[ Page 8165 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. I. Waddell: Would the Members of the Legislative Assembly please join with me today in recognizing the 100th birthday of one of Canada's most outstanding citizens: Arthur Irwin. He's not here in the gallery, but I'm told that he is watching on television today. Arthur Irwin, best known as the man who made Maclean's truly Canada's national magazine, trained a generation of great writers to his own exacting standards. He provided them with a national forum. In the words of Pierre Berton: "It is not too much to say that the astonishing renaissance in non-fiction writing in Canada since the end of the Second World War -- a renaissance reflected in today's best seller lists -- is due in a very large part to [Arthur Irwin]."

Arthur Irwin had great influence in Canada as the driving force for 25 years behind the success of Maclean's magazine; as the film commissioner of the National Film Board, beginning in 1950; as a diplomat to Australia, Brazil and Mexico; and as publisher of the Victoria Times. While with the National Film Board, he met and married the great poet P.K. Page, author of more than a dozen books of poetry, fiction and non-fiction. They live here in Victoria. So, on the behalf of the House: happy 100th birthday, Arthur, and thank you for your contribution to British Columbia and to Canada.

F. Gingell: The official opposition would like to join with the minister in wishing a truly great Canadian happy birthday. It's hard to realize this, but Mr. Irwin retired from work way older than most people do, and that was 27 years ago. Most of you here -- other than myself and maybe Val and Dan -- were still at your mothers' knees.

Canada is a country that is blessed. We are blessed with a fine environment that we must protect, with resources that we must husband and with special citizens. And it is those citizens and the commitment that they make to this country. . . . The work that they do for us is basic and is a foundation stone in building Canada into the country that it is. So I indeed join with all other members of the House in wishing Mr. Irwin happy birthday.

L. Reid: I rise today to offer sincere congratulations to a member of our staff, Mr. Ben Basi, who has brought a gold medal back home to Canada. He participated in the California Cup field hockey tournament in Thousand Oaks, California, and his team won -- indeed, with no time left on the clock. I would ask the House to offer its sincere congratulations.

R. Kasper: Visiting us today in the precincts, and later on in the gallery, are some 35 students from Brentwood College. They are joined by their teacher, Mr. J. Atterbury, and other adults. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Visiting the gallery today are my landlords, Lucille and Harry North. They have watched me go from being just a regular MLA to being what some might say is the highest-paid janitor in the province. They're here visiting today with Harry's brother Alan North and a friend, Sylvia York, and they're visiting from Lincoln, England. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I am delighted today to have the opportunity to introduce Vivienne Phillips, who works in my ministry and is actually working in my office for a short period. She is here with her mother Doreen Knill, and they are both, of course, residents of Victoria. I ask the House to help me make them very welcome indeed.

Hon. S. Hammell: I'd like to introduce Elizabeth Clark to the House. She's a grade 10 student from Saltspring Island and is with our ministry doing a career planning program. With her is our director of communications, Dianne George. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. C. McGregor: In the House today is a visitor from Parksville named Donna Matthews, who is a good friend of my assistant Rachel Bourne. Would the House please make her welcome.

S. Hawkins: Today I'd like to introduce two people that are very special in my life: Joe and Mary Leask. Joe is a very active resident of Kelowna; he is in the Rotary Club and is chairman of the child development centre. He sits on city council, and in that regard he's also the representative on the treaty advisory committee. My husband's aunt, Mary -- which makes her a relative -- is joining him; she is also a very dedicated volunteer at the cancer centre in Kelowna. I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.

G. Hogg: It is my delight and pleasure to introduce and welcome two energetic, positive volunteers and friends from Surrey-White Rock. Would the House please welcome Doug and Gina LaChance.

E. Gillespie: I ask the House to join me today in welcoming 48 grade 6 students from Cumberland Elementary School, who will be visiting the precinct accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Gordon, and many parents. Please join me in welcoming them.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like all members to welcome a former member of this House, Mr. Terry Segarty. Mr. Segarty represented the Kootenay constituency from 1979 to 1986. He served as Minister of Labour in the Bill Bennett government during that time. Please make him welcome.

J. Doyle: I'm pleased to have friends in the gallery today. They used to reside in Kimberley; they now reside in Victoria. In the gallery today, visiting from Victoria, is Agnes Nomland, a good friend of mine and a good friend of our party. Her husband Sonny was unable to be here today but is watching on television. Also with Agnes today are a couple of friends from Kaslo, in the member for Nelson-Creston's riding: Bobbi Jonston and Clarice Caywood. I'd like you to make them welcome.

Hon. Speaker, we can't let the opportunity pass without mentioning another item. Tomorrow, May 28, is also a very important day as far as this government goes. It is the second anniversary of our re-election. I'd like all members to join in congratulating us on that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm hearing calls of "Order," hon. members. I recognize the member for Alberni.

G. Janssen: Next time, opposition members -- next time.

Interjections.

[ Page 8166 ]

With us today are 40 grade-10-to-12 students from Alberni District Secondary School, with their teacher, Mr. Contant, and several adults. Also with us are three young women from Port Alberni: Christa Schiffelers, Cathy Waddington and Lynn Turner. Christa Schiffelers is an especially welcome guest, because I get a chance to practise my Dutch; she comes from the same area of Holland that I do. I ask the House to make them welcome.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR QUESNEL FAMILY SUPPORT GROUP

The Speaker: I presume that was addressed to the Minister for Children and Families.

Hon. L. Boone: The incident you talk about is truly one that we're very sorry for. It was one of human error. You're correct that the society had not been paid. But as of 2 o'clock -- as of 15 minutes ago, I guess -- that society would have received payment electronically. We sent our apologies to that society and to anybody who suffered as a result of it.

J. Wilson: The minister needs to do more than apologize, because the amount of money forwarded is insufficient to cover it. Seventy-one families will lose their parenting courses on Friday, when this ministry forces that society to close its doors. Will the minister explain to those people. . . ?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Proceed, member.

J. Wilson: Will the minister explain to those people who are required to take the course in order to rebuild their families what they should do now, once the society and their course have disappeared?

Hon. L. Boone: Perhaps my voice is really bad today, because I do have a cold. But I did explain earlier that the money had been forwarded to the society. The dollars are there. That society should not have to close its doors. There was an error. We apologized to the society for any problems that have been caused, and we'll make sure that the money is there for that society to make sure that its door is open.

C. Clark: When the minister says it's been electronically transmitted, I guess that's the equivalent of "the cheque's in the mail." This society has been dealing with this ministry on a daily basis since April, asking for their money. They were told in May: "The cheque's in the mail." This minister made a promise to the people of Quesnel that she would fix the problems in that ministry. She signed a contract. Their bill with that society got up to over $60,000, and the president was personally on the hook for $13,000. How can she say that she's fixed all the problems in Quesnel when she can't even cut a cheque on time?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm glad that they're not waiting for me to. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. We want to hear the minister.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .cut the cheque, because I don't cut cheques. This money has been transmitted to the society. We do apologize for the inconvenience that has been caused. I certainly never promised to correct all the problems in Quesnel. We are trying as hard as we can to assist that community and to deal with the problems that it's had in the past, but I have never said that I would correct the problems in any society, nor will I ever do so.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: As the minister pointed out, there have been a lot of problems in Quesnel with her ministry, and I would expect that her ministry would be paying special attention to what's going on in that community to try and fix the problems up there. But instead it takes them four months to provide a cheque for desperately needed services in that community. Families are depending on that society in order to keep their children from being apprehended. There are at least three families depending on that program to get their children back.

Meanwhile, the minister has found money to cut a cheque for a public relations consultant to go up there and fix the problems in the ministry.

The Speaker: And your question?

C. Clark: How come she can find money to cut a cheque for a PR consultant to go to Quesnel, but the best that the front-line service providers can get is: "Oh, the cheque's in the mail. We'll have it in the bank tomorrow."

Hon. L. Boone: That wasn't a public relations person that went into Quesnel. That person went there to deal with the healing of that community, and from everything I've gathered, that whole process went very well. They worked with that community, they worked to try and heal the problems that have been there. It was a very worthwhile process. It was not a public relations grab -- not like the member opposite did when she went into Quesnel with her public meeting. This was an opportunity to help that community in the healing process.

EFFECT OF JOBS AND TIMBER ACCORD
ON FOREST INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT

[ Page 8167 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm going to have to reply with a question. As we know, the last two months are normally the slowest time in the forest industry -- breakup -- so what does he mean by "lost"? There have certainly been thousands of temporary layoffs, and industry is continuing to have trouble.

What we have done is reduce the costs to industry by changing the Forest Practices Code, and we are very close to reducing the stumpage. The combined effect of that should stabilize the industry. We hope it will stabilize the industry. But there will be no recovery until there is recovery in the markets.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: What we have here, on the one hand, is a government that promises tens of thousands of new jobs, and on the other hand, we see the reality of thousands of people losing their jobs in the forest industry in this province.

I want to try this once again with the Minister of Forests: how many jobs have been lost in the past two months -- or is the number so high, so astronomical, that the minister can't keep track of it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As I said, it's a question of whether they are temporary jobs because of temporary downturns. Or are they permanent because of closures? The numbers, because of permanent closures, are in the hundreds; the numbers, because of a temporary reduction in activities, are in the tens of thousands.

What we have to remember is that the commitments under the jobs and timber accord were to create more wood ahead -- which we've delivered on -- and more wood for the small businesses so they can create more jobs. And we've delivered on that. We've also committed to have a more efficient Forest Practices Code administration. All of this will help poise us for recovery.

G. Campbell: The minister knows the number. The minister receives reports on a biweekly basis of how many people are losing their jobs. The opposition has a leaked document from the ministry with regard to the expansion -- the mill closure and curtailment report. It states: "The minister has recently requested that we regularly provide him with updates on the number of employees that have been laid off in the forest sector."

So again, a specific answer: how many people have been laid off, and is the minister willing to table those reports on a biweekly basis so that people in British Columbia know how much damage his policies have done?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I thought we were getting ready for estimates, because I anticipate discussion on that there. Yes, I receive reports. As I say, there are two categories: there's permanent layoffs. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They say laid off, hon. Speaker. There's always layoffs; there are always around 13,000 layoffs in the middle of the winter and during breakup. They don't seem to understand that. The norm is around 13,000 layoffs. That's the norm because of weather and downturns. We're at the bottom of a cycle, hon. Speaker. There is a low number of layoffs. I'll be happy to provide the figures; we do keep the figures. But again, it may not be statistically valid. The numbers that we have agreed to use. . .

The Speaker: Finish up, minister.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . .for the jobs and timber accord are from the survey of employment, payroll and hours, and those are public figures.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. I recognize, for his supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: The people of British Columbia know that nothing this government does is statistically valid. This memo goes on to say specifically that this minister's request will require additional staff time to complete. There's NDP forest policy for you: more bureaucrats to find out how many people in British Columbia are being laid off and have lost their jobs. The question to the minister. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

G. Campbell: . . .is: will the minister commit. . . ?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order.

G. Campbell: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Will the minister commit today to table those reports on a biweekly basis in this Legislature, and will he tell us explicitly today how many people have lost their jobs and how many are laid off?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's my hope to keep a watch on what's happening community by community and company by company. If there are any indications of problems that we can help with, we're willing to do that. I have concentrated my efforts on problem-solving with respect to reducing the costs to industry. We have done what we were asked to do by the industry: to reduce the cost so that they can maintain as many jobs as they can. Having made the cuts to stumpage and having made the cuts to the costs of the code, it's up to industry to put people back to work.

M. de Jong: Fortunately, when it comes to counting lost forestry jobs, we don't have to rely exclusively on the Forests minister, because, you see, the member for Mission-Kent commissioned his own study to ascertain the effects of the jobs and timber accord in his riding. Well, I wonder what it said, hon. Speaker. Here's what it said: "None of the companies felt that the jobs and timber accord had been beneficial up to this point. The companies felt that the accord in its current form was devastating their companies." My question to the Minister of Forests is: does he agree with his cabinet colleague's own report -- that his policies and his jobs and timber accord have been devastating to companies right around this province?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm intimately familiar with the situation in that member's riding and with that report. Unfor-

[ Page 8168 ]

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . .you're talking about.

[2:30]

M. de Jong: I've got a different definition of booming than the minister, obviously. One of the companies interviewed went from 500 employees down to 40. Another went from 500 employees down to ten. One thousand people who used to be working in the member for Mission-Kent's riding is now down to 60. How does this minister stand up and defend a program which, by his own cabinet colleague's admission, has been absolutely devastating to forestry employees right across the province of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The cedar industry -- that's the one the member is talking about -- is up and down with markets. Sometimes it's very low and sometimes it's very high. It has come through a period of very high prices. When prices are high, people are employed -- if they have the markets.

There are all kinds of problems in the markets that we can't address. We attempt to do it where we can, but as I said, there will not be recovery in the industry until there is a recovery in the markets. That was said when we tabled the accord. We said that it depended on the viability of the industry and the viability of markets. We stand by that, hon. Speaker. We have done an awful lot to assist the industry as a whole, and we continue to do more.

Tabling Documents

I also have another report to present to the Legislature: the report on guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1997. This is done in accordance with section 56(a) of the Financial Administration Act.

Orders of the Day

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

On section 15, section 137.

Hon. D. Lovick: We are still in division 4, "Joint Committees and Worker Representatives." My suspicion is that we will probably move more rapidly than we have -- at least in this division -- simply because a number of the questions raised have already been canvassed in other sections, and they're essentially just mirror images. However, that is obviously not to be determined by me alone; it clearly depends very much on my questioners opposite.

Section 137, of course, is committee reports, and it simply stipulates that after each committee meeting, a report must be prepared by the committee. The committee will then provide a copy to the employer, and the employer must keep a copy of this report for at least two years and ensure that these reports are accessible to committee members, workers and any other persons who might be authorized by the board. The employer must also send a copy of the report to the union if the union requests that a copy be sent. I think this is fairly straightforward, but I welcome questions.

C. Hansen: One of the things we've made note of previously in this debate is that there are duties and functions set out for these committees, and yet, as we discussed yesterday, there's no liability that comes back on the committees -- at least none that the minister was able to outline for us.

One of the questions that I have in terms of this particular section is: what happens if a committee does not prepare a report? What are the ramifications of that? There is a whole bunch of things that are supposed to happen to these reports, but it's all based on the assumption that the committee will in fact produce the report. But if the report is not forthcoming, I don't see that there are any ramifications at all for that lack of action on their part.

Hon. D. Lovick: I suppose that ultimately the board could make a formal request for a committee report. However, given what the legislation stipulates, the requirement of the committee is to simply keep the reports on file, not to submit them to the board. So in that case, it's quite conceivable that for a period of two years or more, the board wouldn't know that the committee had not done that.

My sense is that the knowledge of that would come from somebody within the workplace saying that they are not complying with it; they're refusing to submit the reports as they should be. But as I say, for the most part, because of our efforts not to impose too onerous a restriction in terms of red tape -- in other words, not to demand that they submit reports on an annual basis or something like that -- there is a conceivable period of time in which we wouldn't know that the committee was not indeed complying with the legislation.

Section 15, section 137 approved on division.

On section 15, section 138.

C. Hansen: Here we have the requirements for the employer to post committee information. Again, I think this is

[ Page 8169 ]

In subsection (c) it is a requirement that copies of any applicable orders under this division be posted for the preceding 12 months. There's really no definition in here of what "applicable" means. My interpretation of this is that they are orders that come from the board, which specifically state that the employer must post them. I'm wondering if that's a fair interpretation of what an applicable order would be under this section.

Hon. D. Lovick: An applicable order would be an order from the board applicable to division 4 of this bill -- namely, reports of the joint committee. That's the only one.

C. Hansen: My understanding is that there are other orders that may be required. If the minister could address this -- that there are orders other than just those that may have to be posted as a result of this section.

Hon. D. Lovick: Those are addressed in a later division. I want to clarify that it's not just reports of the committee, but rather it's business to do with the committee that could be required to be posted by the board -- to answer the earlier question.

C. Hansen: Just to clarify. The board will make it clear what orders have to be posted. It's not something that. . . . The onus in determining whether an order must or must not be posted is clear in the order itself. That's what I'm trying to get at -- that there isn't some liability put on employers, such that if they fail to post a notice that they should have known they were supposed to post, then they're somehow in violation of this part.

We talk about the reports of the committee. That's clear; that has to be posted. But in addition, we're talking here about applicable orders. I just want to clarify that these applicable orders will in fact contain a direction from the WCB that they must in fact be posted in accordance with this section.

Hon. D. Lovick: The point is that all orders must be posted. What's at issue is simply the length of time they must be posted for. Here we are dealing with orders that deal with joint committees. They are for the preceding 12 months.

C. Hansen: I think we're still missing the issue here. The issue is whether or not those orders themselves will indicate which of them this is applicable to. If the minister would comment.

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is yes.

C. Hansen: There is another section later on where I think there is a real problem with posting, because it's an open-ended problem. But we'll deal with that one when we come to it.

In terms of the length of time that these are posted, I'm wondering if the minister could explain to us why 12 months was determined. It seems to be a rather lengthy time for these types of notices. The other issue that I'd like to raise, which I'll throw in at the same time so that we can hopefully move forward faster, is the location at which these are posted. This goes back to the discussion that we had under "Definitions." There are sections in here that clearly state that posting of information. . . . If it can't be located in the workplace itself -- if that's not practical -- then another location nearby that is practical, where all workers in that workplace would see it. . . . This isn't included in this section. Could the minister explain why?

Hon. D. Lovick: First, to answer the question about all the rules governing posting. As I said the other day, that specific information is contained in division 7. On the 12-month retention requirement, that is apparently based on the fact that the committees meet on a monthly basis. It is perceived that this will provide them with a kind of historical update, in terms of what's happened to a given order over time. That's the logic that I've been given.

Section 15, section 138 approved on division.

On section 15, section 139.

[2:45]

[SECTION 139, Line (4), delete "Sections 133 to 136" and replace with "Sections 133, 135, and 136. . . ".]

C. Hansen: The intent of the amendment, if I can speak to it, is that this section sets up the requirements for the worker health and safety representative in workplaces where there are ten to 19 employees, where they have the same powers as the joint committee itself in larger workplaces. These sole individuals are chosen by secret ballot by the non-management workers at a worksite. So here we have one person, who has the power vested in them by the non-management workforce. Then we have the various functions and responsibilities of the complete joint committees, as envisioned in the previous sections, being made applicable to the one safety representative. I'm certainly going to have questions about sections 133, 135 and 136 and how they are applied.

The one section that I think is of particular interest, and is the reason I'm putting forward this amendment, is section 134(1), which states: "A member of a joint committee. . . ." Now, we're applying this just to the safety representative, so we have the safety representative "entitled to time off from work for (a) the time required to attend meetings of the committee. . . ." But we have a committee of one. Section 134(1)(b) says: ". . .other time that is reasonably necessary to prepare for meetings of the committee" -- of one person -- "and to fulfill the other functions and duties of the committee." Section 134(2) says: "Time off under subsection (1) is deemed to be time worked for the employer, and the employer must pay the member for that time."

So what we have here is a sole representative who is selected by non-management employees and who, given the other sections, has the power to structure his or her mandate in any way that he or she deems appropriate. This gives that one representative the power to call meetings of one person in order to do the functions that in a larger workplace would normally be done by a joint committee. It seems to me that it is absolutely inappropriate for this section to apply to a joint safety representative. It is a power that I think is open to all kinds of abuse, and it is simply not necessary. I invite the minister's comments and support for this amendment.

[ Page 8170 ]

Secondly, I want to draw attention to section 134, because that's the section that the amendment is asking us to deal with. More specifically, the amendment presented by the member suggests that we want to delete sections 133 to 136 and replace them with everything but 134. Section 134, which is about time away from work for meetings and other committee functions, makes it very clear that the individual's duty as the safety representative is to carry out the functions and duties of an occupational health and safety committee. It isn't the case that he has an absolutely blank slate to call meetings with himself or herself. The obvious question then is: why would anybody call a meeting of himself or herself? I'm asking why we would need to have the amendment. It seems to me that there is no purpose whatsoever to it, unless I'm missing something that has certainly escaped me thus far.

C. Hansen: I think the minister is missing the point on this. What's important is why the minister has chosen to make section 134 applicable in the case of safety reps. It is illogical for a one-person representative to have a meeting by him- or herself. That's what is irrational about it. Therefore it makes sense for us to exempt this section and to go ahead and pass my amendment to make section 134 not applicable to the safety representatives. That's what would be logical in this case. Perhaps the minister could comment on that.

Hon. D. Lovick: The point is that even a one-person -- a single person -- safety representative still has, by this legislation, the obligation to carry out duties to ensure a safe workplace and has the right to time off from work and to be paid for carrying out those duties. Otherwise, if we delete this section, what we're in fact saying is that workplaces of ten to 19 persons shouldn't have the same obligations in terms of occupational health and safety.

The whole logic of the bill is indeed to capture those workplaces of from ten to 19 persons, simply because there is a significant and a high incidence of injury and accident. Therefore we argue the case that a one-person safety representative must be in place, who has an obligation to fulfil the functions and the duties that would normally be carried out in a larger workplace by a committee. Insofar as the member's amendment is not acknowledging that obligation -- which is what the purpose of the bill is -- I clearly can't accept the amendment.

C. Hansen: The point is that this section talks about the time that's required to prepare for meetings. It also talks about the time necessary to fulfil other functions and duties of the committee. Now, if we talk about this in the context of the role of committees, that's one thing. But if we talk about it as the sole, individual representative of the committee, we are not talking about a necessity to prepare for meetings. We're not talking about the necessity to attend meetings. What is it that we are saying that we are going to pay for when it comes to the work of a sole safety representative at a smaller worksite?

Hon. D. Lovick: It seems to me that the answer is obvious. I would think that the one person charged with ensuring that workplace safety is maintained would probably want to talk fairly regularly with managers, supervisors, foremen or whomever, if he or she perceives that there may be a problem in the workplace. The obligation -- as we've made very clear, all right -- is that whether it's one individual or four individuals, the fact remains that there is still a workplace that may be unsafe. What we have done to accommodate those concerns that we're overly bureaucratizing or overregulating the workplace is to say, therefore: "Let it be the case that we have only one person instead of a committee."

Now we're being told that that one person is still too much and will impose an unfair burden. I think we already have the compromise before us. Frankly, I am not prepared to consider retreating from that. One person carrying out that job in workplaces of ten to 19 people, it seems to me, is absolutely essential.

C. Hansen: To go from the process that we have today, where you've got safety committees on worksites with in excess of 20 employees, in high-risk industries, and over 50 employees in low-risk worksites, to a system where we now have all worksites with in excess of 20 employees having safety committees. . . . For the minister to stand up and say that because he chose not to impose it on all worksites in excess of ten, that's somehow a reduction in bureaucracy, is a logic that really escapes me.

It actually goes back to some comments that he made in his second reading wrap-up, where he said -- and this was quite interesting. . . . He made the point in here that there was a reporting requirement to go to the board. The employer representatives convinced the minister not to go ahead with the reporting requirements to the board, because it was totally illogical, so the minister stands up says: "That's called a reduction in red tape, friends." You can't go from something we have today and say that just because you didn't whack everybody in the province on it -- you only hit 50 percent -- somehow it's a reduction in red tape. You know, that's absolute nonsense.

I would like to ask the minister, if we say in section 134 that the sole safety representative is not entitled to be paid for time attending meetings by himself or herself and, secondly, is not entitled to be paid to prepare for the meetings which will be attended by only himself or herself. . . . What this really boils down to is the one portion of this section that says "the time required to fulfil other functions and duties of the committee." That's all this amounts to when it comes to safety representatives. Is that a fair interpretation?

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, I think it is a fair interpretation. The worker, remember, carrying out the duties conferred on him or her by this legislation is also, by the terms of this legislation, entitled to be paid for the time to fulfil those functions and duties. I don't think that's revolutionary; I think it's necessary.

Let me again draw the member's attention to what the royal commission said. The royal commission made it very

[ Page 8171 ]

C. Hansen: I think what gives me the greatest difficulty is the powers that are being given to this sole individual and the way that the legislation has been set up to pay these individuals. Again, it comes back to the discussion that we had yesterday. The employer has absolutely no discretion or ability to control costs, because there are no parameters put on the mandate -- the self-generated approach that the safety representative is going to take. If I can zero in on this obligation that employers have to pay a safety representative to fulfil the other functions and duties of the committee. . . . Who determines what the functions and duties of that committee are? Is it the employer, or is it the safety representatives themselves that determine that?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer to the member's question is section 130, which we dealt with at some length yesterday.

C. Hansen: In section 130, where the functions are set out, the minister made it clear yesterday that it was the committee itself that had to determine that. He went to great lengths. He explained the protection the employer had, because two of the committee members were management reps and two were worker reps. Therefore the management had a 50 percent say in the activities of the committee.

Now we're talking about the sole safety rep, and the sole safety rep is given the same powers as all four of those individuals combined. The combined power of the committees is basically to choose their own proceedings and their own way of approaching their mandate. So if you translate that into section 139, which is now before us, you're basically giving carte blanche to a safety rep to determine how much time should be allocated to that responsibility. There is virtually no recourse for the employer who feels that the costs are out of line and that what the safety rep is imposing on the employer is exorbitant. I would like the minister to explain how we can limit and how we give definition to the time and the financial commitments that are made by a safety rep, which the employer is required by this act to pay for.

[3:00]

Section 139(3) says very clearly that: "To the extent practicable, a worker health and safety representative" -- note singular -- "has the same duties and functions as a joint committee." Note the qualifying phrase "to the extent practicable." That's point one.

No. 2. A meeting, by any commonsense definition of the term, requires more than one person.

No. 3. Management still has management's traditional responsibilities, including the scheduling of staff -- i.e., if the representative wants to meet with somebody else in the workplace, management will decide when that will happen, where that will happen and how long that meeting will take place.

No. 4. The royal commission again said that the worker representative ought to be in place in all workplaces.

That, I think, covers the ground rather well. Let me add just one other point, and then I will rest my case, as it were, and we can vote on this amendment if need be. I think further debate is pointless, given that both sides have made their positions clear. Earlier drafts of the legislation had indeed included a requirement for worker health and safety representatives to prepare an annual activity report. . . . I'm sorry, I'm on section 139, and I shouldn't be. I'll leave that point, because I think I covered it yesterday.

Amendment negatived on division.

C. Hansen: To focus in on the entire section as it now stands unamended, yesterday I raised a question regarding section 125, and that's the establishment of the joint health and safety committees. In section 125(b) it says that there's a requirement for a health and safety committee in any other workplace for which a joint committee is required by order. So the WCB itself can state that a workplace with fewer than 20 employees but more than nine employees is required to have a full-blown committee. I raised this yesterday, and the minister confirmed my interpretation of that.

I also indicated to him that I wanted to come back to that point when we got to section 139, which is where we're at now. Section 139 also says that in a case where you have more than nine but fewer than 20 employees, there is a requirement for a health and safety representative to be selected by the process that's set out.

My question to the minister is: if the board, by order, states that there must be a safety committee in a workplace with 12 employees. . . . I don't see anything in this legislation that indicates that it pre-empts section 135. So the reading of this legislation is that that worksite is going to require both a safety committee, which is structured, and a safety representative, which is chosen by a different process. I'm wondering if the minister could explain if that's the case. If it's not the case, what authority is there to go to one or the other?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer to the question is that if we indeed have a regulation that says the committee -- the larger of the two -- will be in place, that would automatically mean that the worker representative would not be in place. The explanation is simply rationality and logic, because you can't have both. Obviously the decision is to create the larger, and therefore the smaller must disappear. I don't know if it's in the Interpretation Act or anything like that, but I suspect we probably have a few generations of experience in legislation which would confirm that conclusion. So I have no hesitation in saying that.

C. Hansen: I'm pleased to hear that the minister is so confident that it can be dealt with by regulation and by order, because that's not what is stated in the legislation. I agree that it's logical, but it's not what the legislation says. But I will take the minister's interpretation of that.

I would like to ask the minister: if an employer has a workplace with more than nine and fewer than 20 employees, do they have the option of creating a full-blown health and safety committee under section 125, instead of going the route of the health and safety representative?

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for his question. What we have in the bill is the minimum standards. Should any workplace and any group of people decide to go beyond that, as in the case the member just adduced, then there's nothing to prevent them from so doing. Of course, this might be a way for them to get over a problem with a single-person worker representative who was problematic, I suppose.

[ Page 8172 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: If the member is asking about section 139, the answer is yes. If he's asking about section 135, the answer is no. How's that?

C. Hansen: I am asking about section 139. Therefore, if an employer goes the route of setting up a full-blown committee under section 125, that supersedes the requirements under 139. I see heads nodding, and I accept that. Thank you very much.

I want to focus on subsection (a), which talks about the requirement for the safety representative in each workplace where there are more than nine but fewer than 20 workers regularly employed. When we were on section 125, we spent a fair amount of time trying to make sure that we both understood where each other was coming from on this. For the purpose of clarification, I want to deal with that issue again under this section, as it applies to this particular wording.

The conclusion we came to under section 125 is that if you have a worksite that has regular employees in excess of the number required, then they are required to fulfil these obligations. But if you have a worksite where you have temporary workers or casual workers -- I think we used the term "transitional workers" -- that are, on average, in excess of the required number, that is not what is meant under this section. I just want, for the purpose of clarification, to make sure that we're on the same wavelength and that that in fact applies to this section as well as to section 125.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes.

C. Hansen: I want to ask about a worksite that is growing -- regrettably, there's not enough of them in British Columbia today -- from eight employees to the point where it has between nine and 20 employees. So they're required to have a safety rep. At what point in the growth of a company do they have to say: "Okay, we've now reached a certain level; we need to have a committee"? Is there a time frame envisioned?

Certainly in most workplaces it's not a case of an incremental thing. It's a case of going up a few one week, down a few. . . . The word "regular" takes on quite a different connotation here. At the point when a workplace has 20 employees, what kind of latitude is there? How soon does an employer have to address the fact of going to the safety representative and saying: "Thank you very much for your help, but now we've got to set up the full-blown committee"? Is it expected that there will be some guidelines in that area?

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't think the employer would have to do it the next day and say: "We've hired somebody else, and we think they may be regularly employed; therefore we've suddenly got to put a committee or a worker rep in place." In the rules -- the member knows as well as I -- ten is the trigger point for a representative, and 20 is the trigger point for a committee.

The other common denominator that defines is "regularly employed," which we have canvassed at considerable length, and the third piece of the story -- or puzzle, I would add -- is simply common sense. I think that would be sufficient to answer the question.

C. Hansen: Not to belabour the issues that we canvassed at great length yesterday, I do want to put back on the record that this section is probably the section that gives me the most concern, because of the fact that it gives powers to the safety representatives -- for which the limitations are not clearly defined -- to impose costs on worksites that may not be reasonable otherwise. I certainly want to register under the section that I think this is a particularly onerous one.

In the logic that comes behind developing this kind of health and safety committee structure, I can see that people looked at the safety committees as being logical for certain worksites. They then got to applying it to all worksites of a certain size. There was an argument to say: "Let's have it apply to worksites of ten or more." Instead, some people thought that was unreasonable, so they went to the sole safety rep as a compromise between ten and 20. In turn, creating the sole safety rep really created a process which in many respects is much more unwieldy for the employer, much more difficult to manage than the full-blown committees themselves.

I was pleased with the minister's comments that employers have the option of going to a full-blown committee, because I think that at many worksites that will actually become a more desirable option than the sole safety rep, the way it is structured under this section. Certainly this section is one that gives me great concern.

I will certainly defer to any of my colleagues on section 15, section 139 if they have questions to pose in this area. I believe that my colleague from Chilliwack has some points to raise under this question, so I will relinquish the floor to him.

B. Penner: I raised a number of specific concerns yesterday, which I had received from businesses located in Chilliwack that were just finding out about the potential impact of Bill 14. I think it would be instructive at this point, before we move to the issue of whether or not we're going to approve section 15, section 139 as drafted, to pass on for the benefit of members of this House some additional comments I have received since yesterday's debate.

An Hon. Member: The fax machine is working, eh?

B. Penner: Our fax machine at the local constituency office is busy receiving replies and input from people who are owners and operators of small businesses in Chilliwack. For example, I've received this from a person who is associated with a local real estate office: "Most real estate offices in our town are close to closing. This additional expense will make the decision final for many." This is from a person who operates a business in the food industry: "This government continues to think that if they force regulations on business, they will comply. But in reality, business will not. They will either stop hiring or just leave the province."

Yesterday I shared some other comments with the members present. One of them was from a business that is considering moving beyond their current employee level of nine workers. What they indicated to me was this: "We will not be

[ Page 8173 ]

That is why we have expressed such particular concern about these two different thresholds. They do appear fairly arbitrary, set at either ten or 20. It sets a fairly clear line in the sand for employers who are considering expanding. They know what's going to happen: they're going to get hit by an extra load of regulatory paperwork and expenses -- expenses that we don't know the full extent of yet. I think any rational manager will have to think long and hard about what it will mean to their business if they expand beyond the thresholds nine employees or 19 employees. Again, I think that's a fundamentally incorrect message to send to the investment community in British Columbia at a time when we desperately need more jobs. Those are my comments on this section.

[3:15]

YEAS -- 34
Evans	Zirnhelt	McGregor
Kwan	Hammell	Boone
Streifel	Pullinger	Lali
Orcherton	Stevenson	Calendino
Goodacre	Walsh	Randall
Gillespie	Robertson	Cashore
Priddy	Petter	Miller
Dosanjh	MacPhail	Lovick
Ramsey	Farnworth	Waddell
Sihota	Smallwood	Sawicki
Kasper	Doyle	Giesbrecht
	Janssen

NAYS -- 26
Sanders	Gingell	Campbell
Farrell-Collins	de Jong	Plant
Abbott	Reid	Coell
Chong	Jarvis	Nettleton
Penner	Weisbeck	Hogg
Hawkins	Coleman	Stephens
Hansen	Thorpe	Symons
van Dongen	Barisoff	Dalton
Masi		McKinnon

G. Abbott: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Abbott: It's my pleasure to introduce in the gallery today. . . . This is on behalf of the MLA for Okanagan West and myself as Forests critic. Nick Arkle is here. He is the vice-president of the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters, and he is here to help educate us all on the finer points of forestry. I'd like the House to make him welcome.

Section 15, section 140 approved on division.

On section 15, section 141.

C. Hansen: We now move on to this section, which is on the right to refuse unsafe work. I'm not sure if the minister wanted to make any opening comments regarding this particular division or whether we want to go straight into questions. I'll certainly relinquish to the minister.

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for that offer, Mr. Chairman. This is an issue that I think causes a number of us some anguish. Probably nobody in this chamber would question the importance of a provision such as this. When one begins to look, however, at the complexity of the question. . . . As somebody who has been struggling with this for a little while, I am not absolutely convinced at the moment that we're doing the right thing with this.

I know this is probably unusual for a debate in this chamber, but what I would like to do is invite members opposite -- those on both sides of the House, frankly -- to offer their comments and their concerns about this section. I suspect from what I have read so far. . . . I have heard those who argue that this goes too far and others who say this doesn't go far enough; I've heard both sets of arguments. Quite frankly, I am not sure what the appropriate and perfect position ought to be. Therefore I am willing to listen very intently to that debate and to hear questions and concerns about this particular section -- and I say that in all sincerity.

To begin with, then, let me simply outline just what this section does. The section is obviously intended to give workers a right to refuse to carry out work if the worker has reasonable -- and I underline reasonable -- grounds for believing that the work is unsafe. However, according to our proposed legislation, the worker does not have the right to refuse if this refusal would directly endanger the health or the safety of someone else or if the risk is inherent in the worker's work -- and thereby hangs part of the problem.

Let's put it in just very commonsense rather than legalistic terms. The question is: are we saying to the worker that "you have an obligation to rush into the burning building and save your colleague, even though that means you are putting yourself at unreasonable risk of death or serious injury"? Can we fairly ask that of somebody?

I think that's a reasonable question, to say: "Wait a minute. Should you, in fact. . . ?" Because your comrade on the job -- your co-worker -- may be in danger, does that necessarily confer on you an obligation to perhaps make some kind of great sacrifice?

Now, we all would like to be noble, of course, and say, "Yes, isn't that the right thing to do?" But if you do that, try telling that to your kids and your partner, okay. So there's one small example of the difficulty with this.

Similarly, what exactly does the risk being inherent in the worker's work mean? To say that because you're a policeman -- or a police constable, a police officer; pardon me for falling into the old exclusive language trap. . . . To be sure, we know there are risks associated with that line of work, but surely that doesn't mean that one has an obligation to take risks that most of us would consider foolhardy. Simply because somebody is in there behind a barricade with a .357 magnum, threatening to shoot anybody who comes and tries to apprehend them, does that mean that because I am a police officer and I am sworn to uphold the law and arrest criminals and do all those things that I therefore have an obligation to go barging through the door and risk getting shot?

[3:30]

I could go on. I would simply say that this merely opens the door to a number of questions about this section. There-

[ Page 8174 ]

C. Hansen: The way the minister put it probably speaks for a difficulty that we've all had in dealing with this section. Certainly when you read the section and put yourself in the shoes of someone who's faced with the prospect of something that they think is unsafe. . . . I think we all agree that workers have that right for self-preservation. It's human nature, the right to stand up and say: "No, I'm not going to do something that's going to cause injury to myself or is something that is dangerous." At face value, it's so incredibly logical that everybody should have that power.

Yet, as the minister says, when you start getting into the nuances of this, there are some real difficulties with it. Then we come down to the challenge: how do we, as legislators, word legislation in a way that gives the kind of protection that individual workers deserve but at the same time allows for reasonableness to be part of this exercise?

Certainly the definition of something that is unsafe is very subjective. You can wind up with a worker who can genuinely feel that there is an unsafe situation and not have a doubt in their mind about it, and yet, when the investigators come in, they say that there's absolutely nothing to base that on. On the one hand, the extreme case would be a worker who's having delusions of something tragic that's going to happen. Do you give that individual the power to shut down an entire worksite -- because of something that he or she has imagined? That's one extreme. But even in much more realistic situations, you can have an individual who is convinced, for all the right reasons, that something is hazardous and yet the investigators -- whether from the WCB or anybody else -- come in and in retrospect look back on the situation and realize that the worker had no grounds to challenge the safety of that particular situation. So it is an area that I think we have to address very carefully.

I'm certainly pleased to hear that the minister is open-minded on this section. I wish I had some amendments to propose on this section. I have some concerns and wish I could come up with some constructive suggestions in terms of specific wording, but I'm not the legislative draftsman, and I don't have that to offer today. I do have a lot of questions, and if I can just raise some of these. . . .

Perhaps, hon. Chair, since we're dealing with this division which has, I guess, about twelve sections in total, and we're focused in on the first one, given the minister's invitation to us to look at this in a broad sense, will the Chair give us some latitude to look at implications for various sections in the context of section 141? That may be desirable to all concerned.

The Chair: Hon. member, I would just comment that if that's on agreement by both sides, that is certainly in agreement with the Chair.

C. Hansen: Thank you.

In some of these areas, my questions aren't in any particular order. I will just start with them as they come to me. There are others that are more general, but this is a very specific case. Maybe it's a good one to put before us so that we can start looking at circumstances that may cause some difficulties with the wording that we have here.

In my riding of Vancouver-Quilchena is an elementary school, Kerrisdale Elementary School. Parts of that school were built in 1908. They have had professional engineers come into the school to look at its ability to withstand an earthquake, and the seismic analysis shows that in an earthquake of only 5.2, portions of this building will collapse. When you start looking at the magnitude of earthquakes such as those that have occurred in California and Japan, 5.2 is not a very large tremor in terms of world standards.

My reading of this legislation as it is proposed is that all of the teachers and staff in that school -- an entire worksite -- would have grounds to refuse to work in that school on the basis of that engineering study.

What I would love to see happen in terms of action by government is that they deal with the problem -- and the problem is that we have an unsafe school, and that should be addressed by government. But I appreciate that that's not the latitude of this discussion today. The latitude of the discussion today is: under this legislation, until such time as the reconstruction work is done on that building to stabilize those walls, would the teachers and staff have the right to refuse to work in that building and be fully compensated and paid for all the time that they're off refusing to work or teach in those particular structures?

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for his question. May I just draw his attention to the purposes of this division. If you look at 141(2), I think the question is in fact answered. That may be one of the few where I can point to the specific wording of the legislation and say that the question is indeed answered to one's satisfaction.

But for the record, let me note that work is considered unsafe if -- and these are the qualifications here -- (1) the work activities and (2) the conditions of the work or (3) the conditions that would result if the work were done are such that there is or would be a significant risk that the worker or another person might be killed, seriously injured or suffer serious illness. It seems to me that the fact that in the event of natural disaster the building might become an unsafe workplace does not fit within those three categories. So in that sense, I think it would escape. That, again I would say, seems to me a logical kind of argument insofar as. . . .

Take the example of earthquakes and earthquake preparedness. What percentage of residential dwellings in this province could withstand an earthquake of anything beyond 6 on the Richter scale? And what's the likelihood, then, of huge amounts of death, destruction, etc.? The painful reality is that it's quite high, and we're all, frankly, petrified of that. It's only in a relatively recent period of time -- recently in history -- that we have begun to build with a view to becoming earthquake-proof.

If we accepted the proposition that an unsafe workplace was by definition one that was unsafe because in the event of an earthquake the likelihood of being injured would be greater, then consider the implications of that for most public buildings -- and, for that matter, private buildings throughout the province. The likelihood is that we wouldn't be able to go anywhere without having to sign a legal liability waiver or something like that. So the commonsense answer, as well as the specific wording of the legislation, I think, is an answer to the question.

S. Orcherton: Hon. Chair, I ask for leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. Orcherton: Joining us today in the gallery are 39 grade 4 and 5 students from Spirit Ridge Elementary School in

[ Page 8175 ]

B. Penner: I agree with the minister that this question that is raised by section 141 is a very vexatious issue. Clearly, when a person is hired to be a police officer or a fireperson or other emergency worker, there is some anticipated risk that goes along with that job. I'm looking, though, at section 141(3). It would seem as though section 141(3)(b) would address the situation of an emergency worker, where it says that the right to refuse that work is not present where the inherent risk is there on that job.

But how do we define "inherent" in this circumstance? Would a letter of employment signed by an employer and an employee designating certain types of work as dangerous define that work as inherently dangerous? In other words, if the employer sets out as a condition of employment that the employee will fight any fire that may break out in the building or rescue any customer that enters the premises, should that need arise, would that make that kind of situation inherent to the job and therefore not entitle that employee to refuse that type of work?

Hon. D. Lovick: The member's question, I think, raises precisely the kinds of concerns that we are struggling with. When I consider the proposition of the risk being inherent in the worker's work. . . . I come from personal experience in traditional industry. I spent a little time in the bush logging and all that kind of stuff as a university student. As you can tell by looking at me, I'm hardly Mr. Big-time Logger, but I did that for a little while -- setting chokers and stuff like that.

For example, in that industry take something like falling. If your job is to be a faller in the bush, you know there's a risk, because you're knocking down trees. No matter how carefully you undercut, how well you prepare the site around you, how well your saw is sharpened and how well your wedges are placed, it is always risky. That's why there are horrible incidents of injury there.

I think it's safe to say, however, that no self-respecting faller would ever walk out and say: "Gosh, I've lost my nerve today. That 160-foot Douglas fir on the side hill doesn't feel right to me, and therefore I ain't doin' it." Now, you would hope that the foreman would jolly the person along and say: "Look, go and have a coffee or a smoke or something, and you'll be okay in an hour." It would seem to me that because that is the job the person does -- that's the nature of the work -- it's logically commonsensical. . . . You would think one should say: "No, you really don't have the right to refuse. That's part of your job."

If, however -- again using my own experience -- it's a dirty old cedar snag that's eight feet through and 125 feet tall, and there are branches called, appropriately enough, widowmakers hanging down both sides, and the faller comes and says, as one said to me once in my limited career in the bush: "I don't want to cut that tree down. . . ." I was, at the time, building road and carrying powder, and he said: "Would you blow that for us?" And that's what we did. We blew the tree, because there was no way that guy, with his 30-odd years of experience, was going to knock that tree down. He was scared, and I don't blame him.

It was awfully hard for him to ask this young kid, me, to do that, because it's all about, you know, that macho stuff that happens in the bush. To his credit, he had enough brains to swallow whatever pride and conditioning, and say: "Look, I don't want to do that. Will you guys blow that thing for us?" And we did, and I'm glad we did. It was great to watch. Anyway, that's another story.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: In the old days, yeah. I'm sorry, I'm being nostalgic.

There, if you will, in a sense, is the paradigm illustration of risk inherent in the work and an exception to that which would allow one to say, "No, that's outside the job," even though it's the same job -- if you follow my meaning. I hope that's helpful.

B. Penner: I've also spent some time in the mountains and forests of British Columbia. I can think of a specific occurrence where a faller was asked by a supervisor to fall a snag that was burning when we were fighting a forest fire. The snag was rotten, but it was on fire internally. The operator of the chainsaw who was asked to fall the tree told me that he was afraid that once he got to the core of the tree and it started to go over, it could break and explode into flames. Anything was possible when extra oxygen rushed into the centre of what remained of that rotten tree. Nevertheless, that was his job. The reason he was on the crew and was getting paid more than I was as a member of the street crew fighting the fire, was because he was a faller and there was an inherent risk that went along with that position -- and therefore a higher rate of pay, presumably.

[3:45]

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't know if one could answer that question in any definitive way. It seems to me that that almost takes us into the realm of contracting and contract law, and the member knows contract law better than I do. Whether, in the normal course of signing a contract, you can in fact give up a waiver to be intelligent or protect yourself. . . . Some would argue you can't do that anyway. I don't think I can answer that question -- certainly not in any definitive way. I could offer an opinion, but I don't think that's really what you're after at the moment.

Speaking of opinion, by the way, I have to share with the House.. . . After I told my little story about being asking to blow that snag rather than fall it, my colleague handed me a note that said: the faller should have thought about it, because it may have been more dangerous for you to blow it than for him to fall it -- right? But anyway. . . . That wasn't nice, but okay.

B. Penner: We're onto a very interesting question, and that is whether or not you can contract yourself out of provisions of the law that generally apply to the rest of British Columbia. That may be where we're going with respect to section 15, section 141. I might be more comfortable if there was a provision in section 15, section 141 that allowed an employer and employee to define what types of hazards are

[ Page 8176 ]

The specific problem I'm thinking of is another experience from my past, working as a park ranger at Manning Park in the summer of 1989. There were a number of people employed with me that summer who, for whatever reason -- and probably rightly -- assumed that most of their work would include talking to people, doing interpretative work and providing assistance to travellers and tourists. Well, on a couple of occasions, forest fires started. On one occasion, there was a traffic accident on Highway 3 that resulted in a fire to a camper. I was calling for help, and one of the other employees was -- to put it mildly -- very reluctant to bring equipment that I was requesting to the scene of the accident. They felt that that would expose them to the expectation that they would take part in fighting the fire, exposing themselves to risk. They felt that risk was outside the type of work they had agreed to do. That employee didn't feel that that was an integral or inherent part of their employment; yet they were wearing the same uniform I was.

So we had an honest disagreement. However, that disagreement potentially exposed some of the other employees to risk, because we were counting on that other employee to bring us some equipment to help us deal with the fire we were confronted with. I'm just wondering what could have been a possible solution to that dilemma -- addressing it ahead of time by clearly specifying what types of risks employees are expected to take in the course of their work. It would be helpful, perhaps, if that type of an exception to section 15, section 141(2) were contemplated.

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer is: I don't think you can contract yourself out of a statute. That's the first answer. The second, though, is that we need to remember that here we're talking about a worker's right to refuse unsafe work, and if we logically pursue what the member and I have both been discussing, we talk about some kinds of work that would never be done. Okay? So there clearly has to be a distinction between aberrant and atypical situations and circumstances, which we want to protect workers against. But at the same time we are recognizing that there is ongoing work that is by nature dangerous but doesn't produce an extraordinary risk to the worker. That's the common ground that we have to find in the legislation. That's what I will be reflecting on over the weekend and for the next short while. Perhaps the result of all this may be some changes, some amendments -- who's to know? But I think we need to have these kinds of discussions for the next short while, at least, in terms of establishing all of that.

I'm wondering. . . . This might be the logical. . . . I'm sorry, I will give the member for Chilliwack an opportunity. I think he has another comment or question.

B. Penner: I do note the hour, but I would like to make a suggestion to the minister. I know that he is being sincerely receptive to our suggestions about how to deal with this. I am a lawyer and I did go to law school, but I would like to seek clarification in terms of a legal opinion on whether individuals can contract themselves out of legislation of general application. If you can, then that might be one remedy for employers and employees in dealing with this section. If we are given an opinion that you can't, no matter how carefully crafted an agreement may be, then perhaps legislative counsel might have a go at an amendment -- perhaps under section 15, section 141(3) -- allowing for that type of an agreement between an employer and an employee to specifically set out what the terms of employment are and what kinds of risks are anticipated.

I agree with the minister that there are some cases and situations where an employee definitely should be able to say: "No way, that is too dangerous." But I guess that we need to find a way we can do that clearly -- and hopefully ahead of time, instead of reacting to a problem -- trying to be proactive and clearly set the guidelines for everyone so that other employees aren't counting on another individual who may balk at a risky situation, jeopardizing everybody.

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for his intervention, and we will indeed pursue his suggestion in terms of a legal opinion.

I think that given the lateness of the hour -- and I understand our agreement is to adjourn early today, unless there is objection from anybody -- I would therefore respectfully move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. D. Lovick: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday.

The Speaker: That motion is a debatable one. I recognize the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: Just so people understand, this motion is being moved now to allow the House to rise early today and not sit on Thursday and Friday, because there is an economic summit in Kamloops over these days. In order to allow members of the House to be there, the government has decided to adjourn the House.

I just want to say that everybody in this House is glad that the summit's taking place and wishes it every success. But I don't believe it's necessary to adjourn the House and stop this place from doing its business for two and a half business days in order to do that. There are members of the opposition attending; there are members of the government attending. There certainly could have been some arrangement to allow that to happen and still have this place do its business.

My concern is this. Every year that this House sits, we end up in June with a flood of legislation and the estimates. This House starts to sit well into the evenings, and around the clock at some times, because the government feels the need to get its agenda through the House. I suspect that within some very short period of time this House is going to be called upon to start sitting past its regular sitting hours -- as we've done in years past -- when we could have been doing the business this week. Last year the House adjourned for a number of

[ Page 8177 ]

I think it would be far wiser for the government to continue to have the House sit for these days. Those members who are required to attend the conference in Kamloops would be free to do so. An agreement could have been worked out and would have allowed this House to continue to do the business it still has on its agenda. So the opposition would rather have done it that way. The government is choosing to adjourn the House, and I will remind them of this when the motion comes before the House to have us sit past the regular sitting hours, which I'm sure will come within a matter of weeks.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his comments.

Hon. D. Lovick: Just to respond ever so briefly -- and it shall be brief -- I appreciate the points made by the Opposition House Leader. I think there's some validity to them. I would point out, however, that in the examples he gave from last year we had record-breaking sessions -- thanks to what everybody, I think, would construe as opposition filibuster. With that I call the question.

The Speaker: Hon. members, there's a motion on the floor. Seeing no further debaters, I will put the question.

Motion approved on division.

Hon. D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, with that, I would wish all members a pleasant and informative time at the summit and a nice weekend.

Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 3:59 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

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

R. Thorpe: I think it was on May 22 that the minister made a statement in the House that, "We have a crisis today in the sport fishing industry," and he went on to say: "I have instructed Tourism [B.C.] to meet on Monday with the sport fishing industry." Can the minister give us a summary of what has happened so far with respect to resolving this crisis in sport fishing and obviously the marketing ramifications thereof?

Hon. I. Waddell: First of all, I have to say that the crisis stems from the obvious problems with the coho, but it also legally stems from an announcement made by the federal Minister of Fisheries, the Hon. David Anderson, with respect to cutbacks in the fishing of coho. Coho are one of the major sport fish in the province; that's why it's a crisis for business in sport fishing. I take it very seriously. I respect the problem that we have with conservation, but it is something we have to act on.

I met with my colleague the Minister of Fisheries to discuss this matter. It's a bit of a movable feast, because we're not quite sure what the federal government's final outcome will be with respect to the question of whether there'll be any fishing at all on the west coast this year. They're going to come out with their final management plan.

I've asked Tourism B.C. to assign their marketing professionals -- because marketing is what Tourism B.C. really does best -- to identify positive steps that might be taken to deal with the issues. There was a preliminary meeting of Tourism B.C. and some of the people from sport fisheries with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. A representative from the Canadian Tourism Commission was supposed to be there but was ill at the time; they're interested in participating.

I believe that there's a further meeting to be held next week -- basically a meeting of worker bees, if you like. It's a meeting of the professionals. I've asked Tourism B.C. to work at preparing a marketing strategy that could be used to tell our American friends especially that there's still fishing in B.C. -- that B.C.'s open for business in the short term -- and to think about the long-term implications of a possible coho ban that could last for a couple of fish cycles, which would be at least six years.

R. Thorpe: Thanks to the minister. Can the minister confirm whether the meeting this past Monday was the first meeting of this marketing committee to address this issue? Or has this committee been meeting for some time?

Hon. I. Waddell: Tourism B.C. has been working with federal officials in sport fishing for some time, but on different issues -- mainly on the issue, as I understand it, of DFO in Ottawa, which announces its fishing management plan late in the year for sport fishing operators and business people. It tends to be geared to commercial fishing, and we would like them to think more about the sport fishing businesses. So that's what the previous meetings were on, which was before the coho crisis. This was the first one on the coho crisis.

D. Jarvis: Have there been any discussions with respect to if they suddenly decide that they're not going to allow bycatches and that therefore we're going to be looking at a 100 percent moratorium? It is quite possible that that could occur.

Hon. I. Waddell: No, there hasn't. That's hypothetical at the moment. We don't know what they're going to finally announce. The province, through the Minister of Fisheries, has offered an alternative suggestion to the federal plan. As I understand it, although I'm not an expert on it, it's more of a plan where it wouldn't be a total ban on fishing of the coho. It would be in the areas where there were some fish, where you could still fish for them -- in other words, a more selective fishery. But DFO still retains the constitutional power to put the controls on the fishery. We, especially my ministry, say that they should help financially -- firstly, at least with marketing for fishing resort operators. Secondly, they might consider further help for fishing resort operators if some of them go bankrupt.

[ Page 8178 ]

[2:45]

Hon. I. Waddell: While we're digging out that figure, I just want to say that I don't regard this as a partisan issue. I respect any suggestions. In following up my last answer to the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour, I'd certainly be prepared to look at any suggestions he might have to deal with this crisis, and put them forward.

With respect to the question from the member for Okanagan-Penticton, the revenues from tidal angling, including lodges, charters, boat dealers and other goods and services -- the other goods and services are pretty broad and include transportation, food, boat costs, supplies and services, licence fees -- total $611.3 million.

R. Thorpe: Thank you for that answer.

You mentioned that you believe that someone put forward an alternative plan today. Could you just restate the answers? I didn't get the answer.

Hon. I. Waddell: I don't know whether it's been released. The B.C. Minister of Fisheries is offering some alternatives to the federal government. I'm making a response to the member for North Vancouver-Seymour raising the issue of a total ban on coho fishing. The Minister of Fisheries believes there may be some alternatives based on the Parzival Copes report where there may be some selective fishing.

This is today's press release, actually -- hot off the press -- in which there's an alternate plan, and I can make it available to the members of the opposition. That plan includes a joint federal-provincial fleet reform board that targets long-term fishing power; development of a joint 1998 fishing plan, including selective fisheries, closures of hot spots as required and an in-season plan adjustment; an adjustment program for communities; some parity with the east coast -- you know, how much the federal government has put in to help the fisher people on the east coast; involving sport fishers in identifying new markets and opportunities; and protecting sensitive streams, and so on.

But that's slightly different from what Minister Anderson seems to be moving to. He seems to be moving to a total ban. Provincially, we're suggesting selective fisheries, closures of hot spots and also some help from the federal government for the communities and some help in terms of the sport fishing.

R. Thorpe: Just as we provided the minister, hon. Chair, with copies of documents last week, we'd be pleased if his staff could organize to have copies for us.

I don't know whether there was anything in particular in there about sport fishing. I'm wondering if the minister, just at the end there, mentioned sport fishing. Was there anything in particular said on sport fishing?

Hon. I. Waddell: Well, we talked about supporting marketing of sport fishing opportunities; developing an information and recognition campaign about what anglers and lodges can do to protect coho; and developing a partnership approach amongst DFO, B.C.'s recreational industry and angling groups. Let me just summarize what I think has to be done, and I'm open to further suggestions. There has to be a recognition that the sport fishery is really going to be heard here.

Secondly, there has to be some help in getting a message out, particularly to the Americans and to other tourists, that there is still fishing of other species in British Columbia. You can get chinook, or pink, and so on. When I was on the "Rafe Mair Show" this morning, I tried to say that to the public. I was talking about fisheries too. I don't miss an opportunity to get it on the record.

Thirdly, there has to be some sensitivity on the part of DFO to their management plans to deal with the sport fishery in the short term and the long term. Fourthly, they have to put some dollars on the table. They could put dollars up there when the Americans dropped the lawsuit on the Alaska matter and on the blockade of the ferries. We want them to put some dollars in. We'll put some dollars in marketing. I've already pledged that on behalf of Tourism B.C., and the CEO here, Mr. Harris, pledged that. We want some help from the feds, and I hope the members opposite will support us in that.

D. Jarvis: I think the problem is that they're suggesting weed lines. I don't know if you know what a weed line is. They drop the line off the nets down to about eight feet below. When the rainbow come back to spawn -- a couple of times in their lifetime, not like salmon -- they travel on the surface of the water. But there's no definite evidence that proves that. You get a place like Atnarko River, up in Tweedsmuir Park. They were getting 12,000 fish spawning up there. Last year they got something like 31, and it was devastating. It's a pristine river that runs through a provincial park and that has never been impacted by mining or forestry or communities and all the rest.

It's obvious that the major impact on our sport fishermen is at sea and these bycatches that are coming in. If they can't prove it. . . . They're going to have to stop the bycatches. When the fish come in, the closer they get to home, the closer they get together. That's the problem. I think we've got to weigh ourselves: where are we going to go with the sport fishing end of it? It's probably the most valuable kind of fishing in this province at the present time.

Has your ministry given any thought to. . . ? I guess they are -- are they? -- putting money into the conservation end of it, as far as rainbows and things like that in parks and things like that.

Hon. I. Waddell: I note what the member said. I'll bring it to the attention of the Ministers of Fisheries for British Columbia and Canada. The mandate of my ministry is really in the marketing end. Tourism B.C. is really in the marketing end, not in the stocking of fish and so on.

R. Thorpe: Sport fishing is a $600 - $700 million business in British Columbia. How much did Tourism B.C. spend on marketing sport fishing last year?

Hon. I. Waddell: I don't have the exact number at hand. I can get back to the member. I was looking at some of the percentages of what we were spending money on -- some of the percentages of combined regional spending and other spending. I think we're looking at about 5 to 10 percent of our spending, but I may be wrong on that. I'll check that figure.

R. Thorpe: That 5 to 10 percent of your spending would be between $1 million and $2 million, so I don't think that's

[ Page 8179 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: I will get the member those numbers.

R. Thorpe: So we don't know how much we spent last year. Do we know how much we're planning to spend this year, fiscal year '98-99, with respect to the sport fishing industry, which generates between $600 million and $700 million?

Hon. I. Waddell: As I said earlier to the hon. member, we're prepared to put up money in this crisis -- more money than has been spent in the past. But that's contingent upon the federal government putting in money. They have put a lot of money into the east coast and into other matters. Now we've got a crisis in British Columbia. We don't begrudge the money for the ice storm in Quebec or for the floods in Manitoba. This is a crisis too.

We hope the hon. members will help us in approaching their federal colleagues to get some money. I assume that they're with the federal Liberal Party, but I'm not sure of that. Maybe the hon. member can assist.

R. Thorpe: Actually, I'm puzzled that a former federal NDP member would not know -- maybe the reports that he was asleep at the switch are correct -- that the B.C. Liberals and the federal Liberals have no connection whatsoever -- none. Again, as I tried to say last Friday, I want to travel on the high road, because that's important. But if the minister keeps wanting to go down, we can go down.

The issue here is that we have stated under our leader that we will fight to ensure that British Columbians receive their fair and equitable share from Ottawa on all matters -- not just when there's a crisis, but on all matters. Now, if we could leave the political rhetoric between Victoria and Ottawa, which this current government always seems to want to bash, because that way they don't have to address the economic devastation at home. . . . If we could just deal with the issues here, we'll be much better off, and we'll move forward.

Let us just assume that there wasn't a crisis announced last Monday. How much of the 1998-99 business plan was allocated for sport fishing marketing in British Columbia?

Hon. I. Waddell: The reason why it's not so easy to answer is because it's complicated. There's money leveraged in or money from different sources. There was a commitment of $50,000, together with $350,000 from additional sources, mainly the federal government. Plus, they were working on different times when DFO would announce its management plan for the year and numerous other aspects. Plus, the fishery or the fishing experience is intertwined with the general $24 million marketing of British Columbia itself as "Super, Natural British Columbia," and that appears in the brochures as well. So it's hard to nail down the exact amount, but those are the best amounts that I can give.

I don't mean to make light of federal-provincial political matters -- I sometimes have a little fun with it -- because I have genuine questions there. But I'm not interested in being an adversary to Mr. Anderson; I'm interested in working with him in dealing with this matter. That's why I instructed Tourism B.C. to be ready with marketing plans and to assist in any way they can. That's why I wanted the CTC -- the Canadian Tourism Commission -- to be involved. That's why I'm prepared to cooperate.

[3:00]

I just want to go back, though, to the funding. The $50,000 -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that you're talking about is actually coming from the Tourism B.C. budget to support sport fishing. Where is the $350,000, which you hoped to lever up, coming from?

Hon. I. Waddell: That $350,000 is from the Canadian Tourism Commission.

I just want to add, while I'm on my feet, that when I said there are other moneys that go, $410,000 goes to the Islands region in total from Tourism British Columbia. So some of that goes for this marketing. Similarly, Vancouver, Coast and Mountains is $371,000; Cariboo Country is $297,000. Some of that money goes. . . .

I'm not quite sure what the member is getting at. Does the member want us to put more money into marketing sport fishing? If that's what he wants, perhaps he could indicate that to me, and we will take it into. . . . Does he want more spending in that area?

R. Thorpe: As the member knows, I'm very capable of speaking for myself, so he doesn't have to attempt to put words into my mouth. Before we can say, "Are we short? Do we have too much? Do we have enough?" we have to know what the number is. Is that $350,000 a commitment that we had in hand before the crisis was upon us? Is it on our wish list? If it is a commitment that we have in hand, how far down the road are we to realizing that commitment?

Hon. I. Waddell: It's a commitment that we had before the crisis. The answer is yes.

R. Thorpe: I think that what we have to do here -- and perhaps we'll work through this and see. . . . If the sport fishing industry is contributing between $600 million and $700 million to the economy of British Columbia, then from Tourism B.C.'s point of view, $50,000 is a relatively small amount. Perhaps that's the same ratio you use for tourism across the board; I have no idea until we get into that.

Unless anybody else here has any questions on sport fishing, I'll move along for now. Could the minister advise us of the status of the 1998-99 Tourism B.C. business plan?

Hon. I. Waddell: The member will know that this is a bit of a new process. We're just getting into -- for a couple of years -- working with Tourism British Columbia. I think it's working well, and I'm quite pleased with it. At the tourism

[ Page 8180 ]

A Voice: So was the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Hon. I. Waddell: Yeah -- and the Premier. So it was a pretty important conference. Even I was there. It's amazing.

A Voice: It was really important.

Hon. I. Waddell: It was really important.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. I. Waddell: There was at that time a release of the highlights of the business plan -- I think the hon. member got a copy; most of the people up there got a copy -- and Rod Harris led a seminar on the plan. The full plan had to go to the minister. It did, and it was approved. It's gone back to the board. The plan was developed by the independent board, not by the ministry. It's been approved, and within the next couple of weeks it should be available in printed form. But it basically follows the highlights, which are here.

R. Thorpe: Just in concluding on that point, the plan has been reviewed by the minister, it has been approved in the minister's office, and it has been sent back to Tourism B.C. We're now in the printing stage, and I suppose that the official opposition can expect to receive a copy probably within two and a half weeks. Would that be correct?

Hon. I. Waddell: That's seventeen and a quarter days, or 18 days -- right? I can't say 18 days, but I would think -- what, three? As soon as it's published, you'll get it. If it's printed, you'll get it as soon as that's done. If that's sooner, you'll get it then; if it's a little later, you'll get it then.

A Voice: It's in the mail -- right?

Hon. I. Waddell: We're not going to hide it on you.

R. Thorpe: I hope you're not going to hide it, and I appreciate that response. Since it's been approved and finalized and now in the printing stage, could we deal with what the key strategic issues of that plan are?

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm fairly new to estimates, and I'd have no objection if the head of Tourism B.C. wanted to answer the question. It seems to me that that would be the way to go. It's in fact not even in my estimates, because it's not a line item. However, I gather that the rules are that the minister has to answer.

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Deputies can?

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: I mean, I can answer that.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. I. Waddell: With respect, I can answer that, if I might. What are the key issues? The key issue is to keep the markets that we've got, keep the tourists we've got -- mainly from Asia and Japan. There was a decline in Japanese tourists in Ontario, a big decline, for the first two months of this year; there was a big decline in Alberta. We've held our own. Did you see the article today about Whistler, about how well it's doing? That's good -- good for all of us. So we've held our own with Japan, but we've got to watch it because Japanese tourism is declining. German tourism is declining. They have some problems there. The cost of absorbing eastern Germany and the taxation that has resulted made it very tight on the money in people's pockets to spend on things like tourism. So we've got to be careful there. Those are some challenges.

We've got tourists from the United Kingdom and the United States coming to Canada in increased numbers. We have to keep bolstering that, and that's why we have an Open Skies policy. So we have to look at the decline in Germany and Japan. We have to look at the potential in the United States, and we have to look at the increased competition around the world.

We're also trying to deal with getting some people to come here in what they call the shoulder season; that's a bit of the off-season. We're also trying to build tourism in the regions. I have a personal commitment to try to get a little bit of tourism and tourist dollars out of the golden horseshoe and into the other regions of the province.

Finally, we want to capitalize on our Super, Natural image and add to it. If I had to summarize, those are the objectives and the challenges that are ahead this year.

The Chair: Just prior to recognizing the member, I would like to clarifiy that the minister can in fact defer an answer to the deputy minister.

R. Thorpe: First of all, minister, I believe the terminology for the concentration is the golden triangle. The golden horseshoe, I believe, is in the province of Ontario. Perhaps that's from your days in Ottawa. The tourism operators outside of the golden triangle welcome your commitment, and we look forward to the action to support the commitment.

I do want to say something about Whistler. It's excellent that Whistler has done so well, because that does benefit Vancouver and probably Victoria a little bit less. But we have to do something to get some of those folks who are going to Whistler and Vancouver into the interior. Perhaps that's what the minister was talking about.

An interesting comment. . . . You alluded to the fact that the tourism industry is a very, very competitive industry. I'm just wondering: does the minister agree that it is a very, very competitive industry, and what would be the three or four key criteria to ensure that we are competitive in a globally competitive marketplace?

Hon. I. Waddell: I was in Quebec City at the Rendez-vous Canada marketing conference for about eight hours one weekend. I learned there that when you see the worldwide situation of trying to sell to tour operators in Europe and other places, it is indeed a very competitive industry. So it is competitive, like anything else in the world these days.

What are some of the things we can do? Good product, low dollar, well-trained staff and good marketing -- those are some of the things that we're concentrating on.

[ Page 8181 ]

What are we doing, then -- because there's not a whole bunch we can do about the dollar -- through Tourism B.C. to ensure and foster a competitive product?

Hon. I. Waddell: I think it's good to look at Tourism B.C. We could go pretty far afield to a lot of areas, including the Canadian dollar -- which, the member is right, I don't control. Just to look at the Tourism British Columbia business plan, it says that the corporation will:

". . .position British Columbia as a preferred travel destination to consumers and travel trade" -- look at the Open Skies policy, for example, that we're doing with the United States -- "provide travel information and services for tourists which encourage initial and repeat visitation, longer stays and extended travel throughout the province" -- look at the computer programs, the information that's available and the programs in consultation with the towns and the cities -- "implement programs which provide assurance to the visitor that acceptable standards are available and encourage operators to enhance the quality of their products; foster the development of an industry which is professional, well-trained and provides quality services. . . ; undertake research on the size and growth of the industry, and provide analysis of issues impacting development of the industry for use by government agencies and industry organizations; and pursue opportunities to generate incremental revenue through program activities and leveraging resources of the tourism industry and non-traditional partners to ensure resources are available to achieve the organization's objectives."

The Chair: Minister, a division has been called, so we will recess until after the division.

The committee recessed from 3:15 p.m. to 3:25 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

R. Thorpe: Very quickly, with respect to the comments the minister made about implementing programs which provide an assurance to the visitors, could we just have a couple of highlights on what the key programs are for the assurance to visitors of acceptable competitive standards? Could we have a couple of quick examples of that, please?

Hon. I. Waddell: Acceptable competitive standards? I'm sorry. . . .

R. Thorpe: One of the points you mentioned was: "Implement programs which provide assurance to the visitor that acceptable standards are available and encourage operators to enhance the quality of their products." I assume that's done so that we're competitive. I just want to know what a couple of the key programs are. I don't want to know them all, just the top couple of programs.

Hon. I. Waddell: That's a fair enough question. SuperHost Fundamentals is one program. That's a program where you learn the importance of customer service relations skills. The skills required are to communicate, to listen to your customers and to know a little bit of the value of tourism to the province. That's called the SuperHost Fundamentals program. There's a SuperHost program for dealing with customers with disabilities. There's SuperHost Japanese: a Service Expectations program on the differences and the do's and don'ts when dealing with Japanese visitors and sumo wrestlers. It includes a few Japanese words of welcome and so on, because they're such an important group that comes to our country. SuperHost Service Across Cultures -- again, there are some learning objectives there.

Those are some of those programs. There's an accommodations program in which we try to encourage regular inspections of the participants in the B.C. accommodations registry -- these are voluntary -- and approved accommodation signs. Access-Canada participates in accommodation properties. Canada Select has ratings in the accommodation guide. B.C. accommodations guide -- 900,000 copies of that go out in a year. Service and attraction programs: there are 2,607 approved accommodation properties, 218 approved attraction businesses and 198 artisans. So this is quite a program.

R. Thorpe: I wonder if the minister could expand a little bit on the Canada Select program. I have some knowledge of it, but if we could just have a brief discussion on it or a brief explanation. . . . If my memory serves me correctly, I think we have fewer than 300 participants in that program. Do we think that's a key program for the development and success of the industry?

Hon. I. Waddell: It's a national program in cooperation with the hotels association. Its inspections determine the star rating on a range of qualities of physical services and facilities offered in accommodation property. In 1997-98, last year, there were 301 ratings in the accommodation guide, and 295 accommodation operators voluntarily participated. It's only the second year of the program, so perhaps it could be increased.

[3:30]

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is not really. Most countries have their own standards. This is a Canada-wide program, so it's related to other provinces. Of course, there are guides that are outside our purview -- the Michelin guides and so on -- which have their own star service or star rating.

R. Thorpe: We'll just move out of that area. One of the other areas the minister mentioned was undertaking research with respect to the industry and issues impacting development of the industry for use by government agencies and industry organizations. When Tourism B.C. is providing whatever kind of research it's doing here, does it get a revenue-sharing back from some of the ministries that it's supplying with whatever kind of information it's supplying?

Hon. I. Waddell: That's a good question.

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Well, they vary. This is the first year of the program. In trying to get back some amounts, there's a billing. . . . I think the billing this year is about $50,000 to provide studies and so on. We're hoping to get back more in the future, because this is the selling of information. It's worth

[ Page 8182 ]

R. Thorpe: What is the overall total budget of Tourism B.C. in the business plan that's been approved but is currently being printed? What are the bottom-line total expenditures anticipated for the year?

Hon. I. Waddell: We're projecting the revenue from the hotel tax to be approximately the same as last year, which is $19.56 million, together with program revenue of $2,389,700. The expenses of Tourism B.C. will be $26,764,700.

R. Thorpe: We've got revenue, we think, coming in from the hotel tax of $19.5 million. Is that correct?

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: I don't want to get into this detail now, but someone may want to check that. If I go according to the estimates book, its share is 1.65 percent out of 8 percent, I believe. Unless my math is incorrect, which is a possibility, I don't think that works with the numbers in this book here, so someone might want to check that. Is there something different between what's in here and your plan? According to this number, it should be around $17 million.

Hon. I. Waddell: I wonder if the member might give us clarification on what he's referring to in the plan.

R. Thorpe: From the estimates book for the period ending March 31, 1999, which I think coordinates pretty close. . . .

Hon. I. Waddell: For 1999 -- next year.

R. Thorpe: That's this year; that links with your fiscal year, I believe. Maybe there's a trailer or something. It says that the revenue to the province of British Columbia will be $75 million. I believe that would be net of the amount that goes to Tourism B.C. When we quickly applied the ratios of 1.65 out of the 8 percent, it said you should be getting about $17 million from here.

Hon. I. Waddell: Just checking in the estimates book that I'm looking at, on page 299. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Yeah, the hotel room tax is $19 million.

R. Thorpe: We can follow that up later, but I don't think the math works.

Hon. I. Waddell: I see what you're getting at. Okay.

R. Thorpe: With the expenditures being $26 million and the revenue from government being $19.5 million, where are we getting the other $7 million?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer to the question is. . . . First of all, $2.5 million came in at the end of last year, which was allocated by the government to Tourism B.C. You recall that I announced an increase in their budget. That's where it is. The figure for the hotel room tax is $19.56 million, so there's a little extra there. Thirdly, there are unexpended moneys carried over from last year; which include the $2.5 million. There are some lower than anticipated expenses, so they have a little extra money, and they're carrying that forward to be spent this year.

R. Thorpe: How much has it carried forward?

Hon. I. Waddell: It's $8 million, but it moves that way every year, I'm told.

R. Thorpe: I would not define $8 million out of $26 million as a little bit. I believe the carry-forward the year before was between $2 million and $3 million, if my memory serves me correctly. So we've got about. . . .

Hon. I. Waddell: May I interrupt the hon. member? I was told there was no carry-forward from last year.

R. Thorpe: Yeah, I was probably confused with what went from the ministry when it was wound up. Thank you. So we've got a carryover of $8 million. Are we anticipating, at the end of the year, a surplus to carry forward to the following year? How much?

Hon. I. Waddell: Yes, that's what we're anticipating. How much? About $3.5 million.

R. Thorpe: So when push does come to shove, we will have some funds there for sport fishing marketing. If we can partner those with some federal dollars, which we all agreed we would fight for, then we can really help out that industry substantially. That's great.

With respect to the overall marketing thrust of Tourism B.C., how much do we see in the actual marketing and sales activities for the coming year?

Hon. I. Waddell: That's a difficult question to answer, Madam Chair. What activities is he talking about -- like, dollars? I can go into different programs. I've tried to indicate to him where we think the weaknesses are, where the strengths are and where we're going on a few programs. If he could be more specific, I'll try to be more specific in return.

R. Thorpe: How many of our marketing dollars are going to be spent in the North American market, in the Asian market and in the European market?

Hon. I. Waddell: I can give the hon. member some rough approximations: the North America area, about $3 million; the regional and sectoral -- that's in partnership with the regions in B.C. -- about $4 million; in Europe, about $1.5 million; and in Asia, $1.8 million.

R. Thorpe: In the urge to move along here. . . .

Hon. I. Waddell: Just hold on a minute.

R. Thorpe: Whoops, I'm sorry.

The Chair: While there's a slight break here, the Chair would just like to remind the members that prior to speaking, you must be recognized by the Chair.

Hon. I. Waddell: Thanks. I just want to help the member a little more on this. Another way of doing it is a summary:

[ Page 8183 ]

R. Thorpe: Now that we've got the broad strokes -- I don't want to know about spending on pencils and things like that -- of what our expenditure plans by those regions are, do we go through and establish benchmarks on what we expect to achieve for each of those programs? And do we then go back and provide ourselves with an assessment on performance criteria against that?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes. They're doing that, and when we provide you with a business plan, you'll see the details on it.

[3:45]

Hon. I. Waddell: I can tell the hon. member that we're not only doing it, we're doing it "Super, Naturally."

R. Thorpe: It's always nice that the minister has the bars up so high. When we do get a copy of the business plan, we'll go through it and make sure. I have every confidence in the management team of Tourism B.C. and would share some of the enthusiasm that the minister has.

Again, one of the things that concerns me about our long-term development of a tourism industry is our competitiveness in making sure that our operators, especially our small operators. . . . The big people tend to have huge resources, and they can look after themselves. What special programs, if any, do we have at Tourism B.C., and what work are we undertaking to ensure that small fishing resort operators and ecotourism operators are competitive? What are we doing? Have we done some work in the analysis of the competitiveness of these small operators in British Columbia to ensure that they're viable?

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm sure that if we exchanged places and I were to ask that same question of the member, he would look at me and say: "Well, the market will look after that, won't it?" And partly, the market will look after it. If you're uncompetitive, you don't survive out there. However, we are trying to help -- mainly by marketing, by getting visitors here, and then when they are here. . . . We're dedicating $3 million in marketing and profiling each region to make sure that regional tourist operators can participate. But this is basically a marketing outfit; it's not an outfit that goes in and tells a little fishing lodge how to be more efficient.

R. Thorpe: Earlier we had established -- or I thought we had established -- that tourism is a globally competitive industry. I understand that Tourism B.C. is for marketing British Columbia. But to market us as a competitive tourism destination not only means the facilities and the types of activities that the tourist can participate in or is looking for, but it also has a lot to do with value. But when the cost of doing business is so much higher in British Columbia. . . . Perhaps it isn't. That's fine. If it's not, let's just say it's not. But how is Tourism B.C. . . ? What are we doing to make sure that when we've got global competitiveness pressuring us to price products at certain levels, but our cost base is higher. . . ? What are we doing there? Perhaps that's not part of Tourism B.C.'s mandate.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm suggesting to the member that there are things like information centres and on-line reservations. All that helps the small operator. And Tourism B.C. is doing that. They see that as part of marketing, and that's their mandate. The mandate of my ministry, Small Business, is to help small business generally. That means less red tape, lower taxes, fewer fees and so on. I don't know if you've noticed, but that's what we're doing. A good example is signage, where I was able to convince the government that they should eliminate signage fees for the little tourism operators on the highways. That's only a little thing for government, but that's a big thing for small tourism operators. I'm pleased to say that we won that battle, and we're helping there.

I think the answer to the member's question is that that's in the broader context of the Ministry of Small Business. Also, there are a lot of debatable points. We could debate taxation and regulations, and so on, for a long time. I can just tell the hon. member that I'm trying to do my best to make these businesses competitive by giving them as many breaks as we can.

R. Thorpe: Actually, I do notice what your government is saying; I just don't notice the action that goes with some of the saying. We had an example of it just a few minutes ago, with the workers compensation bill -- Bill 14, I think it was -- which is going to increase red tape and costs for small business operators with between nine and 20 employees. I think the actions have to match the words.

I just want to wrap up, because I know time is ticking by. Let us go back to the signage issue and make sure the record is straight. There was actually no need to put small operators through the harassment they were put through. Not only did the official opposition protest when it was first announced, but so did thousands of small business operators throughout British Columbia. It ended up costing this government money to cancel what was an ill-conceived program from the beginning. I take my hat off a little bit to the minister for championing that through, but that fight should have never happened in the first place. If the minister and other ministers had listened to their front-line workers who advised against the program, we would have never gotten into it.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'll conclude by saying that I've tried to work with the industry, and here are some of the key issues. I'll tell you how we did it. We met with industry over a concentrated period, we zeroed in on the issues, and then we figured out what we could do and what we couldn't do at the moment but could maybe do later.

Here are some examples. Tourism B.C.'s budget: they wanted us to increase marketing, so Tourism B.C. received a one-time budget lift of $2.5 million, restoring the corporation's capital spending to its 1996-97 level of $24 million.

Secondly, they were concerned about the back-country recreation policy. I'll have an announcement on that on Friday, together with the Minister of Environment.

[ Page 8184 ]

We're still talking about employment standards, ferries, telecommunications and campsites. They wanted measures to reduce red tape; we have announced a task force. We gave them a hydro rebate. We helped them on sales tax numbers, and we're going to introduce a bill on red tape. I think that's a pretty darn good record, and in a short time. I'm very proud that we're making great progress as a ministry.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:55 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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