[ Page 8121 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

F. Gingell: Joining us in the gallery today are 60 grade 11 students from my favourite school, South Delta Senior Secondary School. I think they're up there in the gallery. I ask all members to join me in making them most welcome.

C. Clark: Today in the precincts we have a group of 60 grade 4 and 5 students from Queen of All Saints School in my constituency of Coquitlam. They are accompanied by their teacher, Miss J. Ferreira. I hope the House will make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, it must be school day today because there are 22 students in the precincts from my constituency of Saanich South. They are a grade 11 class from Pacific Christian School, along with their teacher, Mr. Reems, as well as a number of accompanying adults. I ask the House to make them very welcome.

Hon. D. Lovick: It is my pleasure today to introduce four people visiting the precincts who, I understand, have been carrying out meetings with a number of different individuals. I had the pleasure of meeting earlier with Philip Hochstein, Suromitra Sanatani, Mark Startup and Jerry Lampert -- all of whom, I'm sure, are well known to this chamber as leaders of the British Columbia business community. I would therefore ask all of my colleagues to please join me in making them most welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Visiting us today in the House is Bill Morrison of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Local 191, with whom I will be meeting later on this afternoon. I ask the House to please make him welcome.

And one of the many cleanup duties that I have to do is bring birthday greetings to two members of the fourth estate. I don't know if the House is going to believe who they are, but they're both celebrating identical birthdays today. Would the House please wish Vaughn Palmer and Mike Smyth a happy birthday.

C. Hansen: I want to join the minister in welcoming the delegation that was meeting with various groups today. I think it's important to recognize that it is probably the first time that the Coalition of B.C. Businesses and the Business Council of B.C. have come together to meet with reps to bring forward one strong message to government. In addition to the four individuals that the minister mentioned, I would like to welcome Marcia Smith, who is also part of that delegation.

G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the precincts today are 44 grade 11 students from the Sigma program at New Westminster Secondary School, along with their teacher, Ms. Martens, and several adults. I ask all my colleagues in the House to please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: In the gallery today there are a number of people who are very strong advocates for seniors in the South Asian community, and I'd like to introduce them. I ask the House to make welcome Harbans Singh Pawar, Balwinder Singh Chahal, Mewa Singh, Mr. Harbans Singh Kundi, Piara Singh Dhillon, Balwant Sangara and Gurcharan Singh Gill. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Visiting us from Victoria is a nephew of mine, Rob Ferrier, and his friend Maria Bucar. Please make them welcome.

J. Sawicki: I have three guests in the galleries today. The first is Rose Farina, who is a community activist in Burnaby and, among other things, is currently vice-president of the Burnaby Arts Council. In fact it was at a fundraising gala that I met Rose and our other two guests, John and Jean Brown, who are visiting here from Stockton-on-Tees in northern England. I understand that our guests met each other on a cruise and that they are now good friends. I want the House to please welcome all three of them to the Legislature.

G. Janssen: Joining us today from my old alma mater, the Alberni District Secondary School, are 18 grade 11 social studies students and their teacher, Frank Holm. I ask the House to make them welcome.

L. Reid: I rise today to pay tribute to a young man in my riding who recently lost his life: Christopher Kucher. His is a loss keenly felt for all time by family, friends and community. He possessed a rare spirit and enormous human warmth. Christopher, you will be missed this day and every day.

The Speaker: I have an introduction as well. In the gallery today are some very good friends of the Clerk of Committees. They are Dr. Walter Schlenz and his wife Lotte from Vienna, Austria. They are here on semi-official business and will be touring British Columbia. I ask all members of the House to give them a warm welcome.

B. Penner: I have the privilege of making one final introduction. Just entering the gallery now is my former grade 7 schoolteacher, Mr. Adrian Stoutjesdyk, who is here with 12 grade 12 students from Mount Cheam Christian School and one parent, Mr. Bill Klop of Agassiz. I ask that the House please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

VANCOUVER FOUNDATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

T. Stevenson: I move that the bill be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

T. Stevenson: The primary objective of the proposed amendments to the Vancouver Foundation Act is to permit the board of directors to distribute a prudent portion of the net appreciation of the funds under administration. Presently the act permits the board of directors to distribute at its discretion only the income from the fund. The term "income," at law, is limited generally to interest and dividends and excludes capital gains. As a result of the present economic environment, where interest rates are low, capital markets are high and inflation is low, there has been a decline in funds available for distribution to community services in this province.

The proposed change to the act will permit the board of directors to distribute a prudent portion of the total net appreciation, with the immediate result of more funds being available to the community services which the foundation supports. The foundation will have the responsibility of managing distribution so as to not impair the value of the

[ Page 8122 ]

I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr401 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Oral Questions

B.C. HYDRO CHAIR'S BUSINESS INTERESTS
AND RAIWIND POWER PROJECT INQUIRY

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think that the hon. member may want to tone down her question -- her attack -- on a former hon. member of this House and a respected Attorney General of this province, and repeat those remarks outside this House.

The Speaker: Proceed, hon. member.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Let me be clear. There have been no bribes paid by B.C. Hydro in any way, shape or form. The Smith report was thorough and exhaustive. There was no taxpayers' money paid to Ali Mahmood. The $1 million that the member talks about was a loan from Mr. Laxton to Mr. Mahmood and was not disclosed to the government, the board or anybody else. The fact of the matter is that the RCMP are investigating that, our special prosecutor is investigating that, and the board of B.C. Hydro and Mr. Smith are fully cooperating.

[2:15]

C. Clark: My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Can he tell us how many times Mr. Smith personally met with the staff at the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to discuss the ATS contract and photo radar?

Hon. H. Lali: I'll take the question on notice.

G. Farrell-Collins: On August 7, 1996, in this House, a member of the opposition asked the former Minister of Transportation and Highways if Brian Smith had ever personally been involved with her ministry on behalf of ATS Canada, the photo radar company. The minister's answer was no. Well, the B.C. Liberal caucus has recently obtained documents that show that four days prior to the 1996 election, Mr. Smith, as a director of ATS Canada, not only met with her ministry staff but also led the crisis negotiations because the whole project was at risk of cancellation.

My question is for the Minister of Employment and Investment. How can he be so certain about his statements in this House? How can he be so sure that Mr. Smith has got to the bottom of this, when on the one hand he's personally leading negotiations with the government for a $1 million contract on ATS and on the other hand -- at the same time -- he's investigating the actions of the Premier?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to quote from a letter from the counsel to the Smith inquiry, Mr. Chris Considine, QC. He said:

"Based upon the available evidence, the review inquiry found no secret fees, commissions, procurement fees or other improper payments by B.C. Hydro, BCHIL, IPC or any other companies in which they had an interest, including the project operating company, SEPCOL. In addition, there is no evidence that such fees or commissions were paid by or to any director, officer, employee or agent of any of those companies."

The Speaker: On his first supplementary, the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: The reason they can't find anything is because Mr. Mahmood, the guy behind the project, has refused to be cooperative, has refused to testify, and they don't know where that money went. It's clear from the documents we've obtained that Mr. Smith was intimately and personally involved in the photo radar negotiations. The notes from the May 24 meeting state: "During the caucus break, Mr. Smith asked for a word with Vince Collins, and when we reconvened the meeting, Mr. Brian Smith does all the talking for ATS and follows carefully crafted notes." Can the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro tell us if he thinks it's appropriate conduct for the chair of B.C. Hydro to be involved directly and personally in negotiations where he has a personal financial stake, while at the same time investigating the actions of that Premier?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Mr. Smith has done nothing wrong and in fact has performed the duties that he set out to do. He prepared a report for the government which was thorough in its assessment of what went on during the Raiwind project. The recommendations of the report have been implemented. The issue is not B.C. Hydro; the issue is not Mr. Smith. The issue is what's happening in Pakistan. That's what the opposition needs to realize.

The Speaker: On his second supplementary, the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: What's happening in Pakistan is that the people of British Columbia are about to lose $10 million because of the incompetence of that Premier. That's what's taking place in Pakistan. Can the Premier tell us if he was aware that Brian Smith was personally involved with ATS and the negotiations at the time he appointed him to do the investigation?

Hon. G. Clark: It always amazes me that the Liberal opposition would side with. . . .

Interjections.

[ Page 8123 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, you will come to order. The question was asked and the answer should be listened to in the same vein.

Hon. G. Clark: Why would they side with the government of Pakistan, who right now are torturing people and are involved in a political campaign that anybody who reads a newspaper knows about? Why would they side with the government of Pakistan versus people like Chris Considine and Brian Smith. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon. G. Clark: . . .with respect to this question? Not a penny of B.C. Hydro money has gone, in any fashion, to any bribes or corruption activities. The Royal Bank has audited this on two separate occasions. SNC-Lavalin -- an outstanding large, private Canadian company -- is involved. Many other international companies are involved. If it's the case with B.C. Hydro, then every single one of these companies is, de facto, corrupt. I ask the members to consider that in their discussions -- that rather than siding with. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Premier.

Hon. G. Clark: . . .the current government of Pakistan, they recognize the facts in the question.

The Speaker: Wind up.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I'm not aware of. . . . I can't answer the question that the member raised.

SURGERY WAIT-LISTS
AT NANAIMO HOSPITAL

Hon. P. Priddy: The first thing is the fact that there is about an additional $16 million in this year's budget to reduce wait times. That is not counting the $8.5 million to reduce cardiac procedure wait times; that's $16 million on top of that, which is available immediately. Obviously the Nanaimo Hospital will have access to that.

I'm not sure I could hear the whole question, but I think the member also mentioned orthopedic surgery. As a result of the good work done by the cardiac panel -- we acted on all of their recommendations -- we've established an orthopedic panel which will make recommendations to us, which in turn, I believe, will take action to reduce the orthopedic wait time as well.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Parksville-Qualicum, first supplementary.

P. Reitsma: Prostate cancer cases are sent to Seattle for treatment; premature babies are frequently sent to Seattle and Calgary for treatment. Could the minister tell the House why this is happening and what the additional costs are?

Hon. P. Priddy: The issue of prostate cancer cases being sent to Seattle for treatment is actually one that I will have to get back to him on, because I don't know. What I do know is that there has been additional treatment money for cancer centres in order to reduce the wait time for any kind of cancer treatment, including at the Victoria cancer centre. So I'm not sure why that is happening in Nanaimo. For premature babies, we have an excellent facility in Vancouver at the Children and Women's Health Centre. I do not know at this stage why we would be sending premature babies to Alberta, particularly from that location. But I will look into that.

It's interesting that in Alberta, which has consistently reduced health care budgets over the last six or seven years and closed hospitals. . . . In this province we have extended that every year. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. P. Priddy: . . .so I fail to understand why that is happening. But I'll research it for the member.

B.C. HYDRO CHAIR'S BUSINESS INTERESTS
AND RAIWIND POWER PROJECT INQUIRY

Hon. G. Clark: I find this line of questioning offensive. I want to know what the members are alleging here. Brian Smith, QC, former Attorney General of British Columbia, was a lawyer who had a variety of clients. When I asked him to chair B.C. Hydro and to further investigate the matters around Raiwind, I did not ask him for a list of his clients, and I say that categorically. I didn't know who his clients were; I didn't inquire into them. Secondly, all of the evidence presented at Brian Smith's inquiry was under oath. Are the members suggesting that Chris Considine, Neil de Gelder, Brian Smith and others somehow compromised their investigations, because he had a client that was also doing business with the government? If that's their allegation, then I categorically reject it and I find it offensive.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Well, this is not an investigation of who Mr. Smith's clients were. He was a director of the company, ATS, which is a very different thing.

[ Page 8124 ]

The Speaker: Hon. member.

M. de Jong: . . .is: why did she mislead the House. . .

The Speaker: Hon. member.

M. de Jong: . . .and why in the intervening two years has she not taken an opportunity to correct the misstatements, the mistruths, that were delivered in this House on August 7, 1996?

The Speaker: Hon. member, that question is out of order. Everyone knows that former responsibilities of ministers are not in their purview now. The question is out of order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, there is someone who would like to ask a question. We'd like some order so that can happen. I recognize the member for Richmond East.

PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN
LEAKY-CONDO COMMISSIONER

Hon. J. Kwan: I ask the members opposite not to judge the Barrett report or the work of the commissioner by virtue of who he is, but rather to judge the merit of the report by the recommendations that he will come forward with at the end of the process. It is important from the government's point of view and, I understand, from the opposition's point of view as well. . .

The Speaker: Please wind up your remarks. The time is gone.

Hon. J. Kwan: . . .that we deal with the issue of leaky condos in terms of the problems that are faced by the public today.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: I rise to reserve my right to raise a point of privilege with respect to the Minister for Children and Families.

The Speaker: All right. The member reserves the right to raise a point later. Now I recognize the Government House Leader.

[2:30]

In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 14.

WORKERS COMPENSATION
(OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(continued)

On the first amendment to section 15, section 115.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, you will recall that earlier we stood down a number of different sections, those sections which had amendments tabled by the opposition. I gave them an undertaking that I would look carefully at those amendments, that I would indeed discuss them with legislative counsel and report accordingly. I am here now to do that.

Because our issue of amendments and what might be embraced in amendments came via a discussion, in fact, about a particular instance under section 115 -- namely, the driver of a delivery truck -- I want to deal, if I may, with the delivery truck question first, which was originally advanced by the member for Shuswap. We'll deal with that first and then, perhaps, give the opposition an opportunity to pose further questions arising from that explanation. From there I will go on to the larger question about the amendment, if that's acceptable.

Let me start, then, by dealing with the delivery truck incident. This, as I say, is based on discussion with legislative counsel. The member raised a hypothetical question with respect to a delivery truck driver at an employer's workplace who, it is alleged, carelessly backed up and ran over one of the other workers. The member asked whether the employer would be liable because this delivery truck driver was at the employer's workplace. I want to start by cautioning members that the extent of the liability would be entirely dependent on the particulars of the situation. In other words, I can't give a categorical sort of answer, and I think the member knows that. An investigation would likely be necessary to determine the causes, etc., of such an accident. While it is generally true that the employer would have some obligations, the extent of the obligation is really the issue. I should also point out that the employer would have a defence of due diligence available to him or her. To put it bluntly, in a situation like this the employer cannot prevent the other person from doing something stupid and careless.

While the employer has some obligations, however, the driver also has obligations to take reasonable care. The general common law with respect to negligence calls for individuals to take reasonable care to present foreseeable harm. In the situation outlined by the member, I would suggest that the driver would not have taken reasonable care. That, I think, deals with that hypothetical case and gives the general principle that governs, or at least obtains, in that case. So unless the member has a question on that specific hypothetical question, I will go on to the issue of amendment.

To the amendment. I think the burden of the amendment, essentially, was to say "as far as is reasonably practicable."

[ Page 8125 ]

But I want to elaborate a little bit. In response to the alternative suggestion put forward by the member opposite. . . . And you'll recall that the alternative suggestion from, I think, the member for Shuswap and then, as I recall, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena quoted it into the record -- namely, couldn't we just add that "section 215 of the act will obtain here." The member for Vancouver-Quilchena asked why we couldn't do that, and if we did that, maybe that would solve the problem and would answer our questions about the applicability of due diligence, which is section 215. That's a long-winded explanation, but I hope I've clarified it.

Our notion, and the advice we were given, is that section 215 applies across the board. The legislation may not say that in as crystal-clear terms as the member would like, but it does. That's the advice from legislative counsel. In other words, the defence and the requirement for due diligence are given across the board in this act -- all right? So we don't need to say it there; we simply don't need to do that to achieve that end. Legislative counsel advised us that we could include the new provision in section 122, which points to the application of sections 196(6)(a) and 215 -- both of which outline the defence of due diligence -- and to section 216, which is the additional defence for workers to the obligations imposed by this part or the regulations. However, this would be a pointer or a clarification only. It would have no other substantive purpose and would simply add another provision to the bill. It would not add any additional substance.

For those reasons, I am arguing that we will not accept the amendment. We believe that section 215, due diligence, in fact solves the problem the member refers to. I hope I have given an adequate explanation of why we take that position. I thank him for the amendment; I'm sure it was well intentioned. But our advice is that the amendment is not necessary.

If I might conclude this peroration, the other point to make is that what I have said about the amendment in regard to section 115 also pertains to the other sections for which the amendments have been proposed. I hope that will answer the member's question, and with that, I will give him an opportunity to respond.

C. Hansen: I want to get clarification on what the minister just said. If I understand the way he has presented it, as coming from legislative counsel, what they are saying is that what we have in sections 215 and 216 has the same effect as the amendment that I am proposing. Is that fair to say?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised that in the amendment proposed, the "as far as is reasonably practicable" in fact establishes a lower standard than does the existing wording that we have in the due diligence section. That's what my advice is.

C. Hansen: Therefore, if this became an issue in a case that was actively under consideration, they could look at the interpretation that is commonly acceptable for "reasonably practicable," and they could interpret section 215 to be a higher standard than that. In other words, in arguing the impact of section 215, counsel, for example, could relate to the common understanding as to what a clause such as "reasonably practicable" means and determine from that that section 215 is, in fact, a higher standard.

Hon. D. Lovick: Because we're on tricky legal ground, I want to be very careful about how I answer the question. The answer is that section 215 is a defence. It doesn't establish a higher standard of obligation or something; it's a better line of defence -- a higher, stronger standard of defence. I think that's clear.

C. Hansen: I guess it comes down to where advice comes from. Certainly I had advice that indicated that this is a stronger term. I accept the minister's comments, which are on record in Hansard, in terms of how section 215 can be interpreted. Given the advice that I have, I would still like to leave my amendment; I will not withdraw it. We'd still like to put it forward, because based on the advice that we have, it would add to this bill. But I'm certainly prepared to have the votes take place.

B. Penner: Hon. Chair, I've been sitting here listening to the debate. I'm not entirely clear exactly what the minister's comments were meant to mean. I have tried before to argue in court the defence of due diligence, and I just want to make it very clear on the record in Hansard what exactly the minister's comments were intended to mean.

[2:45]

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer is that the better defence will be found in section 215.

B. Penner: Better defence from whose perspective? From the employer's perspective?

Hon. D. Lovick: With regard to this section, the better defence would be provided to the employer. With regard to other sections where we invoke section 215, the better defence would be provided to whomever is referred to in that particular section.

My goodness, I think that's very clear.

C. Hansen: I'm just looking for some direction. In terms of the amendments, there were some that were formally moved before we stood down; there were others that were stood down before the motions were placed. I notice in Orders of the Day that we have printed all of the amendments, I think -- both those that were stood down after being introduced, and otherwise. I would like to place each of these amendments, and we will vote on them.

The Chair: Just move each one as we get to them, member.

C. Hansen: Just one other comment: I would have that amendment on division, please.

[ Page 8126 ]

On the second amendment to section 15, section 115.

C. Hansen: In terms of the other amendment that is on the order paper in my name:

[SECTION 115, line (2), by adding after the words, "an employer must" add the words "as far as is reasonably practicable".]

Section 15, section 115 approved.

On section 15, section 116.

C. Hansen: On the amendment standing in my name:

[SECTION 116, line (2) by adding after the words, "a worker must" add the words "as far as is reasonably practicable".]

Section 15, section 116 approved.

On section 15, section 117.

C. Hansen: On the amendment standing in my name:

[SECTION 117, line (1), by adding after the words, "Every supervisor must" add the words "as far as is reasonably practicable".]

C. Hansen: The second amendment standing in my name:

[SECTION 117, line (2), to adding after the words, "a Supervisor must" add the words "as far as is reasonably practicable".]

Section 15, section 117 approved.

The Chair: Section 118 has been passed.

On section 15, section 119.

C. Hansen: On the amendment standing in my name:

[SECTION 119, by adding after the words, "Every owner of a workplace must" add the words "as far as is reasonably practicable".]

Section 15, section 119 approved.

On section 15, section 120.

C. Hansen: On the amendment standing in my name, in terms of suppliers:

[SECTION 120, by adding after the words, "Every supplier must" add the words "as far as is reasonably practicable".]

Hon. D. Lovick: Before we leave section 15, section 120, I think that in fairness and courtesy to the member opposite, I ought to respond to a point he raised under this section. When we decided to stand it down, we left in abeyance the issue raised regarding out-of-province suppliers. I assured the member that I would get an answer to his question. I now have that, and I'd like to share it with him.

The issue raised by the member with respect to out-of-province suppliers is one which extends beyond occupational health and safety. The royal commission also noted this as a concern. If the entire operation is out of province, there is no recourse through this legislation. I think that's worth emphasizing. If, however, the supplier has a presence in the province -- for example, an employee or an agent -- then that individual would become subject to the act, and there would be recourse. The WHMIS, or hazardous products legislation and/or regulations, is consistent across Canada, and the supplier, regardless of whether from B.C. or another province, who is supplying something which falls under these regulations must be in compliance with these regulations. I hope that clarification satisfies the member.

Section 15, section 120 approved.

On section 15, section 121.

C. Hansen: On section 15, section 121. . . . We had not dealt with this section in any way, shape or form before we stood it down. Certainly there are a variety of issues that I think have to be raised under this section, but in doing so, I will move my amendment that I have standing in my name, which we can speak to. That is, by adding after the words, "every officer of a. . . ." My apologies. Actually, what's on the order paper is. . . . The amendment should read:

[SECTION 121, after the words, "every director and every officer of a corporation must ensure," add the words "as far as is reasonably practicable."]

On the amendment.

In speaking to both the amendment and the section itself, this is an area where I think this provision is probably even more essential. We have, in this section, put liabilities and responsibilities on directors and officers of corporations. I feel, from a superficial look at this, that while they may be desirable, in practical terms they are virtually impossible to implement in a reasonable way. At the same time, I think that onus comes back because of the wording of this legislation in a way that is very difficult for directors and officers to deal with. I'm wondering if maybe we can start with the minister explaining to us how a director or an officer of a corporation is expected to fulfil the obligations under this section.

Hon. D. Lovick: It would seem to me that the most succinct answer to that question and, I think, a satisfactory one, is to say that the director and the officer would simply ensure that their management advised them about what they need to know in order to comply with this. That just becomes a management obligation and responsibility. The director, in taking her or his responsibilities seriously, would simply insist that that be done. That's how.

C. Hansen: But if we look back on the duties that we talked about earlier this morning regarding the duties of owners. . . . Or maybe that was yesterday; I'm starting to lose track of when these particular points came up. But when we talked about the duties of owners, the minister was very clear in saying: "Look at the words. It's very limited. It talks about

[ Page 8127 ]

That's not a case of just saying: "Make sure you've got good management that knows what it's doing." This is a case of actually giving liability -- personal liability -- to directors and officers for the implementation of all aspects of this piece of legislation. It is very detailed. In order to fulfil these obligations, a hands-on, day-to-day, hour-by-hour management style is required. The minister is saying: "No, no, no." Perhaps he can explain. Perhaps he can enlighten us.

Hon. D. Lovick: When I'm saying "no, no, no," what I mean is that I don't think fulfilling one's obligation under this section or part of the act comprises or requires a day-to-day, ongoing, hands-on approach. Rather, it's a matter of looking at the principal responsibilities; namely, to ensure that one has a safe workplace and to make sure that one takes steps to do whatever is reasonable -- again, in the language of the legislation -- to ensure that. That's how you fulfil your obligations. And you tell your manager: "I want to be advised. I want to make sure that we are not going to find ourselves in court or something because of a flagrant violation of basic health and safety regulations." That's what this entails and confers as an obligation.

I'm sure that the opposition would agree with me. Most of us recognize that when we say that we want people who become directors and officers in business dealings to be accountable -- and I believe I've heard the opposition argue that in more than one instance -- that it is a legitimate obligation of the people in those positions. The question is: why not with occupational health and safety? It seems to me that this is a legitimate demand, a legitimate responsibility to confer on the director of a company. I don't think that it's difficult or problematic or outrageous.

I would also just make the point that the defence of due diligence also obtains here in section 215. And you know where that will lead me in terms of your amendment -- if there is an amendment, of course.

C. Hansen: What's important in this context is to talk about the due diligence that would be expected of a director under this legislation. What we are doing here is imposing personal liability and personal responsibility. In this context, we're not talking about a director who is also the general manager, owner and chief bottlewasher in a small business. That's covered under the other provisions. They include employer, supervisor and owner. I appreciate that we have a section that says if there are multiple responsibilities by one individual, then that person is responsible for all of those collectively. Where this particular clause becomes applicable is in a case where you have a director or an officer of a corporation who is not a manager, the employer or the supervisor. They have certain responsibilities that are imposed upon them. What we have in this case is a director who is not part of the workplace on a regular basis. Presumably, if they were part of the workplace, they would be a supervisor, an employer. . . . They would wear one of those other hats for which they would have those responsibilities. What we're talking about is an officer or a director having those responsibilities when he or she is not connected to the workplace. My question to the minister is: how does a director fulfil those obligations in a way that shows that he is performing due diligence under this particular piece of legislation?

Hon. D. Lovick: It seems to me that the answer is really quite straightforward and -- dare I say? -- easy. That is to say, given this legislation, it would seem to me that part of the agenda at the board meetings would be a report on the workplace in terms of occupational health and safety. For example: what meetings have we heard about? What problems have been brought to our attention? What concerns have been expressed by our management or by workers at safety committees or by worker representatives? In order to comply, the manager's responsibility is essentially to, on the one hand, monitor WCB orders if those are made -- in other words, if there is an order from the WCB that says: "Clean up portion X of your facility because we suggest it's not safe." On the other hand, it's to be aware of the general state of occupational health and safety in the company. If I'm a director and I know that this potential liability is hanging out there, then I will say to the management: "Put on the agenda, thank you very much, a report on workplace health and safety. Insofar as you do that, and insofar as you answer my questions about that at a board meeting, then I have in fact demonstrated due diligence, and I have lived up to my obligations under the legislation." I think that's the answer to the question.

C. Hansen: My question would be to what extent a director has to be knowledgeable about the workplace itself in order to fulfil his responsibilities.

[3:00]

C. Hansen: Am I right in my reading of this section that these are areas extending personal liability to individuals?

Hon. D. Lovick: My information is that the answer is yes.

C. Hansen: My read of this is that when you talk about a corporation, you're not just talking about a for-profit company. There are all kinds of other corporations, I think, that would fall under this definition, including not-for-profit corporations.

Under the federal incorporations act, we do have something defined as a not-for-profit corporation. That term doesn't exist under B.C. law, where we have a Society Act. But I'm wondering if the minister could explain how this particular section may apply to organizations other than for-profit corporations.

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is that it does apply insofar as certain places that may not be for-profit companies are nevertheless workplaces. For example, handicapped people will run various kinds of workshop operations, that aren't technically workplaces. They're not-for-profit ventures. But the work goes on sometimes in machine shops, sometimes in carpentry shops. And our contention, of course, is simply that

[ Page 8128 ]

C. Hansen: I certainly don't dispute what the minister just said. I am wondering if the minister has looked at this clause from the point of view of the effect it's going to have on the ability of not-for-profit organizations to recruit directors, because what we have is an increasing liability being borne by volunteer directors of dozens, hundreds, thousands of organizations around British Columbia.

Hon. D. Lovick: I would simply answer by reminding the member that in the employment standards legislation we now have, there are some obligations conferred on directors. For example, if you look at the Employment Standards Act, the corporate officer's liability for unpaid wages is listed there; the officer, as I say, has that liability already hanging out there. So I don't think this is some kind of aberration or some horrible brand-new and different thing. However, in fairness to the member, I think that it ought to be acknowledged that we are talking about a different environment and one in which people will obviously require some education to ensure that they do indeed protect themselves. But as I say, I think any manager worth that title is pretty clearly going to make sure that once they've received notice that this is indeed the law, they are going to advise their board of directors: "There is a also a section here that refers to you, and these are your obligations under the law."

To answer the specific question, I don't think there is a problem with compliance. As long as they know what it is they're getting into, I think people will still accept their responsibilities to community, etc., in terms of the volunteer sector and serving on those bodies.

C. Hansen: Could the minister tell us if they have looked at the impact this may have in terms of increased costs for directors' and officers' liability insurance -- not just in the context of not-for-profit organizations, but for all corporations? I know that in the private sector, directors' and officers' liability insurance has been a very important component of attracting individuals to serve on boards of directors. It has also become increasingly more expensive, and I would hazard a guess that this particular clause is definitely going to put upward pressure on what that kind of directors' and officers' liability insurance is going to cost.

The other issue involving the not-for-profit sector is that a lot of organizations have been wrestling with this because of the fact that they can't attract directors to serve on their boards, because of the liabilities that governments are adding to those responsibilities. So not-for-profit organizations have increasingly started to look at directors' and officers' liability insurance, only to find that it is horrendously expensive. I would hazard a guess that this is going to add a lot of cost to those not-for-profit organizations, in that manner. My question to the minister is: have they looked at the implications of this section for the cost of directors' and officers' liability insurance?

Hon. D. Lovick: This has not been analyzed in terms of its cost implications, for one simple reason -- namely, that in all of the consultation and discussion that went on, the matter was not raised. And one would think that logically, if indeed it were a festering sore or a problem out there waiting to erupt, we would have heard about it.

I think at this point, Mr. Chairman, that I also ought to explain in a little detail why this new section is here. The reason the new section is here is essentially because recent history in this country has demonstrated that some people have indeed been able to hide behind the corporate veil, as the saying goes. And let me give you the paradigm illustration, and that's the Westray mine disaster. You recall what happened there. It was a matter of all of the principals involved, including governments, essentially going like this: "Look somewhere else. It wasn't me; it wasn't our fault." And at the end of the day the question was: does anybody own this tragedy; does anybody own this horrible, horrible thing that happened?

The Nova Scotia government, following the Westray inquiry and that horrible disaster, wrote to the federal minister responsible requesting changes to the Criminal Code of Canada -- to the Criminal Code -- to make corporate directors more accountable. Other jurisdictions are also looking at doing something, again to ensure that those kinds of tragedies won't happen and the guilty go free. I think that's a legitimate and necessary response to those kinds of disasters.

For example, the Ontario statute on occupational health and safety contains similar language to what we are proposing here. The difference, though, is that because the Ontario statute doesn't have a defence of due diligence built into the statute, it therefore uses language that "all reasonable care must be taken." I understand there have been cases in Ontario where corporate directors and officers have been charged with an offence. There haven't been prison sentences given, but individuals certainly have been personally fined. And so, in other jurisdictions, as I say, in looking at this problem about corporate responsibility and the directors' responsibility, that's the conclusion.

I also understand that the province of Nova Scotia is likely to move to similar language regarding occupational health and safety, precisely because of the Westray disaster. I think, then, that what we're doing here is defensible and appropriate. In order to prevent what occurred in Westray, the price we pay in perhaps an increased cost in terms of liability insurance is defensible and legitimate.

C. Hansen: Certainly, if the minister looks at section 15, section 213(2), under "Offences," we have a clause which I think captures everything that he was trying to describe in terms of those other tragedies that have happened and the ability of government to hold responsible the directors and officers who are part of the problem. In the wording here, it says: "If a corporation commits an offence referred to in subsection (1), an officer, director or agent of the corporation who authorizes, permits or acquiesces in the commission of the offence also commits an offence."

I would contend that this clause achieves what the minister is trying to achieve in terms of giving responsibility and accountability to directors and an ability to punish directors who wilfully or knowingly violate provisions in the statute. Given that we have that provision under section 213, why is it that we need section 121 at all?

Hon. D. Lovick: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Once we start zipping ahead to section 15, section 213, the book gets mixed up sometimes. So I'm sorry for the delay.

I think I can crystallize this pretty readily by saying that section 15, section 121 creates the duty and that section 213 is an enforcement, if you like, or outlines the offence that one commits by not living up to the duty created in section 121. That is, I think, the clear and direct relationship between those two sections.

[ Page 8129 ]

Section 15, section 121 approved on division.

Section 15, section 122 approved.

The Chair: We've passed section 15, sections 123 to 126.

On section 15, section 127.

C. Hansen: I know we canvassed this fairly extensively this morning. I don't think I have anything particular to add, other than just a general comment. We have some real concerns not with the concept of the joint committees themselves but rather with the fact that they are being extended into areas to which we feel they will add process but really do nothing to enhance worker safety. So when it comes to how the makeup of the committee is structured, we certainly feel strongly that there are other ways of approaching this particular problem. But I have nothing more to add in terms of questions to the minister.

Section 15, section 127 approved on division.

On section 15, section 128.

C. Hansen: The royal commission. . . . If we come down to sub-subsection 128(1)(c), it reads. . . . This is on the selection of the worker representatives to the committee. Sub-subsection 128(1)(a) is in terms of there being unions in place; sub-subsection (b) is that if there are no unions, it goes to a secret ballot of workers; and (c) says: "If some of the workers are represented by one or more unions, and some are not represented by a union, the worker representatives are to be selected in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) in equitable proportion to their relative numbers and relative risks to health and safety. . . ." If we go to page 42 of the royal commission report, it's not worded that way. The process of selecting worker representatives was, in fact, spelled out by the royal commission, and this is a notable change from what the royal commission had suggested. What the royal commission had proposed was that where only part of the labour force is represented by a union, each group of workers must be represented proportionately on the committee. So we've added in here -- the minister has added in -- a provision that says proportionate "to the relative numbers and relative risks to health and safety." I would like to ask the minister why that particular clause would be added in addition to what the royal commission had recommended.

[3:15]

The specific answer, in terms of why this is here and where it came from, is that the reference group was presented with draft legislation. At that point, it had the language of the royal commission, and the business representatives at the reference group said: "How the heck would anybody translate exactly what that means?" To answer the question in terms of what exactly that means, we came up with this language. So that's the genesis of that particular use of language in the bill.

C. Hansen: The minister said that common sense would dictate this was a clarification. I think it's exactly the opposite. Certainly in terms of being something that can be actionable in a practical way, the wording that we have before us is anything but. You know, if you want to come up with a process that is clear to all concerned, that is based on. . . . We're not going to have different groups saying, "No, we interpret it this way," and have them come at the issue from two separate points of view. It would be easier to administer to simply have it broken down by their proportion of worksite. You've got 51 percent of the non-management employees in a union, and you've got 49 percent who are not in a union. Maybe that was a bad example; then they would each get one. But let's say you've got 26 percent who are not in a union -- this is a better example. No, actually, I'm getting myself completely twisted up here, aren't I?

If you select one. . . . You have to select two representatives. . . . Let's start the arithmetic over again here, before I thoroughly confuse myself. You've got to select two worker representatives to be on the safety committee. You've got a portion of those workers that are unionized and a portion are non-unionized, so you have to come up with a system that gives fair representation to all of those workers. What we've come up with here is a double process. It's not just based on the percentage of the workplace, it's based on this other factor which is called "relative risks" -- something that is totally subjective and really open to all kinds of interpretation. So from the point of view of trying to get one of these committees set up and structured, why don't we keep it simple as clear as possible? That's simply to say, based on the percentage of workers, that they select their appropriate representatives. That still leaves the problem of how you wind up with one-and-a-half union worker reps and one-half of a non-union worker rep, but that's another issue that they would obviously have to deal with.

If you further complicate that process by factoring in relative risks, it's a process that could lead to a lot more problems than it does solutions. I wonder if the minister could explain how an employer, who is trying to ensure that this committee is properly set up. . . . How will the worker representatives evaluate these relative risks in this case?

Hon. D. Lovick: After listening to the question, I have to remind myself that it's almost 30 years ago that human beings landed on the moon. It's amazing what we, as a species, can do if we put our minds to it. As I look at this incredibly difficult problem adduced by the member opposite. . . . Oh, yeah, obviously the moon landing was chicken. . .by comparison; now this is really complicated. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be unkind, but I really have great difficulty seeing this as an insurmountable problem.

Let me just give comfort to the member. If you look closely at section 128, you will discover in sub (3) that in the event that this problem is indeed too large, is insurmountable, and we can't work it out, guess what: "The employer, or a union or a worker at a workplace referred to in subsection (1)(c), may request the board to provide direction as to how the requirements of that provision are to be applied in the workplace." In the event the problem is too difficult to solve, there is recourse.

C. Hansen: I can see that we are looking at this from two very different points of view, but I've made my point. We'll

[ Page 8130 ]

The minister mentioned the fact that the board can provide direction, and I want to come back to a point that I made this morning with regard to the increased workload that is going to be on the board. This is in subsection (2), where it says: "The employer or a worker may request the board to provide direction. . . ." My reading of that is that we're going to wind up with a significantly increased workload for the board, to provide that kind of direction.

Am I right in the interpretation that basically any one worker in the workplace can apply to the board to provide direction in this area, and the board is under an obligation to put some work, some effort, some employee time into answering a request of this nature that could come from any worker in any workplace?

Hon. D. Lovick: The member is quite correct in that theoretically that could happen; but frankly, it's hard to imagine. We could be looking at some disgruntled employee who hated all the other employees, the majority of employees decide that they want to elect persons X, Y and whatever to be on the committee, and this individual felt that she or he ought to have been on the committee and therefore said to the board that they were outraged. I would think that in fairly short order the board, perhaps in the early days, would get some questions like that, but would soon learn to do a form 6C letter -- okay, another one of those. . .so write the appropriate letter.

There may be some growing pains, and the member is quite right that this conceivably could happen. But in terms of it conferring an extra new dimension of responsibility and workload on the board, no, I don't think that follows.

C. Hansen: Am I right, in my interpretation of subsections (2) and (3), that. . . ? It talks about the request being made to the board, but the board -- given other sections in here -- is under an obligation to respond to any of these requests that do come in, either from a worker or an employer, in terms of the administration of this board. Is that fair?

Hon. D. Lovick: There is no direct obligation conferred here, but the board mandate says that, indeed, one of the obligations that the board has is to provide assistance when requested by workers and employers.

G. Abbott: I'd like the minister to address, for a moment, a concern I have with respect to section 128(1)(b). This reads:

"(1) The worker representatives on a joint committee must be selected from workers at the workplace who do not exercise managerial functions at that workplace, as follows:

"(a) if the workers are represented by one or more unions, the worker representatives are to be selected according to the procedures established or agreed on by the union or unions;

"(b) if none of the workers are represented by a union, the worker representatives are to be elected by secret ballot. . . ."

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer is simply: because, by definition, the union has already, in one way or another, demonstrated that a majority of its members have supported it. Otherwise it couldn't continue to exist. It has, in short, by definition, already manifested the support of a majority, and therefore it doesn't need to go through the procedure. Some other group doesn't have that same characteristic, by definition, and therefore the assumption is that a secret ballot would be appropriate.

G. Abbott: I understand how unions form and so on. But what we're talking about in this section is not whether a group of workers certify as a union or don't certify as a union; we're talking about the processes under which they would arrive at some conclusions about who should be their safety committee or the worker representative on a joint committee. I don't understand why, on the one hand, a secret ballot would be necessary for 25 non-union workers, whereas it apparently is not for the 25 union workers. I think the distinction is kind of arbitrary, shall we say, and I don't follow the practical reasoning behind this particular distinction.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm not sure, Mr. Chairman. . . . Is the concern the member is. . . ? I know one doesn't ask questions of the questioner, but -- rhetorically -- is the member expressing a concern about the fact that the union doesn't use a secret ballot to determine who its representatives will be? Is that the primary concern?

[3:30]

Something else?

G. Abbott: I won't dwell on this, but the concern I have is with section 15, section 128(1)(b), rather than section 128(1)(a). Under the terms of this, if the union chose a secret ballot as the most appropriate way to select their worker representative on a joint committee, then they have that opportunity. The point I'm making here is that there is reference in section 15, section 128(1)(a) to "procedures established or agreed on." That language is not found in section 128(1)(b). In section 128(1)(b), the non-union workers are provided only the opportunity to elect their representative by secret ballot.

What I'm saying is that in some workplaces, if the workers jointly agree that it's better to have an open meeting and air their sundry concerns about safety in the workplace

[ Page 8131 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for the point. I must say that I don't have any disagreement with the point he's making. All I will say is that because we didn't hear any powerful expression of opinion from anybody on this matter, we simply followed the recommendation of the royal commission. Essentially that's the answer, I guess.

C. Hansen: If we come down to subsection 128(1)(d), it states: ". . .if the workers do not make their own selection after being given the opportunity under paragraphs (a) to (c), the employer must seek out and assign persons to act as worker representatives." I'm wondering if the minister could explain what would happen in a situation where all workers in the workplace refused to take on this responsibility.

Hon. D. Lovick: In the unlikely event that nobody at the workplace said, "Safety matters to me, and I want to be involved in that," then obviously an employer can say: "Right. I will make that part of your job description."

C. Hansen: In other words, the employer has an obligation under this term to force an employee to assume these responsibilities. That's basically what the minister just said. Is that accurate?

Hon. D. Lovick: I guess that comes under the heading of management rights. The sinister implications of the language used notwithstanding, yes, that is indeed true.

C. Hansen: This is just a point of information. In the opening sentence, where it talks about "managerial functions," is there a common definition in the occupational health community as to what managerial function is? In a lot of workplaces, as I mentioned during second reading, there is not a culture that says we have workers and management. In most small businesses there's a culture where the lines are really blurred, basically. I'm wondering if there is a precise meaning to that expression.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised there are two areas that answer the question. There is a common-law meaning, and there is also employee-employer relations literature where "universe" also has its own definition -- or understanding at least.

C. Hansen: The minister was talking earlier about how this legislation is going to have to sink in -- I forget the words he used. But is it reasonable to expect that the WCB will be coming out with guidelines or information to give direction to employers as to how this whole process has to be implemented and what some of these terms in fact mean?

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, that is the case.

Section 15, section 128 approved on division.

On section 15, section 129.

C. Hansen: This section pertains to the selection of an employer representative, and it's a much shorter section. I want to ask the minister about. . . . Again, we talk about selecting representatives to the joint committee from among persons who exercise managerial functions, but on the next page, in subsection (2), it says: "For certainty, an individual employer may act as an employer representative." It talks about "for certainty" as if that's for clarification, and I think it makes it less clear not more clear. What would happen if we had a situation where in a small business with, say, 20-odd employees, there is only one person in that organization who meets the definition of having a managerial function?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised that precisely this issue was apparently discussed at the reference group and was not seen to be of any special concern.

C. Hansen: With all due respect, it doesn't even come close to answering my question, because I'm not concerned about the reference group. My concern is: in a workplace where you're setting up a committee of four people -- two worker representatives and two management representatives -- but you only have one person who fits the definition of what constitutes a management representative, does that person, then, have two votes? Does the one and only manager have to go out and find another. . . ? Do they have to promote a worker to a management function in order to make sure that they have four people on the committee?

Hon. D. Lovick: There is no requirement for parity. It doesn't have to be two and two; it could be one and three in the circumstance the member alluded to, however unlikely that circumstance might be in the real world.

C. Hansen: Actually, I can think of a lot of workplaces that have more than 20 employees but there's only one manager at a time. My concern, though, is that when we get into later sections, we talk about the operations of these committees. There's nothing to say that there has to be a unanimous vote, for example. In fact, one of the concerns I have is that when it gets into the procedures for operation of these committees, it's set up to have votes that are going to go two and two. What's the process? Other than putting more work onto the WCB, how do you resolve those issues? In this case, you've got a situation where you've got three people. If it comes down to a vote that becomes an issue of management versus workers, management is going to lose 100 percent of the time. I'm just wondering if that in fact would happen in a situation like that.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think we're dealing in the realm of hypothesis at this point, and I'm not sure that's a wise approach. I suppose that if I were an employer and thought that the decisions made were having some kind of negative impact on the operation, my temptation would be. . . . Given that I was by myself and had 20 employees, I would probably be willing to contemplate making somebody else a manager and giving them some managerial function in order to protect myself. But I guess that's too simple an answer to the problem.

C. Hansen: I don't have any other specific points regarding section 129. We can deal with that and move on.

Section 15, section 129 approved on division.

On section 15, section 130.

C. Hansen: I think this is basically the section where we talk about the functions of the joint committee and the various

[ Page 8132 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: The first point to note is that the committees are primarily advisory. One would think that they would operate essentially on a consensus-based approach, given that they are designed to be cooperative and consultative in nature. I would think that would be the case. The Interpretation Act, however, makes very clear that any committee can indeed decide things by way of a majority vote. They can do that if they so wish.

C. Hansen: The minister said that they are primarily consultative, and certainly we see that a lot in the functions that are set out. But there are some key exceptions to that where they are not just consultative -- under (a), for example, where you talk about the requirement of the committee "to identify situations that may be unhealthy or unsafe for workers." I would like to ask the minister if that implies that there is any liability on the part of committee members if they fail to perform their duties and functions as defined in section 15, section 130(a).

Hon. D. Lovick: I can't imagine a circumstance in which that kind of liability might attach to action or inaction. It seems to me that what happens in a joint committee that has duties and functions -- including, among other things, to identify situations that may be unhealthy or unsafe for workers -- is a matter of people sitting around a table, perhaps, and saying: "Right. Anything on the agenda this week?" And somebody from either the employer side or the worker side says: "Yeah, I'm worried about that stupid mat that we've got outside the coffee room, and if we don't put some little rubber sticky things under that, somebody's going to fall and break their neck. So why don't we just do that and be done with it?" And everybody says: "Yeah, good idea. Let's do that. Anything else on the agenda? Nope? That covers it for today. Thank you very much. See you guys next week." That, it seems to me, is the way this committee might well function in a number of those smaller, ostensibly non-hazardous workplaces.

C. Hansen: But certainly you've also got the situation where members of these safety committees have taken their annual education leave in terms of how to identify safety hazards in the workplace. In addition to that, under this section, you're now giving them a duty to identify situations. It's not a consultative thing; it's a duty to identify. If you then wind up with a safety committee member who's been through a training program to give them the expertise to make knowledgeable decisions in identifying unsafe workplace practices, and then they fail to do so and somebody gets injured, we wind up with an inquiry or investigation that shows that the committee member had every ability to identify it and failed to do so. Do individual members of the safety committee incur any liability if they fail to perform their duties as set out in this legislation?

Hon. D. Lovick: This seems to be a matter of hypothesis piled on speculation on top of what might be, and that's a little tough to deal with, especially if the member is asking me to give a legal opinion as to the result of. . . . I'm sorry, but with all due whatever, one simply can't do that.

[3:45]

Again, what I have been saying from the beginning is that the purpose of this legislation is to grow that partnership culture in which we all say that working together we're going to do something about accidents and injuries in the workplace. That's what the exercise is about. It's not to be punitive. It's not to send people off to safety school so they come back like little Sherlock Holmeses and say: how can we make life difficult for the employer? That's not the intention, and to suggest that is what will result from employees actually getting some education on how you create and maintain a safe workplace, it seems to me is a huge stretch. I hope the member will agree with me in my rather passionate response to that last question and will move on to, I think, something a little more serious.

C. Hansen: I'm surprised the minister doesn't think that these questions are serious, because they are. If we're looking at hypothetical situations, that, quite frankly, is part of our responsibility when we're reviewing legislation: to look at the impacts, not just as to what the minister would like to think the effect of legislation is, but rather what the effect of legislation could be in various circumstances and situations around the province. Clearly, in the time that we've had to review this legislation, I certainly have only got a feel for a very small percentage of the circumstances in which this legislation is going to have an impact. But if you look at it. . . . Again, under subsection (h), here is probably I think the most onerous responsibility that is on the safety committee; that is, a duty "to ensure that accident investigations and regular inspections are carried out. . . ." I would like to ask the minister in practical terms how a safety committee is supposed to provide that kind of assurance. Again, does that not imply that there is some liability coming back on the committee members if they don't fulfil the obligations as set out under that section?

Hon. D. Lovick: There is another section in this part that confers an obligation to investigate if an accident occurs. This merely says that one of the responsibilities of the joint committee is to ensure that that happens, or that it has happened. Beyond that, there's nothing more onerous. Again, it's pretty straightforward.

C. Hansen: If we look at subsections (e) and (f), we have a requirement in both of these sections to monitor effectiveness. Can the minister explain to us how a safety committee is supposed to realistically monitor the effectiveness of programs and policies to promote occupational health and safety compliance? Could the minister explain how this group of workers and managers has the capacity to monitor effectiveness? Certainly there are people that spend careers developing the expertise necessary to provide that kind of a service. What is envisioned by the role that the committee has to play when it comes to monitoring effectiveness?

Hon. D. Lovick: I think that the short answer is that the committee members would listen to what their co-workers

[ Page 8133 ]

Secondly, it seems to me that claims, injuries, incidents of unsafe practices, incidents of perceived difficulties within the workplace would be the things that would trigger what the member refers to.

C. Hansen: What this discussion harkens back to is the point that I made earlier. I asked the question: what happens if no workers volunteer or are willing to serve on these committees? We start coming out with some of these various responsibilities that are going to be put on their shoulders. The minister said it's highly unlikely, but I think that it is likely that we would have workers in situations where they say: "No, I don't want that responsibility. It's not part of my job, and I'm not going to take it on." The minister's response was that in that situation, you've got an employer who has to force an employee to assume that responsibility and to perform these duties as they're set out under this section. The minister doesn't have to respond to that -- just to put it on the record.

I do have one last question regarding this particular point. Actually, I think I learned last year never to say I have one last question, because it always triggers another one later. But at this stage, I think I only have one last question. That's regarding subsection (i), where there is a duty "to participate in inspections, investigations and inquiries as provided in this Part. . . . " This is a duty that applies to the entire committee. I wonder: is it envisioned that we're going to have all four members of the committee involved in these kinds of inspections, etc.?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is no. Later, in another section of the act, it stipulates very clearly that a representative from the committee would suffice.

C. Hansen: Before we move past this particular section, I do want to draw attention to the fact that these duties and functions not only apply to a committee but also in the case of a single, sole safety representative in a workplace where there are ten to 19 employees. Certainly, as we start looking back through these responsibilities, that takes on another whole different complexion where you have a sole safety rep that has these duties and functions. In addition, I think there are some other concerns that I'll have when we come to the sole safety rep. But we can deal with them at that time and move forward from here.

B. Penner: I do have a question concerning subsection (h) here in section 130. The provision there is that a joint committee must -- and, as my colleague has pointed out, a sole safety representative -- "ensure that accident investigations and regular inspections are carried out as required by this Part. . . ." I'm still not clear how it is that a committee is to ensure that an accident investigation is conducted. To what standard, to what level and according to which instructions are these investigations to be conducted? Are we to anticipate that the WCB will issue regulations at some later date as to how accident investigations are to be conducted? Furthermore, I'm curious whether it's anticipated that the committee itself will conduct these investigations, or whether it's just to arrange to have them done by some outside group?

Hon. D. Lovick: To answer that question, division 10 sets out the process.

Section 15, section 130 approved on division.

On section 15, section 131.

C. Hansen: Here we have the operating procedure for a joint committee. I find it interesting that in the section it says that the committee itself "must establish its own rules of procedure, including rules respecting how it is to perform its duties and functions." What is interesting in this particular section is that it doesn't give any recourse to the board. As I mentioned earlier, I certainly have a concern about the amount of additional workload that will be put on the board to solve the 2-to-2 votes on some of these committees. In these other sections, at least there was recourse that they could go to, to try to resolve issues that they could not resolve internally among the four members of the committee. Here in this section we don't have that kind of recourse, and I was wondering if the minister could explain why.

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer to the question is that that's for the committee to determine. Why involve the board in terms of telling the committee where it must meet, etc.? There doesn't seem to be any point, unless I misunderstood the question entirely.

C. Hansen: I think there are some very fundamental issues that a committee is going to have to decide on, in terms of how it conducts its affairs. For example, how long should the meetings be? Where should the meetings take place? I think that in a perfect world you would wind up with four individuals who sit down, and they would all be of one mind on these things. But it's not a perfect world, as we know. There will be situations where the very issues set out in section 133(1) are not going to be resolved by a committee based on consensus. How are they to approach their mandate if they can't resolve those issues?

Hon. D. Lovick: The members of the joint committee are given these instructions to proceed -- largely at the recommendation of business, from the reference groups. . . . The intention was to keep the committee flexible so that it could not be bound by some too-rigorous set of instructions in terms of how it would function. The section states merely that "a joint committee must establish its own rules of procedure," and that it "must meet. . .at least once each month." The notion is that committees, if there is any kind of happy relationship within the particular workplace, will probably have no difficulty having short meetings. For example, one of the procedures that a committee might establish is: "Let's arrange to meet at the coffee shop down the street, because we can have a better discussion and decide that maybe we can, in fact, wrap up our business in half an hour."

What seems to be behind the question, if I might put it that way, is that there are a whole bunch of people looking for an opportunity to be mischief-makers or something. They want to have long meetings, and they want to cause problems. Again, the intention of this is essentially just to try and see if they have joint concerns -- or concerns that ought to be of concern to all of them, and they should do something about solving them. Why he continues to suggest. . . . I think I'm being fair to the member opposite in saying that his questions do seem to have an undercurrent of suggestion that we're creating this structure that might somehow. . . . "If you give these people the freedom to meet and you stipulate that they're going to meet once a month, for heaven's sake, look out! They could start to conspire and do all kinds of nasty things." Quite the opposite is intended.

[ Page 8134 ]

C. Hansen: The very next section is titled "Assistance in resolving disagreements within committee," but it's only relating to matters relating to the health or safety of workers. In terms of these procedural issues, in terms of how the committee functions, there is no recourse -- certainly not under section 15, section 132. The problem that we've got here is that we are creating committees that basically have some enormous latitude in terms of determining their activities, and yet whatever they do, the employer's going to pay for it. The employer's going to pay for time off, in terms of these meetings that must take place once a month. Is it appropriate for an employer to say to the committee: "That's fine, but your meetings are going to last 15 minutes," or "Yes, I will do what I have to do under this act and pay for your time while you're there, but make sure it doesn't last more than 15 minutes"?

Hon. D. Lovick: The employer is on the committee. Doesn't that answer the question?

[4:00]

The minister would love to look at this legislation in the context of a perfect world. What I'm trying to say is that there are problems with the way this legislation is worded, in terms of some workplaces where these are going to be a problem and there is no recourse for them to solve it. The onus for the problem winds up squarely on the lap of the employer to deal with it, and yet there's no recourse to deal with it. That's where I'm coming from on this.

Does the minister envision that there are going to be any guidelines coming down from the WCB or from the Ministry of Labour in terms of how these committees should function, how long meetings should take and where they should be held? Are we going to see anything more than section 15, section 131, which basically says: "Go out and have fun. Sort it out yourself"? Now, wouldn't it be nice if everything happened that way? Does the minister envision that there's going to be any kind of guidelines to flesh out what's in section 15, section 131?

Hon. D. Lovick: Section 15, section 131, which we are ostensibly discussing now, says: ". . .a joint committee must establish its own rules of procedure, including rules respecting how it is to perform its duties and functions." If they can't do that, or if what they come up with is somehow dysfunctional, very clearly the board might have to intervene. My suggestion is that that is highly unlikely. Management still has the right to manage. That's not taken away from in terms of this. We're talking about a joint committee to deal with occupational health and safety. Again, with all due deference, the member continues to suggest that these people -- somebody, at least, on the committee -- will be hatching a plot to make mischief, to cause problems. The obvious question is: why?

Remember, this is the same member who, in second reading debate, said you really don't need occupational health and safety legislation and regulations and red tape for the small workplace, because the modern management culture is: "We're all in it together. We cooperate; we're all pals. We don't have any of these problems. We don't need you to regulate and tell us what to do." Now, in every single section of the bill, he is telling me, "Oh, we've got to be a little bit careful here," because those happy workers whom he spoke on behalf of not too many days ago might in fact not be so happy and might be doing other things. The contradictions are immense and problematic for me. Thus I explode as I do.

It would seem to me that this is a good opportunity for me to suggest that, for all parties concerned, a very brief recess might be in order at this point, if the members opposite agree.

The committee recessed from 4:05 p.m. to 4:14 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee to order. We are on section 15, section 131 of Bill 14.

On section 15, section 131 (continued).

C. Hansen: I just want to clarify something the minister said before we took that short break. If there is a disagreement that surfaces under section 131 in terms of, for example, how long committee meetings should take place, am I right in understanding what he said earlier -- that in the event of that kind of a disagreement where there is a two-two vote in terms of what should transpire, the recourse is to the board; the board will give direction in terms of what is appropriate?

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes. The answer is that the ultimate recourse, at least, rests with the board. One would dearly hope that it wouldn't have to go quite that far, but the ultimate recourse does indeed rest there.

[4:15]

On section 15, section 132.

C. Hansen: This, again, is an area where we have the potential of an enormous workload on the board. "If a joint committee is unable to reach agreement on a matter relating to the health or safety of workers at the workplace, a co-chair of the committee may report this to the board, which may investigate the matter and attempt to resolve the matter." Now, I'm wondering if the minister is aware of any other jurisdiction that has health and safety committees, or on the basis of previous B.C. experience. . . . In the case of previous B.C. experience, is this provision there -- and also in the case of other jurisdictions? Could the minister comment on the number of times that the board is asked to resolve these types of issues?

[ Page 8135 ]

G. Abbott: I'd like to pursue section 132 a little too. I guess this would relate to an experience I enjoyed for several years of being the chair of the Okanagan Mainline Municipal Labour Relations Association. What one used to find at certain cycles in the collective agreement between the employers and the employees is that, at some points, the number and nature of grievances against the collective agreement would emerge. What I want to be assured of here is how we can be certain that this feature could not be abused by one side or the other in this situation to, say, take a lot more matters, or attempt to refer more matters, to the board than one might reasonably expect them to do.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think that the comfort I can give the member is simply in the last line of this section. He will note that it says there, "report this to the board, which may investigate," and the emphasis is on "may investigate." Anything that is demonstrably beyond health and safety and is, rather, about contractual matters or work activities that are grievable, I would think the board would rather summarily dismiss or at least recognize very quickly and say: "Sorry, this has no place at this table."

G. Abbott: Actually, I'm not personally satisfied that disputes would resolve themselves that quickly or easily. Frequently one runs into disputes that may appear to have a legitimate safety element associated with them, even though in the normal course of events they might be resolved through means other than referral to the board. We will only see this through experience with this bill, I presume -- whether in fact it becomes an object which is abused or not.

In the event that the board agrees to investigate the matter and presumably delivers a report back to the committee, there will be some expense involved in resolving the matter. Does the determination of who pays for that investigation and report. . . ? Is that determined by the report that is in fact rendered by the board? If the board found that the employer had failed to honour his side or that the union had failed to demonstrate a case, would that in turn determine who paid the cost? Or will the cost be borne in every case by one or the other of the parties?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer to the question is that the board pays, and that's all.

G. Abbott: The board will pay in every instance? Well, I'll leave it to others who are more knowledgable. Does that mean that the public of British Columbia pays? Or is the board funded through some mechanism other than the consolidated revenue fund?

Hon. D. Lovick: The operation of the board is funded by employers' contributions.

C. Hansen: Actually, I will allow this to go ahead, because my question was redundant.

Section 15, section 132 approved on division.

On section 15, section 133.

C. Hansen: This section pertains to written recommendations to an employer and written requests for a response from the employer, various obligations that are set out whereby the employer must respond within certain time frames, and that type of thing. In the context of the four-member committees, I don't see that there are things in here that have a great deal of problems, other than issues we discussed before that pertain to the requirement that the board has to investigate and various things like that, which will add to the cost.

But I do have some real concerns regarding how this particular section impacts where you have a single health and safety rep, who, given section 15, section 139, is given the same powers as the committee of four. Here you are talking about a health and safety rep who is selected by the non-management workers in a workplace that has between ten and 19 employees. Here we are giving that one person unilateral power to put some enormous requirements on an employer to generate responses within certain time frames and things like that.

Could the minister comment on the fact. . . ? We've talked about the fact that this is going to add red tape and bureaucracy and process to employers, and I think this is one of the areas where that is clearly evident. If the minister could comment.

Hon. D. Lovick: The function and responsibility of the single-person safety rep is, to the greatest extent possible, to mirror the functions of the safety committee. There is a caveat however, in that description of the one person: that she or he carries out the duties -- and I think I quote it correctly -- to the extent that is reasonably practicable. That, I think, is the caution and protection, if you will, that the member is looking for.

C. Hansen: I think the section that the minister is referring to is section 15, section 139(3): "To the extent practicable, a worker health and safety representative has the same duties and functions as a joint committee."

Okay. But in that regard, it doesn't say that if you have an employer -- again coming back to the imperfect world that the minister doesn't like me raising from time to time. . . . But you wind up with a safety rep in a small workplace making unreasonable requests of the employer, under section 15, section 133. What I don't see is any provision that gives the employer the ability to deal with a situation where a safety rep may be a little too zealous -- maybe that's the word -- in cranking out requests to the employer for written responses.

Hon. D. Lovick: First, I appreciate the question, and I think it's valid. The point to note is that the royal commission's recommendations had stated that it should be a duty for the board to investigate and attempt to resolve; i.e., the words were "the board must investigate." Because of the possibility of misuse of this provision by either employers or workers -- for reasons beyond occupational health and safety, let us say -- the legislation has been drafted to make the investigation by the board permissive -- i.e., the board may investigate. I think that is the protection against that one person, as you say, being mischievous or making unreasonable demands of the board.

C. Hansen: That certainly explains how the board is protected in that situation, but it doesn't describe how the employer would be protected in that case. You can visualize a situation where an employee who is elected as a safety rep is mischievous. We like to think those things don't happen. Certainly they don't happen in the perfect world.

But it's not even a case of being mischievous; it's just someone who really takes their responsibilities far more

[ Page 8136 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: I understand now. What we're talking about is the case of the anal-retentive safety committee rep -- right? That's what we're on to now; we're on to that. The answer to that particular individual is really simple and straightforward. Echoing the words of Nancy Reagan, the employer merely has to just say no.

C. Hansen: I wish it were that simple, hon. Chair. That's not the way this section reads, though. If there's a written request for a response from the employer, the employer must respond in writing to the committee within 21 days -- or, in this case, to the safety rep. It's not a prerogative of the employer to just say no.

I guess the implications are that if the employer does not respond before the end of the twenty-first day, the employer must provide within that time a written explanation for the delay, together with an indication of when the response will be provided. Again, that does not give the employer the ability to say no. My reading of this is that the employer has to respond to every one of those written requests, or he's in violation of this act.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, one has to respond, but the response does not need to be carefully crafted and thought out or some wonderful manifestation of elegant English or something like that. It could be a form letter, if the case which the member opposite is describing is in any way true -- namely, that it's somebody who is a malcontent or something and just carries on doing this. Then certainly I as an employer would draft a rather nice form letter that says that I am not accepting the recommendation of the worker safety representative, because this request or recommendation -- like all others he has written -- is frivolous. And all he has to do is sign it and ship it out. It's not an onerous responsibility, it seems to me.

C. Hansen: This is a question that perhaps I should have raised under a previous section, and I could certainly raise it under section 139. But I'll raise it here in this context, because we're on that subject. How would a group of workers go about removing their safety rep or their two people selected to the safety committee, in the case of a non-unionized workforce?

Hon. D. Lovick: Unlike the Legislature, hon. Chair, I gather that this bill has not provided for recall, and perhaps this is a time when one needs it. Given that the committee has responsibility for establishing its own terms of reference, or for the creation of the worker rep, it would seem to me that it's not difficult to imagine a scenario in which the other workers at the workplace would say: "Wait a minute. We simply don't have confidence in this individual, and therefore he or she no longer speaks for us." They can pass that on to their employer, or they can send the message to the board or whatever. I think that would be the short answer and the easy way to solve the problem.

C. Hansen: I appreciate that I'm pushing the limits of what fits into this particular section, but it's a logical time to follow up on that question. I could ask it either now or later, so I'll ask it now. I gather that in addition to there not being any provisions for recall, there are no provisions for a term that these individuals serve for. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Lovick: There is not necessarily a term, but again, that would be something that could be determined and decided by the committee as part of its establishment of the rules and procedures.

[4:30]

On section 15, section 134.

C. Hansen: We've got two sections coming up that I think work somewhat in tandem when we start talking about the costs. I know that my colleague from Okanagan-Vernon is going to have some issues to raise, which I think fit into both these sections.

Certainly section 134 is where we're talking about the member of a joint committee being entitled to time off from work for the time required to attend meetings of the committee and for other time that is reasonably necessary to prepare for meetings of the committee and to fulfil other functions and duties of the committee. I was wondering if the minister could elaborate. I guess it's an extension of some of the questions we had in the previous section, and that is, in terms of the time required to attend meetings, I gather there are no limits and no definition to what that may mean.

Hon. D. Lovick: It's essentially whatever works in the workplace. It could conceivably be a ten-minute meeting; it might be an hour-long meeting. I suppose that in some extreme cases, it could go beyond. But I think we need to remember that, again, managers still have management rights, and they are not obligated, I guess, to respond to any requests for an extension of the meeting.

C. Hansen: In the case of a unionized workforce, is it not unrealistic that the definition of what's reasonably necessary to prepare for meetings -- that issues like that could become labour relations issues in many workplaces in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't think I would call them labour relations issues, but they might indeed become bargaining issues at some point. Certainly that is the case in a number of existing contracts out there, largely in the industrial sector where safety committees are part of a collective agreement that has been established. I know of a number of cases.

Occupational healthy and safety, however, is just another part of business, in effect -- in the culture that we anticipate and are trying to develop, at least. Like other business functions, I would assume that it would be treated as such. It wouldn't be treated as some kind of boondoggle where you go and have committee meetings because it's a way to escape from the job, or something. I'm sure that all parties privy to the activities and concerns of an occupational health and safety committee would want to take that seriously and say: "We want to do our jobs to the best of our abilities, but we don't see the safety committee as a substitute for work."

C. Hansen: If these become labour relations issues in a collective bargaining process, do we not face the prospect of having two totally independent bodies trying to give definition to the term that's in this section? On the one hand, we've got the Workers Compensation Board trying to give definition to it. On the other hand, this is conceivably something that could wind up before the Labour Relations Board, which is

[ Page 8137 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: The latter, Mr. Chairman.

C. Hansen: I would assume by that that any definition, any interpretation of this, is clearly in the purview of the Workers Compensation Board and is not in any way in the purview of the Labour Relations Board. Is that fair?

Hon. D. Lovick: It's true unless and until the Labour Relations Board were to decide otherwise.

C. Hansen: Is it possible that when we start talking about workers, where we've got, "Time off. . .is deemed to be time worked for the employer, and the employer must pay the member for that time. . . ?" Does this provision mean that the members of the committee would be paid at regular rates? Or would they be paid at overtime rates?

Hon. D. Lovick: It depends entirely on whether the work done by the committee is done within normal working hours or in hours that are beyond, in which case it would be overtime.

C. Hansen: Does the employer have the power to direct that?

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes.

C. Hansen: In terms of the time that is reasonably necessary, you had talked about it in the context of a unionized workforce. We could wind up defining this through a collective bargaining process, or there could be recourse back to the board. Does the minister anticipate that there will be directives coming out from the WCB to give definition to what is reasonably necessary when it comes to time to prepare for meetings?

Hon. D. Lovick: I was discussing it with staff to make sure that I understand what discussions have gone on with the board. I am advised that the board has not discussed this, but the assumption is that some kind of policy manual may well, and in all likelihood will, be put together to deal with this and other issues arising from the legislation.

C. Hansen: I think my colleague from Okanagan-Vernon would like to raise some questions in terms of how these costs may impact on particular organizations. With that, I'll turn it over to her.

A. Sanders: I rise to look specifically at sections 134 and 135. We're doing 134 at this time. Has the minister recognized the direct cost that will be siphoned by this bill from the education of kids? Has his ministry worked out those figures to ascertain the cost of Bill 14 to education services?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but as the question is phrased, I have no idea what the member is referring to. If she would like to perhaps elaborate. . . . Given that schools already have occupational health and safety programs in place, I wonder what it is she's referring to.

A. Sanders: Well, as the minister is aware, there is a fair amount of duplication between the legislation for the WCB occupational health and safety regulations and the items that come in under Bill 14. Specifically in section 134, where a member is: ". . .entitled to time off work for (a) the time required to attend meetings of the committee, and (b) other time that is reasonably necessary to prepare for meetings of the committee and to fulfill the other functions and duties of the committee. . . ." In school districts which have previously not had to have staff provide these kinds of periods of time, and considering that many of our 1,700 schools have in fact 20 or more employees in many cases -- especially in the lower mainland -- this bill will have a very significant impact on the budgets of school districts and boards. Has the minister reviewed any of these implications? If this money is coming from school boards, it is not being budgeted under the estimates of Education and, thereby, will have to come out of classroom services.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the member is offering, again, a hypothetical case. It seems to me that schools tend to operate to a considerable degree on the basis of a cooperative workplace. Teachers meet outside their classroom duties for a number of different purposes and functions. To accommodate and incorporate occupational health and safety as one of those duties, I don't think is an entirely new responsibility. Indeed, I suspect that the responsibility is already being addressed in some regard. Therefore this ought not to confer a huge, new responsibility. We have made very clear in all of the things we're talking about -- the WCB regulation, as well as this legislation which is the statutory authority for regulation -- that duplication is to be avoided. Certainly when we discover that duplication exists, the board will take every reasonable action as expeditiously as possible to ensure there isn't duplication.

A. Sanders: Well, I'm very glad to have brought this point up, because I don't think the minister has really worked this one through. I think it's a very important one; it certainly is to the individuals who work in school districts and are responsible for and charged with the distribution of the money -- to hopefully keep that in the classrooms.

For the minister's benefit, there are no regulations specific to school districts. My cases, in fact, are not hypothetical at all. I've asked the school districts to look at the implications of Bill 14 as it will affect schools, and many of the schools are now getting back to me. In one specific school district that has 12, 13, 14 schools -- a small district compared to the size that one would consider school districts to be when we look at other school districts such as Vancouver -- projected additional costs after the implementation of Bill 14 are as follows.

For the release time for FCTA members -- these are the teachers on call and the employees, both of whom will require seven members -- times ten meetings, times 0.5 days at $200 a day or $279 a day, depending whether they're a teacher on call or an employee, there are projected costs of $7,000, in addition to $9,765. For the training component, the teacher-on-call group would be $2,240; the employee group, again seven members at 1.6 eight-hour days, at $279 a day, is $3,129 -- for a total of $22,129. That will have to come out of the classroom services that were provided last year, prior to the implementation of Bill 14.

Release time for the UBCJA members will be an additional $1,600, and the training for those four members will be an additional $640. Release time for administration will be $7,000; $6,300 is for the employee fraction, and that does not include the training. The total for direct costs is $23,240. Total direct and indirect costs -- meaning not just the meetings but

[ Page 8138 ]

This bill does not provide any recognition for low-safety-risk sites, and all workplaces are classified in the same category as if we were classifying a school as a sawmill or a mine. I believe that the school boards did in fact make a presentation to the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation on this issue. I think it is a very important issue.

If we start looking at the potential costs of Bill 14 to the school system, in a province with 1,700 schools -- again, I don't have the figures yet -- we could have a projected cost as high as $7 million for the implementation of Bill 14, in order to put in the safety standards in terms of the training and time off and educational leave prospects. This is an absolutely huge cost. It doesn't even include the potential $7 million we will have for possible vaccination for hepatitis within the schools that comes under the health and safety regulations passed on April 15.

We are looking at very large costs that Bill 14 will bring in, that will take money directly out of the classroom and directly away from teachers and students. My question to the minister is: what investigation and what explanations does his staff or the minister himself have to legitimize these kinds of removals of very large sums of money from an education system that is already suffering under the present government's rationing of education dollars?

The Chair: I remind members that we're dealing with section 134 of Bill 14.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I think you're right to remind us of what section 134 is.

As I listen to the member's iteration of numbers, I am reminded of Swift's A Modest Proposal, where you start from a particular proposition and then you say: "Hey, if that's true, then this is true and this is true and this is true." It gets bigger and bigger and more bizarre and more outrageous. It's called reductio. . . . Quite frankly, I don't think it works very well here, though it worked wonderfully in Swift.

I suspect that teachers in schools would recognize that the workplace is not always benign, even if we like to believe it is. But in occupational health and safety matters, teachers are workers, as are janitors, staff and secretaries. Like anybody else, they are subject to the same stresses, strains and injuries, frankly. What we're doing in this legislation is trying, as I've said many times now, to change that culture, to create a partnership where workers and employers are going to endeavour to ensure that the workplace is safe, so that we don't all pay for that unfortunate incidence of accidents and injuries and, in some cases, worse.

[4:45]

A. Sanders: Well, I would appreciate the minister taking it very seriously. In fact, I consider it a very serious issue. We're in a circumstance right now where we do not have the finances to educate our kids properly in B.C. Every dollar that is coming out of the classroom and being put into something else, such as people sitting around talking about health and safety, is a very serious problem. I would very much appreciate the minister sitting down with the Minister of Education prior to the passage of section 15, sections 134 and 135, or the bill in total, and looking at the implications of this bill on the average classroom in B.C. There will be a significant impact, and there will be dollars that come out of direct services to kids from Bill 14 that weren't coming out of them last year.

There's no way the minister can say that is not the case, because schools are now being classified under Bill 14 in a way that they were not being classified last year. If we are removing those moneys from schools, it is our duty in this House to inform the people who will be responsible for those decisions: specifically the secretary-treasurers, who haven't even heard about Bill 14 and are quite considerably alarmed when they recognize yet another thing that they're going to be asked to do in terms of removing money from classrooms; and the school trustees, who are in the end the employers of our teachers in British Columbia. I think this is a very important point. I think it's been overlooked. I think by doing some minor investigation, there are a number of numbers. . . . The minister can call that reductionism, but I think that's overstating a little bit, and I think it's really avoiding what in fact is the point.

The point is that this is an important issue. At this time, if it's going to take that much money out of an education budget that has already been cut quite significantly over the last seven years, then this is something we need to know. It's something that needs to be dealt with. It's something the minister needs to do some horizontal thinking on with respect to looking at what the Minister of Education thinks and what figures he can generate from the secretary-treasurers of the districts.

These individuals are very concerned about Bill 14, and they will not appreciate the minister's view that this is no big deal and that they can sit down at 3 o'clock and work for 15 minutes or half an hour or whatever it is he's suggesting. It may be quite different in some school districts. I'd like the minister's comments on that.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm going to respond once. I'm not going to engage in some debate about what I think is a doomsday, extreme, hypothetical scenario. I'm merely going to respond by saying that I'm struggling mightily with listening to the member wrap herself in the mantle of the great defender of education, when she and her colleagues on that side of the House applauded federal government cutbacks of some 40 percent to health, education and social services in this province. They have also gone on record, as recently as a couple of weeks ago at their convention, to talk about cutting the size of government.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm struggling just a little bit over the argument the member is presenting on section 15, section 134 -- in order that I will be in order, Mr. Chairman.

What we're talking about is workplace health and safety. For the member to suggest that workplace health and safety is

[ Page 8139 ]

A. Sanders: Again, the minister has digressed quite a bit from section 15, section 134, so I'd like to bring him back on to that. Specifically, most of what he said is blatantly untrue. I think he's kind of praying for this mountain of difficulty to go away, and what he really needs is the courage to climb it.

What we have here is a circumstance that I am simply asking the minister to look into. I'm asking him to see, with his colleague the Minister of Education, whether that minister -- who probably hasn't even thought about it -- thinks that Bill 14, specifically sections 134 and 135, could create quite a significant cash draw from the classroom into this legislation, money that will not go to kids. Things that are being done already. . . . They will not increase the safety of the workplace. In fact, all they will do is create more bureaucratic red tape and take money out of the classroom at a time when it is needed.

What I would challenge the ministry to do is to bring that information back to this House and allow the Minister of Education to have some input here -- from the members who will be doing the actual work, from the secretary-treasurers -- and to say what the cost to education will be. What will be the direct cost of Bill 14 to the 1,700 schools in British Columbia, to the 60 school districts in British Columbia? Will there be, in fact, a significant cost? I think there will, and I challenge the minister to prove that that won't be the case -- other than saying: "Don't worry about it, hon. member. We'll deal with it." I'm not here to be patted on the head. I'm here to be given an answer to a question that I feel is important.

Hon. D. Lovick: For the record, Mr. Chairman, the member didn't ask a question. However, I answered it, and I said I would discuss the matter with my colleague the Minister of Education.

A. Sanders: Will the minister bring that information back to this discussion?

Hon. D. Lovick: It just depends entirely on when I have an opportunity to chat with the Minister of Education, but I will certainly talk with him about this matter. I give that assurance without any reservation or hesitation. Indeed, I will also ensure that I will share that conversation with the member opposite.

A. Sanders: On behalf of this member, will that be done at the earliest opportunity, or will I have to carbon-date the answer?

C. Hansen: I think what this discussion about the impact on education reveals is that there are some very significant cost sides to this legislation. In particular, section 15, section 134 is the first section that we come to that actually has a very specific cost that is not modified in any way. There are no limits on it. You know, we were talking about a whole bunch of other things that lead up to these costs, and there's only one person paying the costs, and that's the employer. In the case of the education issue, the one person who is paying the cost is the taxpayer.

But what is clear throughout this legislation is that the government has not done its homework when it comes to analyzing what the cost implications are on education, on government employment, on municipalities that have 20 to 50 employees and on the private sector in British Columbia. None of that work has been done. I think it comes back to the recommendations of the royal commission, which didn't say to go ahead and impose all these things. It said to review them. Review, in my definition, means that there should be some careful analyses as to what the implications are for this kind of legislation.

We've had several cases now, section 15, section 134 being the latest, with the example of education. It is clear that the minister does not know what impact this is going to have. It puts to rest, I think, the comments the minister made in second reading debate that this bill was going to have very minimal implications on the cost side. I hope the example that has been raised, plus the other examples that we've raised over the course of this debate, indicate that there is a very significant upside cost when it comes to implementing the terms of these recommendations.

The minister sort of wraps himself in the cloth of protecting individual workers and the safety of workers. If it were the case that this section accomplished that, then we would endorse it, but clearly the problem we have is that this bill is all about process and is not about safety. It's all about adding costs onto all kinds of employers. We've talked a lot about the small business community, but there are employers in all kinds of different sectors who are going to be paying a big price for what's in Bill 14.

Certainly we look forward to hearing back from the minister in terms of the implications on the education sector, but I would also think that it's incumbent on the minister to ensure that these sections are not proclaimed until such time as there is a clear and careful evaluation done of what the costs are to all kinds of different employers around British Columbia. I certainly think it was not wise to bring the legislation in until that work is done, but I think it is doubly unwise for them to proclaim it until they know what the implications are. I'm wondering if the minister will give us the undertaking that this legislation will not be proclaimed until such time as that evaluation work is done.

I'll zero in specifically on section 15, section 134(2), where it talks about the fact that the employer must pay for the time that the member of the committee sits on committee work. This applies to all four members of the committee; it's not just the worker committees but also management committees.

In this province there has certainly been a practice that government does not try to redefine the terms of employment of management. That is a relationship between the owner of the company and those management individuals. Yet what is implied by this subsection is that the employer is obligated to pay for the time spent by management reps on these committees, which should in fact be part of the management's overall remuneration. I'm just wondering if the minister could give us his interpretation of this section, as to whether or not there is an obligation being put on employers to pay management over and above what their regular remuneration would be.

Hon. D. Lovick: I would imagine payment would be made based entirely on the contractual agreements that obtain in a particular workplace. I don't see the statute as conferring any obligation to pay over and above. I see nothing in here that would suggest that.

C. Hansen: I think we can deal with this section and move on.

[ Page 8140 ]

On section 15, section 135.

Hon. D. Lovick: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 15 in the proposed section 135(2) of the Workers Compensation Act, by striking out "person" and substituting "member".]

[5:00]

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Did I use the wrong phrase? Pardon me.

Let me state again, then, that last sentence that I was quoting. I said that business indicated concerns with the provision as originally drafted, noting that a non-member should not be eligible to take all or part of the educational leave. I think I said "non-union member" by mistake. As I say, labour expressed similar concerns. I hope that clarifies it, despite that bit of a muddle.

Amendment approved.

On section 15, section 135 as amended.

S. Orcherton: I've been listening to this debate with some interest. I want to take a bit of a different perspective, perhaps lining up on the side of workers who are concerned about health and safety at the workplace and not focusing my vision solely on the monetary costs and speculating about what those costs would be.

Reading section 135, I've got a couple of concerns that I hope the minister can address for me. One is where it states that the employer is required to provide educational leave totalling eight hours per year per committee member for attending occupational health and safety training. I've been on occupational health and safety committees at the workplace and chaired them in my union, and while I'm encouraged to see that there is an educational component here, I'm not all that comfortable with the fact that it's only eight hours. I'm not sure that eight hours is adequate, albeit I suppose committee members can end up having a very substantial piece of educational material delivered to them over the course of their committee time, be it a number of years. . . . That's one question.

It says: ". . .or longer period if prescribed by regulation. . . ." I'm wondering what that means. My experience is that a two-day course is generally acceptable in terms of occupational health and safety, and I'm wondering how the minister sees that.

If I can pause there and ask another question following the minister's answer, I'd appreciate it.

J. van Dongen: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. van Dongen: It's my pleasure to introduce 45 grade 10 students from Yale Secondary. With them are their teacher, Mrs. Linda Pollastretti, and another teacher, Brent Dickson. These are grade 10 students, and if the Minister of Transportation and Highways were around, they would have some advice for him on the implementation of graduated licences. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, before I answer the specific question, let's make it clear what section 135 says. It states very clearly under the heading "Educational leave" that "each joint committee member is entitled to eight hours per year, or longer if prescribed by regulation, of paid educational leave to attend occupational health and safety training courses or seminars that are conducted by or with the approval of the board." The section also allows joint committee members to pool educational leave entitlements to allow one person to attend a longer program.

I want to refer members to what the royal commission's recommendation actually said, which is as follows:

". . .the commission recommends that: . . .The province's occupational health and safety statutes: (a) require employers to provide educational leave to worker members of joint health safety committees for a minimum period of one normal working day to a minimum of eight hours each year, without loss of pay or other benefits, for the purpose of attending workplace health and safety seminars, programs or courses. . . ."

"authorize the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations increasing the minimum period of educational leave set out in 15(a) according to the nature of the potential hazards at a committee's worksite and the level of education required to address those hazards."

That's the short answer to the question. I think I've probably covered the member's question, but if I haven't and he wants to come back, I'll try again.

S. Orcherton: The fact is, then, that through this legislation there can be a pooling of hours. For instance, the two co-chairs of a committee in a large workplace where there's a number of people could actually go and participate on a board-approved course for two days, should that decision be taken by the committee. Is that right?

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, the member's quite correct.

S. Orcherton: Thanks for clarifying that.

[ Page 8141 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: The legislation requires the employer to provide the leave without loss of pay or other benefits. I think it's absolutely safe, then, to assume that in the circumstance the member describes, the worker would not end up losing pay at the end of the day. Certainly the legislation is not intended in any way to be a mechanism to cut workers' wages while workers are attending occupational health and safety meetings. That is certainly not the intention. I hope that assurance is sufficient for the member, and I thank him for the question.

C. Hansen: I would like to follow up on the member's questions regarding how this eight hours of training would work. I'm wondering if we're not setting up a very different burden on employers, depending on where in the province they are. To come back to the example I used earlier of the motel in Ucluelet, they will have a much more expensive process for the four members of their committee to attend eight hours of education. As I read this, and everything adding up to it, we're talking about travel time, travel expenses and overnight costs in Vancouver, Victoria and Nanaimo, for example. Could the minister outline for us whether or not he's given consideration to the disparity of costs that exist, depending on where in the province the workplace is located?

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for the question. I think the mechanisms available to employers in these cases are probably numerous in terms of solving the problem, as you say, of that extra burden imposed by one's isolation from and the size of the workplace. Distance learning and video programs, for example, come to mind. The other possibility, of course, is that in-house programs could be provided in certain workplaces, and I'm sure that there's a considerable amount to choose from. I think that a number of those things are available. There are people who do coaching and teaching on occupational health and safety. I suspect that an employer who either has a high rate of turnover -- as you say, like a tourist operation in a place like Ucluelet on the west coast where there is a turnover, by nature, in that business -- may well be able to put on their own in-house program, which I hope would solve that problem.

It's worth noting that the board has also developed a number of training modules which are available. Those, too, could be accessed, which would solve the problem. There are, I think, 40 satellite locations around the province for community colleges, so there are other mechanisms available. It isn't the case that you have to send everybody off for a weekend in Acapulco to take, you know, health and safety education training.

C. Hansen: I was in Ucluelet recently, and while I didn't go through the financial books of any of the motel operators there, I can almost assure the minister that there is not one motel in Ucluelet in May of 1998 that can afford to bring a trainer in from some outside location to give an eight-hour course to a safety committee.

I think what this begs is the question of who gets to choose what is an appropriate kind of education in this circumstance. My reading of this is that this is not at the discretion of the employer but is at the discretion of the committee. Again, we come back to the problem of the committee basically getting to choose the education programs that they think are important, and yet they don't pay the bill. It's the employer that winds up paying the bill. There doesn't seem to be any recourse for the employer to say: "Whoa, wait a second. This particular enterprise cannot afford what is being suggested in this case." Could the minister comment?

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, the employer always has recourse to the board, in terms of saying. . . . But I think the committee has indeed exceeded its mandate in this regard, remembering too, of course, that the employer -- or his or her representative, at any rate -- sits on that particular committee. I think, too, that it's worth remembering -- as I read into the record a few moments ago -- that the board has its own manuals and video programs that are available at virtually no cost. I would suspect that just about anybody anywhere in the province could avail themselves of that particular technology and that information.

The board ultimately, as well, of course, will be the one that adjudicates whether or not something is an acceptable program. A committee can't suddenly say, "We have found what we think is the absolute last word on the subject" -- or some parts of the committee, at least -- "and therefore that's how it will be." That mechanism simply isn't available to it, given the way the committees are structured and given the overall responsibility of the board.

[5:15]

Certainly learning health and safety issues from a video that's mailed from Richmond to Ucluelet isn't as enjoyable a way to spend eight hours of one's day as would be taking a three-day program in Vancouver, staying overnight and being on the employer's expense account to take a program that's offered at the head office of the Workers Compensation Board. Is the board prepared to give direction in this area? Do employers have the power to overrule the committees when it comes to the cost that will be incurred for these programs?

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't think that this is a likely scenario, if you will. Let me try and explain before the members opposite say: "Oh no. They don't believe me." There are a number of things. First of all, it is obviously inconceivable that

[ Page 8142 ]

Point number two: I don't think it's the case that there are that many Cadillac versions where you have to fly down to Miami for a three-day workshop or something like that. And point three: business is very good, in my experience, at making common cause. That's what chambers of commerce do, and chambers of commerce can access the educational materials from the board and put on a presentation. A number of businesses can work together, if you will, to do the educational health and safety training.

As well, the management of a company still has the right to manage. A manager or owner can say to a committee: "Look, I want to do my bit for occupational health and safety, and I want to make sure we have the appropriate education, etc., in keeping with what the legislation requires, but what you're advocating, quite frankly, is just absolutely beyond my budgetary abilities. Therefore I'm suggesting we find some cheaper way to achieve the same ends." That latter response, I suspect, will become the normal, habitual kind of response in circumstances where the committee is advocating X and the employer is saying it should be X minus 15 or something.

C. Hansen: The minister, I think, is still falling back into his perfect world, and the perfect world doesn't work that way. Certainly the employer can go to the committee and say, "What you're proposing is far more than this enterprise can afford," and the committee has every right, given its powers under this legislation, to say: "Tough, we're going on anyway, and you're going to pay for it." There is nothing in this legislation to give the employer the ability to go to a committee and say that what they are proposing in the way of educational leave is too expensive. There's nothing that gives the employer the ability to direct the committee to find a less expensive option when it comes to achieving health and safety.

I don't see this as some process where you've got some committee that sort of says: "Oh, let's head off to Vancouver and have a few great days of fun while we attend eight hours of training." I think that if you start looking at the training opportunities that are available in Vancouver, they are far superior to the training opportunities that may be available in some very small community in British Columbia. So the committee, if they're conscientious, are probably saying to themselves: "We should get the best training possible in order to fulfil our responsibilities." It's not a case, I think, of a committee saying: "Let's take advantage of the employer somehow." I think it's a case of a committee saying: "We're going to do the best job possible."

The problem is that the employer is obligated to pick up the tab for that and has absolutely no recourse. The only recourse that's written in here is one that says that the employer has to pay "reasonable costs of attending the course." So yes, if they rent a limousine to pick them up to drive them to Vancouver, I'm sure that we would all say that's unreasonable. But basically it says here that the employer must pay for the cost of the training course. It doesn't say that the cost of the training course has to be reasonable, just that the employer has to pay for it.

Not only are we building in the cost of the time off, the eight hours off, but we're also building in some very significant costs, particularly for worksites that are not located in urban centres in British Columbia. I wish I could take some comfort in the minister saying: "Well, we don't think this is going to happen." The problem is that if it does happen, there's no recourse for the employer. I'm just wondering if the minister can give any comfort to employers that may be faced with those kinds of costs that they're not able to handle.

Hon. D. Lovick: Nowhere in this legislation is management's prerogative to manage taken away. That's point one. Point two is that this committee that this member seems to want to conjure with fear and trembling is 50-50. It's 50 percent employer and 50 percent worker. How, then, is this committee suddenly going to do all these horrible and heinous things that will bankrupt the company? Where did it suddenly get this mythical power? Ultimately, what any manager is going to say to the member opposite, in the words of a Scottish grandmother or something, is: "You've to cut your coat to the cloth, laddie." We all know that; everybody knows that. Nobody is suggesting that in a small, marginal operation in Ucluelet with 11 workers -- I'd better make it 21 so it fits with the committee, unlike my friends opposite -- suddenly we're going to have a three-day, whiz-bang, wonderful educational occupational health and safety course at the Sheraton or something.

An Hon. Member: Or the Bayshore.

Hon. D. Lovick: Or the Bayshore. The member opposite refers to her own personal experience. What can I say? The reality is that it isn't going to happen. The member opposite wants to say that whenever I make reference to what I think are commonsense scenarios, I am positing that construct on the basis of a perfect world. Good Lord -- a commonsense world, please, not a perfect world.

C. Hansen: The minister said that nothing in this act takes away the manager's ability to manage. I think that therein may lie the problem in our trying to deal with this legislation. There are many aspects of this section of the bill that take away the manager's ability to manage. You can say that health and safety is a shared responsibility; I agree with that. You can say that it's both the employees' and the manager's responsibility to ensure that injuries are reduced; I agree 100 percent. But what we have in here is a process that's being added on, and in terms of the committee's ability to impose costs on the company, managers do not have the ability to manage that. This legislation takes away the right that managers have today to manage their costs in their company so that the company can at least hope that some day it will be profitable. God knows there are not very many small businesses in British Columbia that are profitable this year. I think that's the essential problem.

If the minister could convince me that there is nothing in this bill that takes away the manager's ability to manage, then that would solve a whole bunch of the disagreements we're having here today. But that is what this section is all about: taking away the manager's ability to manage and imposing costs on companies over which they have no control.

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to thank the member opposite for his introduction to the House of the new feudalism or something. Look, we're talking about occupational health and safety. We're trying to create safe workplaces and reduce the number of injuries. We're also talking about training people and educating people. That used to be called human capital in the old days. It used to be called intelligent management. It

[ Page 8143 ]

All we're doing in this is suggesting a structure to encourage a safe workplace. I do not think that is an overly onerous responsibility. Under section 15, section 135, "Educational leave," I don't think eight hours is a huge amount to ask for a committee member. I can tell the members opposite that those who are advocates for health and safety and educational leave programs ask for a great deal more. What we're accepting is the royal commission recommendation, which is a compromise position. I don't think, with all due deference, that this is an unreasonable requirement.

C. Hansen: Certainly I don't think there's a manager anywhere that would condone an unsafe workplace. There may be some very strange, rare cases where that happens, and then we certainly have the powers, even today, to deal with those situations. They have to be dealt with harshly, obviously. And certainly I think everyone would agree that those situations of abuse should be dealt with harshly.

This has nothing to do with whether managers are sympathetic with achieving safety results in the workplace. What this has to do with is the inability of managers of companies to control costs. The minister says that when it comes to health and safety, there should be no desire to control costs. That's basically what he said: the sky is the limit; the more you spend, the safer the workplace is going to be. If you want to read into what the minister said, that's basically what he was saying. You know, two people can play this game, and we're not going to get anywhere. So let's come back to what's actually in this section.

Section 135, as the minister points out, is in the context of committees that are made up 50-50. I accept the fact that you've got two management members and you've got two worker members. One of the vehicles that managers have to control costs is the fact that there are two people on that committee. So if we are going to run these committee proceedings by majority vote, then that is obviously a tool that the manager has, to sort of say: "No, you're not taking this course in Vancouver. We're all going to get our eight hours of videos, and we're going to sit and watch them in the lunchroom or wherever it's going to take place."

One of the bigger concerns I have in this context is that everything that we've talked about by way of the right to choose eight hours of training, the right that the committee as a whole has to choose the eight hours of training that each committee member has. . . . That right is also vested in the sole health and safety representative in workplaces that have between ten and 19 employees. Earlier, when we were talking about the Ucluelet example, the minister spoke of a small workplace with 12 employees and then he stopped and said: "No, that's a different situation." It is very much a different situation, because in that case you don't have a committee of four trying to decide what appropriate training is. You have one person selected by the workers in that workplace by majority vote, and that one person has the right to basically choose the kind of training and where and what may be deemed appropriate. Really, in that case, there is no 50-50 membership on the committee. You've got one person that can take on that kind of training. I would appreciate it if the minister could comment on this section in the context of a single safety rep having that kind of power to impose costs on an employer.

[5:30]

C. Hansen: I'll oblige the minister and give him an answer. Under section 139(4) it says, dealing with section 135: "Sections 133 to 136 apply in relation to a worker health and safety representative as if the representative were a joint committee or member of a joint committee." So to answer your question: that's where it is. That's where it says; there's your nanosecond.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member has misread or misheard what I said. I said that what I'm telling the member is that nowhere in section 135 does it say that the individual member shall decide what constitutes acceptable training -- that's the point. The individual safety representative is not the one to decide what constitutes acceptable training. That's the issue we've been talking about for ten minutes. I'm saying to the member: why do you keep insisting that this is a problem, if there's no provision in the act whereby the member could even make that problem exist? That's the point.

C. Hansen: Maybe we're getting somewhere. Who does, then, have the right to decide what is acceptable training?

Hon. D. Lovick: Ultimately the training will obviously be considered to be acceptable or not acceptable by the WCB. The employer concerned with trying to find out what training would be appropriate would obviously have recourse to talk to the WCB.

I already made reference to WCB materials being available at 40 satellite locations through the province. Why is there this mystery about where one can get this training and how long it will take? There is that kind of material available -- lots of it, as far as I can make out.

C. Hansen: I think the issue is: what is acceptable training for any particular workplace? It clearly states that the WCB will set out courses conducted by or with the approval of the board. What it doesn't say in here is that if they have a range of acceptable programs that they think are useful for committee members or for the health and safety representative. . . . There's nothing in here that says that in the case of a motel operator in Ucluelet, they can dictate which of the courses that are approved or conducted by the WCB are appropriate for his or her worksite.

That's not in here, but if the minister is going to make an unequivocal statement that it is the employer that can determine which educational program, conducted by or with the approval of the WCB, is appropriate for his worksite, and if he will undertake to ensure that it shows up in regulations, then I would be quite happy and prepared to move on.

[ Page 8144 ]

What we're saying, though, is that committees by definition consist of workers and employers. They meet; they discuss. They talk about the peculiarities and the particularities of a given workplace and decide what is appropriate. I would think that most of the time that would not be debatable. They would agree that this is the kind of training we need here; this will work for all of us. The employer will obviously have some influence on that, either being a member of the committee or having two people on that committee, and saying: "Look, here's what I recommend we take to the table as our suggestion for what would be the best approach."

Again, I don't think it's problematic; I don't see why that could be systemically problematic. I'm prepared to acknowledge that there may be some kind of poisoned environment in which they all hate each other, and therefore nobody can agree to anything. In that case, they have the recourse -- they always do -- of talking to the board and saying: "Please help us. We can't sort out our problems like adults." Beyond that, it's not a problem.

C. Hansen: The minister started by saying that he wasn't sure what he was being asked to respond to. Maybe I can clarify that.

Given that the WCB will either conduct or approve training courses, is the minister prepared to assure us that, through regulation, it is the employer that will be given the ability to determine which of the WCB-conducted or WCB-approved courses are appropriate for his or her worksite?

Hon. D. Lovick: There is no regulatory power of that kind conferred by this act or, as far I can make out, contemplated by this act. So the answer is no, I can't give the member that specific assurance.

C. Hansen: Basically we've come full circle on this. There is no ability for the employer to manage this process and to keep costs in line. That's where we're back to, because when I asked if the employer has a right to dictate, he said: "No, there's nothing in the regulations that allow us to do that." What it means is that the power to choose these courses goes back to the committee -- which, granted, is 50-50. But it also goes back to the sole safety rep, who can basically decide what he or she feels is appropriate when it comes to where those courses should be conducted and what kind of courses they should be as long as they are courses that are approved or conducted by the WCB. That's the only restriction on this section. Beyond that, it's an open book for which the employer just has to pay the bills. Is that what we're back to?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer to that last "I think" question or statement is no. The member's wrong; that's not the case.

C. Hansen: I wish we could get off this section and move forward, but the minister says that I'm wrong. I want to know why I'm wrong in that reasoning, because there's no other conclusion to be drawn from it.

Hon. D. Lovick: I am reading, for the fortieth time probably, section 135, and I still see nothing in there that can lead the member to the conclusion he's drawing. Nor do I see anything else in all of the sections of the bill we have covered thus far. Committees consist of employee representatives and worker representatives. What makes the member opposite believe that somehow, magically, the committee is going to confer an obligation on the employer against his or her will? What leads to that conclusion? If he can answer me that, then I will be more than prepared to try and respond again.

C. Hansen: I will be glad to answer that. The wording of this section says that each member of a joint committee and the safety rep, as provided for in section 139 -- so each member of the joint committee and a sole, individual safety rep -- is entitled to an annual education leave totalling eight hours. That does not give the employer any discretion to determine what is appropriate education leave. Therefore what is in this legislation is the entitlement of those committee reps or the safety rep to incur expense for educational leave that the employer pays for. There is absolutely nothing that gives the employer the right to say: "No, the training course that you have chosen is not appropriate for this worksite, and secondly, it is not economically viable." There is nothing that gives the employer that right to fall back and say: "Well, they've got their ability to manage." That's not what's covered in here. What's covered in here is that they've got the right to incur the expense of that training as long as it's a course that somehow falls into the approval process of the WCB -- which is pretty broad, as we know. There's the answer to your question.

Hon. D. Lovick: With all due respect, it isn't an answer to the question. The fact that it doesn't say that the employer has a veto doesn't mean that it's open-ended. Of course it doesn't -- absolutely not. The point is the employer is 50 percent of the committee, and they can sit there and they can argue ad infinitum until such time as they work out a compromise in terms of what is the appropriate treatment. It says there's an entitlement to educational training, to educational leave. It doesn't say the kind, and it doesn't say that whatever the workers on the committee want, they will get.

Note also subsection 135(3), where we're talking about costs of the training course and the reasonable costs of attending. The emphasis again is on the "reasonable costs of attending," which is protection, again, to make sure that we don't produce something that is absolutely beyond the employer's capacity to pay.

I think what the member's asking for, as nearly as I can make out, is simply a statement that the kind of training will be decided by the employer rather than by the committee. What we're saying is that the committee ought to make that decision, and the employer has de facto veto power in any event. What, therefore, is the problem?

The Chair: The Chair would like to suggest that we're going over ground that has already been covered.

C. Hansen: I will accept this veto provision on the basis of the makeup of the committee. But let's focus in on the implications of section 135 for the single health and safety representative in workplaces with ten to 19 employees. There, you know, there is no de facto veto. That safety rep is chosen 100 percent by the non-management workers at that worksite, and in here, that individual has the right to educational leave. Now, if the minister wants to stand up here today and say that choosing what is appropriate educational leave for a safety rep is the prerogative of the employer, then we can probably move beyond this section. But I have yet to hear that from the minister.

[ Page 8145 ]

Section 15, section 135 as amended approved on division.

On section 15, section 136.

C. Hansen: There are times in this process when you feel like you're pulling teeth, and I'm not sure if that falls in the purview of health and safety or not. It certainly took us a long time to make very marginal progress on that one. Clearly, section 135 has faults in it. I'm not going to revisit it, but we voted against it for some very good reasons.

If we could move on to section 136, it's the employer's obligation to support the committee. Here we have a requirement -- if I can just quickly catch my thoughts on this one -- to provide the equipment, the premises and the clerical support necessary for carrying out its duties. Is the minister expecting that the WCB will give direction to committees and worker safety reps as to what's appropriate when it comes to the necessary equipment, premises and clerical support? As it reads right now, that's a fairly open-ended obligation that the employer has to provide to the committee and, in particular, to the sole safety reps.

[5:45]

C. Hansen: What I'm asking is. . . . In this provision, there is a requirement that the employer has to provide, at his or her expense, the equipment, premises and clerical personnel necessary for the carrying out of the duties and functions of the joint committee and, by extension, the duties and functions of the health and safety representative. In spite of the word "necessary" that's in there, this is still very open-ended. What I'm asking is not whether or not there are going to be regulations coming down, because I'm sure the minister is going to tell me there's no provision for regulations -- although there is. In fact, the minister said earlier that there was no provision for regulations on the previous section when in fact there is. There's a catch-all clause at the end of regulations, but that's another subject.

I'm not asking for regulations. I'm asking for direction from the board in terms of what's appropriate. What are appropriate demands for the health and safety committee, or the health and safety representative, to put on an employer when it comes to providing all of this additional support? Where do we draw the lines? What is reasonable in this case?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer to the question is that if experience and usage demonstrate that common sense is not sufficient to answer these questions, then probably the WCB would provide more specific direction in terms of what is required. I think that's sufficient.

C. Hansen: I can think of some "for instances" in here, which may help to enlighten us if we come down to a specific example. For example, what if these committees determine -- perhaps through a bargaining process or whatever other process -- that the monthly meetings, because of the nature of the workplace, should be half a day long. Is it conceivable that they could ask for a secretary or a clerical assistant to be part of those entire meetings in order to draft the reports that are required? One of the other things we get into is that we wind up with the requirement to prepare reports, but it doesn't say who is going to prepare them. Is that a reasonable request? Is it something that's necessary to carry out the duties? Can they actually ask for a clerical person to sit through all the meetings in order to draft the reports, type them up, circulate and post them?

Hon. D. Lovick: I suppose that if the members of the committee, including the employer's representatives decided that that would be a good idea, then it quite conceivably could happen.

C. Hansen: If we flip over to section 136(2), an obligation is put on the employer at the request of a committee to "provide the committee with information respecting. . . ." Then there are (a) and (b), and (a) in particular says: ". . .the identification of known or reasonably foreseeable health and safety hazards. . . ." Again, you can come back to the committee and say it's a 50-50 body, but in the case of the safety representative, it's not. Yet you're giving the same powers to the safety rep to request that the employer provide the committee with information respecting the identification of known or reasonably foreseeable health and safety hazards. How do these things get defined? Can the employer determine what is reasonably foreseeable in these cases?

Hon. D. Lovick: I would just point out that the single-person representative or committee, so-called, is governed always by that obligation -- with the qualification that it's to the extent reasonably practicable. I think that anybody looking at this particular list of obligations, in terms of the information the employer must provide, would say that what the employer's duty really cashes out to is to try and provide support to that committee representative, not an exhaustive list in which we tick off every single item.

This list is clearly designed for a safety committee in -- dare I say?-- a somewhat more elaborate or perhaps formal workplace that is more likely to create problems of health and safety than in a single-worker safety representative kind of structure. I don't think it's the case that the individual person responsible for occupational health and safety in that particular workplace is going to demand and be automatically granted all of the things enunciated in this particular list. I just don't think that would obtain at all.

Section 15, section 136 approved.

C. Hansen: In view of the hour, I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

[ Page 8146 ]

Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)

M. de Jong: A little while ago, there were a couple of questions put to the minister by my colleague the member for Abbotsford relating to Highway 11, which is generally referred to as the Abbotsford-Mission Highway. The minister will know from my colleague's comments that there is a perception -- one I share, at least -- that traffic safety and incidents of catastrophic highway accidents have increased significantly beyond what would normally be expected for a stretch of road. I'm wondering whether the minister and his officials have accumulated statistics that either prove or disprove that particular submission or allegation.

Hon. H. Lali: There is a corridor management plan on Highway 11, which the hon. member mentions. We have two police stations, actually, that have been monitoring that particular stretch. The figures we have are from one outfit right now, and they don't appear to be correct. I think they're a little bit under what they actually should be. As soon as we have all the information correlated from both police stations, then we'll be able to come up with an accurate picture for the hon. member.

M. de Jong: I presume that the two police forces the minister is referring to are the Abbotsford police on the Abbotsford side and the Mission detachment of the RCMP on the Mission side. Would he be in a position to indicate from which force he is in possession of statistical information? I understand his comment that he questions the accuracy of that information, but maybe we could start there.

Hon. H. Lali: We have information right now from the RCMP on the Mission side.

M. de Jong: Do I understand the minister correctly that he is awaiting information from the Abbotsford police department? Has there been a request for information? Is he anticipating receiving similar statistical information? I'll try to wrap these questions, as much as I can, into one: what is the nature of the information he anticipates receiving from the Abbotsford police?

Hon. H. Lali: Ministry staff are currently working on correlating the information from both police forces. In terms of the nature of the information, it includes the number of accidents, personal injury, property damage, etc. Both outfits actually collect their information a little bit differently, and that's why it's taking a little time to try to correlate it all.

M. de Jong: The minister will appreciate that there is local interest in this topic, so my purpose in trying to clarify his comments is quite clearly to avoid any misunderstanding among those who will be reviewing them. I thought he said initially that he was not in receipt of statistical information from the Abbotsford police. His last answer suggests to me that he has in fact received traffic study information from both police forces and is in the process of correlating that material. Maybe we could clarify that.

Hon. H. Lali: I don't mind clarifying, actually. I may have misspoken in the first answer. We are in receipt of some information. The information that is available is being correlated. When everything is received and correlated, we will obviously have a better idea.

M. de Jong: What is the target date by which the ministry hopes to be in a position to provide to the people of Mission and Abbotsford an interpretation of the data they are now receiving from the police forces?

Hon. H. Lali: We expect to have the corridor management plan completed by the fall of this year, and all of the information that we were talking about earlier will be included within that as well.

M. de Jong: Will that traffic corridor plan include specific recommendations for either remedial or improvement work in response to the findings and conclusions that arise out of the study of the data that the ministry is now collecting?

Hon. H. Lali: Yes.

J. van Dongen: I wanted to just ask the minister a few questions about an issue that involves the constituencies of Abbotsford and Matsqui. This is with respect to the sani-stations at the rest areas at Cole Road in Abbotsford and the Bradner rest area.

A Voice: I asked that question.

J. van Dongen: Okay. I wonder if the minister could just confirm, then, what the hours are that these sani-stations will be operating this summer. I know that it's gone through a fair bit of discussion. With the government downsizing a year ago, there was some modification to hours. I'm wondering if the minister could just confirm the hours for the coming tourist season.

Hon. H. Lali: The facilities are currently open from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. during weekdays and on weekends from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m.

J. van Dongen: Will those be the hours until October, November?

[ Page 8147 ]

[2:45]

Hon. H. Lali: Yes.

J. van Dongen: Is there a possibility that there will be service charges applied? I think there is a great concern amongst people about the possibility of service charges to dump their waste there.

Hon. H. Lali: We won't know until we're able to actually look at the issue in detail.

J. van Dongen: Well, simply for the record, in all the submissions I've had, there is a great concern about service charges. I think that there is a possibility of establishing some type of commercial arrangement or private-public partnership there that would alleviate the need for service charges, so I'll simply pass that on to the minister for his consideration.

The other issue that I want to question a little bit is an issue that just came to my attention today; I talked to the minister's staff briefly just before lunch. This involves the regulation -- I think it's probably under the Motor Vehicle Act -- of movement of farm equipment on highways.

The individual involved is actually in the Chilliwack area. This is a custom operator. This is a businessman who is also a farmer, but he runs a custom farm operations business. So he's always moving equipment between farms. He's recently had some charges, I guess, involving the movement of equipment. So I guess my first question to the minister. . . . There seems to be an ongoing problem of a lack of clarity and consistency with the police about how farm equipment is treated under the Motor Vehicle Act. I'm wondering, first of all: is the ultimate responsibility for the Motor Vehicle Act -- the movement of farm equipment -- still with the ministry, or has all of it moved to ICBC?

Hon. H. Lali: The responsibility for implementation is with ICBC, and the responsibility for legislative change is with the ministry. My staff is currently working with ICBC and with the Ministry of Agriculture to do the proper consultation.

J. van Dongen: Could the minister advise us as to who would be the appropriate contact for this individual? I think it's good that this consultation is taking place, and it's critical that the regulators -- your staff and the minister's staff and even the Minister of Agriculture's staff -- understand the implications for these farm operators.

Hon. H. Lali: We'll get the name for the hon. member.

J. van Dongen: Just a couple more questions on this issue. My understanding is that the act does not differentiate based on who's operating the equipment. The act deals with farm equipment per se, and the same law applies to that equipment regardless of whether it's operated by a farmer or by a custom operator. Could the minister comment on that perspective?

Hon. H. Lali: I can't answer that question right now, so I'll just have to take it on notice.

J. van Dongen: I will look forward to talking to the minister and his staff about a contact and will simply record the fact that this fellow's name is Henk van Wijk. He operates at Chilliwack, and he's probably one of the larger custom operators in the Fraser Valley. So, hopefully, we can follow up with him to deal with this issue.

I know that one of his problems is moving equipment at night, because they are operating 24 hours a day when they are in harvest season, planting season -- all these various operations. They recognize the need for safety, for proper lighting, etc. But they need to be able to move over with equipment at night. That's one of the issues that we need to try and resolve. So with that, hon. Chair, thank you for the opportunity. I'll leave it with the minister.

J. Weisbeck: My question is to do with McCulloch Road. This is a rural road within the city of Kelowna. It's been maintained by the province. I had a concern from a constituent who is really concerned about the state of the road. It's very unsafe. There's a huge amount of traffic travelling over that road now, I guess for recreational purposes as well as for a rock quarry up there. So we have large trucks and a lot of recreational vehicles. There are a number of blind corners and a very poor bridge. I understand that the province is currently in negotiations as far as Kelowna taking over this rural road. I'd just like to know what the state of these negotiations is -- where they're at.

Hon. H. Lali: We've reached an agreement in principle, but it hasn't been ratified. So I can't comment on that in detail.

J. Weisbeck: Just one further question. When this road is eventually passed over, which I assume it will be, is there any upgrading to that road before it is actually given to the city of Kelowna?

Hon. H. Lali: It's all actually part of the negotiations; so, again, I can't comment on that.

D. Symons: I was asking a few questions before. The first question, I guess, has to do with the corporate performance measures that the ministry has. I asked if I could have the more recent books, which you've indicated I can. I was just going to ask, then we were cut off due to time: is there a listing of immediate projects? Are these prioritized? Are there guidelines to indicate how a project can get on the highway safety improvement list? Are these things done for consideration of listing on that, and are they prioritized? And is that list available?

Hon. H. Lali: Yes, there is a list of projects. It's arrived at after a systematic review. Together, in consultation with ICBC, a program is developed. Last year there was funding of $4.5 million available; this year we're still waiting a few more days.

D. Symons: I'll patiently wait a few more days and hope that the minister might be able to supply that to me after we've finished the estimates. But when that figure comes in, I'd appreciate it.

For each project that's undertaken by the ministry, does the ministry set targets and benchmarks against which it measures its progress, as suggested in this particular corporate review?

[ Page 8148 ]

D. Symons: I wonder if we might look, then, because I'll be asking something more on that another day -- if we can take a look at the. . . ?

Interjection.

D. Symons: No, not that way -- sorry. Another day, under other circumstances -- to clarify that. I saw some faces fall on that.

I'm looking at page 7 of this particular document, if you have it. There's a section that asks how these measures would be used. They talk about accountability. I wonder, then, on accountability. . . . Under one of them, it says you communicate to the public what the ministry is truly accountable for and invite comments and suggestions for change. A little further down, there's another one: ". . .provides a first cut of the ministry's intended direction that can be challenged both internally and externally." I wonder if you'd give us a little bit of an overview of what the ministry is doing to fulfil those particular parts of the accountability.

Hon. H. Lali: In terms of the accountability measures, we have the annual report. There is also a business plan and a strategic framework.

D. Symons: What I was looking for more, because it communicates to the public, is. . . . In what way do you communicate to the public? Do you have focus groups set up? Do you go for questionnaires? In what ways do you communicate to the public and give them a chance for feedback?

Hon. H. Lali: All three of them are public documents, which are available to the public through the ministry. They form the basis for communication throughout the year.

D. Symons: I guess that having documents on the shelf which are available to the public is somewhat different in my mind than in the minister's, as to what public communications mean. We'll leave it at that and hope that you can do something so that it's outgoing, rather than waiting for them to come in to access that information.

Again, on page 7 of this document they talk about the ministry implementing performance-based budgeting. I'm wondering if the ministry has now implemented performance-based budgeting and how that works.

Hon. H. Lali: The kind of information that we get from these analyses is the information that is actually used for setting priorities and for formulating budgets.

[3:00]

Hon. H. Lali: On capital projects we do a cost-benefit analysis. On rehabilitation projects we prioritize these projects based on provincewide systematic processes.

D. Symons: And all of this ties in to meet current government cost pressures? In essence, what you're saying is that you'll do those things as much as the government can afford to do it, or through either the TFA or Treasury Board you can end up squeezing out the money you need to do what's necessary. Is that essentially it? I see a nodded yes to that, so that will be a satisfactory answer.

If we look at page 38 -- I'm just going to look at some of the later pages in this particular document -- we have a section called "Administrative Overhead." At the bottom under "Quality," it says: "It's difficult to define administrative costs separate from direct costs." I'm just wondering if you've managed, since this document came out, to separate those out. At the top, in the measure, it says: "The ratio of administrative costs to direct transportation costs." Are you not able to separate that out enough to say what is administrative?

Hon. H. Lali: The short answer, actually, is yes. It is difficult to separate the two: what is administration and what is actually project delivery.

D. Symons: Although the minister and the document imply that it's difficult, I'm wondering if you've managed to overcome that difficulty.

Hon. H. Lali: It's still in process; we're working on it.

D. Symons: It's a year and a half after this document was put together. I wonder if we can take a look at page 39 under the heading "Performance Measures-Highway Planning." They have a measure that's the percentage of approved plans and strategies. The source, it says, is not "available." At the bottom under "Quality," it says: "There is no existing source or reporting method to measure the level of planning activity in the ministry. Effort is needed to define this measure in consultation with the BCTFA and local planning authorities." I'm wondering if some of that effort has been made in the intervening time between this document and today, roughly 18 months later. What progress on that can you indicate?

Hon. H. Lali: We're working very hard to identify the level of planning that is to be done by the BCTFA, as opposed to the ministry.

D. Symons: I'm beginning to see a pattern here: "We're working on this." I do hope that in one of these questions we'll find something where they've solved the problem, where they've got the measurement device in place, rather than continuing to work on it when the problem has obviously been identified some time ago.

On page 40, "Performance Measures -- Delivery of Major Projects," we have the measure as a percentage of projects delivered. Description: "Measures the ministry's success in delivering major and minor capital projects that are within scope, time and budget." Then we get down to the source, which says: "No data available." It would be a surprise to me that if you've been working on projects, you cannot measure their scope, time and budget. Nevertheless, that's what it says here. Under "Quality," it says: "There is no existing reporting structure." I think there should be. "Requires input and consultation from several sources, including the TFA and Treasury Board, to develop standard reporting measures" -- have you developed standard reporting measures?

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

Hon. H. Lali: The answer is yes. We have regular quarterly reports and also monthly reports on major projects,

[ Page 8149 ]

D. Symons: I shall avail myself of some of those reports at a future time, then. Thank you.

In the last part of this book, on page 43. . . . It's basically referred to as an annual report. I guess my concern here is simply that I see a series of graphs. For pavement condition, the graph seems to be falling. Bridge condition: the graph seems to be falling and continuing into next year from this year. Traffic congestion, percent of highways that are not heavily congested: fortunately, we find that that percentage is falling or levelling off in '98-99. Let's hope that doesn't begin to climb up to where it was two years ago. Highway safety: again, the graph seems to be going down, because it measures fatalities per hundred million vehicle-miles travelled. Ride comfort is recovering slightly at the end, and the maintenance costs per kilometre of road seem to have dropped somewhat over the period of time.

Overall, I think it's not a very good assessment of the ministry or the government's intention to look after the highways of the province. So many of these items seem to be continuing a trend in a downward direction.

Hon. H. Lali: These are based on 1996 projections that the member is looking at. I guess the flip side of it is that fatalities are also declining, and the maintenance costs on that are declining as well.

D. Symons: Since the minister indicated earlier that there is a new version of this particular book, we'll be looking at the graphs in that new one to see how the update is coming. It's good news that those are taking place. I hope the pavement conditions and some of the other graphs begin to climb as well.

I'm looking at a news release on December 12, 1997: "Merger of motor vehicle branch with ICBC complete." Up until that merger was complete, I guess, some of the motor vehicle branch responsibilities still rested with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. That merger happened over a period of time. I'm wondering if the minister has some ballpark figure as to the cost to the ministry of moving it from one jurisdiction to another -- there must have been some costs -- and the number, possibly, of employees that have been shifted from the ministry into ICBC.

Hon. H. Lali: There were no incremental costs to the ministry to implement the transfer. The staff of the office of the superintendent of motor vehicles were actually moved to integrate with the remainder of the ministry. The move involved a one-time cost of $322,000, which is offset by the annual savings of $150,000. In addition, there are also efficiencies from providing corporate services to OSMV at the centralized location.

D. Symons: I had also inquired about the number of employees that may have been involved in the shift from the ministry responsibility to ICBC.

Hon. H. Lali: What was the question?

D. Symons: I'll repeat the question. I was curious about the number of employees that were involved with the motor vehicle branch while it was under the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. It has now moved over to be the responsibility of ICBC.

Hon. H. Lali: There were approximately 750.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: Are you moving to the OSMV now?

Interjection.

D. Symons: I have a couple of questions to do with the auditor general, and I did cover this report fairly thoroughly last year. I'll give just a bit of an update on it. A few years ago the auditor general indicated his belief that the application of the standards to planning was a bit of a concern and that. . . . He's talking about the overall conclusions here: "The ministry's planning and design standards, including guidelines establishing functional classification of highways, are generally adequate. However, we believe the ministry could benefit from reviewing these standards and their application to ensure they promote cost-effective planning and design decisions." He commented further: ". . .design alternatives be compared using estimated life cycle costs as well as expected performance of each alternative." I wonder now how far the ministry -- the ministry and, I suppose, the TFA are in conjunction on these -- has got along with following those recommendations.

[3:15]

D. Symons: I thank the member for those answers, because I think that may be the direction we should be going in. I think there will be some cost saving in doing that, as well as the fact that homing in on those two aspects is really what we're after.

I'm going on to the section that dealt with the Island Highway. It's a repeat of a question I asked last year, but I'm asking for an update. I notice that at times it sounds like the whole Island Highway project was an NDP invention. But it says in the auditor general's report that there has been only limited planning undertaken for the Vancouver Island Highway project since 1991.

He comments on the report entitled "Comprehensive Planning Assessment: Vancouver Island Highway Project," issued in June 1991. I will just note that that was prior to the NDP being elected. What I will give the NDP credit for -- and they deserve it -- is that they have carried it out, but I don't think that a lot of the planning was done beforehand. It noted that "no plan had been developed for improvements through Goldstream Park, despite the apparent need to deal with the bottleneck created by a two-lane road through the park joining proposed four-lane facilities on either side of the park." When I asked last year, you hadn't yet dealt with that issue or at least solved it. I wonder if you might give us an update on where Goldstream Park is in the plans for the Island Highway.

[ Page 8150 ]

On Goldstream Park, which is actually in an NDP riding, I believe. . . . The hon. member sitting on my right over here. . . . I believe it's his riding.

A Voice: What is his riding?

R. Kasper: Malahat-Juan de Fuca.

Hon. H. Lali: Malahat-Juan de Fuca.

Certainly we identified the need for a study so that we can have various options at our disposal. Unfortunately, other pressures have dictated that that not be done at this particular time. I think the hon. member across the way recognizes that it's a very complex, controversial and sensitive kind of issue, and we're not going to rush into it.

D. Symons: The report came out in '91 and said there was that deficiency in the plan. It's now '98, so you're not rushing into it. It sounds like another Lions Gate Bridge.

I wonder if we can just look at one last question that comes out of here. Toward the end, it talks about the minister's response to the auditor general's report. The minister agreed that "formal risk and cost-benefit analyses should be developed for requests for variance from standards by the project." I guess part of it is the business of risk-taking in these. I wonder if such an analysis was done and if there have been any variances done on the HOV lanes built along Highway 1. I believe there have been some changes to the plan, but I'm not sure if they were variances requested by the company that got the contract for it or whether it's a ministry change.

Hon. H. Lali: We look at the value of engineering on the projects which have already been defined, and then we look at the costs and benefits of shifts in the engineering work and try to home in on those that are the least costly.

D. Symons: I guess there's also a risk. Speaking of risks, I wonder if I might just ask. . . . I think there was a partnership on the building of the Mount Washington Road. Is that road the property of the Ministry of Highways? Is it a government road, or is it indeed a private road up the mountain? With the arrangement with the mountain developers to build the road, are they accepting any of the risks and liabilities that go along with that roadbuilding?

Hon. H. Lali: The road is owned by the TFA, and it's operated by the ministry. Because the people of British Columbia use it, the liability lies with the province.

D. Symons: I'm curious about the response. The minister said that the road is owned by the TFA. I thought that once the construction of these things is finished, it reverts back to the ministry. When the TFA is involved in financing these projects, does it own them until the financing is paid off many years hence, or does it transfer back to the ministry?

Hon. H. Lali: It is a capital asset of the TFA and actually should have been canvassed under the TFA estimates.

D. Symons: Then I wonder if the minister might answer the question I put to him: do all the projects that are funded through TFA remain the property of TFA, as you're now suggesting for this particular project? There are others as well. Do they remain the property of the TFA until the highway is paid off? Or what's the arrangement? The ministry built them, but does the TFA continue to own them?

Hon. H. Lali: Again, capital assets under the TFA are properly canvassed under the estimates of the TFA. Unfortunately, none of the TFA staff are with me here today.

D. Symons: I find that highly interesting. It would appear, then, that what the minister is saying is that the Island Highway and other projects around this province are not owned by the ministry, but indeed that the ministry will eventually do the rehab, the seal-coating, the maintenance and so forth for a property that's now owned by a separate organization -- a Crown corporation, basically. It's an interesting revelation, I suppose, that I hadn't realized until this moment. I thought they were just a funding arm for the building of them. I don't know if you need to respond to that or not. If not, I will suggest that we might move on to the motor vehicle branch -- or as much of it as may be left within this ministry's purview.

I guess the first thing I'd like to know. . . . I gather now that the superintendent of motor vehicles is under the ministry's responsibility. I'm wondering if I can just have a little thumbnail sketch, which might save us a little time during the remainder of this, to explain exactly what the duties and responsibilities are and what things fall under the superintendent of motor vehicles, so that we'll know where to direct questions that deal with the Motor Vehicle Act and the motor vehicle branch.

Hon. H. Lali: I'll read that into the record. The superintendent provides an independent appeal from ICBC licensing decisions affecting drivers, vehicle inspection stations, motor carrier companies, driver training schools and the people who work in these areas. It provides an appeal from administrative driving prohibitions and vehicle impoundments that are imposed by police at the roadside. It sets and enforces the standards of dangerous driving behaviour and may prohibit drivers on the basis of their driving records or points. It sets and enforces the standards of medical fitness for drivers, including commercial drivers, and may cancel or reduce driving privileges or prohibit drivers.

According to sections 117 and 118 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the superintendent may delegate certain powers, duties or functions to persons appointed in accordance with the Public Service Act or the Insurance Corporation Act. ICBC carries out certain driver prohibitions under the points program via delegation.

D. Symons: I wonder if we might look at some of the ones regarding truck safety, which I think from what you were saying might come under here. Those would be the rules and regulations governing the drivers of trucks. I gather that there are a variety of regulations regarding that in British Columbia and that they vary throughout the Canadian provinces and also into the United States. I gather that in the United States a driver can drive only -- I may have got the wrong figures here -- ten hours a day and 60 hours a week, whereas in British Columbia it can be considerably more than that: 13 hours a day. I wonder if there's a move to standardize, let's say, the hours which truckers can drive during the day and during the

[ Page 8151 ]

Hon. H. Lali: First of all, it's actually an ICBC issue. Also, the province is currently in dialogue with other provinces, and progress is being made.

D. Symons: I think we'll find a considerable number of questions that can be shoved off one way or the other, so when we get to ICBC I'll try them again.

In light of the fact that we've had a number of accidents and a report on television a short while ago regarding the training of truck drivers and driving schools, I wonder if you might give us an update on what the government is doing in that respect, so that we can be sure that every person who is operating a heavy vehicle on our roads has had appropriate training rather than what seems to have been the case in a couple of the driving schools.

[3:30]

D. Symons: We seem to have a lot of things that are under different responsibilities. Maybe you can just give me a philosophical answer to why these various things that deal with transportation and particularly the trucking industry -- the licensing and training of drivers and so forth -- seem to fall in different areas. Would it not be best that it all be together, so that there's one entity that has a complete view of the whole picture?

Hon. H. Lali: These kinds of questions were actually canvassed during the estimates of '97-98 and also during legislation in last year's session. Again, all licensing issues are canvassed under ICBC. Again, I just repeat that if it has to with appeals, medical issues and points, then it's OSMV.

D. Symons: Let's try another one. I'm wondering again, because this might come under regulations rather than the actual licensing. . . . Apparently truck drivers in England don't use log books; they use tachographs on their vehicles. They are allowed to drive a maximum of 56 hours a week, and companies get visited roughly every six months by a government inspector to check the tachographs. There is a fine for the driver and a large fine for the company if they're in violation.

We have cases in British Columbia where drivers seem to bear the brunt of fines and the regulations, because if a truck is overweight at the scales, the driver often seems to be at fault. If some of those things are there -- safety regulations and brakes checked and all the rest -- often the driver is put in a very awkward position by owners who irresponsibly might send the driver out with an overloaded truck or a vehicle that's not in perfect working order, particularly the brakes. I'm wondering why there isn't more emphasis placed on not just the driver but also the company that the driver is working for.

Hon. H. Lali: Again, it's another ICBC issue. The Task Force on Commercial Vehicle Safety came down with 32 recommendations, which are being implemented by ICBC.

D. Symons: I'm going to get a lot of ICBC questions. Maybe you can tell me about the next one, and I will come back at ICBC if that's the case. I'm wondering about lifting a person's licence for having a number of points against his driving record. Would the superintendent of motor vehicles be responsible for that particular aspect?

Interjection.

D. Symons: I will continue with the question, then. I read things in the paper that make me really wonder about drivers who drive without a licence. There was an article in the Sun a few years back: "Driver Without Licence Was All Over the Road." You read the rap sheet on this person, and it's fantastic. Obviously something's not working in the system if he could be on the road for that long and get away with it.

Where is the one I wanted? Here: "Impounded Vehicle Fees Hit a Big-ticket Level." They talk about the fact that the drivers have a large number of points against them when their vehicle is impounded. "Unlicensed Driver" and "Driving Without a Licence, Failing to Stop -Three Points." It seems to me, if that's the case. . . . If it costs three points for driving without a licence and failing to stop, our system of point-giving is also limited.

The one that really got me was: "Bad Drivers Face Hikes in Penalties of up to $11,000." It talks about a driver with 50 points or more. There may be hikes in their ICBC rates to get their licence, or fines, I suppose, but if somebody's got 50 points. . . . Are we giving them the right to drive? Even though we might be charging them $11,000, I think there is something wrong with the system. Would you care to comment?

Hon. H. Lali: We recognize that there's a general problem out there. It's very hard to be on top of it unless you're right there on the spot.

One thing I want to read out regarding some of the innovative programs that this government has put in place in terms of getting problem drivers off the road. . . . The administrative driving prohibition -- the ADP program -- allows police to prohibit impaired drivers through an administrative process that is swift and certain. Drivers who blow over the legal blood alcohol limit or refuse to provide a breath sample are prohibited from driving for 90 days. The ADP program became effective May 5, 1997, and as of February 1998 there were 6,453 prohibitions. Under the vehicle impoundment program, if a police officer stops a driver who is either prohibited from driving or unlicensed, the officer will immediately impound the vehicle for 30 days. Subsequent offences result in a 90-day impoundment. The vehicle impoundment program became effective May 5, 1997, and as of February 1998 there were 5,315 impoundments.

D. Symons: Would you give me an idea, then, as to how many vehicles have been impounded for both the 60- and 90-day periods through the vehicle impoundment program since the inception of that program? I think you mentioned that it's been in place for about a year now. Ballpark figures would be convenient.

Hon. H. Lali: What I read out were the totals. We'll have to get back to the hon. member with the breakdown between 60 and 90 days.

D. Symons: At that time. . . . You can note this down and give it to me at another time. I might also be interested in

[ Page 8152 ]

Hon. H. Lali: They're not frequent, but there are a handful of those people. The program we put in place was put there to catch those exact people.

D. Symons: I suppose if they get an old beater to drive, having the car impounded isn't a great loss to them. If they simply refuse to pay the impoundment charges and just let the car sit there. . . . I'm afraid it might not always be a disincentive to them.

Could you give me an idea. . . ? Again, this might be just a ballpark figure. Perhaps it comes under police enforcement. Section 215 of the Motor Vehicle Act allows for roadside suspensions. What is the percentage of roadside suspensions that the police don't follow up with charges of drinking and driving because it's easier to let the person take a roadside suspension rather than taking the chance of being proven to be over .08 in an alcohol test?

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. H. Lali: I mentioned that the person could go in with beaters if they haven't been drinking and driving or repeat offenders. I suppose if they keep on purchasing beaters and keep getting caught, sooner or later their finances are going to run out.

On the roadside suspensions, the program is actually too new to have any kind of any stable numbers available right now. I just want to point out that in addition to the 90-day roadside suspensions, these people are also being charged by the police, so they have to appear in court as well.

D. Symons: Just one last question on this. Drinking and driving is a serious problem. With the various programs that they have, the number has gone down considerably over the last year. People think twice about going from a pub after having a few too many and driving their car, which is good. Manitoba is, I think, the only province that has a program that requires every person convicted of impaired driving to receive an assessment from the Addiction Foundation of Canada before their licence is returned. Is B.C. considering something of that sort?

Hon. H. Lali: We're working on that.

D. Symons: I'll ask again next year to see how far the working has gone.

Can I just ask a little bit, and again you'll have to direct to the right location for this. . . ? There are things involved with driving and so forth where there are fines and penalties that are applied both for drinking and driving and for infractions of weights and so forth on trucks, and various things of that sort. What happens to that money? Does that go directly into general revenue or does it go first into whatever the agency is that's looking after that and then the net proceeds go back to general revenue? Do you deduct out the cost of the program first?

Hon. H. Lali: ICBC keeps the predetermined cost-recovery amount and then the rest of it goes into general revenue.

D. Symons: I'm wondering whether the predetermined cost-recovery is indeed the cost of operating the aspects of the motor vehicle branch that ICBC has taken over. Are those the increased costs that you're referring to as this predetermined cost recovery? They'll keep a portion of whatever fines are there, and the residue will go to general revenue?

Hon. H. Lali: In terms of the details, the hon. member should canvass those under ICBC estimates.

D. Symons: This, again, might be referred there, but I'm wondering about the cost of roadside safety testing of commercial vehicles in the past years. I wonder if we might have a year-by-year cost of that for the last three years.

Hon. H. Lali: For '95-96, $196,370; for '96-97, $155,673; and for '97-98, $164,037.

[3:45]

Hon. H. Lali: That's ICBC.

D. Symons: Well, I'll tell you what we'll do in this case, then. We'll move on to the Motor Carrier Commission possibly, because I think we're going to canvass most of the questions under ICBC that deal with the Motor Vehicle Act. So we could move on to Motor Carrier Commission. Would you like to start?

B. Barisoff: I just noticed that the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca, myself and the hon. Chair herself were on a committee that dealt with some deregulation, and we had submitted a report to the previous minister. I'm just wondering where a lot of the recommendations are at this stage. Seeing Mr. Hansen here, I just wanted to know where they're at.

Hon. H. Lali: In terms of what the task force recommendations required, we keep the logs and dumptrucks. However, the general freight has been deregulated.

B. Barisoff: I think there were a lot of recommendations that were brought forward by that committee. And, like I said, noticing all three of them here. . . . We spent a lot of time working on it. It was more than just the deregulation of the general freight. There were a lot of recommendations that came forward. I'd like to ask the minister where and what stage these are at.

Hon. H. Lali: There were 11 recommendations that were made. Some were adopted in the deregulation and some were not, actually; some we're still working on -- for instance, the logging trucks issue. There is a review of the boundaries in which the logging trucks would operate. That's still ongoing and being looked at.

B. Barisoff: Could you indicate a time when some of these boundaries that were recommended would be put into place?

Hon. H. Lali: We're awaiting a report by industry and organized labour.

[ Page 8153 ]

Hon. H. Lali: In terms of any negative feedback from the industry, there's been actually very little. What has happened is that a large increase in the number of applications for licences has taken place.

B. Barisoff: Could the minister indicate by "large" how many new applications have been requested and how many have been processed?

Hon. H. Lali: Sorry, we don't have that information right now, but we'll certainly get back to you.

B. Barisoff: Another question that you might be able to get back to me on -- or answer now -- is the question of some of the problems that some of the licence holders had. Have all these problems been dealt with to the satisfaction of the licence holders?

Hon. H. Lali: Since the deregulation, we've had to reissue 3,400 licences, and 30 to 40 of these were reviewed. Since then, they've been resolved to the satisfaction of the parties.

B. Barisoff: The minister indicated just a question or so ago that there was a lot of support from the trucking industry in this regard on what took place in deregulation, and I know we seemed to receive a lot of support on the committee when we travelled. I'm just wondering whether the minister has given any thought to reinvoking the committee -- I'm not saying the same committee, but it was a good committee -- to look into the deregulation of buses and taxis.

Hon. H. Lali: We don't know at this stage, but we are looking at a number of options to look at those issues.

B. Barisoff: I don't know if I can rephrase the question. I would like to ask the minister whether he would put together a task force in order to look at the deregulation of taxies and buses -- something like an all-party committee would, I think, be as well received as the task force and deregulation in the trucking industry was. I'm just wondering whether he would make a commitment now that we could see this in the near future -- say, in the next six months to a year.

Hon. H. Lali: I appreciate the hon. member's input. Again, all options are still being looked at, and they're all open. No decision of any kind has been made yet.

D. Symons: Just a very few more questions. One involves, I guess, accessibility. There was a driver coming up from Oregon, apparently fairly recently, with a truck and trailer. He wanted to get a one-day permit to bring his produce into B.C., and apparently he had difficulty. I got involved in it to find out where to apply for this. I looked in the blue pages in the phone book and couldn't find anything there, and we eventually found out that it was under the scales part of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, in their book. He phoned an MLA, who frantically looked through the government book to find out where you go for a one-day licence and permit. It took quite a while to discover that.

From the viewpoint that we have a fair number of trucks coming from out of province, I'm wondering if there might be some easier way for truck drivers to access themselves of the manner in which they can get their permit, so they can operate in B.C.

Hon. H. Lali: It's actually common knowledge among instructors that at the point of entry, there's usually a scale. They usually go to a scale to find all that kind of information. It might have just been an aberration.

D. Symons: Maybe the one driver was an inexperienced driver and wasn't aware of that or wasn't sure how it's done in Canada. That's a possibility.

I gather that in Alberta you can actually phone in ahead of time and arrange all of that by phone. I'm wondering if B.C. might follow that same example.

Hon. H. Lali: Again, it's an ICBC issue, but we are talking to the other provinces on issues similar to this.

D. Symons: I think that the more we have a common practice across the country, the easier it'll be. There would be less red tape and regulation if everybody was doing the same thing, I would suspect.

Another issue is in Victoria here. I was called yesterday, as a matter of fact, by a gentleman who works for -- I might as well name the place -- Blue Bird Cabs. This gentleman is concerned. He has applied to the Motor Carrier Commission for a plate. He apparently has three plates now and has leased a fourth plate for over two years. The fellow who owns that plate has now taken it back. Blue Bird Cabs, I think, has a fleet of 72 cabs. This fellow is asking for one more plate while waiting, and apparently it has been quite a while since he put the request in -- or a few months, anyway. He wants a temporary one, so he can keep employees working.

Apparently, if he doesn't get the plate, he doesn't have his quota with Blue Bird, and I'm not quite sure of what all this means. Maybe you understand the cab industry better than I do. It's likely that the group of drivers that operate his other three vehicles -- 14 drivers in total -- could all lose their jobs. Apparently this was explained to the person at the Motor Carrier Commission, and the response was, in effect, that they don't take into consideration the economic circumstance of the person involved, nor the employment and so forth that's related. It's strictly the number of licences that are in the area. Considering that economic need and so forth seemed to enter into the Skeena Cellulose situation -- and I know I'm making a real stretch here in tying a lumber operation, where the economic concerns of employees and businesses there seem to be paramount in government's decision, to a cab operation -- I'm surprised that there isn't some of that taken into account by the Motor Carrier Commission. Maybe the minister could comment.

[4:00]

D. Symons: I was actually asking for the general philosophy there, in a sense.

Let's move on to the last couple of questions here. Considering that the federal government is. . . . Considering that deregulation of the trucking industry is taking place, what

[ Page 8154 ]

Hon. H. Lali: This issue was canvassed by the member for Okanagan-Boundary. I just want to point out that we are working with the logging sector and the dumptruck sector to have a proper transition.

I was wondering, if it's okay with the opposition member, if we could take a bit of a recess and then come back in five minutes.

D. Symons: There's one last question, and you'll understand the reason for this question. I'm wondering if I can ask the minister if, during the estimates debate we've been doing on the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, there are any issues or responsibilities under the purview of this minister that have not been canvassed.

Hon. H. Lali: The member knows there's a lot of work that has to be done, and I will be doing that and making all sorts of announcements. In terms of the responsibilities, I think he's canvassed them.

Vote 60 approved.

Vote 61: ministry operations, $470,278,000 -- approved.

The committee recessed from 4:05 p.m. to 4:11 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SMALL BUSINESS,
TOURISM AND CULTURE
(continued)

R. Thorpe: With respect to the vote that the minister just called, I wonder if the minister could just advise if the salary and expenses of the deputy minister of the LDB are included in that, or are they included in the finances of the LDB.

Hon. I. Waddell: In the finances of the LDB.

R. Thorpe: I'm just wondering if the minister could tell us, with respect to that position, the all-in costs to the nearest thousand dollars..

Hon. I. Waddell: Which position is the hon. member referring to?

R. Thorpe: The deputy minister's travel, benefits. . .the whole package.

Hon. I. Waddell: A maximum of $120,000. It's the standard deputy salary, plus some travel. The deputy advises me that he doesn't travel a lot. He travels well, but he doesn't travel a lot.

R. Thorpe: Well, of course it's very, very important that people travel well, because we want them to come back and discharge their responsibilities here in Victoria. So that's very important.

As I reflected a little bit on the Blues of last Friday's debate, I recall that one of the four key pillars of the LDB was social responsibility. And then when I asked the minister what would be the three key issues, one of the issues the minister mentioned was social responsibility. The part that's puzzling to me is, that if social responsibility is one of the key strategic pillars and one of the key issues addressing the LDB, I am puzzled as to why the minister does not have an estimate on the lost revenue for illicit beverage alcohol in British Columbia. Perhaps they now do have some estimates. If social responsibility, as he has alluded to in his comments. . . . Would it not seem, hon. Chair, that they would have some kind of a quantifiable number on that particular issue? I'll wait for the minister's comments.

[4:15]

With respect to the matter of the amount of illicit alcohol, I already answered that.

R. Thorpe: First of all, perhaps the minister should understand that the problem is that I do understand. Perhaps the minister should come to grips with that. But I do understand. Perhaps the minister should also come to grips with the fact that social responsibility is more than the very good work that the LDB does in its stores and the awareness programs, because social responsibility also has to do with where alcohol is sold, to whom it is sold and what quantities are sold. That is also social responsibility. So, I ask the minister: does he consider that part of the social responsibility of his government?

Hon. I. Waddell: I've already answered the question about social responsibility. With respect to whether we have any figures on alcohol that's sold illicitly -- which was the original question -- we don't. It's always been a problem. It was a problem in Prohibition. They had Prohibition, and now we have a regulated sale of alcohol. And no doubt there's some sold illicitly. We are all human beings, and we tend to occasionally sin. And some people don't obey the law -- we have a regime. But we don't have those figures.

R. Thorpe: I want to go back and very clearly make sure these questions -- and more importantly the minister's answers -- are on the record. The minister is saying that there have been no studies or estimates done with respect to the sale of illicit beverage alcohol in British Columbia. The minister is also saying that there have been no analyses, studies or reviews with respect to the amount of U-brew sold in the province of British Columbia. And the minister is also saying that there are no analysis reports, internal or external, with respect to the sale of U-vin in the province.

Hon. I. Waddell: I didn't address U-vin and U-brew in this. I was talking about generally. With respect to studies

[ Page 8155 ]

R. Thorpe: Well, first of all, perhaps after the minister has had time to learn his ministry he will know that the phenomenon and the serious issue of the illicit sale of beverage alcohol in British Columbia has been the result of study by federal -- and, I'm led to believe, provincial -- officials. The phenomenon of U-brew and U-vin has only been in place for the last three or four years. I guess my question, since the minister asked for a time frame, is: have there been any studies on any of these areas conducted by or for the LDB with respect to detailed studies, estimates or impacts on the provincial revenues to British Columbia?

Hon. I. Waddell: I think I know my ministry. I will be pleased to look into the ministry further and, if there are studies available, to draw them to the attention of the member. I will look into that and get back to the member. If and when those studies exist, he'll get a copy.

R. Thorpe: Moving to the Enemark report and the two areas that the minister acknowledged were under his responsibility -- credit cards and Sundays -- the minister said last Friday: "I would hope that by fall we can resolve some of the questions with respect to credit cards and Sunday openings." Will the minister once again commit to open consultation with the stakeholders who have capital investment and businesses at risk prior to a final decision being made on this subject? I believe it's a simple yes or no answer.

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes.

R. Thorpe: Last Friday I passed an information package across to the minister and his staff from a small licensed business operator in Nanaimo. I know that the minister's staff have other issues to work on and perhaps haven't had a chance to go over that. I would just like to ask the minister, for the record: will the minister commit today to having a prompt reply sent to this small business operator and ensure that the official opposition critic is copied on that report?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes. I have the file. I notice that the hon. member for Nanaimo has written already, I think, to Mr. Dempsey -- is it Mr. Dempsey of Harwood Arms Pub? I think I answered this before -- to reply quickly to these people. I think people are owed replies by government when they write, not delays. I feel strongly about that, and I certainly will reply.

R. Thorpe: Thanks to the minister for committing to a prompt reply. I think it's really, really important here, because when the minister has the opportunity to read through it, or staff advises him. . . . I believe the individual's name is Mr. Dempsey, a neighbourhood pub operator in Nanaimo. I think he's been waiting since March 6, 1997, for a reply from the member for Nanaimo, if my recollection is correct. So I think it's really important that the minister's staff are going to address that promptly. These are small business operators. They need answers and action now; they cannot wait. So I thank the minister for that commitment.

The next area I want to spend a bit more time on -- and again, it comes out of what the minister advised was one of the three key issues of the branch -- is the expanded deposit on beverage containers. My first question is: in the opinion of the LDB management group, will all suppliers and the LDB be ready for the October 1 startup date, or should implementation be delayed?

Hon. I. Waddell: Before I answer that. . . . With respect to Mr. Harwood's letter, I noticed that when he was asking the member for Nanaimo, the member replied to him. Then he faxed back requesting a meeting with the Premier and the Minister of Finance. I'm not sure I can get a meeting for Mr. Harwood with the Premier and the Minister of Finance, but I will reply to him.

Secondly, yes, we'll be ready, I'm told.

R. Thorpe: In doing their preparation, has the management group noticed a different reaction, or have they had any concerns between the larger-brand owners and the smaller-brand owners? The reason I ask that question is because in other beverage sectors it has been reported to me that there are significant concerns from small-brand owners. I would just like the minister's comments on that.

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is no. The LDB has consulted openly with all suppliers, both large ones and small ones. This is the kind of industry in which you can do that. It's a workable industry where people talk to each other.

R. Thorpe: During the minister's reply to a question in this area on Friday, I believe the minister spoke very favourably of the success that all brewers in British Columbia have experienced on the return rates -- I think it was a 93 percent to 97 percent return rate. It's my understanding that they currently pay a 5-cent-per-dozen handling fee on bottles. Is it anticipated that that fee will increase?

Hon. I. Waddell: I think I answered this before. The answer on the last day was that we're not sure at the moment. We'll know in about a month exactly what our costs will be.

R. Thorpe: I believe that when the minister answered before, it was in generalities and not quite as specific as that. But that's fine. The minister did say on Friday and has indicated again that the LDB will have figures for the industry and the suppliers, I believe, on Friday -- it was within a month. I would ask the senior management if it's possible, when they are advising the industry, to also make a commitment to advise the official opposition critic.

Hon. I. Waddell: Normally, in the course of doing things, we have advised the official opposition critic, and he's been very cooperative. We will continue to advise the official opposition critic. Hopefully, he'll continue to be as cooperative as he's been in the past.

R. Thorpe: So we interpret that as a yes. Thank you.

With respect to the profitability of the LDB, the net figure to general revenue is estimated to be $635 million in the estimates of general revenue. I'm wondering if it's possible to have just a top-line breakdown on that $635 million. How much of it comes from spirits? How much comes from beer? How much of it comes from wine?

Hon. I. Waddell: The hon. member wants a breakdown of $635 million. We were talking about that as the profit. One would think he'd want the breakdown of the total revenue.

[ Page 8156 ]

[4:30]

Hon. I. Waddell: We have the dollars here. We'll give him the dollars. We just don't have it calculated. We can get you the figures and you can calculate. Okay?

R. Thorpe: I'm assuming that after estimates you'll just give me the figures here, and I'll do my calculation. That's fine.

When we look at the issue of the increasing contribution -- some would argue profitability, but I'm sure the government will argue that it's a contribution -- one of the areas that the minister talked about was increasing efficiencies. I'm just wondering if the minister could take the time to highlight the three or four or five key efficiencies that are going to yield the additional $15 million to $20 million.

Hon. I. Waddell: As the hon. member recalled before, I mentioned that in order to achieve the figures that we want, we think the volume will be up and that the costs will be stable. We hope to get efficiencies in the operation, which I will leave to management to find as they've found them in the past. It's a pretty lean operation. I think there's about $170 million in operating costs. That's where some efficiencies can be found. The sales are $1.636 billion, and there may be an increase in volume there. So I can't answer the question directly, but I can tell him that that's the direction that we're going in.

R. Thorpe: It's kind of amazing to me that we have a very well-run corporation here -- a $1.6 billion corporation -- generating in excess of $600 million, and we don't have estimates or targets of efficiencies that we're going to embark upon to try to achieve the profit number. I just find that mind-boggling. I just want to go back to the minister. Is that what the minister is saying -- that $15 million or $20 million in efficiencies are not identified as to the type of efficiencies and the dollars attached to those? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. I. Waddell: It's not prudent to speculate where you want to save and what efficiencies you want. We've got a target; we know where we're going. We've got to get $635 million. We know pretty well where our sales are, and we're looking at that. I'm trusting management; I think that's good business sense. When you have good management, you rely on the management. I'm relying on the management. Is the member questioning the management? I'm not sure, but that's how we're approaching it.

R. Thorpe: Just for the record, because I think it's very, very important: no, the official opposition -- and in particular the critic -- are not questioning the senior management group or in fact any of the employees at the LDB, because I think they do an excellent job. I've said that for the last three years, and I'm very hopeful that I will continue to say that. I said it when I was in business and worked with them, and I hope I will continue to say that. But what I am saying is that a $1.6 billion organization that is going off to achieve -- and it's the words of the minister that they're going to achieve these increased millions of dollars through efficiency. . . . Yes, I think that a very well-run organization would have a road map, a very exact roadmap, of where they're going to go and how they're going to achieve those. I'm not asking for the in-depth detail; I'm just asking for the broad lines -- whatever the three or four are -- and how much it is, so that we can have some comfort.

Hon. I. Waddell: I think I answered the question.

R. Thorpe: What we have here is a minister who doesn't want to appear to cooperate. Let me now ask the reason why everybody that's in the industry. . . . I'm going to ask some very pointed questions, and now the minister will have the opportunity, because. . . . When you look back at history, the only way that the LDB has been able to achieve these kinds of revenue profit jumps is through markups, tax increases.

Will the minister commit here today that in this business year there will not be a markup increase on beverage alcohol in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. I. Waddell: Is the hon. member advocating a tax increase? Is that what he's doing? We're not anticipating that.

R. Thorpe: The minister knows very well that we stand for lower taxes; we do not support the highest-taxed beverage alcohol regime with respect to the level of taxation. The industry is concerned; the suppliers are concerned, and the retailers are concerned. They're concerned about the ongoing taxation of this government. Will this minister stand in this committee today and advise the suppliers, retailers and consuming public that in the next fiscal year of the LDB there will not be an additional markup tax grab by this government?

Hon. I. Waddell: The hon. member says that his party doesn't support higher taxes, and I'm not sure what he's suggesting. Is he suggesting that we privatize the LDB? Is that the position? I'm sure the liquor store employees in Penticton would be interested in that position. Is that the hon. member's position?

R. Thorpe: Will the minister have the courage -- if he doesn't have the courage, that's another issue -- to stand up today and tell British Columbians -- the suppliers, the retailers and the consumers -- that there will not be a tax or markup increase in this fiscal year? This has nothing to do with privatization. You know, I should check under the table there; maybe the minister has a pair of roller-blades on, because on this issue he's roller-blading all over this room.

The answer is yes, there will be, or no, there won't. It's not really that tough of a question if you understand the business. Can the minister now tell us: will there or won't there be, in the next year, a tax increase to achieve this $635 million profit?

Hon. I. Waddell: If the hon. member would listen, I have answered his question three times. He can try and bully me around -- I won't be bullied around, by the way -- and he can try to indicate that he knows so much about the industry, when he's just like anybody else in the field: he's no expert. I have said: "We do not anticipate the need for markup increases." Do you want me to read that again?

Interjection.

[ Page 8157 ]

R. Thorpe: Well, since we now have the very comforting feeling that the minister doesn't anticipate an increase, let us now see if the minister anticipates for the industry any new fees or increases in levies or any new creative revenue extraction from the suppliers or the customers in the current fiscal year.

Hon. I. Waddell: I thought perhaps the hon. member could add whether I anticipate that it will be a hot summer, etc. You can anticipate a lot of things.

I don't anticipate any increases. The only area that I see is in recycling. I have tried to deal straightforwardly with them on that, in the sense that we're still struggling with getting the exact cost there and dealing with that. We think we can, because the record of the LDB is so good in dealing with recycling. It's a -- what? -- 93 to 97 percent return. They have a lot of experience. It's a good industry to work with, and it's an industry that seems to be working right now. That's the only area I anticipate any increases in.

B. Barisoff: Just going along with the member for Okanagan-Penticton, how do you expect to generate these new revenues? I think what the member for Okanagan-Penticton is getting at is that you're creating some new revenues. . . . How are you going to generate these new revenues? If you're not anticipating any increases in taxation, how are you going to create these new revenues?

The Chair: I'll remind the members to please direct their comments through the Chair.

Hon. I. Waddell: One could say volume increases. It's not really volume increases; it's inflationary increases. If you look at the sales over the years, you'll see that it goes up. A lot of them are going up with inflation. The volumes are up, and they're pretty good, and we anticipate they'll go up. We anticipate there's an inflationary factor, and we anticipate efficiencies will be made. That is where we hope to achieve our target, like any other business.

B. Barisoff: Where would the anticipated efficiencies occur?

Hon. I. Waddell: Just because it's the same question by another member is not. . . . I mean, I've already answered that question. The member has asked me that about three or four times.

R. Thorpe: Just so we know that the inflationary rate will only take. . . . Last Friday the minister confirmed that all the basic financial ratios would remain the same for this fiscal year. Your number should be about $620 million, based on where you came in at this year, and you're coming in at $635 million.

We're going to move on. All British Columbians await, with. . . . As a matter of fact, why don't we just say what some British Columbians are thinking about this right now? I'll quote: "All hoteliers are on high alert." People are concerned, and I hope you've got that message.

With respect to the listing policy of the LDB, how many products do we have in total listings at the LDB today?

Hon. I. Waddell: There are 1,345 general listings.

R. Thorpe: I have one question with respect to the brewing industry, and it has been asked by a small brewer from right here in Victoria, as a matter of fact. What is the current policy of the LDB with respect to listing and distributing the brewpub beers of British Columbia?

Hon. I. Waddell: I thought I answered this last time, but. . . .

[4:45]

Hon. I. Waddell: I didn't? Well, as I recall. . . .

I thought I told the hon. member that in 1997 the LDB reviewed brewpub sales policy and determined that large and small B.C. brewers strongly oppose expanded sales privileges for brewpubs. It's not surprising that they do. If brewpubs were given off-site sales privileges, they would have an advantage, they argue -- the large and small B.C. breweries, that is, not the brewpubs. The brewpubs would have an advantage over commercial breweries, because they could compete for business in other establishments while restricting sales in their establishment to their own beer. In other words, in the brewpub you could only sell the brewpub beer and they could sell outside, but Molson couldn't come in and sell in the brewpub.

At the request of a specific brewpub -- perhaps that's the brewpub you were referring to -- the LDB has agreed to review brewpub markup policy. The review will be complete within a few months.

R. Thorpe: For the record, do we have any non-British Columbia brewpub beers listed for sale at the LDB?

Hon. I. Waddell: Not at this time.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister please share his views with British Columbians on whether he has any plans to lift the moratorium that's in place on LRS stores in the province?

Hon. I. Waddell: Before I answer the question, I just want to get some indication from my friends how long we expect to go on this. I have some other officials here from Tourism.

R. Thorpe: Two minutes, two questions.

Hon. I. Waddell: Okay. The answer is no.

R. Thorpe: Within the business plan, I believe it says "Business Effectiveness. . .value-added." I just wonder if we could expand on that term as used in the business plan for the LDB.

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is: managing or operating expenses as a percentage of sales.

R. Thorpe: What would that target level be?

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm informed that it's approximately 10.5 percent.

R. Thorpe: For my last series of questions, can the minister advise whether the liquor distribution branch is in fact

[ Page 8158 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes.

R. Thorpe: I will resist my last comment, but we'll deal with that later. Hon. Chair, that concludes my questions on the liquor distribution branch. I would like to thank the general manager, the deputy minister and all of the staff in the executive group and throughout the store system for their excellent job and for their cooperation. I look forward to working with them in the coming year.

Hon. I. Waddell: Perhaps I could say that that's very generous of the hon. member, and I will pass that along in my capacity as the minister responsible.

R. Thorpe: I would like to suggest to the minister that we take a two-minute recess so people can reposition themselves.

A Voice: Are we doing Tourism?

R. Thorpe: No, we said we were doing community heritage, etc. That's what was said through your assistant, minister.

Hon. I. Waddell: It would be nice if they told me.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

Hon. I. Waddell: We'll take a break, and I'll check on that.

The Chair: We'll take a break for five minutes, and we'll return at five minutes to five.

The committee recessed from 4:50 p.m. to 5:01 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. I. Waddell: I would like to make some opening remarks with respect to the whole portfolio of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. I just want to put it in a general context. Going back to the throne speech, the government said that it is working to renew B.C.'s economy to encourage investment, create new jobs and ensure opportunities for all British Columbians. This is what this ministry really is about. It's about creating jobs and building a strong economy throughout the province. It's about preserving and enhancing the quality of life through sports, recreation and culture.

I just got back from Prince George. I was at the B.C. Festival of the Arts last weekend, and it was wonderful to see how that community welcomed these performers and how people had come from all over B.C. We were able to do that through this ministry, and we were able to showcase that great talent in British Columbia.

I'm going to start with small business, because small business is one of the main creators of jobs. It accounted for almost a million jobs last year, an increase of 14 percent since 1993. The government has been operating. . . . I have been working with small business. Even today I met a group of small business people in my office, and they're telling us to reduce fees, licences and taxes. We've done some of that; signage is an example. They've told us to cut red tape. We've got a 16-member task force working on that with the Minister of Finance and with a group across the spectrum of small business. I've been to one meeting already, and we're still working on that. Small business wants access to information. They want to deal with government quickly. We've got one-stop shopping, in cooperation with the government of Canada, for small business. They want easier access to capital. We've got the Working Opportunity Fund and the Small Business Venture Capital Act, which we just recently amended in the House. We've got a number of initiatives there, and we'll have more.

More fundamentally, we've reduced the tax burden on small business; it's the lowest tax rate since 1986. We cut taxes by $95 million this fiscal year -- more than $400 million a year when fully implemented. If you combine that with rate freezes, it means money in the pockets of small business people to invest and to create jobs. Forty thousand small businesses have had their taxes reduced. If you combine that with tax reductions, getting rid of red tape with electronic filing, an increase in one-stop shopping and other programs to help small business, this is really good news.

I also want to make some. . . . I'm going to cut this down a little bit. I have some notes, but I'll cut it down in the interests of time. I do want to talk about a couple of other things, especially about youth. We have tried, and I've made it a priority, to get some youth programs in small business -- the entrepreneurial aspect for youth. I've been to a number of You-BET programs. I'd invite the opposition to go to the You-BET programs, where you see young people come in and learn how to start their own small businesses. I've visited small businesses. A woman on Main Street in Vancouver opened her own small business through what she learned in You-BET. Last year 1,400 young people between the ages of 19 and 24 took the introduction to business workshops; 60 percent went on to complete the full program. There's even one in North Vancouver. I think it's coming up this weekend.

If you combine this with the other program of the ministry, Visions for the Future, a new initiative directed at first nations youth, you have some really fundamental, really concrete programs for young people. I hope that the opposition will support me in. . . . When they get up and demand that we cut government and so on, I hope that they don't demand that we cut these really good programs. You know, with some of the draconian measures they've suggested, these programs would go, and there'd be nothing for young people.

I'd like to look at tourism in a broader sense here as one of the ways of creating jobs. It's an $8.5 billion industry, the second-largest export industry now. We created Tourism B.C. last year to market Super, Natural British Columbia, and it seems to be working and working very well. The target the Premier set was 25,000 new tourism-related jobs by 2001. We've reached 11,000 jobs already, in one year. So that's pretty good -- it's terrific. We reckon that the tourism sector employs 235,000 people, of which 45 percent are B.C. youth. That's pretty darned good. We had 21.3 million visitors to British Columbia. We've got our tourism operators out there working hard on this. I was in Quebec City for six hours to help promote this tourism, and I'm very impressed with the people that are in this business.

I want to say a few things about the Royal British Columbia Museum, which will no doubt come up in the estimates -- to say what a jewel it is and how well it's been working. I hope

[ Page 8159 ]

We will be having further announcements soon on the film and TV industry. I'll try to answer the questions there. This is another winner for British Columbia. We are creating jobs there. It's a $630 million industry. It has increased 300 percent in 10 years. It's going to be a billion-dollar industry in a couple of years, and the government's working very closely with the industry to make this thing happen. We are partners in this. It is working; it is happening. Ten thousand British Columbians are employed full-time in the industry, and when you put in part-time seasonal workers, it's 25,000 people.

I wish people out there would talk more about the good things that are happening in British Columbia -- film, tourism, small business. It's impressive. We should be positive, not negative. A number of people seem to be drinking their own bathwater and are being perhaps too ideological. It used to be that the ideologists were on the left; now they're on the right. They should think that when they rain on the parade that is British Columbia, they speak against their own interests. Super, Natural B.C. is one of the new film capitals of the world. We're moving into high tech; these new industries are here.

I want to just say a little thing about the work that the arts have done, as well, and I hope this will come up in estimates. The Arts Council is giving $11.7 million in awards. We cut that in the past. Now we've stopped the cuts in that, and I hope we can build on it. The new chair of the Arts Council is Ann Mortifee, and we will work together in promoting the arts in B.C. The arts sector produces more jobs than practically any other sector. If you examine Canada as a whole in the last two decades through Stats Canada, you will find that the arts actually created more jobs than any other sector including science and technology. So this is worth the work on it.

B.C. Heritage Trust is another area that I hope to work with and to move it with Culture and Tourism. There are going to be some questions on that. I would remind the hon. members that we have to deal with a very difficult act. I suggest that they have a look at the Heritage Trust Act and see what the obligations are on individuals as a result of that act, which was passed by the Legislature a long time before the rest of us came here. I also hope that the hon. members will see some of our heritage sites, like Barkerville, Fort Steele, the Hat Creek Ranch and Point Ellice House.

Finally, I want to talk a little about sports and recreation. Three quarters of a million people -- one in five British Columbians -- are registered members of a provincial sports organization. That includes 60 percent of kids who are under 19. We are supporting athletes. I hope the members will ask me in the estimates about this program, because I have some wonderful letters from athletes thanking the ministry for the grants that we've been able to give them so that they can attend events. We are supporting athletes who represent B.C. in major multi-sport games: the Canada Games, for example, through the Team B.C. program. We're supporting regional employment in coaching and facilitating local participation. We're doing some exciting programs. The other day we announced a program called SportSafe, working with Sheldon Kennedy and other people who started the concern about these abuse matters. We've got a program, and we're out there working with communities, with coaches and with other people.

This is a ministry that's committed to jobs. This is a good-news ministry. This is a ministry that's producing. This is a ministry that's optimistic, that's moving to the twenty-first century. It's a ministry that's cut to the bone; it's cut very narrow. The government had to put money into education and into health, which are the main priorities in British Columbia. But this is a ministry that's holding its own. It's lean and mean and doing very well. It's not very mean when it comes to dealing with people -- just lean.

Interjection

Hon. I. Waddell: Somebody said: "Not even lean." We're good -- this ministry.

So that concludes my opening remarks. I wanted to lay out for the members what we're doing in a number of programs, and I'll be pleased to answer any of the questions on the estimates. Maybe we could. . . . Well, we'll see. I'll just leave it at that. Perhaps my friend wants to start with questions or has some responses.

R. Thorpe: I didn't realize that we were going to have this speech from on high. But one must respond to it and really get the facts on the table.

As seen by a majority of British Columbians. . . . I believe, in fact, that 62 percent of people share views similar to ours. But we hear all these great and wonderful things. Let me just quote. I was going to save this for another section of estimates. The minister did mention that he was in Prince George last Friday. I remember him having to rush out of the House.

Let me just quote a letter I received today from somebody who happened to be in Prince George: "The recent cutbacks in government funding have seen the removal of all juniors aged ten to 12 in speech arts, piano, vocal, brass, woodwinds, strings and ensembles." Now, isn't that amazing? We just hear somebody speechify from on high about this tremendous commitment, and then we get this in from a parent. The shame of this is that these are children ten to 12 years old. We should be very careful about how we're selecting and what we're being selective of. Above all, when it comes to talking about youth. . . . It was only a few weeks ago when some youth had to come to this building to stand up for jobs which they had received confirmation about in writing from this government. Those jobs were seized from them, stolen from them, two days before they were to start. Fortunately, those 32 co-op students are working now.

So let us be very, very careful when throwing out certain things and making certain accusations. We can take it as well as we can give it. Let me assure the minister that there will be a lot of giving back if we want to stay here and give it back. If we want to try to deal with the issues, we can deal with the issues. It doesn't seem that we want to do that today. Maybe we will have a better approach tomorrow, because sometimes time does mend issues.

[5:15]

[ Page 8160 ]

You know, we in the opposition actually do have plans laid out. If the minister would like -- we don't mind sharing good ideas -- I can forward a copy of them to him.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: If other members would like to speak, perhaps they could stand up at the appropriate time and speak.

What we need from this government is action; we don't need more rhetoric. When commitments are made to people, we need to live with those commitments and deliver the goods. As we get into tourism a little bit further on, we'll see where this government stands on the 30-day promises that it made in Kelowna on February 26. They were going to have issues resolved for tourism operators in 30 days. We'll see. We look forward to positive results, because the minister wants us to think positive.

Small business operators are not only concerned with taxation. Yes, that's one of them, but they are also concerned with cutting red tape. I do anticipate a few snide remarks later on that, but we'll make our own back, if that's what we have to do. As I said, the opposition wrote the Minister of Finance with respect to the committee on cutting red tape. We said: "We share that view. Bring us in; let's work together." Of course, we've not heard back from the government. Again, they'll probably want it to be a partisan thing, as opposed to everyone working for all British Columbians.

Then, of course, we have the facts. The facts always seem to record what's really happening, as opposed to the rhetoric. Yes, this government said it was going to cut red tape -- on March 30, I think it was. But then on April 15 they introduced 1,500 pages of new WCB regulations. If that wasn't enough, then what do they do? They introduce Bill 14. What are small business operators saying? Is this government listening? What are they saying? They're going to stop hiring people, so they don't qualify for the different committee levels that have to go in. We'll see when we get into the small business sector -- and some staff can do their homework now -- what analyses have been done by this ministry that's committed to helping build small business.

When I spoke on Bill 14, I asked this minister through my speech -- who said on February 26 in Kelowna that he was going to be an advocate for small business. . . . I invited him into the House to tell us why Bill 14 was either a good bill or a bad bill -- to stand up for small business, to cut the red tape before we started.

This is the government that understands so much about red tape that it introduces a Forest Practices Code that sinks the industry by $1.5 billion and then has a party to celebrate that they removed $300 million out of $1.5 billion. This government doesn't understand business; they don't understand it. Most of them have never had to work and to stay awake Thursday night trying to figure out how to make the payroll on Friday. I suggest that some of them should do that. If we're going to try to deal with the issues and to leave some of the rhetoric off the table, then so be it. But if we want to ratchet up the rhetoric, we can ratchet up the rhetoric. I'm here to see that the issues of small business and tourism operators are addressed by this government, and to make sure that we set deadlines that are actionable and achievable and are put in place so that we can get British Columbians back to work.

British Columbians working. . . . The highest unemployment rate west of Quebec -- that is wrong. We live in a rich, rich province; we should be booming. With respect to youth, there's just under 19 percent unemployment -- the worst, with the exception of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. I mean no ill to those three provinces, but British Columbia should not have the fourth-highest unemployment rate in the country. We should be booming.

I suggest that this government has some serious structural problems. This minister, who wants to be the advocate -- or says he's the advocate for small business and tourism -- should show the courage to stand up to some of this new red tape that's being brought in by the wheelbarrow-full, which is in the House right now: Bill 14 at committee stage. Go in there and help us stop the red tape. Call a time-out. Maybe we should check the vote on that bill. No, we wouldn't do that. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to be the advocate, if you're going to get small business and tourism operators back to work, if you're going to reduce the unemployment rates, you have to start to understand the fundamentals. More red tape in British Columbia is not one of the keys to success.

With respect to the museum, we applaud the successes that the museum has had. We applaud the fact that their funding under this government continues to dwindle and dwindle and that they are doing very creative things over there. I think the opening of the new IMAX is June 26, and I look forward. . . . I've actually already seen the picture that's going to be showing there -- the whales -- and I encourage all British Columbians to come and see it, because it is world-class. It's great that we have that. But you know, the people at the Royal British Columbia Museum have been doing more and more with less and less. So let us not forget who's doing it; those folks over there are doing it. It's amazing what happens when we take the big hand of government off people and we take Big Brother out of their lives. It's amazing how people can be creative; it's amazing how people can prosper and grow. So, hon. minister, I suggest you look at that success of government stepping back. No doubt, as you go to renegotiate with the Royal B.C. Museum in the next few months for their next five years, they will be facing additional cutbacks from your government. Perhaps they won't. But I'll bet you they meet the challenge, because I am an eternal optimist. I believe everything is possible.

Hon. Chair, thank you very much for allowing these opening comments. I just want to say that the official opposition is committed to small business, and we do have a nine-point plan, which I will be pleased to send to the minister. With respect to the tourism industry, we have a nine-point plan. I'm sure the minister has a copy of it, but if he doesn't, we'll make sure he has a fresh copy that doesn't have fax marks on it. You know, you can look at it. When you have time to read it and as you listen to the people who are out there in the businesses -- the families that have their life savings at stake; the little fishing lodges that you have to fly into, which are being killed by Crown leases that are up by 7,000 and 8,000 percent as they struggle to build a business in British Columbia -- I hope that over time you'll have some understanding of those folks and you'll understand how hard it is for them to survive and try to provide for their families. There is more to British Columbia than the lower mainland and Victoria.

[ Page 8161 ]

My colleague from Parksville is not going to be here tomorrow. I know he has some questions on tourism. I'm going to yield the floor to him so that he can ask his questions on tourism.

P. Reitsma: I must say that I listened with bated breath to my colleague, particularly as I'm in a small business myself -- in the travel industry. The travel industry throughout B.C. is absolutely reeling from lack of business, because people simply don't have the funds to travel. It's a discretionary amount. In my area of Parksville-Qualicum and particularly in Port Alberni, being a one-industry town, there are so many concerns because of the lack of business, because people aren't working. Indeed, the tourism industry -- which I've been involved in for 30-some-odd years -- particularly in B.C. but also throughout Canada and the world, is an industry that will create. . . . Although many of them are not necessarily high-paying jobs like in forestry and the mining industry. . . . Many of them are supplementary jobs which are very important, of course, to earn a second income.

My colleague mentioned some of the problems, and no doubt -- unfortunately, won't be here tomorrow -- they will be brought up next week. I do, as I did last week, congratulate the minister for becoming the Tourism minister -- and those that are related to his industry. It's a wonderful industry to be in.

Since there is only a small amount of time, I did appreciate the meeting we had with the deputy minister in terms of some explanatory notes on vote 58, and that is fine. Starting off with one question. . . . It may be related to the Finance ministry; nevertheless, I had a letter sent to me by the Parksville-Qualicum Tourism Association. They sent a letter. They sent a letter to the Finance minister, and they did get a reply.

They've got unanimous approval from the industry, particularly the hotels in our area. They were asking what the possibilities were for the introduction of an additional 1 percent -- not 2 percent, but 1 percent -- hotel room tax. Many of the municipalities, of course -- Whistler, Vancouver, Victoria and some other ones -- are allowed an additional 2 percent on top of the 8 percent. I know this has to do with the Ministry of Finance, but nevertheless, this is a request by that particular organization. They sent a letter to the minister, and they have unanimous consent to implement the 1 percent rather than the 2 percent. I understand there is a moratorium on that. Whilst it may be in the Ministry of Finance, nevertheless we need, as the minister said -- he's an advocate for small business -- to stand up for small business. We certainly need his endeavours and his standing up for that particular group.

I ask the minister this first question: would he do his best. . . ? Is he in favour of hearing the request from the Parksville-Qualicum Tourism Association to lift the moratorium and allow them to levy a 1 percent additional tax?

[5:30]

To answer his question, we are considering that very situation. As the member pointed out, there are some municipalities, like Vancouver, Victoria and Whistler, which have these hotel taxes going to set up Tourism Victoria, Tourism Vancouver and so on. Others don't, like the one the hon. member referred to. I often talk to the mayor of Prince George about this, as well, because Prince George doesn't either.

The answer to his question is that I will look at that and seriously consider those positions, and we'll try to find a system so that it's fairer for all the province. I just might add on top of that. . . . I'm personally committed to trying to get tourism outside the so-called golden triangle of Whistler, Vancouver and Victoria to the other regions, especially to the Island and the different regions of British Columbia. I said this in Kelowna, and I'll say it again here: I want to see tourism move out, and that's one of the areas that we should consider.

P. Reitsma: Indeed, to coin the phrase of the golden triangle. . . . In the travelling that I've done in the past, once you go beyond Victoria, Vancouver and Whistler to the hinterlands -- the Okanagan, the Cariboo up north and even, of course, Vancouver Island. . . . There has been a strong feeling of the various tourist associations -- we are talking about the chambers of commerce, the tourist information centres, the gift shops, the hotels and motels and the restaurants -- that there somehow seems to be a lack of understanding of what is needed in the outlying areas. I don't know if we're going to canvass the business plan of Tourism B.C. at all, but I hope that the new Tourism B.C. board -- and I know that they have representatives from the various areas -- will very much take to heart that there is more than just Victoria, Vancouver and Whistler. In order for the province to do well, the outlying areas must also do well. I'll probably get back to that later.

On marketing -- which, of course, is extremely important in any business, for that matter, whatever business you're in. . . .

Hon. I. Waddell: Excuse me. On a point of order, I hesitate to interrupt the member, but we do have limited time. I've got my officials here. Could the member put some questions to me? I can answer detailed questions.

The Chair: Minister, that's not a point of order.

P. Reitsma: As forgiving as we are, it's a point well made. If you want to rephrase it that way, that's fine.

I wrote to the various provinces in Canada to find out where the various tourist offices are. I am particularly interested in an emerging area in the Pacific Rim -- of course, it's the mainland of China. You have to invest in the future by anticipating today, I suppose, and with a billion people five to ten years from now, when economies will be better, I think there's a huge opportunity. The only one that I could find of the provinces in Canada was Alberta, and they have offices located in Beijing, China -- in fact, I've been there -- Hong Kong, Seoul in Korea, Taipei and Tokyo being the Pacific Rim. Is the ministry or the minister considering -- which would be a marvellous step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned -- opening an office in mainland China or even starting with a representative?

Hon. I. Waddell: The question was with respect to our involvement in China. We don't have anybody in China right now. It's a possible growing tourism area to Canada; I agree with the hon. member. We have staff on secondment at the Canadian Tourism Commission in Singapore. As a matter of fact, I believe I might have talked to some staff when I was in

[ Page 8162 ]

P. Reitsma: Ecotourism: extremely important. There was a good article in the paper the other day: "Ecotourism Booms." Also, by the way, there's a good article by Jacques Cousteau's son, who is very concerned about tourism in general polluting the beaches, the oceans and the coastal regions. I happened to be in the Galapagos Islands a few years ago and could see how detrimental it was to the islands, particularly to the flora and fauna, because of the numbers of tourists there. Ecotourism -- yes, they're going to Peru, and they're going to Nepal, etc. How is this minister or ministry evaluating ecotourism? How is it marketed? Where is it going to be targeted? What is the general feeling by this ministry about ecotourism, which I think is an emerging possibility as well?

Hon. I. Waddell: Let me reply to my friend, the former deputy Liberal critic of Tourism, that we are doing ecotourism marketing in partnership with the regions. Tourism B.C. has dedicated $3 million, which is levered to $5 million when you get into the industry's contribution. Last year 1,900 tourism businesses participated in the program. I want to say that I agree with the member that it's a growing area and an important area. I read the article in the paper too.

P. Reitsma: A quick side question. Is the minister anticipating any new fee increases to the tourism industry as a whole, as we've had with fishing licences -- increased and then reduced? What fee increases are anticipated?

Hon. I. Waddell: I notice that they're passing notes here in the opposition. I guess they're still working together.

I want to answer that question by saying that we're not anticipating any fee increases. The only area I could think of would be in trade shows in Europe, where prices may go up a little bit. That's the only area.

P. Reitsma: Passing notes is always good. I will pass you some notes at the appropriate time too, if it is good.

We're all here for one thing, and that is tourism. There's nothing more I wish to see than tourism to be the number one industry in B.C., as a matter of fact. Talking about numbers, I heard some numbers -- $7 billion in 1996. I've heard $8.3 billion; I've now heard $8.5 billion -- many figures bandied around. I know they're trying to get $9.9 billion in '99 -- it's a slogan -- but just quickly on that. . . .

Hon. I. Waddell: Last year it was $8.3 billion; this year we're projecting $8.5 billion. Those are the numbers of Tourism B.C.

P. Reitsma: There was an article in January saying that nearly "1,500 hotel workers seek occupational certification." To what extent is the ministry actively involved with union certification in the hospitality industry, and are there some specifics?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is we're not involved. It's a matter for the Ministry of Labour.

P. Reitsma: Since it is the hospitality industry, I'm sure that even if it's under the Ministry of Labour, this minister is keen to know or to find out, particularly since he's an advocate for small business in the hospitality industry, if something like that is planned. I think it's extremely important for the hospitality industry as a whole. So if the minister doesn't want to answer the question. . . . It is not a loaded question; it's simply an honest question: is certification in the hospitality industry indeed anticipated? Is the government actively working on that -- and whether it's the travel industry, tour operators or any of the other ones?

Hon. I. Waddell: No, I do treat it seriously. I'm not quite sure if certification is in terms of, let's say, unionizing or getting a union. . . . That's going on. I don't think whatever I do will affect that. What I am interested in -- and I met this morning with representatives from the business community -- is areas like the Employment Standards Act, and that has a lot of effect, especially on small business in the hospitality industry. I follow closely any developments there or indeed any opinions that the industry has in that particular area. I've listened to people from COTA, the tourist group, and this morning to people from small business generally.

P. Reitsma: It's not that I'm for more regulations -- in fact, far, far from that. We should have less and less regulations. Tragically, there were some whale-watching accidents earlier this year off the west coast. I preface by saying that I don't want more regulations, but to what extent is the ministry playing a role in terms of safety if it indeed has to be done? Or have any concerns been expressed? That's one question.

The other one, since we're going to run short of time, is on high-tech, cyberspace and tourism. . . . Some comments. And the one I particularly like is: is the province in the process of a commitment to promote any lighthouse vacations, since there are so many lighthouses available? So three questions. . . .

Hon. I. Waddell: With respect to the member's first question -- a very good question on whale-watching -- I too was concerned about that tragic accident at Tofino in an area that's really growing. It's basically dealt with by Transport Canada, which makes the regulations. The federal government makes the regulations. I share the hon. member's views. I would prefer that the industry be self-regulating on this.

I've talked to the two people, whose business it was where the accident happened. I asked them: "Have there been repercussions? Are things down, for example?" It doesn't seem to have affected the number of people going whale-watching; it's still increasing. I talked to some of the people here in Victoria about that. I would personally like to have a look at the coroner's report when it comes out.

I'm also told that we've participated in developing a voluntary code of ethics. That's the way I think we should go for whale-watching operators to protect their workers, the environment and the whales, so we don't get too much of a good thing. We are working on that. But I think it's a very good question to flag.

The second part of the question was on the lighthouses -- high-tech.

[ Page 8163 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: Okay. I can talk about high-tech. I mean, we have an Internet web site and a reservation number that Tourism B.C. is doing, which is getting more and more people, and so on.

With respect to the lighthouses, I don't know. I'm not sure I can answer that, but I can bring it to the attention of Tourism B.C.

[5:45]

There was a report awhile ago that B.C. Rail sold off some cars to the U.S. without tendering. Apparently, I understand, Whistler-bound tourism train traffic used some of those trains but were never told by B.C. Rail that they were not available. It is B.C. Rail, but it has to do with tourism to Whistler. That's one question.

The second one is. . . . I have some comments on a bachelor's degree offered in tourism, and I am going by a September 4, 1997, report in the Alberni Valley Times, where some of those students said that a college tourism course was a joke. So first on the cars to Whistler. . . .

The Chair: Minister, noting the time.

Hon. I. Waddell: First of all, on storm-watching -- it's great. Don't get too close, though.

With respect to B.C. Rail, I have asked my officials. We don't know about that. We'll look into it, and we'll get back to the hon. member on that. When I was in Quebec City talking to the people selling tourism to Europeans and the operatives based in Europe, I was struck by the interest in rail travel -- really struck by it. I would like B.C. Rail to do more on that. The Rocky Mountaineer is really popular, and there's a lot of things that we could do. It's very popular with Europeans, and we want to increase European tourism.

With respect to the BA in tourism, I'm not quite sure about that. But we have offered, through B.C. Tourism, to help post-secondary institutions in curriculum development. This is a growing area. In spite of it being a huge industry, it's still a growing area in education, and it's one of the areas that B.C. Tourism is looking at.

Does the hon. member have more questions?

P. Reitsma: Oh, lots of them. Unfortunately, I'll be in Vancouver tomorrow. So I don't know how it's going to go. But I can make them available to the minister.

In the interests of time, I move that we stand adjourned until tomorrow -- that we rise and report.

Hon. I. Waddell: I have a motion that I was given, but I can't find it. But I recall it saying that I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:49 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada