debates that occur long after the program is up and running.

This is not just an issue about whether or not the money will be used in a sense that might be described as illegitimate. This is also a debate about whether the government is in effect doing what it says it wants it do. When it says, "We will charge a levy for the benefit of victims of crime; we will create a surcharge on provincial offences for the benefit of victims," then that's what it should do. It should not empower itself with the ability to use that surcharge to fund the ordinary operations of either the Ministry of Attorney General or any other ministry of government. My real concern is that section 9(4)(c), as the government seeks to amend it, will in fact allow the government simply to expand its ordinary operations and to call upon this surcharge to be used in a way that is beyond its original intention. It will be used in a way which will simply ultimately make it one more way that the government taxes people in order to pay for its ordinary operations. So I strongly urge the Attorney General to give serious consideration to the amendment.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, and having reviewed the amendment, I will now put it to a vote.

Amendment negatived.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

G. Plant: If I may ask the Attorney General, what is accomplished by repealing section 16(2)(c) of the Victims of Crime Act?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Section 16(2)(c), I believe, authorized cabinet to prescribe which victim services would get funding. With the broad discretion in 9(4)(c), that power would be redundant and would not be required.

G. Plant: The effect of these provisions is essentially to vest in the Attorney General the decision-making power and the discretion with respect to all funding under the levy with the exception of the neurotrauma fund. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: Is it the Attorney General's intention to develop a set of criteria or principles that will guide him in the exercise of his discretion? If so, will he make those public? And if not, why not?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes to both.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 8, British Columbia Neurotrauma Fund Contribution Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 9.

TOURISM BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

The House in committee on Bill 9; G. Brewin in the chair.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I simply want to introduce to the House my deputy, Lyn Tait, who is with us here today to assist, and Dick Butler, who is sitting behind us -- he's a legislative analyst. With that, I would welcome the members' questions.

On section 1.

R. Thorpe: I'm just wondering if the minister can advise us if the memorandum of understanding that is sort of linked to this document. . . . Has that been signed yet?

Hon. J. Pullinger: That document is being worked on. It's not part of this legislation, but it is being worked on.

R. Thorpe: Legally, it's not part of the document. I guess that is correct. But I think that through the negotiating process in reaching this legislation, there has been some understanding that it will be signed. I believe that a commitment may even have been given. Can we know when this memorandum of understanding will be signed by the minister?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd be happy to answer questions about the legislation. The memorandum of understanding is about implementing the bill in a number of ways, but it is not, in fact, part of this legislation. I'd be most happy to talk about that in another venue. But it's not part of the legislation. So I'd be pleased to answer questions about the legislation.

[F. Randall in the chair.]

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

R. Thorpe: It indicates here. . . . We're talking here about the board of directors, I believe. We're talking about 15 directors, as I read here. I recall yesterday that the minister. . . . I also recall when the minister introduced this bill at first reading and talked with great pride. Overall, it's a very good bill. It gets almost where it has to go.

But she's talked a lot about the independence in the private sector. I think the minister knows that independence is very, very important in this industry. I'm just wondering why the ten directors. . . . You may appoint those. If you want the 

[ Page 3239 ]

independence, why would you not be stronger in your commitment to that industry, when you've talked about the importance of the board being independent?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The industry has endorsed this formula. The entire industry has endorsed and signed off on this formula. In fact, Mr. Williams, the current co-chair of the SOA advisory board, made it very clear -- said: "Thanks, Mr. Premier, for getting it right." So it is, in fact, endorsed and agreed to by industry.

G. Wilson: I'm on record as saying I would prefer not to go to a Crown corporate model, so I'm not going to re-debate the principle of the bill. Having said that I would prefer a different model and knowing that we're now faced with this one, let's try to get to the nuts and bolts of how this is going to work.

What we know in this section 2 is that there's going to be up to 15 directors. It doesn't necessarily have to operate with 15 directors, because it says in section 2(3): "A vacancy in the membership of the board does not impair the power of the remaining directors to act."

The question is: how many vacancies can be there and still have the board have a constitutive quorum? Nowhere in the legislation does it talk about what a quorum is; neither does it talk about what I presume are standard notices of meetings and the sort of things that we'd expect to have directors fully participate in.

Let's start with a question here with respect to section 2(3). A vacancy. . . . How many people can be absent and still have the board deemed a quorum?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Seven.

G. Wilson: The minister said seven, and I wonder if I've missed that in my reading. Perhaps the minister might point to where that is. Maybe I've missed that in the bill -- that it says that seven is a quorum.

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's standard practice. That's the kind of thing that the board will put in its bylaws once it's constituted.

[3:45]

Let me, then, just talk about how we're going to set up the original board, because under section 2(2) it says: "At least 10 directors appointed under subsection (1) are to be individuals nominated and recommended by the board. . . ." Now, this is interesting, because the board doesn't exist yet. Yet it says that ten of the directors have to be recommended by the board. Well, if the board doesn't exist, then how can it be by the board -- unless, in reading 2(4), what we're actually referring to is the Tourism British Columbia special operating agency advisory board? In that case, what we're doing is taking the Tourism British Columbia special operating agency board, and simply converting them into the original board of directors of the corporation.

As I read that, section 2(4) says, "Despite subsection (2), the first directors appointed under subsection (1) may be" -- it doesn't say will be; it says may be -- "individuals recommended. . .by the Tourism British Columbia Special Operating Agency. . . ." So this is quite confusing language, because on the one hand, it says the board -- and it doesn't define which board -- has to appoint the first ten directors. And then, second, in section 2(4) it says that this Tourism British Columbia special operating agency may recommend individuals, but it doesn't say it has to be themselves.

Clearly this is ambiguous in the extreme, and if we're going to set up a board that is going to have in its initial funding -- my estimate is -- about $1.3 million to play with, we ought to know how we're getting those directors in place.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I can understand why it's confusing to somebody who hasn't been part of the process. First, actually, let me clarify that the question the member asked earlier was: how many people could be absent to have a quorum. I said seven, which means eight would be a quorum. I just wanted to clarify that for the record. So a majority would be a quorum.

What we've done here is put in place a process whereby the industry, the people on the board -- the majority of whom clearly will be from the industry -- have a mechanism whereby they can nominate and recommend to the minister, to the L-G-in-C, names of people that they would like to see appointed to the board. So it's a process through which industry can make recommendations for subsequent members to the board.

However, as the member correctly points out, when you start with no board, that process won't work. That's why subsection (4) is there -- to, in effect, provide some mechanism from the existing advisory board, the SOA board, that they can make recommendations for the first board. Then, after that, the SOA will exist no more, and the board itself, of the Crown agency, will make those recommendations in future. So section 2(4) provides for a mechanism for industry to make recommendations for the initial board. After that, the board of the Crown will make its recommendations to the minister for subsequent appointments.

G. Wilson: Just let me very quickly come back to the question of quorum. Given that the makeup. . . . There is this ten and five relationship on the 15. Five are supposedly at-large members appointed by government directly, and ten are from the industry. It's conceivable, then, given that boards frequently operate without a full component -- and history shows that; we don't need to go through that -- that this board could operate with five government-appointed members-at-large and three members from the industry, giving the majority to members-at-large. That's a conceivable relationship. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I suppose that's one hypothetical thing that can happen -- I could probably dream up many more, as could the member -- but it's highly unlikely. What this entire section is about is creating a means by which we have assurance, appropriately, that there are at least ten members from industry on the board.

I fully expect that this board, like every other board, will run for the majority of the time with a full slate. There may, from time to time and for different reasons, be a member or two missing -- people move for different reasons -- but I expect that it will function like the zillions of boards around the province. It will have a full complement; it will set its bylaws around quorum, according to standard practice. But 

[ Page 3240 ]

what we have here is a process that's a little different: to provide industry with a mechanism to recommend names from industry.

G. Wilson: I'm not sure there are zillions of boards, but there are a few.

Let me just ask this question. I hear the minister saying that this new Crown corporation stands to replace the Tourism British Columbia special operating agency advisory board, although there's nothing in here that says that that board -- of course, I guess by statute you wouldn't do that anyway, but it is important for us to know -- or that operating agency is going to be gone. With the passage of this legislation, that is gone, and this then becomes the Crown agency that will be responsible for all matters of tourism development. Is that right?

Hon. J. Pullinger: An SOA, a special operating agency, is in fact an agreement between the Ministry of Finance and any given ministry. Essentially we're moving the ministry marketing part. The policy part and the land use part will remain in my ministry; we're taking the marketing function. . . . The people who are there, in fact, will do the same jobs, but they'll be a Crown corporation, an agency. So there would in fact be no reason, nor any ability, to have an agreement with that part of my ministry, because it won't be part of my ministry anymore. In fact, that agreement will be null and void and would no longer make sense. The SOA will be gone, and the marketing function will be moved into the new agency.

G. Wilson: I take with interest that the land and policy side of tourism -- I think that's what the minister said -- will remain within the ministry. That's interesting, because throughout this it talks about government policy being the directive of this new Crown corporation. Yet I would have thought the Crown corporation would have been free to establish policy. Maybe it is, because it has other powers. We'll get to that in that section.

But in section 2(5), I'm curious about the language that's here. It says: "In appointing the directors the Lieutenant Governor in Council should take into account" -- doesn't say "must," neither does it say "will"; it says it "should," so it's discretionary -- "the public interest and the diversity of the population of British Columbia."

Now, I have no idea what that means. They "should take into account the public interest." Interest in what? Tourism, presumably, or community tourism. And "the diversity of the population." Diversity by what measure? Ethnic diversity? Cultural diversity? Regional diversity? Economic diversity? What? I mean, that statement is so broad that it really doesn't give us any understanding of what it means. Maybe the minister just might elaborate for us so that we can understand what that means.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The language here is very similar to the language used in all appointments. When we were first elected government, there were clear inequities amongst the boards and appointments around the province, including government agencies. They were not representative of the fact that there are 50 percent men and 50 percent women in this province; they were not representative of the fact that we have significant visible minorities in the province; they were not representative of the fact that first nations are an important part of our society and our province; they were not representative in terms of people with disabilities; they were not representative in terms of regions. So those are the kinds of considerations. The reason the language is not prescriptive is because it's pretty hard to do that, to define exactly what it means in any given case.

But I think the member would appreciate the fact that we have come a long way since 1991 in being inclusive in all the many boards and commissions around the province, to better reflect the diversity of British Columbia based on all of those kinds of things. That's what we're trying to accomplish here.

The public interest. Obviously it's in the public interest to have a board that will work well, that will market our province in a way that assists in the development of the regions. Therefore we need to have a voice from the regions, etc. So those are deliberately not prescriptive but rather indicative of the principles that government would try to adhere to in putting together a board.

I simply want to address one other issue that's come up a number of times, and that's the difference between "may" and "must." In a democratic form of government it is inappropriate -- and in fact not doable -- to fetter the discretion of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council in that way. That would in fact have the effect. . . . If you put "must" in a number of these sections, it would in fact provide a higher power to an unelected body than to an elected body.

I know the member appreciates that a democracy must retain that ordering of things and that we must retain the discretion of the Lieutenant-Governor where appropriate.

G. Wilson: I'd be the last person to try to shackle the Lieutenant-Governor's rights to whatever. Let's face it: we want to make sure the Lieutenant-Governor's powers are kept intact as long as they can be.

But there is a difference between "will" and "should" or "shall," and that's a difference. "May" and "must" is. . . . I mean, we can get into the semantics of it. But if you're going to determine the constitution of a board, and you say a board "will be comprised of," that means that's it. If you say it "shall" be or "should" be, then there's a distinction in law, and I would make that point. Anyway, I'm not a lawyer, by way of disclaimer. I'm not and would never pretend to be, for a host of reasons, hon. Chair.

But let me just say that this diversity issue. . . . The reason I raise it is because my understanding is that this board is going to be made up in large measure of people from the special operating agency. And while there's sort of a gender equality there, I don't know that in looking up that board -- and I have a list of the members on that board -- it would meet the criteria that the minister has just referred to.

I guess the concern we get into. . . . And I don't want to get into a long debate on affirmative action and the wisdom of affirmative action or not affirmative action. I don't think it's appropriate in this debate. But the reason that I'm concerned about it is because, having served in local government for a long time, having been involved to a large degree in local tourism promotion and having been involved with some of the organizations in the province, there's enormous frustration when the people who serve on the board don't have a full appreciation for the needs of local community tourism initiatives. They are focused on the mega-industry, whether it's destination tourism or whether it's broad fishing interests or whatever they are. They forget that there are, for example, small independent campground owners that need to be heard. There are people who are involved in. . . . The hotel and motel owners need to be heard, and so on.

So under section 2(5)(b). . . . The member for Peace River North raised this matter in the second reading debate, and I 

[ Page 3241 ]

think his point was extremely well taken. It does talk about the need for there to be regional interests in this board and that, in the recommendation of this, they have to take into account regional interests. There have been long, heavy and very vociferous debates within the industry as to what regional interests are. I don't want to get into them, but the minister should be aware that I'm familiar with them. I have participated from time to time in them, and they're relatively unproductive.

I'm hoping that what we can do with respect to this bill is to ensure that if we are going to go with this model -- if we are going to set up a big Crown corporation, or even a small Crown corporation -- we are not going to do it to the detriment of tourist interests and concerns in small, isolated communities where the tourist dollar is absolutely critical to whether or not those people can pay their bills in the year.

In the city, there's a variety of various overflows in the economy. In a small community like Pender Harbour, which is in my own community, or Lund, which is in my riding -- or let's go further north to Echo Bay or to Minstrel Island or some of those places. . . . Their opportunity to make money during a short tourist season is the ticket to their livelihood, and these places are often ignored by the large boards that don't understand the needs of those local interests. That's why I take issue with this.

If the minister could at least provide me with some comfort that in this diversity issue, we're talking about geographic diversity, and we're talking about protecting those regional interests and allowing those individuals to make sure that they have some access to whatever largesse comes out of this process.

[4:00]

One of my concerns -- that one of the Reform members alluded to yesterday -- is that I'm on the record as saying that in order to be effective, this board must represent the regional interests of the province. I can give the member the assurance that I have spoken with the existing SOA board and made it very clear that I expect to see regional interests come forward, as well as the other issues under section 5. I expect their appointments to reflect these principles. I agree absolutely -- it's important.

I. Chong: I have some questions on this section, as well. I want to go back to the composition of the board. I heard the minister mention that the direction they received in drafting this section was endorsed by the industry. I'd like to ask the minister specifically what it is that the minister has in her hands that has given us this endorsement. Is there some draft agreement? Is there something that has been drawn up so that we have that assurance that there has been that endorsement?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There are minutes of the SOA board that endorse this legislation. COTA also voted in favour of this legislation.

I. Chong: My question then to the minister would be whether I would be able to obtain copies of those -- whether she has been provided with those copies or whether I would have to go directly to COTA to obtain those. I see her shaking her head and that's fine.

The other thing I wanted to ask the minister. . . . She mentioned earlier the issue of vacancies and a quorum, which the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast raised, and I want to be quite clear on this. The act states that a vacancy in the membership does not impair the power, and I understand that. But a quorum and a vacancy are really two different things -- as I've seen it when I sat on a board. You can have a board empowered to have 15 directors; you can choose to select 12 people to sit on a board so that three vacancies do not impair the board. But your quorum would in fact be seven, and you could have only five people missing to cast votes for decisions that are made. So I want to be clear here that we're talking about vacancies -- as the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast mentioned -- and how many vacancies in fact can occur. We're not talking quorum, because once you establish your board -- taking into consideration the vacancy -- you will then establish a quorum, which is always a majority plus one.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The section in the act that says that a vacancy in the membership of the board does not impair the power of the remaining directors to act is simply to allow the board to function if someone is not there or resigns or whatever. That's pretty standard practice. The quorum, I believe, would be eight, not seven. The question that was asked me was: how many members could be absent? I said seven, which leaves a quorum of eight. It's standard practice to have a majority as a quorum, and I fully expect that that's the bylaw they'll put in place. I also fully expect that we'll have a full board.

I. Chong: Well, it's great to have expectations, but in the event that the expectations don't come to fruition and that in the first interim period you're only able -- for whatever reason, because of the recommendations made and the non-acceptance of some names -- to furnish ten appointed people, whether they're all from industry or government-appointed, you therefore would have a very different situation. Your quorum would in fact be six to ensure that the proceedings occur, and you can have a vacancy of four people there.

I want to be very clear here, because a vacancy can occur for the term if the board chooses not to replace that person, whereas your quorum for making decisions will depend on the number of seats actually filled -- not those which have been vacated because someone has perhaps resigned. That can change materially through the course of the year, and since this is a new agency, there may be some transition -- it may take some time. And people's expectations may be different when they offer to sit on a board. I would hate to see a full complement and six months later have that reduced to half because people have not realized the role and the responsibilities. That then changes the ability of business to be conducted, and we're talking quorums versus seats held; we do have that difference.

I would just want to be sure that the minister is clear or that there is an understanding somewhere -- perhaps this is in the memorandum of understanding that we need to see or discuss -- to have that very clear, definitive power and authority placed before us. Because there are those differences. I've served on boards, and I know that there can be some confusion about vacancies versus quorums.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Those kinds of issues are all issues that would be inappropriate, quite frankly, to put in legislation. 

[ Page 3242 ]

They will be dealt with in bylaws, as is standard practice. I would expect that the initial meetings of the new board will deal with precisely those kinds of issues. They're fairly standard, as the member says. There are rules set up by virtually every organization that has this kind of structure, and I fully expect they'll follow standard practice and put those bylaws in place right away.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

I. Chong: So what I'm hearing -- which I wasn't very clear on prior to this -- is, in fact, that once empowered, the board will be establishing another set of bylaws and guidelines. If they are established, are those bylaws going to be overseen by the ministry or are they going to be bylaws that the SOA is allowed to establish with or without interference from the ministry?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The bylaws would of course have to reflect and be within government policy. Things like severance, travel, expenses or remuneration, actually, are addressed in the legislation. But all of those things would be expected to be within the bounds of acceptable practice within government.

I. Chong: I'm satisfied with the minister's answers on that at this point. I'd like to move on to the other question that was raised, again by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, regarding the subsection on diversity, subsection (5)(a). I was curious to hear the minister's answer, and what I would like to know is that if you were not able to accomplish your goal of procuring the diversity that you wish, whether it's based on age, gender, cultural background. . . . If for some reason you're not able to establish that diversity in the board, what measures will be available to accomplish that goal? Are there steps the ministry will take to ensure that that occurs, and is that going to be a major role in influencing the recommendations to the Lieutenant-Governor?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There is no perfect model, and one can only do one's best to find the people with the right qualifications to do the job, as well as the best diversity that's possible. With 15 people, obviously we can't include all of the diverse interests, but we'll certainly do our very best. I have challenged the existing SOA to do so. The current SOA board is not reflective of the diversity of British Columbia, neither in gender nor in region nor in race nor in any other way. I have challenged them to put forward names that better reflect those diverse interests, and I will be working with them.

Ultimately, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or cabinet has the ability and the power to appoint the board, and it will go through all the normal processes -- including agencies, boards and commissions -- after it leaves my hands. So the policies of government as well as the items in the legislation here will obtain, and we'll simply do our very best in working with the industry to get the best diversity we can.

I. Chong: What I've heard from the minister is that the minister will make appointments, if necessary, to accomplish that diversity. I'm just wondering if that is in fact going to be a problem. If the industry is not able to come up with the recommendations that establish that diversity, as we know can happen. . . . As the minister has already mentioned, the current SOA doesn't reflect that diversity. If the industry is still not able to do that, am I clear in understanding that the minister is going to then appoint and make changes to the recommendations that the industry would otherwise have put forward and that those recommendations, which perhaps reflect regions but don't reflect another kind of diversity. . . .? Is it not going to be a problem for the stakeholders and the industry -- for their own representation?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The industry, under this legislation, can make recommendations for ten seats. I expect that industry will present me with reasonable diversity, but the intent of this whole section is to ensure that we have the kind of diversity that I think British Columbians expect. Every reasonable effort to do so will be made.

I. Chong: I don't want to belabour this section, but I think the minister has to understand that the integrity, I guess, of this corporation. . . . The whole process for it coming into place was to. . . . The industry, as I understand it -- and I have had conversations with them -- wants to ensure that we do have a board that is autonomous, a board that's independent and a board that the industry does in fact support -- or an agency that the board is very supportive of. To fulfil that integrity, we have to ensure that there is as little interference as possible in terms of appointment.

So my question about the diversity is: if we fail to accomplish that. . . ? I was looking to find out from the minister whether there was an appeal process that was available. Once the makeup of the board was established, once the appointments were made, if someone from industry had a look at it and said, "We still don't agree with this; we don't think it reflects what the industry is looking for," is there an appeal process available? Would the minister at that point step in and allow for reappointments?

Hon. J. Pullinger: No, there's no appeal process. The industry will recommend ten names. If they don't present me with adequate diversity, then I will have to ask them to present me with other names.

But that process will in fact lead to agreement on those ten names between the minister and the SOA at this stage and the Crown board at a later stage. There will in fact be agreement on the ten seats, and the other five seats are discretionary for the L-G-in-C.

I. Chong: Based on the response from the minister, I'd just like to be somewhat clear again on the ten seats. Section 2(2) states that at least ten directors appointed or ten of these. . . . Excuse me. I just want to be certain that when it says "at least," it's not restricting it to only ten and that if the industry came up with 14 names that it would recommend and felt it extremely difficult to drop the additional four off. . . . Would the minister consider those additional four names, if they were satisfactory, to be part of the four names that they would have recommended?

Hon. J. Pullinger: At a very early stage I invited industry and others, such as members, to encourage qualified people to put their names forward from around the province; that goes without saying. But industry can select ten names for ten places and present them to me. They cannot select the names for the other ones, although I welcome their input.

[4:15]

[ Page 3243 ]

able to submit the other names for the other positions. Now my question would be: are there five other specific positions, which is an intent for those appointments. . . ? They are perhaps not industry-related, but are they related to some other form of, I guess, representation? If she has those five slots as five other representative areas, could she share those with us?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There's no formula for the other five seats.

Just to clarify for the member, this formula is set up so that industry -- in the form right now of the special operating agency board and in future in terms of the sitting board of the new agency -- can, through those vehicles, have some influence over ten of the seats. In effect, the minister and industry or the SOA board or the agency board will agree on ten of the seats.

The other five seats are discretionary. There is no prescription for any nature of who would sit in those seats, but obviously they would be people who are qualified to do the job, and they would certainly complement the other ten. But there is no prescription for the other five seats. The ten will probably be recommended by industry and agreed to through that process. The other five will complement them, but they are not through the same process.

Just to be very, very clear, the ten is a laid-out nomination-recommendation process of the board to the minister for people to sit in those ten seats. Anybody can submit names either to. . . . For the ten seats they would submit the names to the board that's going to make the recommendations. In the case of the five seats anybody, including the board, can submit them to me.

I. Chong: To be clear again, those additional five seats are, as she's mentioned, discretionary, and if they're discretionary, they can in fact still be industry-related appointments or nominations. Thank you; I see the minister shaking her head. I wanted to be clear on that.

The other question I want to ask the minister is whether or not the minister has in mind. . . . Of those five seats, are they specifically allocated a number for -- I hesitate to say government-appointed seats -- government representation?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm not quite clear. All of the boards and commissions in British Columbia are government-appointed, and I'm sure the member understands that. I think the question is -- and clarify if I'm not correct: is there going to be anyone from my ministry sitting on the board? Is that correct?

I. Chong: Yes. I guess, to be more clear, it's whether there is any designated number of seats for appointments from the ministry, whether there's any designated number of seats for sitting members of the Legislature and whether there's any designated number of seats for members who represent local government -- those kinds of government representation. I'm wondering whether there's an allocation of those five seats specifically earmarked for those roles.

Hon. J. Pullinger: None of the seats are specifically earmarked.

R. Thorpe: Going back to section 2(2), we're looking for ten directors here, and again it's "may." One of the things you've talked about is creating certainty and independence. If we're committed to the industry, which I want to believe we all are, then why should it be "may"? Why can't this government show its commitment by saying it "must" be? They must accept those nominations, because this industry has been in ongoing negotiations. It was promised twice before that it would move forward, and we are moving forward. I honestly think that to change the word "may" to "must" is an insignificant change to us here in this chamber, but to the industry that would be seen as a huge change.

Now, I know that perhaps we're going to hear some legalistic arguments on this. But we have our opinions that it can be done. This industry has been tied up in negotiations with this government for years and months. Yes, we heard the rhetoric yesterday about "the first government in 20 years to do this." But the reality is that this government has held this industry almost hostage over the past two years in ongoing meetings, so that people are missing so much time from their work. I would just like to hear why this government will not commit that the ten directors must be from the tourism industry of British Columbia.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The process set up ensures that ten are from industry. The member has made it very clear that he doesn't want the legal arguments, so I won't give them to him. But the fact is that it is not appropriate to fetter the discretionary powers of cabinet in a representative democracy.

R. Thorpe: I would like to introduce an amendment to section 2(2). I would like to replace the word "may" with "must" in the words highlighted, "At least ten directors appointed. . . ." I would just like to read the amendment to section 2(2):

[At least ten directors appointed are to be from the tourism industry and these ten directors appointed under subsection (1) must be individuals nominated and recommended by the board to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, one of whom must be a representative of the Council of Tourism Associations.]

Hon. J. Pullinger: Hon. Chair, I would offer that the amendment is out of order. The effect of the amendment would be to give a board, an agency of the Crown, the ability to direct cabinet, and that is completely inappropriate in a parliamentary democracy. So I would offer that, while I appreciate the intention of the amendment. Certainly I've made it very clear that the intention and the effect of this section of the legislation will be to ensure that there is a minimum of ten people on the board. The language that the member is proposing here is simply out of order.

The Chair: Hon. members, I have read the amendment and listened to the arguments on both sides. I rule the amendment out of order, because it does impose an obligation on the Crown. So back to the main motion.

R. Thorpe: On section 2(4), can the minister advise us. . . ? As I understood the discussions, these recommendations are going to come forward from the organization that's been operating since February 1996 or whenever that agreement was signed. Have you received the recommendations from the industry with respect to these appointments?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes.

R. Thorpe: The minister has talked about meeting the diversity, etc., of the province. Can the minister advise us if the list of ten industry names that have been recommended is acceptable to the minister?

[ Page 3244 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: The board has not been selected yet. The names on a list that the existing board has given me are not covered by this section. This is the section that lays out a process through which we will appoint the first board, and that process will unfold in due course.

R. Thorpe: Well, if that's not covered by this section, could the minister please advise me what section of this bill does cover that?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There is no section in this legislation that deals with the SOA's list. This sets out a process, and we'll follow that process.

R. Thorpe: So we talk about assurances, we talk about commitment, we talk about certainty for the industry, yet government continues to hold all the cards. Quite frankly, your record in that area is questionable to date, but we do live in hope for tomorrow. Once again this industry requires certainty, and it needs voice. Therefore on subsection (4) I would like to introduce another amendment, and it pertains to substituting the word "may" for "must" on behalf of "individuals recommended. . .by the Council of Tourism British Columbia Special Operating Agency advisory board."

[4:30]

With respect to the amendment, I believe it's out of order for the same reason as the last.

The Chair: I've perused the motion, and I would concur with the minister. It does impose an obligation, and therefore it's out of order.

R. Thorpe: The minister appears to take great pleasure in talking about the accomplishments that she's achieved, yet she hasn't achieved them. It's with great interest that. . . . When we look at the history of this process, in fact, on February 24, 1996, your government signed a special operating agency with the tourism industry, and you've broken that twice.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Point of order. I don't think history is addressed in this legislation anywhere, and I would appreciate if the member would speak to the section -- I'd be delighted.

The Chair: I'm not sure that's a legitimate point of order, hon. minister, but thank you for the intervention.

R. Thorpe: What we're talking about here is the ability to keep promises. That's why we've been asking that these things be put in the legislation -- so that no one has to worry. The government can get on with running its business, and the tourism people -- who want to run their businesses, who don't want to go to Victoria and go to meetings in Vancouver endlessly -- can have that certainty, and they can get on with their lives.

I would just like to introduce one more amendment with respect to this section; it would be added as subsection (8). I would like to read it:

[According to subsections (1) and (2), the government has the right to nominate and recommend up to five board members. In the event of the appointment of a government MLA as a director, the government will also ensure that an official opposition MLA is appointed as a director.]

R. Thorpe: The tourism industry has submitted a list of ten people -- directors from key segments of the tourism industry of British Columbia. Can -- or will -- the minister give assurances today that they will be recognized and that those folks will be appointed to this board?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The board selection process is not complete yet. I'll be delighted to provide the member with a list of the board members when it's made public.

R. Thorpe: I don't want to draw the wrong conclusions from the words of the minister, but I was just wondering if we could have that interpreted into either a yes or a no.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

I. Chong: It seems fairly simple that the purpose of the agency is to promote development and growth in the tourism industry, to increase revenue and employment in that industry, and I'm just wondering whether the minister can advise us. . . . To accomplish the goal of growth in the tourism industry, have they set out some guidelines? I recognize that this is a marketing function, but has the minister in fact developed some sort of an agreement or framework of operations and some parameters with the industry, with the special operating agency that was previously established?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Good question. The meat on the bones, if you like, of the mandate will come through the business plan, which is addressed later in the legislation. But we'll work with the industry on that.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

G. Wilson: I have some questions regarding section 4(1)(c). I look to the original act, and I see that within the powers of the minister previously, the minister has been empowered with the enhancement of the standards of accommodation, facilities, tourist services and related amenities. This is now being transferred to a Crown corporation.

[ Page 3245 ]

When I see that there is an opportunity for an enhancement of standards of tourist accommodation, facilities, services and amenities, I'd like to know how this Crown corporation is going to be empowered to impose standards on independent tourist accommodation with respect to approved standards in the province. I can understand how the minister can do it, because the minister has the discretionary right to bring legislation forward or, by regulation, to work within the context of the Tourism Act. But this Crown corporation is supposedly an independent body, and I'm not sure that the minister wants to have an independent Crown corporation starting to apply standards with respect to how independent operators can operate in the province of B.C. -- or maybe she does.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I absolutely agree that my ministry does not now, nor will the corporation in the future, impose standards on the tourism industry per se. What the industry has looked for and achieved to date through government -- and in future through the Crown -- will be that accommodations, for instance, listed in the Accommodations Guide, which is a very effective marketing tool, are rated. They're there only if they meet certain minimum standards. The object of that is one that industry fully ascribes to, and that is to ensure that we're directing tourists to accommodations that meet some minimum standards.

So it's an industry-driven process, one the industry wants. It works very effectively to ensure that tourists who come here have quality experiences in places that are listed and therefore de facto recommended by government. But it also provides a standard to which accommodations, for instance, aspire. It's a very effective tool. But it's one that's a self-select process. If they choose to participate, they can. If they choose not to participate, they can do that. But to be included in the guide, the establishment is inspected and rated.

G. Wilson: I was listening intently over the rising din of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

What I'm hearing the minister say is that in order for this corporation to essentially assist the tourism industry, they will facilitate a variety of different programs that will be able to promote tourism through marketing and those sorts of things. And in order for them to do that, they want to make sure there are minimum standards that apply.

This causes me some concern because, as the minister will know, the tourism industry is a highly competitive industry -- highly competitive. In this province the tourism industry for the most part, particularly those people that have businesses related to access to this splendid resource that we have in B.C. -- our salmon-fishing, our hiking, the outdoor kind of recreation resource -- has a very limited season. So it's a very competitive industry and a very limited season, and therefore there's an opportunity to try and get in and to market your facility during that limited season to its greatest effect.

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

The problem is that if this corporation is going to be able to establish arbitrary standards with respect to who does and who doesn't get promoted, who does and who doesn't get marketed, who does and who doesn't qualify by whatever set of regulations and rules in this highly competitive market, especially in light of the issues that I raised under section 17 with respect to conflict-of-interest provisions, I have some serious concerns. If people are excluded from marketing brochures or programs or web sites -- or whatever it is that this group is going to do -- on the basis of some arbitrary set of standards, I'd like to know by what measure in this act the corporation is empowered to make those decisions, to decide what those standards will be. Or is this something that will be entirely discretionary to the board?

Hon. J. Pullinger: This is not new; this exists now. The accommodation guide that you would pick up now includes this process. This is not new; this is something that exists now. The tourism industry understands that a quality experience is essential if we're going to have return visits. People who are coming here on vacation or on business want a quality experience. So the industry itself strives to do that; therefore standards are set with industry to try to achieve that goal. It's not a process that I have heard any objections about, quite frankly, from the industry. Most people want to improve the quality of their service, the quality of their establishment. It's a positive goal that the tourism industry in all its facets strives for. So what we're simply doing is providing an ongoing mechanism for ongoing programs to do that. This is not a new ability of the board; it's ongoing.

G. Wilson: It is new to the extent that this corporation is new. The various regional organizations, as we're all aware, have had in the past recommendations with respect to standards, and so on. However, the corporation is new, and the corporation is going to be getting directed to it funds specifically for the purpose of promotion of tourism. And we have seen that the board is going to be set up with a particular raison d'�tre. I guess it's determined partly by the board and partly by the government. So to that extent it is new. What I'm concerned about -- and let me speak directly to the heart of my concern -- is that I want to be sure that this corporation is not going to pick up what was traditionally the role of government with respect to the establishment and implementation of minimum standard requirements on accommodation in order for them to qualify to be certified within the province. I think that would be a departure from convention, which allows government to be the regulatory authority, not a Crown corporation. And we've seen that this government has already, by combining the motor vehicle branch with ICBC, given to a monopoly Crown corporation the rights to be able to do just what I've said shouldn't be done. And I wouldn't want to see that done through this corporation. So, if I can have that assurance, we can move on.

[4:45]

G. Wilson: I'm pleased to hear that. I think the industry has been an effective self-regulatory authority in the past, and I'm pleased that it can remain that way.

The other section under here that I have some questions on is with respect to 4(1)(e), where it says that this corporation is going to be responsible for facilitating the creation of jobs. 

[ Page 3246 ]

Now, maybe the minister can tell us how this corporation is going to facilitate job creation. I'm assuming that it's going to have limited revenues, and I'm assuming it's not going to facilitate it through direct hire. So maybe we could expand that just a bit.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The tourism industry depends on marketing, both regional marketing, which is supported through Tourism B.C. now as an SOA and will be supported through this new agency. . . . It has created somewhere in excess of 23,000 new jobs since 1991 by very effectively promoting British Columbia as a whole and also promoting the regions of British Columbia. It's very important, in my view, that the board remain focused. Their mandate is, in fact, to develop the industry but also to create jobs in every region of the province. And I expect that their business plan will reflect that, and that they will continue the good work they've been doing with government to that end.

G. Wilson: I'm not sure that I really got a very specific answer on that. I'm assuming, then, that what we're getting out of this is that the corporation, in its promotion of tourism generally, is going to hope there are some jobs that spin out of that. It isn't going to be involved directly in job creation programs. Or is it going to be empowered to run, operate, and put in place. . . ? I can think of, for example, the SuperHost program. There was a lot of discussion when the SuperHost program was in place. And I think it was under a different regime that that came in -- one of those dastardly free-enterprise coalitions was in power at the time, I think, when that came by -- but I'm not certain of that. But in that program -- which I would point out that in the voting of this bill I was not a part of -- that coalition seemed to transcend the lines of this House on both sides here. Nevertheless, having said that, it seems to me there was a lot of discussion about the industry wanting to get involved in direct job training and job creation programs. There was some discussion as to how that industry might be able to have those job training programs underway. And there were some very good ideas -- some really good ideas -- coming out of people engaged in the industry. Now, I'm curious to know whether or not this corporation will be empowered to involve itself and engage itself in direct job creation programs.

Hon. J. Pullinger: No.

G. Wilson: If I could just quickly move on, again under section 4(1)(g) it talks about generating additional funding for tourism programs. Now, clearly this is not a taxing revenue, so how is it going to generate additional revenue? And where does the minister anticipate this additional revenue is going to come from?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Good question. The new agency will own the SuperHost program and the Super, Natural B.C. trademark. If the agency chooses, it can make hats with the trademark on them and sell them. It also can and will make money from marketing the SuperHost programs, and there's a whole variety of them. There's one that's been developed with the disabled community to ensure that people with disabilities, who happily are travelling more and more, are appropriately served. There's one that's been developed very recently as well for intercultural understanding. We have more and more different countries around the world whose residents are travelling here.

So this SuperHost program has been sold around the world and has made money -- returned money to the coffers, if you like -- that will now go back to the agencies, as well, as I say, if they sell hats or. . . . And the third thing they could do is enter into other partnerships, if they choose, that would perhaps have the effect of expanding their funding base -- or the amount of money they can spend -- although it wouldn't be revenue right back to the corporation.

But I think the two primary ways would be in their ownership of the SuperHost program and the Super, Natural B.C. trademark.

G. Wilson: I was going to say, by way of a flagrant violation of the rules, that when one puts one's trademark on one's pens and so on, it really does work well, except that that would be to try and enhance and promote my own party, which I wouldn't want to do -- at least, not in this chamber at this time. But let me say that certainly that kind of promotional thing really does work very well, although I'm not sure it would show up very well on camera.

The interesting thing with respect to trying to promote SuperHost and the Super, Natural trademark as a way to try to come out with some additional revenue. . . . I'm curious to know whether or not the corporation will have the authority or power to be able to embark on licensing or fees or any kind of revenue collection systems for people who may be part, or be deemed to be part, of the industry. Will they be empowered to impose some kind of tariff for those people in the industry?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I've just realized -- my apologies, because it's taken awhile -- that Rod Harris, the CEO of Tourism B.C., is here. I'd like to introduce him to the House.

The ability of Tourism B.C. to sell, to levy fees, obtains only insofar as their marketing of their own trademarks and programs. That would get us back to the SuperHost program and Super, Natural B.C., etc. So they can charge a fee to use that, for instance, but they can't levy fees outside of the things that they already own.

G. Wilson: But it does say in a subsequent section that it can acquire, hold and dispose of properties, which is pretty standard for a Crown corporation. So I am curious to know whether or not it's anticipated that this corporation is going to at some point be directed to become more self-funding. Right now my estimate of the 1.65 percent that it's going to take off last year's budget. . . . I think last year it was. . . . That's going to generate in revenue directly, in terms of startup, about $1.3 million. Roughly, that's my calculation. I could be wrong, but I'm just going by the budget -- I'm seeing some heads being shaken back there -- by the revenue collected off that tax last year, and taking 1.65 percent of that 8 percent. I could be wrong, and if so, I'll work the figures again.

In any event, it seems to me that that is not sufficient revenue to make this corporation run, and run effectively, for very long. So it would seem to me that there is going to be a demand at some point for this corporation to raise additional revenue. And my guess is that once it becomes a functional part of life in British Columbia -- if it does -- it will, like many corporations, be under pressure to become more self-funding and self-regulatory, because that's the nature of the beast. That's one of the reasons I think this is not the way to go.

However, having said that, this section does not preclude it from entering into a variety of other methods. When we get to section 6, we will see where that can be expanded on. It doesn't preclude it from being able to engage in a variety of other activities to make it a self-funding and therefore self-perpetuating authority. The only place that they're likely to get 

[ Page 3247 ]

any revenue from is the people who are in the tourist industry, because they're the ones who are going to presumably benefit, and therefore they're the ones who are likely to have to pay whatever tariff or tax.

I'm hoping that the minister can give me absolute assurance today that this corporation will not at any point be empowered to be able to put a further burden of fees or taxes or any tariff on any individual who is operating within the tourist sector today.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The part that we're discussing, section 4(1)(g), is an enabling clause that allows the new agency to generate revenue for itself by selling its trademark or its programs, such as SuperHost -- which the latter already does effectively. But that money, when it's part of government, must go back into general revenue. It can't go back into the SOA. One of the advantages of having a separate agency is that the funds it generates by marketing the SuperHost programs or by marketing things with the Super, Natural B.C. logo can go back to the Crown, appropriately.

So this section simply enables the Crown to do those sorts of things and any other creative thing it can do of that nature, as well as enter into other partnerships.

G. Wilson: But it's not a restrictive clause; it's in fact quite opposite to that.

What I need to have the minister confirm is that this corporation will not be empowered to levy any fees, licence requirements, taxation or other levies on anybody who is currently, or who will be in the future, involved in the tourist industry. Because we have many corporations in this province, and I can name several: ICBC, B.C. Ferries. . . . They're all operating in British Columbia and are empowered to impose fees, licences and dues.

An Hon. Member: And are.

G. Wilson: And they do -- and frequently. And they go up and up and up, and it costs us a whole bundle of money. In fact, one might argue, they are even detrimental to tourism in some instances.

What I want to know is that this corporation is not empowered, once established, to become an authority that will require those people engaged in the industry to pay it a levy, fee or tariff.

Hon. J. Pullinger: This new agency will have a majority tourism-industry board, and I am absolutely certain that a tourism- and industry-driven board will not do things that are detrimental to the tourism industry. Beyond that, we're getting into the realm of the hypothetical about what the board might or might not do at some time in its history, and I simply am not prepared to engage in hypothetical questions and answers.

I'll say once more that this is an enabling clause to allow them to do things that will generate additional revenue that they can then use for the benefit of the tourism industry as a whole.

G. Wilson: The B.C. Ferries board wasn't happy when the government cut its annual $30 million subsidy to it, either. Therefore, if they were to maintain and continue their operation, they had no choice but to increase revenue collection from the people who use their service.

[5:00]

I don't want to argue the point beyond that, except to say that once this corporation is in place. . . . I mean, let's use FRBC as an example. Forest Renewal B.C. has the right to impose a $10 or $12 levy on stumpage, depending on where they're coming from, in order to generate revenue. That comes directly from the people who use it. And you know what? FRBC has forest-related and industry-related people on the board, as well. But if they are empowered, if they are told by this government. . . . And it says in here that they must follow government policy. The minister has just told us that this Crown corporation must do as the government directs it with respect to policy, and the policy rests with the ministry, in this ministry. If they're told that that's their mandate and that's what they're to do, given the fact that the revenue collection comes to government and doesn't go directly to them -- because you're collecting the hotel tax; they're not collecting it -- they will do as you tell them, because when your banker phones, you always take the call. That's the bottom line.

So I need to have some kind of assurance that this will not become a Crown corporation that will be able to levy any kind of tax or further fees against those people in the industry or those people who use the industry.

I don't hear the minister saying: "Absolutely. Under no circumstances will this Crown corporation be empowered to impose additional fees or some kind of tariff against those in the industry." If I could hear the minister say that, I'd be happy to move on.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'll be happy to talk about the funding formula in the appropriate section of the act. I'd also be happy to answer questions about the business planning process in the appropriate section of the act.

I. Chong: I have questions regarding the marketing of British Columbia as a tourism destination, as well, in this section -- in particular, as the member just raised, the use of the SuperHost and the Super, Natural trademarks. Just to be clear, am I to understand that a private sector business can, in partnership with the new agency, acquire the use of the Super, Natural or SuperHost logo to promote tourism in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Pullinger: That requires a licence. That already occurs; certain approved accommodations and so on display the logo. But obviously that is controlled, for all the right proprietary reasons, and I'm sure that that same process will obtain.

What I was alluding to was a new power of the agency. Actually, the power to do so already exists, but to no benefit right now to the tourism marketing function. As a part of government, if Tourism B.C. today was to decide to put the Tourism B.C. logo on hats and sell them for profit, the money would go back, appropriately, into the consolidated revenue fund. What this does is mean that they can do all those things that they do now in all the appropriate ways, but that the revenue won't go back to the Crown corporation.

I. Chong: I do want to be very clear on this. I do understand the use of the logos -- to put them on hats, on T-shirts, 

[ Page 3248 ]

bags for carrying souvenirs, etc. What I'm speaking about particularly is whether a private sector advertising firm that wanted to ask permission to use the SuperHost or the Super, Natural logo, the trademark, and pay a substantial sum -- and that would be a form of revenue generation that would be returned to the agency. . . . Would that be permitted?

Hon. J. Pullinger: That's something that the corporation would have to decide. But clearly it's in the tourism industry's interest and in the corporation's interest to be very cautious about what it does with its trademark, and I would expect that it would be so.

I. Chong: I ask those questions because I'm just wondering whether or not. . . . You've stated that that would be something that perhaps a board would make a decision on, and that there's some question whether or not that would proceed.

Last year -- and I know the minister was not the Tourism minister; in fact, the Employment and Investment minister was the temporary Minister of Tourism -- I asked that same question and was clearly told that the use of the logo -- to be able to allow a private sector firm to use it to market British Columbia as a destination -- was clearly prohibited. What I'm hearing now is that under the auspices of a new agency, the policy would in fact change and allow for something like that to occur. So I'm wondering if in fact it is an opening up, a relaxation, of a previously held policy or whether there is, again, a misunderstanding. I want to be clear on what this new agency will be entitled to do with those trademarks.

Hon. J. Pullinger: As I understand the situation that we were speaking of, someone wanted to use a government insignia, Tourism B.C., as an endorsement for their product, which is clearly inappropriate. On the other hand, there are appropriate uses of the Tourism B.C. trademark, and the board will make decisions on that basis. Essentially what happens now is that part of my ministry will move over to the Crown agency, and those decisions will be made there through the business planning process.

But they're clearly not going to simply sell the trademark for anybody to use in any way they want or to endorse. . . . It's still part of government, so they're not going to use a government trademark to endorse a private enterprise per se. That would be inappropriate there. There are some appropriate uses, clearly -- to identify yourself with the government in some ways, and those happen today. I don't see any significant change happening there, quite frankly, but identifying yourself. . . . An endorsement from government would be inappropriate, but there are some places where it's appropriate to use the logo, and those will be regulated as they are now, in an appropriate way.

I. Chong: Clearly, I think there is a misunderstanding, because I'm not talking about an endorsement of that private enterprise. But the private enterprise. . . . I'll be specific, and you can check the Hansards from last year. I did mention the firm; I believe they're called Showcase B.C. They, in fact, wanted to market British Columbia as a destination for tourism. As I understand it, with the government closing offices internationally and not being able to do that, this private enterprise was willing to undertake that role, that responsibility. What it wanted was to have use of the Super, Natural or SuperHost logo -- I'm not clear which one it was; I think it was the Super, Natural logo -- on its publication to allow it to market British Columbia as a tourist destination, which is what this government should be doing. It was willing to acquire the ability to do that. It was prepared to pay, I guess, a licence fee to the ministry.

As the case may be now, they may be looking to be able to pay a licence to the new agency. If that is permitted, it's different from what was occurring last year. That's why I'm trying to determine whether there is a different philosophy, a different policy in place, as a result of this new agency.

I see the minister shaking her head, but clearly you've stated that the board has some autonomy, that it has the ability to make some of these decisions. If it makes that decision, then it contravenes what this kind of marketing was, under the control of the ministry. If it clearly is in contravention of that, where are the controls that are going to stop that? Or does the Tourism ministry now no longer want to stop that? In that case, as I say, it's a relaxation of the rule. I just want that clarification.

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's a good question. I would recommend to the member that we pass this section and move on. We should discuss those kinds of mechanisms when we get to the part about the business planning process.

I. Chong: Well, then I'll just ask one more question, and if the minister feels this is in another clause, then I will move on. Again, it does refer to the trademark. The Super, Natural and SuperHost logos are trademarks which are assets that will pass to the board, as I understand it. Contained within the bill, it does say that the corporation can decide on the disposition of assets. Would this be one of these assets which the board would be entitled to make a decision on, rightfully or wrongfully -- and does the government have some ability to stop that?

Hon. J. Pullinger: That too would be appropriate to discuss in a later section, if the member is agreeable.

R. Thorpe: Not to belabour this part, but in subsection (g) is there an agreed-to list that the government and the proposed new board have signed off as a starting base for generating the revenue?

Hon. J. Pullinger: That too would be an appropriate discussion in the section of the act that deals with the business plan.

R. Thorpe: Moving over to section 4(2)(a), "the need to conduct business in a consultative, responsible and accessible manner," who establishes those standards?

Hon. J. Pullinger: As it says in the act, those are principles.

R. Thorpe: Thank you. So what we're saying, or what I believe I heard is. . . . Will there be standards established to support the principles of consulting, being responsible and being accessible? If so, what section will they be covered under?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I expect that the corporation will put in place a number of bylaws that determine how it will be consultative, etc.

[ Page 3249 ]

R. Thorpe: If I understood the minister correctly, then they will be established by the board and, hopefully -- if all 15 are there -- in large part by the industry, as opposed to the government. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The act is very clear that the Crown will and should -- and I'm sure the hon. member would agree that it should -- act within the appropriate confines and policies of the democratic process, and thereby of government. But it will certainly, as a Crown, make its own functional bylaws.

R. Thorpe: Yes, I certainly do endorse a democratic process. What I'm most concerned about, though, is government interference. That's what I will not support, and I hope the industry won't support it. So I just want to make that comment.

T. Nebbeling: I'm going to be very brief, because most of the questions that I could have asked on this section have been asked, and I've had many of the answers -- some pleasing, I should say, and some less pleasing.

One sector where I have not been able to find "working partnership" explained by the minister is the new board's role in working partnership with the special management operations. How does the minister see these special management operations in the tourism industry relate to this board?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I think the hon. member is speaking about the SOA board. Clarify that. I don't know what you mean by special management operations.

T. Nebbeling: Maybe I should explain what an SMO is. There are three SMOs -- special management operators: Victoria, Vancouver and Whistler. The reason I bring it to your attention is that these organizations have certain rights that other tourist operators and tourist organizations do not have, so this organization is not necessarily compatible with what the board's mandate is. In particular, I got alerted a little bit when we talked about the right of this board to create additional revenue -- what you said was not possible -- where these SOAs do have a right to taxation, for example. The Whistler Resort Association has the right to collect taxes from its members. How will this board relate to these three special operators?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I think the member is talking about the six or seven regions around the province that have taken advantage of the provision of the Hotel Room Tax Act, whereby if the municipality in question -- such as Whistler or Vancouver or Victoria -- so choose, they can levy an additional 2 percent hotel tax which the government collects and simply provides back to them. It's a vehicle through which municipalities can levy some money to market their own agencies. There are six or seven in the province that have taken advantage of that. There is very little relationship -- certainly none legislatively -- between those communities choosing to take advantage of the Hotel Room Tax Act's 2 percent clause and this legislation.

[5:15]

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Well, any that wanted it.

. . .and they could then do with this money what could enhance tourism or any infrastructure needed within the community. I'm not talking about that. Whistler has a 2 percent tax on top of the 8 percent that is sales tax and hotel tax today. That 2 percent goes to the municipality of Whistler?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes.

T. Nebbeling: The additional 2 percent under the strategy that you just explained is a fee of the ministry that collects it directly. Then they return it, of course, to the municipality of Whistler.

I'm talking about the Whistler Resort Association, which is a legal entity with an act that allows it as a tourism marketing organization to tax its own members. That is the one I'm talking about. This organization, which is approved by an order-in-council, has been in operation for 12 years now to be precise, and it collects about $6 million a year from its members, who are the merchants and the businesses in the Whistler Resort Association. These are the people that have that special status. It has nothing to do with the municipality. It has nothing to do with the 2 percent additional tax that she talked about, which some municipalities collect. It is a totally autonomous body. It is called a special management organization. That is the group I'm talking about. Maybe we have to talk on the side on this one, because. . . . Well, if your advisers in the Ministry of Tourism haven't heard of the Whistler Resort Association and its taxation ability, which is the only revenue that this organization has in order to create the funds to manage this organization, then I suppose I'm in the wrong place asking questions on tourism.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Despite the member's chippy tone, I will simply respond that the municipal associations have nothing to do with this legislation. This has to do with a portion of the hotel tax collected by the provincial government currently. All it does is simply move the marketing function that's currently within my ministry into a Crown agency.

T. Nebbeling: I hope it was "chippy tone," not "tippy-toed," that the minister used as an expression for the tone of my voice.

I really regret to see that the minister is not aware of organizations that are tourism organizations and that have taxation powers right now over their members. The reason I'm asking this question is because the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was concerned specifically about the fact that this new Crown organization, this new special agency, could indeed see changes to the act in the future that would allow it to have special taxation -- be it the membership of every tourism type of operation or whatever else. So I just want to ask the minister right now how she sees the relationship with organizations that have the power of taxation on the members, for tourism promotion purposes -- nothing else, Mr. Chair -- over the mandate of the board, which does not allow that kind of taxation to happen.

Hon. J. Pullinger: This act has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the municipal or local tourism organizations that Whistler or any other community might have. This is simply the provincial marketing function. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the various municipal vehicles.

T. Nebbeling: Well, I'm going to say it one more time. The Whistler Resort Association has nothing to do with the 

[ Page 3250 ]

municipality of Whistler. It is a body incorporated by this provincial government -- a body on its own -- for the purpose of promoting tourism in a certain area, with abilities to tax the businesses in that area a levy which will pay for the promotion needs of that organization.

It has nothing to do with the municipality; it is not a body that is run by the municipality; it is totally independent. That's what I'm talking about. It was under the mandate of the Ministry of Tourism in the past; it worked together with the Ministry of Tourism in the past. If this bill eliminates the Ministry of Tourism, then I ask: what will be the role of that organization, and how will that organization relate to this new marketing if that becomes the body they will be working together with? It's very simple.

Hon. J. Pullinger: For the third and final time, hon. Chair, there is no relationship between any of those other bodies and this legislation. What exists today will exist when this legislation is passed.

T. Nebbeling: Mr. Chair, I will try it one more time. But I think, then. . . .

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: No, I'm not going to give up. . . .

Interjections.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

T. Nebbeling: Well, Madam Chair, I'm trying to address the minister. . . .

Interjections.

T. Nebbeling: Here I am, gentle me. . . .

We should move adjournment for today, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Hon. member, you have the floor. If you wish to make some comments, they can be passed on.

T. Nebbeling: Well, I have the floor, and I'm asking a question to the minister.

Can the minister explain how the relationship between the Whistler Resort Association, which is an official, independent body that has been created by the provincial government for the purpose of promoting a tourist area, with the power of collecting taxes from its members -- the members all being businesses in that particular area. . . ? How will that organization relate to this new board that will now be representing the government?

Prior to this, the WRA, in all its tourism dealings, had to deal with the Ministry of Tourism. If the board takes over the role of the Ministry of Tourism, then I'm asking: in what position is this board going to be, in particular when it comes to the financing?

As I said, the WRA -- the Whistler Resort Association -- as a body has its own financing ability through rights given by this provincial government, these rights being the power of taxing their members. This board, this organization, does not have that right. That's the question: how is that relationship going to work? It's a very simple question. I've asked it four times, Madam Chair, and the minister is still talking about municipalities having nothing to do with this. And I'm trying to say that this has nothing to do with the municipality of Whistler; this is an independent body.

Hon. D. Miller: Point of order, hon. Chair. The rules of the House are quite clear. The members have the opportunity to stand to ask questions, and if they want to cede their place, then I presume the next logical step would be to call a vote on the minister's estimates. Otherwise, if they're not on their feet asking questions, we can move on to other business.

T. Nebbeling: As a member representing constituents and asking questions to the minister, I believe that my constituents have the right to hear an answer, and that no interference of a minister who is not in his chair should dictate what happens and how the House behaves here today. I feel that this is quite offensive.

I. Chong: Unfortunately, not having an answer from the minister on the last question asked by a member, I still have a question on section 4(1)(b), where it says that the corporation is responsible for "providing information services for tourists." What I understand that to be -- and I would like clarification -- is that in the past, the Ministry of Tourism provided funding for tourist information centres. I would like to ask the minister whether the mandate as set out in this section implies that the corporation will now be taking over that function in its entirety. Will it be required to commit to the same level, or a lesser level or an enhanced level of what the ministry previously provided?

Hon. J. Pullinger: That function -- yes, indeed -- will go to the new agency. Their business plan and their own processes of deciding what is best for their own industry will determine how they allocate the funds.

I. Chong: I just want to understand. The tourism industry that is now left under the jurisdiction of the minister will not be providing any information services for tourism. That will be entirely dealt with by this corporation.

Hon. J. Pullinger: That's correct.

T. Nebbeling: I'm not going to come back to my previous questions, because the minister obviously doesn't know the answers -- which is very sad, because I would expect that with taking on the responsibility of her portfolio, there would be some knowledge coming with the material she works with.

I would like to ask, on section 4(1)(b), on providing information service for the tourists: how does the minister envision the kind of system this board will use? What kind of vision does the minister have, to give the tourists the information -- the magnitude of information -- that is needed to effectively promote this province when people are here? I think we're talking about when visitors are here.

Hon. J. Pullinger: All the current programs will transfer over to the new agency. From there, the board will determine where it goes in the future through its business planning process. We seem to be getting into that area quite a bit, and I would propose that we may want to move on and get to those kinds of things.

T. Nebbeling: I know what the system is, up until now. It is often that the chamber of commerce operations in towns 

[ Page 3251 ]

and villages have been used to provide information for tourism through the info bureaus. These info bureaus, of course, are paid for by the provincial government, very often through special grants from youth and skills programs. I would like to know if that financial burden, which in the past has been shared by different ministries to staff info offices throughout the province, will now become the responsibility of this corporation as well.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The current Tourism B.C. doesn't work with other ministries in that way. That's driven from the community. If a chamber of commerce chooses to apply to other programs -- such as some of the youth employment programs the member is alluding to -- they do so. That has nothing to do with Tourism B.C. today, nor will it in the future. The existing programs that are delivered today by Tourism B.C. will move to the new Crown agency. There will be no change. There's no change in the relationship. Nothing in this act affects a relationship with some of the other things the member is speaking of, the local organizations. Nor does it change the relationship of chambers of commerce with other ministries or programs they may choose to apply for under some of the other ministries.

T. Nebbeling: I hear what the minister says. However, in 1996 many of the so-called info centres that often were placed in chamber of commerce offices were given notice that no further staffing funds will be available. As a consequence, some of these chambers have gone to municipalities to see if they could get a grant-in-aid. Because of the rate of the grant money for municipalities this year by this provincial government, almost every municipality has refused their grants-in-aid to the chambers of commerce to continue to man the info centres. That funding is not there. I can only see the various centres going back then to the source where the information is being given. And that would be the Minister of Tourism.

The Minister of Tourism, by handing over her responsibility to the corporation -- well, her responsibility is still under very tight reins, if I can say. . . . Nevertheless, if this Crown corporation has to take on that financial liability out of the meagre funds that are going to be given, $18 million, as the very first consequence of that we're going to see a lot fewer info centres throughout the province. That is, of course, unacceptable, because it's the only way that when visitors come to an area they can be directed to certain activities or certain amenities that will create the income for a lot of people.

[5:30]

Hon. J. Pullinger: Hon. Chair, I would be happy to answer these questions, but I think the appropriate place to do so would be in my estimates. I don't see where that would fall under this legislation. This is simply about the creation of a new Crown agency and the shift of responsibilities to it.

T. Nebbeling: I don't agree with the minister, because the minister is creating, under this section, an agency that will have eight mandates, plus submandates. One of the mandates for this agency is to provide information services for tourists. I'm saying that the traditional way this has been done, to a large extent, is through the info centres. The info centres are not getting funded anymore from other sources. So if these info centres remain, somebody will have to pick up the tab. I'm asking the minister: is it her expectation that the cost of these info centres will indeed come out of that meagre budget that this Crown corporation already has been given? That's a very simple question. I'm not asking for a breakdown of how she gets the money. I'm asking if subsection (b) will be funded through this agency or corporation, so it is part of. . . .

Hon. J. Pullinger: The tourism info centre staffing, which has gone from 100 percent to 75 percent funding in all of the same communities where it was available last year, is currently provided under my ministry. That function, as I've stated previously, will move to the new Crown agency.

T. Nebbeling: So, like my colleague just said, the answer is yes. And just as a statement -- it's not even a question -- I just cannot see how the advice of the minister. . . . Because the minister has shown, through her answering earlier on, not having a broad concept of how tourism is being financed in this province and how the marketing and the advertising of tourism is being financed. . . .

Minister, you shake your hands like: "How can you say that?" I ask a very simple question about how this corporation. . .

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Through the Chair, thank you.

. . .is going to be able to operate within its mandate with that very meagre budget. A concern by a previous member, Powell River-Sunshine Coast, was very much based on the fact that the fear is that, like other Crown corporations, this agency very soon after its establishment will start creating structures to collect more money from the clients it serves, which are the businesses throughout British Columbia.

It is a fear that is real, because we are talking about a responsibility of this government that is handed over to a new group of people without giving them money. This corporation, this board, is going to look at how they indeed can find the funds to operate. It's very basic. They have a mandate, and if they don't fulfil the mandate, well, it's clear the minister can just yank them out of there and put a new batch in. There's always a new group of 15 people you can find who will play the game for a while.

So I think it's very important to hear how the minister feels this board can financially operate -- without telling us how she's going to get these dollars -- with that meagre $18 million budget, trying to fulfil a mandate that is phenomenal. Just think -- a $7 billion business gets $18 million to promote itself. That is less than 0.3 percent. It is just incredible to believe that this minister dares to say that this Crown corporation is a responsible way of promoting the province of British Columbia worldwide.

So my question is and will remain: how does the minister believe she can fulfil that obligation to this board, to this corporation, with her meagre $18 million contribution?

I. Chong: I know the minister is anxious to move on to another section. I thought I did not have any other questions on this section, but I was just taking a look at section 4(2)(a), where the corporation must have regard for the following principles, and wherein the words are: ". . .to conduct business in a consultative, responsible and accessible manner." I 

[ Page 3252 ]

just would like to ask the minister: what procedures, what policies, what rules, what regulations may be in place to ensure that there is a consultative process? I know in the last few weeks we have discussed that at length in various other bills and debates, because on this side of the House we do believe consultation is a very important process.

We want to ensure that the board, once established, even though it is representative of the industry, will continue to have consultations with the stakeholders. . .and whether there is a guideline -- I don't know whether that will be in the business plan, and if so, I would ask the minister to remind me of that later on -- or whether it is in this section that we have to establish or determine, or whether there is a memorandum of agreement or understanding that there is a set rule or policy on consultation, whether it's three times a year, four times, or whatever. I would like the minister to give me some insight on that, if possible.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The principle is laid out in the legislation, and then it's up to the board, either through its business plan, through its bylaws or through direction to staff, to carry that function out. The legislation is not prescriptive about the details of that; that, in fact, is a board and management function.

I. Chong: So, if I am to understand. . . . If through its resolutions, through its bylaws, through its meetings that are held, the board does not set any clear, definitive responsibility to have consultation -- even though within the bill we see its mandate is to have that process -- what authority or control would the minister have to ensure or to direct the board to ensure the consultation process is there?

I'm concerned that stakeholders, who may for some reason feel that they are not being represented, may come to the minister and say: "The board isn't listening. We need someone to hear our voice." Will the minister be able to step in and make a recommendation -- strong or not so strong -- to the board, and say: "Where is your format? Where is your policy that you've laid out for the consultative process?" We are talking about the stakeholders here, and 15 directors, however chosen, dealing with an entire provincial industry, are not enough. Stakeholders certainly have a right to know that they have access.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I absolutely agree with what the member is saying, hon. Chair: there should be consultation and it should be built in. We can talk in some detail. . . . I think one of the ways would simply be a straight direction to staff about ways that the board decides to consult. I think it's in the board's interest and the industry's interest to consult, but another mechanism is through the business plan, and we can discuss that a little bit later.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

I. Chong: I only have a few questions or perhaps even only one, depending on the answer from the minister, hon. Chair, and that's on section 5(1)(c): ". . .delegate the exercise or performance of any power or duty conferred or imposed on the board to the chief executive officer." I would like to ask the minister: are there any restrictions as to what the board can delegate to the chief executive officer to mitigate their responsibility or their role?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There are no restrictions on what the board can delegate to the CEO.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

G. Wilson: This section 6 is, in my judgment, one of three sections which really speaks to the whole heart and soul of what is intended here. What it does is talk about the capacities and powers of this new, full-blown Crown corporation that's being established.

The reason I demonstrate some concern about it is because, if we look just to the revised consolidated revenue fund description, the Crown corporations are sitting at a debt of some $18 billion in this province -- and that's a lot of money. Crown corporations run up debt. That is what they do. Virtually every one does that. I notice section 6(b) empowers this corporation to borrow money. When you look at an $18 billion debt that we have with the Crowns operating now -- and we're creating yet another Crown and giving it the authority and right to go out and borrow money -- one has to be concerned as to whether or not this is the appropriate way to go.

Similarly, the section says that this Crown corporation can, under subsection (c), negotiate and enter into agreements with any person, including but not limited to agreements with the government of Canada, the government of a province, First Nations or local governments or with an official or agency of any of them. . . ." Now, that's a pretty standard clause for a Crown corporation, hon. Chair, and I don't take issue with the fact that it's a standard clause. But I do take issue with the fact that we're creating yet another vehicle for an expanded bureaucratic system that empowers us to shove off the cost of what were traditionally expenditures within the Ministry of Tourism into a Crown corporation that has powers to borrow and powers to invest. The liability of that is not clear in the sense that it, obviously, I would think -- if you speak to the save harmless protection of its directors -- ultimately rests with you and me and the people out there who are the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia.

So this is a very serious section. We need to explore it in considerable detail, and we need to have some considerable discussion. I note the hour and I'm not sure how far we are likely to get through this, because I have a long number of questions with respect to section 6. It would seem to me that this might be an appropriate place for us to rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again, and I so move.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the Chair.

[5:45]

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

The Speaker: Hon. members, earlier today the member for Delta South rose under standing order 35 to move adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of definite and urgent public importance: namely, "the matter raised by Moody's bond-rating service with regard to the government's domestic debt," which he subsequently identified in his comments as being a recent downgrade given at noon today.

[ Page 3253 ]

In examining the matter to determine whether it comes within the "rigorous restrictions" of standing order 35, the Chair must examine the urgency of debate, not the urgency of the matter, as is pointed out on page 62 of the third edition of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia. Previous Speakers have ruled that a matter does not come within the confines of standing order 35 if it is an ongoing matter or if a normal parliamentary opportunity is available for debate.

In her submission, the Government House Leader pointed out that another bond rating had occurred one week ago. I note from the Journals of the House that announcements have been made in the House by ministers respecting a bond rating such as that made by the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations on May 26, 1994. I note from the Journals that the minister made a statement respecting B.C.'s credit rating, and the member for Delta South gave a response. I also note from Hansard of March 24, March 25, March 26 and April 1, 1997, that during the budget debate, various members -- including the member for Delta South -- raised the issue of a downgrade by Moody's bond-rating service.

Accordingly, I conclude that the rating of the province's debt or credit is an ongoing matter that occurs from time to time. Secondly, I note that this House is currently embarked upon consideration of the estimates in Committee of Supply. A review of the Votes and Proceedings will indicate that the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations estimates have not yet been considered. Therefore an ordinary parliamentary opportunity to discuss the matter will be coming up in the near future. For these reasons, I find that the matter does not qualify under standing order 35.

Hon. D. Miller moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR
(continued)

Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to send some more information across to the opposition critic. This is the matter we had been discussing yesterday: the distribution of claimants by the number of claims, where we were trying to get a sense of a percentage of those who had multiple claims. This breaks it down into the ranges of one to five, five to ten, ten to 15 and 15 to 19. It has the numbers, and it's for the period from 1970 to 1994. So I'd like to send that across.

Also, hon. Chair, there's a package of information here on the educational experience requirements for officer-level staff -- the educational requirements of claims adjudicators in WCB. So it's that information, and I'll send that across too. It also includes job descriptions.

Hon. Chair, I'd like, at the outset of this session, to do something I was negligent in doing. I just want to introduce the staff who are here to support me. We have Margaret Arthur, who's the deputy minister; Don Cott, assistant deputy minister; Gary Martin, assistant deputy minister; Stuart Clark, executive director of apprenticeship; and I introduced Terry Bogyo yesterday, the director of corporate planning and development.

L. Reid: I thank the minister most sincerely for the missives he has sent over. I will be reviewing those.

One of the issues that we didn't touch on this morning was the issue of litigation around the extended claims -- information in terms of the number of individuals that have claims that will go on for many, many years. One of the concerns that constituents around the province bring forward -- and this dates all the way back to 1994, when the official opposition toured the province -- is that there are claims that are just not resolved through the regular channels. There seems to be tremendous overlay, there seems to be little transparency in the process, and they don't seem to find resolution, sometimes five to ten years from the start of the claim.

Those individuals are looking for some other avenue. I know that when the legislation was passed in 1917, it was a compromise piece of legislation. It was: "For you folks to give up your rights to litigate, we will certainly put in place an insurance program to offset injury or occupational disease on the job site." That compromise hasn't worked for everyone -- as compromises traditionally don't. But it seems to me -- and I certainly am only putting it on the table for discussion with this minister -- that perhaps it's time, some 80 years later, to look at whether or not it's appropriate to provide access to the courts for a number of the more involved, more complex and more sophisticated claims. I will await the minister's response.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, the royal commission will be looking at that, as it looks at the appeal system. But again, I welcome comments that come outside of that process as well.

L. Reid: As I would welcome this minister's comment. Does he have a concern or comment around whether or not it would be a useful direction for constituents of this province to continue to present to the royal commission? Has it been looked at clearly? Has it been looked at at all by the Ministry of Labour?

[2:45]

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments. However, I think that both of us will probably be very intrigued by whatever notion the royal commission comes up with. Because where I started this debate yesterday around credibility and accountability, even though those layers of appeal 

[ Page 3254 ]

exist, obviously it's problematic for 15 to 20 percent of the claimant population. We agreed yesterday that 80 percent of the claims move through relatively quickly; 15 to 20 percent are somewhat problematic.

If this is going to evolve into a human rights discussion, this is where individuals believe their rights have been denied them. We, as Canadians, believe we have access to the court system. My earlier comment stands, I believe, around whether or not this is compromised legislation. It is. Workers in this province gave up their right to litigate in order to receive this insurance package. When the insurance package fails them, as they believe it has, should they have the right to go forward? I'm not clear of the answer to that question, which is why I raise it. I think there probably needs to be a great deal of work and a lot of research done around that question. But I'm now prepared to say no at this juncture, because I don't believe the work has been done. I don't believe the homework has been done around this issue in terms of the cases that mill around and mire down for years on end.

A Vancouver Sun article of a number of days back talked about a 27-year resolution period. Someone actually did receive resolution. They actually were successful. It took 27 years. I can't imagine why that's considered in any way useful for either side -- not for the claimant or his family, and certainly not for the workers compensation system, which would have been funding that ongoing appeal exercise for close to three decades. That doesn't make any sense to me.

So, if there are ways for us to make this a more sensible process. . . . And certainly I would speak strongly in terms of collapsing some of the current layers of appeal or, at the very least, making them more transparent. People don't understand them, no matter how many glossy brochures they receive. The flow chart, the organizational chart, in terms of how you wend your way through that process only becomes more complex. So if there are ways to make the process more transparent, that would probably offset some of the concern about not having a right to litigate today. But if that doesn't happen, perhaps that discussion about litigation needs to happen -- and probably fairly soon.

If we're going to receive the report of the royal commission by the end of 1998, hopefully those recommendations will be coming back to this table in early 1999. It doesn't do anything for the people who have claims outstanding today, because it will be three years before they see any implementation. If I might be so bold as to suggest that, it'll be quite some time. So in terms of the minister's comment, yes, he's prepared to await the outcome of the royal commission, as I am. But I do think it's an appropriate time for us to put on the table whether or not any of these issues are worth looking at from a ministry perspective. If the minister has a comment. . . .

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, hon. Chair, they are always worth looking at from a ministry perspective. I think the point about transparency is well taken. I think we must be working to improve achieving that principle.

In the booklet "Transforming the Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia: A Strategic Plan," I refer to page 7, where there is a heading "Foundations and First Principles." It enters into this discussion about this historic compromise, as it's referred to here. Obviously, that is also part of the discussion.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments.

Prior to the break earlier today I talked about the cost of vocational rehab consultants. I just want to enter into the record the clear question I'm asking. I have claimants around this province who tell me that the cost of vocational rehab consultation is currently being deducted from the disability award section of their pensions. That's the specific question. I need to know if that's true. And I need to know, if it is, to what extent that is currently happening. So if I can leave that with the minister for future consideration, I would appreciate the answer to that question as well.

Hon. J. Cashore: Injured workers are not penalized in any way for the rehabilitation allowances that they receive. In cases where rehab allowances are recovered from pensions, it is because they have already been fully compensated. No funds are recovered for tuition, training costs, travel or relocation expenses, or other rehab expenditures beyond those noted above.

L. Reid: I am going to seek some clarification from the minister. That is exactly their concern: that those costs are currently being recovered from their disability award in their pension. This minister is making the case that somehow they're being compensated for that. Because they will tell me that this is absolutely not the case, my question would be: when and how?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm advised that they are receiving full allowances while they are on training programs, and that to pay them more than that would be to overpay beyond the amount that the hon. member is concerned about.

L. Reid: I will simply highlight it for the minister as an area of concern, because I do believe there's an issue somehow embedded in this issue. When they receive a pension entitlement before they receive their first monthly pension cheque, if you will, they tell me that in some cases a serious clawback exists, and great chunks of their allotment are taken away.

If that is indeed policy, I will submit today that it's not communicated to these workers. I have gone back through their files, and there's no reference in the files that indeed they will be charged for vocational rehabilitation services. So if it's a communication issue, it needs to be rectified. If it's another issue around whether or not it's appropriate to take those dollars when it's not an upfront scenario, I'd appreciate the minister's comment on that as well.

Hon. J. Cashore: What is recovered is the difference between the pension and their full allowance. So after they receive that amount, they have recovered everything that is their original entitlement.

L. Reid: I think my original comment stands -- that if this is an issue of communication, it certainly needs to be communicated more effectively -- because I'm not following the minister's line of reasoning.

Hon. J. Cashore: I wonder if I could ask if perhaps one or two of these instances, which obviously have contacted the hon. member, could be outlined -- not to identify the individual, but just in terms of the sequence of events -- so that we would have an opportunity to point out where those payments are being made in those individual cases.

L. Reid: If I might be so bold, I saw Mr. Bogyo nodding, so I will pass on the case files to him directly. If he can resolve 

[ Page 3255 ]

this issue on behalf of the claimants, I would be delighted, because I don't believe they misunderstood. I truly don't believe the information was communicated.

So we'll proceed. One of the other issues I would like to discuss today is Workers Compensation coverage for individuals who work outside the province. I want to reference specifically the WCB coverage for a firefighter exchange program that's currently underway in Australia.

My interest in this area -- and I will pose a number of questions at the outset -- is in terms of teacher exchange programs that I know happen routinely in British Columbia, where teachers go to Great Britain, to Australia, to New Zealand. What happens in that scenario for that type of coverage? It seems to me that's in place for one group, and there's lots of consternation as to why it's not in place for this particular group.

What I will do is read into the record the actual concern, and then perhaps the minister can respond. The letter is written to Mr. Buchhorn; it's dated March 13, 1997.

"I write this letter in support of firefighter Harold Kiesewetter's bid to have his WCB coverage continued during his upcoming exchange program in Australia.

"As a result of discussions with firefighter Kiesewetter, it has become apparent that there might be some misunderstandings between him and your organization on the concept of the exchange program. Hopefully, I can shed some light on this issue.

"The firefighter exchange program, which is fully supported by this department, is an opportunity for our employees to visit other fire departments for an extended duration, up to one year. The intent of the exchange is to permit the specific members to investigate different departments in areas such as training methods, equipment effectiveness, operation concepts, etc. Prior to firefighter Kiesewetter's departure, he will be instructed on what specific areas to concentrate his efforts. On his return, all knowledge acquired will be evaluated by this department for possible implementation.

"While on this exchange, firefighter Kiesewetter will continue to be an employee of this department and as such will continue to be paid by the city of Richmond. All benefits currently received as a result of the collective agreement between the city of Richmond and the Richmond Firefighters Association, Local 1286, will also continue.

"The final issue I mention is that of the program being voluntary versus mandatory. I would be hesitant to mandate firefighters on the exchange program. Experience has shown us that unmotivated people do not produce effective results, whereas enthusiasts such as firefighter Kiesewetter are effective.

"In conclusion, I would like to confirm this department's support for firefighter Harold Kiesewetter's request for WCB coverage while he is in Australia for the exchange program."

Now, I have been around the block with Mr. Buchhorn on the Workers Compensation system regarding this issue. I have correspondence to fill a file folder on what should be a straightforward response, from my perspective, because I know that exchange programs occur in all kinds of professions. I do know that the information requested of the fire chief has been provided.

So in terms of the discussion today, I'm looking for some policy. I'm looking for some direction in terms of. . . . I believe, having gone through all the appropriate channels, there's still no resolution to this. This fellow's going to be leaving fairly soon, and we started this discussion probably ten months ago.

Hon. J. Cashore: I just want to point out that this is the first time I have been aware of this issue. The fact is, the hon. member is right: our policy does not accommodate that 12-month time frame. It does accommodate a six-month time frame. If on secondment, coverage is maintained for six months. Even though on pay from the home department, the WCB policy is six months. So if someone was even being paid from home for 12 months, the existing policy is that the coverage would only be for six months.

I think it's an interesting issue; I'll try to find out more about it. Again, it may be an issue that we'll be hearing about in the course of the reporting out -- I would assume under the administration part -- of the royal commission.

L. Reid: If I can reference the minister back to the question about teachers and other professionals going on exchange, my understanding and my knowledge tell me that those exchanges are a minimum of one year. No one goes for six months. So what's the current policy around teachers going on exchange programs?

Hon. J. Cashore: Okay, I just want to acknowledge that the circumstances that the hon. member has outlined are somewhat baffling to our officials, because it is their understanding that the policy for WCB is six months, and that goes right across the board. So obviously we're hearing about something that the hon. member has knowledge of that is different, and we're not aware of that difference.

L. Reid: Having been a teacher prior to being elected, I have lots of colleagues who have gone on exchange programs, and their benefits were in place. You all know the school year is more than six months long. I mean, they went on an exchange program for a year. If Mr. Bogyo's comments are correct, and I believe they are -- that, yes, teachers are covered under the Workers Compensation system -- are teachers the only exception? I mean, they receive Workers Compensation coverage for a 12-month period, for the entire duration of their absence from this province. Why is that same policy not extended to the firefighters in this province?

[3:00]

L. Reid: I would encourage a rapid investigation, because my understanding is that this fine gentleman is leaving sometime in the next six weeks. So if we can have an answer fairly quickly, that would be most helpful.

The next issue I want to reference this afternoon is around assessment categories -- certainly, lots and lots of discussion with all different kinds of retailers, all different kinds of employers and the different categories they might fall into.

The one I particularly want to reference is the film industry, where animators have been included in that same category. The animators have come to me because they don't see themselves as being in any way similar to that industry. They have advanced this issue directly with the board many times and have not received any resolution. If I might just paint the scenario here: film locations, stunt individuals -- all of the pace and activity of a film location -- contrasted with an animator sitting at a computer screen, usually in the privacy of 

[ Page 3256 ]

his own home, generating caricatures. I mean, it's a vastly different risk, a vastly different job, and that is the contrast they are attempting to make. The contrast is falling on deaf ears. I raise it because I would very much like to see some resolution of the question. The paper has been on my desk for more than a year, and I have not heard back directly from the board, and I have made contact with them on more than three occasions.

Hon. J. Cashore: Actually, it's a classification issue and not an assessment issue, but that's not really the point.

L. Reid: Well, it's an assessment issue to them, because that's what they have to pay.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, but I'm advised that the classification has to be established before the assessment can be ascertained, so I think it's step by step. There's a committee in place that's looking at this issue. They will be reporting out soon, and obviously this does have their attention, because it's an issue that they recognize needs to be resolved. It's looking at all the classes, including this one.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's response, but I've been waiting for years after having been promised things would happen soon. So if the minister could be a little more specific when this report might be released. . . .

Hon. J. Cashore: But I just became the minister in January, so next year when the chickens come home to roost, I'll get a report card on how I did with all these commitments.

I'm advised it's during the fall of this year, which I take to be sometime between September 21 and December 21.

L. Reid: My thanks to the minister.

The next issue I want to reference is that WCB donates $1.25 million for cancer study. Having been the past Health critic in this province, any dollars that can be afforded to research. . . . And now being the science and technology critic, it's a good direction. I'm intrigued to learn that indeed Mr. Parker is also the chair of the B.C. Cancer Agency, and I'm wondering if it's the most prudent course of action for an individual to be taking dollars out of one pocket to put them into the other pocket. If the minister can respond.

Hon. J. Cashore: That's a very interesting question. No, I don't think, I cannot think -- without getting advice on how to answer this question -- that that is a problem.

I think that the hon. member has recognized how important that research is, and I see it as addressing the goals -- that are not in conflict -- of both organizations. Indeed, if there is a problem it is that not enough has been invested in the area of workplace illness. It's certainly a growing edge in which we need more research dollars made available. Again, if there's a primary attack on the pain and suffering that's caused to those who come into the Workers Compensation process, it has to be a primary attack that's in the area of prevention. Understanding the circumstances in workplaces -- where often the air that workers breathe is a factor that not only causes pain and suffering but costs a lot to taxpayers in terms of economic loss and all of those related factors -- I personally do not see that this would amount to a conflict.

L. Reid: I do appreciate the minister's comments. My curiosity is around the fact that nowhere in any of the press release documentation was it referenced that Mr. Parker was recently elected chairman of the board of trustees of the B.C. Cancer Agency. I think that would have been the more direct way to proceed.

In terms of my next question, the reference I received back was that the funding for this comes from the grant program. I'm not clear how the grant program of the Workers Compensation system works, and I would certainly appreciate receiving some background information on that, and perhaps a listing of the agencies that do receive funding from the Workers Compensation system. If indeed that's published to date, I'd be pleased to receive directions as to where I might find that information.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm advised that that list is in the annual report, and it's also in the Finding Solutions publication. I asked if the methodology is included within those documents, and I'm advised that it is -- page 48 in the annual report.

I just want to point out that prior to Mr. Parker coming to the Workers Compensation Board, there had been an ongoing contribution to the Cancer Agency for quite a few years. However, the point of the member's question is still valid, because the amount of the grant that she referenced is over and above what has been that regular, ongoing grant.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's reference to the annual report and schedule 4, the unaudited statement of grants and awards.

Somewhere -- and I'm not going to assume it's there; I'll ask the question -- is there a listing, is there an evaluation or some kind of measurement benchmark, some kind of success rate for this level of investment? I mean, it's a very large sum of money. How do these agencies that receive this level of support, this level of funding, report back to the Workers Compensation system on the value of their investment -- or do they?

Hon. J. Cashore: There's a requirement for them to report back on every one of these.

L. Reid: To be somewhat more specific, could the minister indicate who these individuals report to and where that information might be publicly available?

Hon. J. Cashore: They're made to the panel of administrators, and they can be made available upon request to the board. When we finish this issue, I'll come back to the six-months-a-year-issue.

L. Reid: If I might raise one other pension issue, and this is a specific issue, it's a gentleman by the name of Ken Worral, who has certainly indicated that he wishes this question to be asked. It's a policy question. I'm not going to go into the details of his specific case, but he talks about basically having his pension commuted -- a commutation on his pension -- and what it has done. His pension started out at $1,152 a month, and it reduced that pension to $811 a month, which is roughly a $341 decrease.

The point he is attempting to raise in his correspondence to me is that he is an individual who is not able to earn any dollars. This gentleman is a 30-year-old quadriplegic on a ventilator. He has a wife and five children. Even the ability to put food on the table is significantly hampered by a reduction of $341. I believe the pension was commuted, if you will, in order to provide renovations to his home. It is absolutely 

[ Page 3257 ]

necessary that they do that, because this gentleman is a quadriplegic. The dilemma is about what is now left to him. He's not able to feed his kids.

How does the policy framework come into being? And how is the decision reached so that someone is left with fewer dollars than they need to survive? That's the point he is making. He wonders about the framework that allowed him to access that portion, because in the end, it was that too many dollars were removed from the pension plan, and he is now not able to sustain his monthly lifestyle. I need some background on how that process unfolds.

Hon. J. Cashore: This one disturbs me, too. It's based on average earnings. He's a low-wage earner, and the act states it has to be based on average earnings. Therefore, being a low-wage earner, with the formula, what comes out at the other end of it is low. I am advised that this commutation is done very rarely now, but at the same time I think it's a valid question.

L. Reid: I believe this happened in 1995, so it was a fairly recent occurrence. His circumstance did not change prior to the decision to commute the pension. He had his wife at that point, and he had his five children. What I guess I'm looking for is some sense that there's a check-and-balance in the system, if he came forward with this proposal. I'm not sure how he got to that point, but if indeed it was self-initiated, where was the advice that said that that would not leave him with sufficient dollars to live on?

It seems to me that in management of that kind of case -- for someone who has difficulty communicating, is on a ventilator and is a quadriplegic -- someone should have been looking at the bigger picture in terms of what happens to this family once these decisions are taken and their income is so severely restricted. I mean, they're feeding a family of seven on $800 a month, and there is no other opportunity for this gentleman ever to increase his level of income.

The minister will appreciate his child care costs, whether or not his wife seeks employment, and that may simply. . . . One may cancel out the other. It's a definite question of check-and-balance for the minister. How was this decision reached? Frankly, how was it allowed? How was it permitted that he indeed ended up with insufficient dollars to survive?

Hon. J. Cashore: His commuted pension would have been indexed to inflation. This would have been done at the request of the individual, and there would have been consultation. The individual would have been advised as to the availability of dollars at the end of this process. However, I personally think the hon. member makes a valid point in this particular circumstance. I understand that this individual made a presentation at the royal commission in Nanaimo not so long ago.

In a case like this, if there are costs that show up later, beyond the time of the consultation when the individual is advised, and if there are factors that change later on, it would seem to me that in some way this is some kind of hardship case that really needs to be looked at. As I understand it, this is not happening with a great deal of frequency, but as the hon. member points out, this was a 1995 case. It is one of the kinds of issues that we will be getting recommendations from the commission on. Certainly it now has my attention. I wasn't aware of this.

[3:15]

He would certainly still require renovations to his home, as he's now wheelchair-bound, but perhaps there are other avenues that could have been explored. In terms of the minister's response that the outcome of the royal commission may provide an answer, this family can't survive for another 20 to 30 months. I appreciate the minister's comment, but it is simply of limited assistance to this particular family. I will leave it to the minister to see if it can be addressed, perhaps under a hardship scenario, pending the outcome of the royal commission.

Hon. J. Cashore: The term "a hardship scenario" comes from my attempt to describe the situation. There's no hardship process that I'm aware of that's permitted within the act. Indeed, this circumstance is according to the limitations within the act. Without getting into amounts, I am advised that quite significant numbers of dollars are being paid monthly for personal care, in addition to his pension, but that is because the personal care is costly.

L. Reid: Again, I appreciate the minister's comments. However, the personal care costs do not in any way contribute to the food and clothing of the seven members of that family.

In terms of where we might go next -- and I began this discussion around accountability and measurement -- I have a number of pieces of correspondence that highlight individuals who have been investigated by what they perceive to be and what they are told are WCB investigators. I need to know something about that process. I need to know how it works, who is hired and what the qualifications are of someone who presents as a WCB investigator. Are we talking about debt collectors? Are we talking about other forms of investigation?

The particular case I will reference was a debt-collection issue. It was presented as an unpaid bill. In fact, it was a litany of errors that went on. In fact, the individual in question had died some four years previous, and the presentation style of this gentleman on the doorstep was apparently horrendous. So if we can come back to the training question: who indeed gets to call themselves a WCB inspector? And what kinds of tasks are they asked to investigate?

Hon. J. Cashore: They get training in the way in which the act applies to their responsibilities. They have training with regard to their procedures manual. We're referring here to field investigators, I should point out. I think that's the same category the hon. member is referring to. Almost all are recruited from the RCMP, so they have that training that goes with that.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's clarification around "almost all." I would have to assume that this particular individual was of the "other" category, because in no way would an RCMP officer ever present the way this individual did. My dealings with the constabulary have been to the extent that they've been first-rate, with some sense of public concern and courtesy. I'm happy to reference this particular case back to Mr. Bogyo, because I would be very keen to learn 

[ Page 3258 ]

exactly the training of this particular investigator. I can't accept that this was a person who was in any way, shape or form used to dealing with any member of the public.

If I could ask the minister also. . . . He was going to give me some information about the six-month question.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm advised that where the training was not RCMP training, it was the training of a regular police force. All of these investigators come from a policing background, so they would have that police training.

A call was made, and it was confirmed that there is no provision in the WCB act or policy to go beyond six months for out-of-country coverage. The act itself limits it to six months. I can only assume that if there's some kind of arrangement made for the teaching profession, it is some kind of supplementary coverage or some kind of arrangement that we don't know about and don't understand.

L. Reid: Obviously if, as Mr. Bogyo suggests, teachers are completely covered universally across the board, there must be some exception in place. So I would simply ask that the minister or the WCB staff undertake to find out why it's possible for the teaching profession and not for firefighters. I'll certainly put that onto the record and seek clarification at a further time.

Hon. J. Cashore: I want to advise that the fact is that they are not covered. The Workers Compensation Act precludes them from being covered. Let me say a bit more about it. That does not say that there may not be some kind of a contractual arrangement that has been entered into by whoever provides some kind of supplementary coverage, but it is not coverage through the WCB.

L. Reid: I hope we're both looking for a solution to this. If some kind of contractual arrangement does exist with another profession, simply share that information with me. I'll happily share it with this fire chief, because he's not having any success getting a scrap of information of any good use to him from the board.

Hon. J. Cashore: I want to make it very, very clear. There is no provision in the WCB act for some kind of an arrangement to be made between the WCB and the B.C. Teachers Federation, or any other organization. That is not the case. It is not happening; it cannot happen. They may be able to explain whatever kind of coverage they have arranged for, but it is not with the WCB.

L. Reid: If I discover what the current arrangement is, I will certainly share it with the minister.

Interjection.

L. Reid: There is. My colleague from Delta North, as a past administrator, knows that teachers have gone on exchange and have been assured that they have full-year WCB coverage.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm not questioning that. I'm simply saying that they are not receiving that assurance under the aegis or the provisions of the WCB act. If they receive that assurance, that is not an active assurance that the WCB provides. I mean, any organization has the right to arrange for whatever kinds of arrangements they make, but those arrangements are not made under the WCB.

L. Reid: I thank the minister. All I am saying is that if he or his staff has any knowledge of how those arrangements were made, we would welcome that.

The other issue I want to touch on this afternoon is, again, around qualifications, credentials, of the individuals who provide medical decisions on behalf of the Workers Compensation system. Again, having served as Health critic for close to five years, I have a fair bit of understanding of how the College of Physicians and Surgeons presents itself in terms of who is on the active list and who is not, who is retired and who is not. I can tell you that the public perception is that individuals who proffer medical opinion from the board are in fact licensed physicians -- licensed to practise on the active file or on the active list.

My understanding is that that's not true. The public perception is that that is indeed the case. My understanding to date is that it simply is not: there have been individuals who were not licensed to practise in the province of British Columbia. There are individuals who are not physicians but who present as being medical advisers, and when the question is put to them, they actually indicate that no, they don't have an actual medical degree. But until that question is put to them, they proffer medical advice as if they were -- a huge credibility question for me.

If I can put all of my concerns on the record right at the outset, where the system fails as well, in my view, is when a specialist opinion is tossed out and general practitioner opinion is inserted in its place. If this is about getting to the best solution for the injured worker, arriving at the most legitimate treatment or course of action for the injured worker in the most timely fashion, it would seem to me that we would want the opinion of the most skilful individuals. That has not been my experience with the board in the past. It causes me grave concerns.

I have constituent case files open today in my office in Richmond East, where specialists were asked to discontinue submitting information because the generalist -- the general practitioner -- opinion would be the one of merit during the appeal process. I don't understand why that is considered prudent. I don't even think it's reasonable. If there's a more sophisticated, more complex opinion available from someone who actually knows that patient, has been their practitioner and has seen them more than once, I think that is the opinion that should be sought.

I feel very strongly about this issue because I have seen files that have many, many documents from specialists in this province that are somehow stacked up against a single WCB appointment, where a claimant has been examined by someone for 20 minutes -- and, frankly, in some cases the person was not a registered physician in this province, was not licensed to practise -- and somehow that carried more weight than a specialist opinion of someone who had seen that patient, sometimes repeatedly, maybe five or six or ten times. Somehow that lost out to the person who had seen the patient once. I don't understand why that's the course of action that's undertaken, and I welcome the minister's comments.

Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member, of course, is raising an issue that is timely. Until recently, the medical review panel registrar had not had an explicit ruling from the College of Physicians and Surgeons on this issue, and therefore in some cases there were retired doctors who had allowed their registration to drop and who were actually being made use of in 

[ Page 3259 ]

this process. Based on the college's subsequent ruling, the registrar has insisted that all panel members be licensed for the practice of medicine in B.C. in order to be on the medical review panel.

Also, I would point out that there has been cooperation with the B.C. Medical Association in clarifying this issue and ensuring that that practice will require that all panellists have proper certification. The issue is also being reviewed -- I'm not trying to duck anything by this -- by the royal commission.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's candour, because I do know that that is the case. If that situation has been rectified, I would welcome that; if it's in the process of being rectified, I'd be interested to know that as well.

[3:30]

L. Reid: It's done?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's done.

L. Reid: Everyone now is a registered member of the society.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, members.

L. Reid: I would ask the question: how many medical advisers are currently employed in that capacity?

Hon. J. Cashore: At the present time there are 13 or possibly 14 doctors as chairs on the medical review panel, and there are 50 physicians who are available as advisers.

L. Reid: I want to submit to the record from the College of Physicians and Surgeons the most recent information, actually of today's date. Retired life member: they may reactivate licence in order to take a locum job; must pay a minimum of a month's fee even if only practising for a week. This also allows them to practise abroad. Would their short-term employment with the board qualify as a locum, leading to the question: do any of them fall into this retired-life-member category?

Hon. J. Cashore: The standards for qualification would be up to the registrar of the College of Physicians, so that's where that standard would be kept and assured. We don't have the answer to that question, but that's where that answer should be found.

L. Reid: I'm going to put on the record that I believe, from the minister's earlier comments, that the majority -- if not all of those individuals, hopefully -- would qualify either under a fully registered licence or as a retired life member whose dues are paid. I'm going to assume that none of them now fall into the retired-previous-member category.

Interjection.

L. Reid: Since the minister is assenting to that assertion, the next comment is: how many of the 14 doctors that are currently sitting as chairs -- and how many of the 50 physicians -- are general practitioners, and how many of those are specialists?

Hon. J. Cashore: We don't have that. That would take some analysis, and we will get that.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's offer to provide that information, because it cuts right to the heart of what this issue is all about in terms of credibility. The point I made is the one I want to leave with the minister in terms of whose policy direction it is to decide not to incorporate specialist opinion when it's readily available and to use only general practitioner opinion. There have been a number of cases that I have seen where that has indeed been the case. The correspondence has indicated that that is the case. So could the minister, when he responds to me on some of these other issues, perhaps indicate where that policy originates and why it works that way? And if it's not a policy, who indeed is driving that direction of the board? I, for one, find huge fault with it.

I don't think you go for a less qualified opinion when a more qualified opinion is available. Certainly that speaks to low back pain, to some of the very complicated head and neck injuries, and to some head injury concerns we have in this province, where specialist opinion has never been sought and has never been utilized in the course of the decision-making. I'm putting it on record because I'm vitally concerned about it, and I trust that the minister will respond at some point.

Hon. J. Cashore: Every adjudicative body weighs the advice of the specialists. Basically, I don't accept the analysis as it has been stated. But I think we're dealing with fairly complex processes here.

L. Reid: Perhaps the minister will simply take it as a heads-up. I can certainly provide the minister with claims where that is indeed the scenario -- disheartening, but true. So if the minister could look into that at some future point, I would welcome receiving that information.

In terms of the minister's response to me to date, I've truly appreciated the dialogue and the discussion. I certainly have a great deal to learn about this organization, but I'm more than prepared to put in the time to assure that at the end of the day, it continues to be a useful service for injured workers in this province, as opposed to being a frustrating service for approximately 20 percent of them today.

If there's any way for us to join together in partnership to ensure that the organization is much more accountable and bring to the discussion some demonstrable benchmarks, where people can say, "This is where we were last year; this is where we are today" -- and not just the financial statement in the annual report, but so the average citizen who needs to make use of all of this information can look at it and say: "This is what we spent, but this is what we got for it. . . ."

I think the minister has agreed with me numerous times that those evaluations are in the works and those evaluations will be forthcoming. I applaud the minister. I think that's a very good direction for this organization. I look forward to our continued association.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, I would like to thank the hon. member for what I think has been a very erudite and knowledgable representation of an area that is extremely important in the life of British Columbia -- who has given, I think, an exemplary knowledge of issues. I do know that when I'm defending these estimates a year from now, we'll have quite a list of things to know that we are going to be asked about, so I think we need to get started right away in preparing for that.

[ Page 3260 ]

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to participate in this discussion. I have a certain number of questions of the minister about the Workers Compensation Board, and I also have a few questions with respect to the ministry.

I might say, by way of introduction, that I've taken a real interest in the Workers Compensation Board from a governance perspective, particularly from the perspective of management, injured workers and some of the very real problems that I think WCB has faced. I say that because I think that certainly there has been some progress made in terms of getting that organization on track. I think that the decision by the previous minister to change the board of directors and take out the people that represented particular interest groups, labour on the one hand and management on the other, was a good move -- overdue, but certainly positive.

I also have, in the course of dealing with individual cases and at the same time studying root causes of problems and some of the management issues, gotten to know a lot of the senior management, the CEO, the new chair, the panel of administrators and some of the other managers, such as Ron Buchhorn. I certainly support a lot of the initiatives they've undertaken, such as E-file and trying to streamline case management -- that sort of thing.

Having said that, I want to first of all ask a question that relates to WCB but possibly involves other ministries, such as the Ministry of Education. This question is based on a case that came to me some time ago, and I know it's still in the process of going through appeals. But it raises a question about WCB coverage where you have, say, training programs that are, in this case, funded through a private agency by the ministry -- originally the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour, and now I would assume it would be the Ministry of Education. In this particular case it was very unclear, first of all, whether the individual who was injured on the worksite had Workers Compensation Board coverage and, if so, who the employer was and who was responsible. And it gave rise to some questions. I think it would also have application in situations where you have students -- whether they're college students, university students or even, say, grade 12 students -- on workplace training programs of one kind or another.

I'm wondering, first of all, if there is some provision within government, within the Workers Compensation Board act, that deals with situations such as this. First of all, does the person who is on one of these volunteer programs have Workers Compensation Board coverage or not?

Hon. J. Cashore: If it's a volunteer as one would define a volunteer, the answer is no.

J. van Dongen: Where would I look to find the precise definition of "volunteer," as the minister has suggested? Is there any provision in the WCB act, first of all?

Hon. J. Cashore: I don't think the hon. member needs to look it up; it would mean a non-employee. The act covers employees.

J. van Dongen: Well, in this particular case I think there was some great debate and discussion about whether or not the individual was an employee, because he was being provided with a very nominal stipend -- I'm not sure exactly what the term was that was used. The Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour had contracted with a private agency, and that private agency, I assume with funding provided by the Ministry of Education, was paying a small stipend to this individual. I wonder if the minister could further enlighten us on that.

Hon. J. Cashore: If we sign an employment-trainee contract, there is a specific clause that specifies WCB coverage. So there may be some types of circumstances where that contract is not being built in, and if that is the case, there may indeed be a problem. So these would have to be answered on a case-by-case basis.

J. van Dongen: Yes, the minister is correct in that in this particular case, as I understand it, the contracting agency, the private contractor. . . . There was some kind of clause that required him to provide WCB coverage, but there were other complications. They probably revolve basically around contract law, because in this case, while there had been a verbal agreement, the contract had not as yet been signed. So there were a number of legal complications.

In the course of the discussion of the case, I was informed by, in this case, Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour staff that there was some kind of a blanket agreement between the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour at that time -- now the Ministry of Education, I would assume -- and the Workers Compensation Board that provided blanket coverage for volunteers on a worksite. Now, is there any such policy or agreement between WCB and some of the ministries?

[3:45]

I'd like to suggest to the hon. member that we would be glad to follow up on particular cases. Some of them get a bit complex with regard to just where they come from and all that, but we'd be very glad to follow up and even arrange for the hon. member to meet with officials to go over that, if that would be helpful.

J. van Dongen: Yes, I appreciate that offer from the minister. It was really these estimates coming up that reminded me of the case, and certainly it made me aware and concerned that there was an area here that needed some attention. I will accept the minister's offer to follow up on that.

I want to pursue some discussion and further comments on the operations of the Workers Compensation Board, again saying that I think there have been some positive initiatives taken. I look in the annual report at the days to the first payment and a number of measures that are improving. However, I think the focus has been very much on the shorter-term cases.

The area that probably single-handedly precipitated the royal commission is the whole area of what I call partial-permanent injuries and the injured workers involved with those. I'm concerned that they have been the last group, of all the WCB clients, that are receiving attention from some of the initiatives that management is undertaking. I think the finances and the economics of the organization have been improved by improving the flow of cases and shortening the time frames, and I'm hopeful that will continue to improve.

I'm wondering what has been done, say in the last 12 months, specifically targeting injured workers that carry with them some form of permanent-partial injury. Have there been 

[ Page 3261 ]

any specific initiatives targeted at that group? I know that cases get classified A, B, C and possibly Z, although I don't know what they all mean. Could we have some discussion as to what has been done specifically in that area?

Hon. J. Cashore: There have been initiatives in this area of dealing with serious cases that the hon. member refers to. The backlog has been reduced. The time between wage loss and permanent disability has been reduced. The department has been reorganized and revamped in order to be able to make the process work faster.

J. van Dongen: When the minister talks about the department, is there a specific section or group of adjudicators that is dealing with the difficult cases?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, it's the disability awards department.

J. van Dongen: Is there a specific group of statistics then being tracked and maintained that deals with that particular group of clients?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'd refer the hon. member to page 15 of the annual report.

J. van Dongen: One of the other areas that I've certainly observed has been a difficulty is just the time frame between various appeals. I know that one of the key issues that the royal commission will be looking at is the number of appeals and the long, winding process to work through them. Do the statistics show a shortening of time frames between appeals in terms of the day-to-day operations?

Hon. J. Cashore: There has been an increase in appeals. We're working on the backlog. I don't think we can really say there has been such a reduction.

Also, when I referred a moment ago to the annual report, I should have said the statistics supplement of the annual report.

J. van Dongen: To follow up on my question, one of the things that strikes me is the long waiting period between appeals. I think this is probably very, very frustrating for the individuals involved. It's also costly for the Workers Compensation Board. So that's an area that requires, I guess, more work, and I know we all understand that.

I know that the Workers Compensation Board, in terms of trying to measure its own performance, started using Angus Reid to do, I think it was, monthly surveys of its former clients. I'm not sure who's all included in the survey. I wonder if the minister could just tell us: is that an ongoing program? Is it being done monthly? And is it being done based, again, on the various classes of clients?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes. And I'd refer the hon. member to the debate we had yesterday, which was quite extensive on this very topic.

J. van Dongen: I certainly don't intend to keep you too long here, minister, but I wanted to ask: in addition to the surveys that are being done, is there any program in place whereby there is an attempt to measure performance at the individual level -- that's the individual staff member level? I think that one of the patterns that I've observed in dealing with cases, not just Workers Compensation Board cases but cases in the Ministry for Children and Families, for example, and other ministries where human beings are called upon to make judgments. . . . Very often you will find that if individual staff members have problems with one case, there will be problems with a whole lot of other cases. I'm personally convinced that a Workers Compensation Board system will not be as effective as it can be until we start tracking individual accountability. I'm wondering if there have been any initiatives in that area.

Hon. J. Cashore: Performance appraisals are regularly done, and I would expect that there could very well be recommendations coming from the royal commission along the lines of the issue that the hon. member is raising.

J. van Dongen: I know that it's considered normal management practice to do performance appraisals, but I think that probably it's important to look at that area in a little more detail, in terms of what's actually being measured and how it's being measured. Policies are one thing; actual performance is another. I simply make that as a comment. The other comment I would just make for the record -- again, in terms of these permanent partial injuries, this particular class of cases that I think have precipitated the royal commission -- the system we have there is simply not working. I take the view that those clients really become wards of WCB. Their whole life ends up being built around the policies and the management practices, the individual performance, of WCB. I simply feel strongly enough about it that I want to record that here.

I wanted to also question the minister about the staffing numbers. We saw where the number of employees of the Workers Compensation Board fully increased by 50 percent -- from about 1,600 employees to 2,400 employees -- over a five-year period ending, I think, two years ago, at which point it has levelled off. I know that there was some understanding or some decision by management at the time the latest contract was signed to try and reduce that over time. And I'm wondering: is that plan on schedule? What is the plan?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes. The target for reduction for 1996 was 2,502, but the actual came in below that at 2,434 FTEs.

J. van Dongen: Could the minister tell us the forecast for, say, the next three years in terms of staffing levels?

Hon. J. Cashore: We seek to get down to the 2,400 level and then make that the status quo.

J. van Dongen: I'd have to question that a little bit, because the change over five years, from 1,600 employees to 2,400 employees, involved virtually no change in the number of cases that were being handled -- something in the area of 195,000 cases a year. I'm wondering if some analysis, then, has been done of that major, major increase in staff numbers over that period of time and why that occurred. When you consider that the organization is investing major dollars into computerized E-file systems, etc., and when you consider that in recent years we've certainly seen tremendous inefficiencies. . . . We've seen files that went through ten people's hands in the course of two years; we've seen files get lost and stray all over the place -- just tremendous mismanagement. It concerns me when the minister says that the status quo will be 2,400 employees.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think you have to put that in a current context where the circumstances are much more complex. 

[ Page 3262 ]

There's a great deal of increased complexity with regard to the nature of the injuries, the approaches to working on those injuries -- for instance, the increase in soft tissue injuries is very, very significant. A lot of people aren't aware of this, but the sector in our economy that has the highest degree of injuries is the health care sector, and that's where we get a lot of those soft tissue injuries. So there are changes in trend lines with regard to what's happening out there.

[4:00]

Having said that, we also do recognize that we need to be addressing the issues of the economy of those who are working there, in order to make sure that people aren't tripping over each other. In the canvassing that we have done, I think we have recognized that methods are being undertaken to seek to address that.

As a matter of fact, in answer to an earlier question, there is some work being done with an agency to work with the WCB to assess performance on the job in order to maximize productivity. So there are active programs underway in order to ensure that we are taking seriously the very valid points that the hon. member has raised.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate the minister's answer, and certainly it needs to be recognized that in many different types of businesses in the private sector there have been tremendous increases in productivity in the last ten years. I certainly acknowledge the increased number of injuries in the health care sector. I have some of those cases, and I'm aware of those trends.

I want to ask the minister one further question on this area. Has management identified benchmarks in terms of productivity benchmarks of similar types of organizations, whether it's across North America, other workers compensation board systems or other similar types of organizations that could be used as benchmarks, both public and private?

Hon. J. Cashore: The WCB is measuring performance against other jurisdictions across North America, and they have quite a thorough analysis of that. Again, sometimes I've heard some criticism that that sort of thing is. . . . You know, why do they spend their time doing that? I think the hon. critic for WCB and I are both aware that when you go and meet with the WCB, you end up seeing -- they put it up on the wall -- these various kinds of analyses that look into jurisdictions all over North America.

J. van Dongen: I just have a few questions to the minister in the general area of his ministry, if that's agreeable to the minister.

I want to ask a few questions about the press release of May 5, which involves the ministry and the federal government, through their employment insurance branch, increasing enforcement within the agricultural sector. Do I understand correctly that this increased enforcement will involve not only farm employers themselves but also, in particular, farm labour contractors? Is it directed particularly at farm labour contractors?

Hon. J. Cashore: I would again refer the hon. member to yesterday's Blues, where we canvassed this issue quite thoroughly. But yes, it is the farm labour contractors, and it's dealing with such issues as making sure that employees are paid on time.

J. van Dongen: There is no doubt that there have been problems in that area and that there needs to be improved compliance and enforcement. In terms of farm labour contractors, is the ministry engaged in any initiatives that involve education and proactive work with farm labour contractors to improve their performance and their compliance on a voluntary basis?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes, and there have been activities in that area within the last couple of weeks.

J. van Dongen: I have to say to the minister that I'm not personally directly knowledgable about all of this, but I know there's a concern about a contemplated reorganization of the whole business of deploying seasonal labour, possibly through some more centralized hiring agency rather than through farm labour contracts. Could the minister shed some light on that? Is there anything being contemplated in terms of changes in legislation or changes in process that would make those kinds of changes in the industry and in the sector?

Hon. J. Cashore: We do meet with the industry, and this issue is discussed. As a matter of fact, Assistant Deputy Minister Martin met with Steve Torrence today. So this is really a future policy question. There is nothing to report on that other than to say -- as I have said several times during these estimates -- that I am always evaluating the legislation I'm responsible for, with a view to changes that need to be made when that time comes.

J. van Dongen: In terms of compliance by farm labour contractors, is performance improving? Is there an improved trend line, or is this announcement a response to a crisis situation where compliance is just bad and continuing to be bad?

Hon. J. Cashore: No, this announcement is addressing a need that obviously needs to be addressed.

J. van Dongen: In terms of the employment standards legislation, which from a small business operator's perspective -- whether it's a farm or another small business -- is very detailed and very often onerous, has there ever been any consideration given to seriously trying to simplify that legislation? And has there ever been any consideration given to possibly doing that on an experimental basis within a particular sector of the agricultural industry?

Hon. J. Cashore: I have asked staff to review options over the fall to see if there are initiatives that we can take to try to simplify the process.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate that consideration by the minister for that possibility, because I think that we're in an era where enforcement of regulations is becoming more and more expensive. I think that if we can keep our eye on the target, look at an outcome-based approach, then very often we can probably save significant dollars in enforcement and still have an effective result.

I have one other area that I want to ask one or two questions on, and that is the issue of sectoral bargaining. 

[ Page 3263 ]

Within my critic role, certainly aquaculture and the greenhouse industries are particularly concerned about this area. There is also concern that there are processes in place right now to have sectoral bargaining take effect without any real consultation or discussion. I'm wondering if the minister could give us a few comments on that.

Hon. J. Cashore: I agree that I would consult before doing anything in that area. It's future policy, but it's not something where there is something to report at this time.

J. van Dongen: I can take from that, then -- I can understand from that -- that it's not something which will simply happen to agriculture or to the fisheries sector without them having full consultation prior to. . . .

Hon. J. Cashore: That is correct.

R. Coleman: I just want to canvass this afternoon some information and some discussion with regard to the British Columbia Labour Force Development Board, which was disbanded on December 31. In the past two years we've spent $2,267,022 on the British Columbia Labour Force Development Board, and they had a number of initiatives. I just wanted to touch base with the minister to let me know, if he could tell me, what's happened in these initiatives and whether they've been transferred to somewhere else in his ministry.

Is there confusion, or are we okay here so far?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm trying to find a copy of the Blues so that I can send it over to the member, and he'll know which questions not to ask -- which have already been answered.

R. Coleman: Well, actually, hon. Chair, I've read the Blues, so I probably won't canvass the same questions. I just had some more with regards to it in particular, just a couple of items. There is an ongoing survey, which was supposed to report on November 30, 1996, of 2,500 businesses that have been funded through this particular board, the Labour Force Development Board. The report was supposed to be filed on November 30, 1996; the board was shut down on December 31, 1996.

I have managed to track down the person formerly in charge of this board; I phoned the number of the previous board and got something to do with forest practices. I'm now advised that the survey results and the report are now due out in November of 1997. I'm wondering which area of the ministry is now funding this particular operation, because it's been shut down.

Hon. J. Cashore: That is right; it was under the Labour Force Development Board. That work is ongoing. It will be reporting out soon, and there are two sections: employers and employees. That will be forthcoming.

R. Coleman: Could the minister advise me what cost the completion of this survey is, and who is administering the completion of the survey?

Hon. J. Cashore: We are administering it jointly with Education. We will have to get the other information for the hon. member.

R. Coleman: There were a number of groups that became initiatives as a result of this particular board. I wonder if the minister would just advise me. There was a visible minority people's reference group, income assistance reference group, women's reference group, aboriginal reference group, education reference group and persons with disabilities reference group. They were all, obviously, doing work on behalf of the board or through the board and would have been reporting back with some information. I'm just wondering whether those groups were also disbanded. When they were disbanded, what happened to the material that they would have given to the board? And where might we be able to access. . . ?

Hon. J. Cashore: These groups have been disbanded, and their information has been archived.

R. Coleman: Would that archive be through the library, then? Would I be able to retrieve it, or would be it through the ministry itself?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think that if the hon. member would seek to access it through the Ministry of Labour's library, we can then assist in determining where it is and assist in enabling the member to get the information that he wishes to have.

R. Coleman: I'd like to go to the fund itself, just briefly. The fund actually funded some projects. One of them was with Douglas College. It was phase 1 of a research and pilot project to develop, process and define employee competencies for credentials and/or informal credit courses and programs at colleges and institutes. I would assume that phase 1 was completed. I'm just wondering if phase 2 is being funded by somewhere else in the ministry.

[4:15]

R. Coleman: The only other questions I have with regards to this are, of course. . . . We had the employees' skills and employees' information. With this particular board having spent $2 million to put some initiatives in place, I'm just wondering what happened to the initiatives, whether they were ever dealt with by the ministry or whether they're continuing to be dealt with. There are three that I'd like to deal with, particularly.

One was the suggestion that diverse learning needs be met by. . . . And they had four points in this regard: recognizing formal and non-formal prior learning and foreign credentials; providing flexible, self-paced learning opportunities; improving literacy and educational language training; identifying and removing barriers that deny opportunities to aboriginal people and equity groups. That would have been a "Summary of Findings," No. 2. And I'm wondering if that has now been pushed over to the ministry to be implemented, or whether it's just died as a result of the board being disbanded.

Hon. J. Cashore: This was answered yesterday. These entities that the hon. member refers to were part of the process that led to the formation of ITAC. That means that that work lives within the existence of ITAC, which in the canvassing that we did yesterday, I think, was generally agreed is a very, very positive, non-partisan, consensus approach to addressing and making apprenticeship and entry-level skills training appropriate for the coming century. So all of that work, hon. member, has not been for naught, but it has gone into what I think is a living organism -- a very, very important and valuable part of change -- which I think all of us want to see succeed.

[ Page 3264 ]

R. Coleman: That would be in the materials that you passed across to our critic yesterday at the beginning of estimates, with regard to ITAC, I think. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. We were aware that the critics had a copy of the ITAC report, but I don't think it was the final copy. So it was the final official copy that we sent over.

R. Coleman: The critic is going to be supplying me with a copy of that for my review, so I can now pass you on to another hon. member, because I don't need to canvass any further on this particular issue.

V. Anderson: I want to inquire about each of the ministries giving a report of their development under the multicultural policy. In the last report that's available on Skills, which was then Skills, Training and Labour, there was an indication that a multicultural policy was being developed. I wonder if the minister could update us on what the multicultural policy, plan and activities are within the ministry for the last year and for the coming year. The last report that we have available on that is, I think, '94-95.

Hon. J. Cashore: We do have a copy of the most recent report, and we are just concluding this year's report. We will make that available to the hon. member. There is a multicultural policy, which is a three-year plan, and we'll also make that available.

V. Anderson: Just briefly, then, the minister might indicate to us the areas that are covered by that plan -- study areas, program areas, staffing areas. What are the main points of the plan that are covered within that, and what are the significant differences or changes that have taken place within that program?

Hon. J. Cashore: It covers all the categories the hon. member referred to, including internal staff, service delivery, the need to have staff representation that is representative and so forth.

Vote 46 approved.

Vote 47: ministry operations, $49,794,000 -- approved.

Hon. J. Cashore: I would like to move that we recess for half an hour.

Motion approved.

The committee recessed from 4:24 p.m. to 5:06 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm glad to take my place and participate in the estimates debate of Aboriginal Affairs. I'd like to introduce Deputy Minister Jack Ebbels and Anne Kirkaldy, executive director of management services.

I have a few comments that I want to make. This is the fourth time that I have done this. In some ways, I think it's something of a record; certainly it's a record in this portfolio. I think that Colin Gabelmann was in the AG portfolio for probably longer than five years -- four and a half, I guess.

I want to make some comments along the lines of some of the issues that we are involved in. We are committed to a treaty process, as you know, and we're committed to that being a made-in-British-Columbia treaty process. We want to achieve fair, affordable and lasting treaties that will provide certainty and security for all British Columbians -- a process that creates economic stability and restores investor confidence, that allows first nations to become self-reliant and that provides for improved social help and employment conditions in aboriginal communities. According to a KPMG report, in treaties there is a benefit to all. It is projected that there's $3 in benefits for every $1 in costs, and this is money that flows into regional economies in British Columbia.

Treaties are cost-shared with Canada and are affordable. For example, the proposed settlement cost with the Nisga'a works out to about $10.10 on a per capita basis. Treaties do not cause the economic and political disruption that some have predicted. Last year we released the ARA study, which found that in no case did the resolution of treaties create political or economic chaos. That study was done looking at other jurisdictions, both on this continent and elsewhere in the world.

The B.C. process is an open, inclusive process. It's well managed. There are regional and local advisory committees, and consultation takes place with stakeholders in each region of the province. Significant progress is being made. In some ways that progress -- and I'm sure we'll canvass this -- is almost a victim of the success of the process, because there are more who have entered into the treaty process than were anticipated in the task force report that was commissioned when the member for Peace River South was the Minister of Native Affairs.

At that time the task force estimated there would be something like 32 separate tables for negotiations. But the actual fact is that 47 statements of intent have been filed with the B.C. Treaty Commission. There are 42 first nations currently active in the process, 39 tables have been declared ready by the commission, 29 framework agreements have been initialed, and 26 tables are now in the agreement-in-principle stage. The treaty process has made incredible progress in just three and a half years. It may now have 26 tables in the stage of substantive negotiations. We signed the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle in March of 1996 and have consulted with the public and stakeholders -- for example, the forest and fish sectors -- and hope to achieve a final agreement within the next few months. Parties are working toward a final agreement and have agreed to an openness protocol that ensures that the public remains informed. After more than 20 years of negotiations, all three parties want to reach a final agreement in a timely way.

When the agreement-in-principle was first released in February 1996 after negotiations had concluded, the parties stated that a final agreement would be debated and voted on in the B.C. Legislature and the House of Commons and that this would likely occur in the spring session of 1997. However, the province will not rush an agreement -- we have to get it right the first time -- and our negotiators will not be bound by any deadlines to reach an agreement. They will ensure a final agreement is fair, affordable and in the interests of all British Columbians before the government signs off the agreement 

[ Page 3265 ]

and sends it to the House for debate and ratification. And I'm sure that means, therefore, that that will not be coming to the House in 1997.

British Columbians want negotiations to move forward, and so does the business community. There's growing recognition that the province is on the right track -- and this was made clear in Milton Wong's recent submission to the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. He stated that international investors are "seriously concerned" about the economic uncertainty of B.C.'s unresolved land claims. Milton Wong noted the investment opportunities that have been lost in B.C. due to the uncertainty over the land claims. He said investors want to see stability, and he believes treaties will encourage increased investment as people with new financial confidence spend money in B.C. Finally, Milton Wong said, a fairly and honourably negotiated Nisga'a agreement will send "an important economic message to the boardrooms around the world."

I just want to note that one thing I was kind of bemused by was that when the story of Milton Wong's submission to the select committee was reported, the headline on the front page of the Vancouver Sun -- this is not an exact quote of the headline -- indicated that land claims cause uncertainty. In actual fact the message of Milton Wong was that the absence of land claims causes uncertainty. There was a similar headline on the continuation of that article, two or three pages in.

I must express a little frustration with the process we are involved in very often being characterized as the opposite of what it really is. I think that since all parties in the House at the time that the task force agreement was approved agreed to that process, all parties want to see these matters resolved in the interest of achieving that certainty -- albeit all have different perspectives on how that should be done, and I respect that.

As I have outlined above, it is for these and other reasons that the government is committed to the treaty process. The legitimate concern about lost investment and economic uncertainty was one of the major factors in the province's decision to participate in tripartite negotiations with first nations and Canada, and settlements will create social and political stability and help address social conditions in aboriginal communities. We have always maintained that the benefits of treaty settlements will far outweigh the costs to the province -- as I said a little while ago, the ratio of $3 of benefits for $1 of cost.

[5:15]

I want to commend the First Nations Summit and Brian Smith for the work that they've done together over the past three years in bringing together aboriginal entrepreneurs and business leaders to talk about ways of building an economy that involves aboriginal people and recognizes mutual benefits. We are contributing to that process and helping to build on those success stories, which will help aboriginal communities become self-reliant.

I think that a very important part of this whole thing, perhaps the one that to the greatest extent tugs at our conscience, is the realization that over 55 percent of aboriginal people in Canada are under the age of 25. The fact is that it's incumbent upon all of us to be concerned about the loss of a sense of hope and how that manifests itself in suicides and other activities that are indeed disturbing. We all want to see the kinds of activities that bring with them access to jobs and self-determination and self-esteem.

Partnerships will lay the foundation for treaties. The province has been supporting a number of initiatives that create job and training opportunities and assist aboriginal business. The First Citizens Fund is a good example, as a successful program that continues to provide a business loan program that helps establish aboriginal businesses or enable them to expand.

I'm very proud of the work that this ministry has carried out over the years. I think that, being a young ministry, it's coming to a stage where the mandate of the ministry is being carried out in a way that shows that those who work therein, the very effective and capable staff that we have in that ministry, have been contributing extremely well to make this a well-functioning part of government.

All ministries have been faced with cutbacks, and this ministry is no exception. However, the fact is that this is not an institution. It's not like a farm team for the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is in existence to seek to work its way out of existence, by building new relationships and bringing forward in as timely a way as possible the day that it's no longer necessary. Therefore we're in the business of making treaties and establishing new relationships with aboriginal peoples. The public is committed to the process, and the indications are that the public wants treaties settled.

At the same time the government is committed to fiscal management and bringing spending under control, and the public also places a high priority on that. Our ministry has trimmed its budget in a number of areas without undermining our ability to participate in negotiations and conclude treaties. I look forward to the report of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.

With that, I have some other notes here that I could read into the record at this time. But I think I'll have ample opportunity to reference them during the time that we engage in what I expect to be a lively and worthwhile discussion in debate on this very vital issue.

M. de Jong: Listening to the minister's remarks, one could be forgiven for wondering whether there was any need to ask any questions. It all seems a very rosy picture indeed. I know that in certain instances there is good news to celebrate. In other cases there are -- and I'm sure the minister would agree -- a great many improvements that are required.

I thought, as we embark upon this debate, that I might also make what we term a few introductory remarks. I should begin by acknowledging that the minister last year, in August, consented to initiate a process that I think -- well, I know -- I can say, personally, has been enriching and useful for me. I'm referring, of course, to the select standing committee and the job that was assigned to it -- its ongoing job, as it were.

I thought to myself that the minister, having just gone through three or four days of debate in his other capacity as Labour minister, might be a bit fatigued as we embark into another process. But I have to tell him that the select standing committee continues to meet on a weekly and almost daily 

[ Page 3266 ]

basis to finalize the report that he and the cabinet are awaiting. Those meetings were taking place this afternoon as he was on his feet answering questions about his Labour portfolio.

I thought I might -- without trying to pre-empt the authors of the report that the select standing committee will table, of which I am one -- offer the minister some general impressions that I have garnered during the course of our travels across the province and the opportunities that we have had to meet and discuss the issues with people in a way that I think very few politicians, short of a minister of the Crown, ever have in a particular portfolio. I have to say, insofar as my views on many of the issues central to this ministry are concerned, that I have had some changes. It has influenced my outlook and, I think, the outlook of members from all parties.

I say that with a view to the impression I had at the outset of our deliberations on, for example, this whole question of whether aboriginal peoples in this province were genuine when they purported to say that they envisaged agreements that fell within the constitutional framework of the country -- that they were looking for their place within Canada. Because, of course, there are some aboriginal groups that take a contrary view. They tend to get a great deal more publicity than those bands who are involved with the Treaty Commission process and who are genuine in the view they express about finding for themselves that place within the Canadian family, within Canadian society, and achieving that degree of self-sufficiency that they want, require and deserve.

That is a lasting impression that has been left with me -- I think a positive one. It's one that many of my colleagues on the select standing committee -- three of whom are here, one of whom, lamentably, was not able to make an ongoing contribution but certainly made a valuable. . . . I think that's significant. It is certainly helpful for me as we embark on these debates.

I take heart, as well, from the fact that I think the attitude of the people of British Columbia has changed significantly. It's interesting. At times I consider myself fortunate, and at other times I am somewhat intimidated being in the room with the present minister and also with the former minister, who began the process not so long ago -- a number of years ago. Without purporting to speak for either of those individuals, I would daresay that in the member for Peace River South's day as minister, and even four or five years ago when the member from Coquitlam took this portfolio, the attitude of British Columbians has changed. You no longer, to the extent I think you did ten years ago, run into the attitude that we can ignore this issue, that if we just look the other way it'll go away. The degree to which British Columbians are prepared to sit down and commit themselves to achieving a settlement come hell or high water -- if I can use that phrase -- is, I think, a significant change, one that will ultimately facilitate settlements being reached. Without that change in attitude, I daresay it wouldn't happen and it won't happen.

That is not to say that there aren't differences about how those agreements are going to look. But from one who rarely offers anything approaching positive endorsation, I think the present minister and his predecessor in the former government can share some of the credit for the degree to which that attitude now exists.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: I'm just warming up for this evening, you see, when. . . .

As we go through this estimates process, I want the minister to know that we, those of us who sit on this side of the table, will attempt to explore some of those issues that I don't think will be a surprise to him: the certainty issues; the overlap issues; the course that negotiations have taken in various parts of the province; some of the resource-related issues that impact British Columbians in very different ways, depending on where they are, but that are cause for concern. We will move through that.

We will take advantage -- and have the advantage of having travelled the province -- of being able to say with some degree of authority, I'd suggest, what we believe British Columbians are thinking, having had the benefit of hearing from them in thousands upon thousand of pages of transcript evidence that I know the minister has pored over in the waning hours of every evening over the past six or eight months. So we will do that.

We will shortly embark upon an exercise that the minister and I haven't undertaken in the past, and that is a review of some of the less philosophical questions surrounding his ministry, some of the number-crunching, as it were. It's not because his ministry represents the largest expenditure of public money -- probably more particularly because it doesn't.

And the numbers are manageable. Some of the issues that have been raised in the various reports of the auditor general, when you try to apply them to the Health ministry or to the Ministry of Education, can be a bit overwhelming. Those same principles apply to every aspect of government, be it travel, be it severance arrangements. The numbers -- the numbers of dollars, the numbers of individuals in this ministry -- are somewhat more manageable and easy to comprehend for the average person, who doesn't talk in billions or millions of dollars but perhaps hundreds or thousands of dollars.

So I would like to embark upon that process with him and then consider some of the more philosophical or thematic questions surrounding the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle and other negotiations. Then there are obviously some unique local issues that I think we should address and that I will be attempting to provoke responses on from the minister.

Today, as we head into this process, I wonder if the minister might allow me to afford the member for Okanagan-Boundary an opportunity to discuss an issue that I think he's aware of, because I think his deputy was involved in it earlier today.

B. Barisoff: First of all, I'd like to also thank the hon. minister for the opportunity to sit on the Aboriginal Affairs Committee which travelled throughout the province. I think all of us were truly enlightened in what took place throughout the province and what we've seen. I'm sure my colleague the hon. member for Matsqui will delve into it in great depth as we go through the proceedings.

[5:30]

[ Page 3267 ]

The first question I'd like to ask the minister is: can the minister tell us whether this deadline could be extended to allow the much-needed time for the negotiations between the province, the federal government and the band?

Hon. J. Cashore: If there is a good reason to extend it, it's certainly something that we can explore. I expect that it could be. I want to say at the outset, though -- and I know the hon. member is going to get into more description about the actual circumstances -- that he represents this very important constituency issue that we. . . . I believe that it is not wise to link this negotiation issue around the Haynes claim with another issue, which is an issue that has to do with a concern of the municipality and its relationship -- a very cordial relationship, I understand -- with the Osoyoos band. Obviously it is one of those things that is done under the general heading of leverage, but I think in this particular case it's not the type of thing that leads to building good relations.

I would expect that it would be better to deal with these two issues separately, but obviously there's some indication that the band wants to try to use that leverage in this circumstance. So, we're going to have to examine that and consider how to proceed.

B. Barisoff: I think the hon. minister has probably hit the nail on the head with the fact that we have had an exceptionally good relationship with the Osoyoos Indian band in the South Okanagan. The project that it's tied to, though, happens to be the irrigation canal, which happens to have some infrastructure money through provincial, federal and local funding. That irrigation canal, as the minister probably knows, is the lifeline of the entire south end of the valley. And without some kind of settlement to this issue, it will probably create some severe problems as time goes on because the canal was built in the late thirties and it's in desperate need of upgrading. With that, we have to get the whole process underway.

So my next question to the minister would be: are there any intentions of starting further negotiations with the Osoyoos Indian band on the Haynes claim?

Hon. J. Cashore: Well, as the hon. member has pointed out, this specific claim, which comes under a federal office for specific claims. . . . British Columbia participates in that tripartite process for the purposes of protecting the interest of all British Columbians, and one of those interests, we understand, is the certainty that would come from such a settlement. Therefore government is desirous of being able to conclude that claim, and I personally think that it would give me a great deal of satisfaction to be able to conclude it.

But I think it's important for members to know the history. That negotiation, as the member has indicated, went on for a great many years. I haven't got the exact date with me, but I'd say about two years ago deliberations among the negotiators for the three parties were concluded and, I believe, initialled. It was then time for the Osoyoos band to take the result of those negotiations to their members. As I understand it, there were actually two separate occasions, divided by a few months, when the band did not accept what had been negotiated. One time it was lost by one vote.

I would assume that that means there's some disagreement within the band -- or there was at that time with regard to what kind of settlement to settle on. But one thing that was established at that time, which is very important to me, was that the federal government was going to put in two-thirds, and the provincial government, one-third. I've heard people argue in this House that when it comes to that type of thing, given the federal government's historical responsibility, the province shouldn't put in anything. So I think it would not be acceptable for the province to add to that amount in a context in which the federal government was not doing that. But even if the federal government did agree to put more money into it, there's no guarantee that the province would, because we believe that we did negotiate fairly on what was considered, on the part of our government, to be a fair resolution at that time.

Now, it is true that you always have to consider circumstances in the light of the various factors that are available to us. But surely there's the recognition that there is a risk in trying to use this type of situation as leverage, because I don't think we want to send a signal that that's how you get your way.

There have been some discussions and there has been some correspondence, because we've known there's been a desire to see this negotiation opened up again. But I have not seen any evidence of any effort on the part of the band to put the same amount of pressure on the federal government that they've put on the provincial government to put more into this. To me, we therefore have to have some indications -- since it is a tripartite process -- that the federal government is indeed interested in taking a new look at it.

B. Barisoff: Considering where we're at with the federal election and where the town of Oliver is in its negotiations with the Osoyoos band, I can see where the hon. minister is coming from. But I think the problem lies with the fact that if the money isn't extended -- and considering, like I just mentioned, where we are with the federal election going on -- it probably would be quite tough to get some kind of response out of the federal government in the next 30 days. I'm sure that the deputy minister has shown you the letter that I received. I shouldn't say that I received it; a copy of it was sent from the town. It makes it imperative that, if nothing else, we create an extension on the $3 million, the provincial portion of the money, so that in time we can start to do this.

But carrying on further, does the hon. minister know why the initial negotiations broke down or what took place? What's their request? What was their final offer? What are they asking for?

Hon. J. Cashore: At the time that the initial negotiations broke down, one of the things that they were asking for was. . . . Since the Haynes claim had been a claim where designated reserve land had been removed following the Haynes commission, they felt that they should have the right of first refusal in purchasing any private land that became available. We looked at that, and we concluded that we could not support that, partly because of the precedential nature of it and the impact that it would have on land transfers across the province. It was our view, therefore, that the settlement did indeed make available to them sufficient dollars to enable them -- on the open market, in a fair process along with other potential purchasers -- to have the wherewithal to be able to acquire the lands that they needed to recover what everybody recognized had been lost.

I just want to add that since receiving this information that the hon. member is referring to today, I have asked the deputy minister to meet with the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs to get kind of a fix on the situation, so that we're fully cognizant of everything that's happening within that area and with a view to discussing how a connection may be 

[ Page 3268 ]

made with the Osoyoos band to help them understand some of the very legitimate concerns we have in seeking to address this in a reasonable way.

B. Barisoff: Could the minister indicate, just for the record, exactly what the initial offer was to the Osoyoos Indian band and what they actually refused?

Hon. J. Cashore: It was $9 million. It was $6 million from the federal government and $3 million from the provincial government. The provincial portion of that is being held in a separate account and is available to the potential for that being settled. That expires on May 31.

While I realize that there's a shortness of time between now and May 31, I would need to do some due diligence before advising government to seek out ways and means of extending that. I need to do some fact-finding before I would feel comfortable about making that kind of a recommendation.

But if there is a prospect of a settlement that is affordable, fair and appropriate, of course I would then really want to be considering ways and means of extending that date.

B. Barisoff: Has the minister had any indication from the Osoyoos Indian band as to what they're looking for in further compensation that might settle this claim?

Hon. J. Cashore: We have. I need to do some checking before I put that into the record, because it may be something that they would deem to be confidential, as a negotiating position. But they have looked at a package of suggestions with regard to what they would like to see the province do. But again, as I said, I haven't seen what they'd like the federal government to do.

If the hon. member will bear with me, I'll do some checking before we come back here, to see if we can further disclose what we know of their negotiating position.

B. Barisoff: Could the minister indicate to me the latest efforts that have been done in consulting with the federal government to try to settle this claim? Was it last week, or last year? When were the latest talks with the federal government?

The Chair: The minister, noting the hour.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, hon. Chair. I'll just respond to this, and then I'll make the motion.

Since I became aware -- I guess almost a year ago -- that there were some discussions taking place that were seeking to have this issue reopened, I have discussed it with the deputy ministers in Aboriginal Affairs and have asked them to keep me abreast of the situation. This has involved some conversations with people from the Osoyoos band, and it has also involved the discussions between the deputy and the regional director general, I would say, on an informal basis. These haven't been separate, specific meetings, but these have been topics that have come up when they were dealing with a range of mutual issues.

Having said that, hon. Chair, I would like to move that this committee now rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again -- and report resolutions in Labour.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:45 p.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada