DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (Hansard)
TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1998
Morning
Volume 10, Number 7
[ Page 8231 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
WORKERS COMPENSATION
(OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(continued)
On section 15, section 185 (continued).
Hon. D. Lovick: Before we carry on from the point where we left off, let me just, for the information of the members opposite
Now I believe we're ready to go to section 15, section 185. As I recall, we debated it at length yesterday, and then we didn't vote on it. So we need to do section 185 before we go on.
Section 15, sections 185 to 189 inclusive approved.
On section 15, section 190.
C. Hansen: In this section we're dealing with orders to stop using or supplying unsafe equipment. One of the notes that I had was dealing with suppliers from outside of British Columbia, which I think we dealt with under the responsibilities section. One of the questions I have is about whether or not there is any provision to relieve a buyer of an obligation to pay for a "thing." That is the word that is used in the legislation. In other words, it's a piece of equipment that has been ordered; a purchase order has been issued by a B.C. company for the purchase of a piece of equipment or another item that falls under this clause. Then we have an order that comes from the WCB to stop supplying it. Is the order imposed on the supplier to not supply it, or is the order imposed on the purchaser to not take delivery of it? Those are two quite different things in this context, when you're dealing with a supplier from outside of British Columbia. In the case of a supplier from outside of British Columbia, as the minister indicated before, the order cannot be extended extraterritorially onto that supplier. Therefore would the order be issued against the purchaser? My question is whether or not there is any provision to relieve the purchaser of the contract obligations to take delivery of the product, given that there may be a WCB order imposed on that particular item.
Hon. D. Lovick: My advice is that the remedy that an employer of a person who ordered the equipment might have would probably be a civil remedy, rather than something provided for specifically in the legislation -- in other words, a legal remedy.
C. Hansen: But in terms of the context
In the case of a B.C. supplier, I can understand that this wording would protect them, because there is no
Hon. D. Lovick: I can't give the member the assurance that he's seeking, partly because this legislation talks about occupational health and safety, and we can't confer on people those kinds of obligations that go outside the mandate of this particular bill. Similarly, of course, we as a province have no power to tell another jurisdiction what it can or cannot do. In that sense we can't deal with out-of-province suppliers and give them instructions. Again, I think the remedy, frankly, would be civil litigation.
C. Hansen: Before we move on, I just want to clarify something with the minister regarding the section that was stood down. I must confess that when you were explaining that to my colleague from Richmond-Steveston, I was more concerned about the next section we were going on to, and I didn't catch the minister's comments. Could you explain once again what's going to happen to that section?
Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, I'd be happy to do so. We stood down section 15, section 156. It was a legal question: effectively, whether one particular piece of that section would have the effect of negating or otherwise nullifying everything else in the section. At the time, I argued that it wouldn't. But based on the comments from the member for Richmond-Steveston, with his legal training, I decided that the best practice and procedure at that point would be to take the matter under advisement and consult with legislative counsel. We have done so. Our final opinion on that, and the report we're getting on that investigation review, will come in this afternoon's discussion -- okay?
Section 15, sections 190 and 191 approved.
On section 15, section 192.
C. Hansen: Here we have a section that's dealing with the effect of orders on individual workers. If I can just read the first part of this section, it says: "If, as a result of an order made under section 190 or 191, a worker is temporarily laid off, the employer must pay the worker the amount the worker would have earned
[ Page 8232 ]
order that is made under this section may have an impact on the workforce at a particular location, but it also may have an impact on workers of other employers.Just as an example, we may have a piece of equipment that has been ordered, that has been scheduled to be delivered, and there is an order from the WCB to not supply that product. Now, that particular piece of equipment may be integral to a particular worksite, a particular project. I'm wondering if the minister could explain what happens to those third-party workplaces -- the employees that would work there.
Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer to the question is that any worker who is laid off -- whatever the grounds, effectively -- would be subject to the provision and protection of this section. I'd just point out to the member, though, that there is nothing new in this. This is indeed in the existing legislation and existing regulation -- right? So what we have here is not a new provision.
[10:15]
C. Hansen: I'll still take the liberty of asking some questions about it, even though it is currently in regulations. Here you have a situation where we have other pieces of legislation to deal with layoffs. Specifically, the Employment Standards Act would provide for protection for workers in the event of layoffs due to lack of work. If we've got a situation where an order of the WCB shuts down a secondary worksiteWhy is it that you're imposing some very rigid requirements in terms of specifying that the employer must pay for three days of salaries and wages to individuals who may be affected by an order? How far does this extend? Is it the order from the WCB that will actually specify what worksites are entitled to the financial compensation specified under section 15, section 192?
Hon. D. Lovick: To repeat myself, the answer is simply that this is what was in the existing legislation, and the three days, I think, is probably to be consistent with the orders to stop work in section 15, section 191(4), where we will note that the period referred to is 72 hours. Beyond that, all I can say is that we're simply transferring over this provision that existed in another statute. It isn't as if there's anything new being imposed here.
Section 15, sections 192 to 195 inclusive approved.
On section 15, section 196.
C. Hansen: In section 196(2) we have the provision that says: "Before imposing an administrative penalty, the board must serve a penalty notice on the employer that sets out
Hon. D. Lovick: Some thought has indeed been given to it, and I am advised that the larger question of appeals is going to be dealt with in the final report of the royal commission. That, I guess, is where we would grapple with the question the member poses.
C. Hansen: Again, I'll just point out that I think it's another case where we're putting the cart before the horse on this matter.
In section 15, section 196(6), it says: "After considering any representations made by the employer
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm tempted to articulate the case for psychic phenomena or something, because the member's question opens the door to an amendment that I intend to introduce on this very section, this very part, to address precisely the problem he refers to. If the member is willing, I will go directly into the amendment, because I think that will in fact take away the discussion that we would otherwise have.
The amendment that we want to propose, essentially, is in subsection (6)(a). What we're talking about is: "
The amendment proposed, therefore, is in fact to delete the phrase "took every precaution that was reasonable in the circumstances" and replace it with the phrase "exercised due diligence." In short, subsection (6)(a) would read: "
The argument for using that much shorter a rendition and, dare I say, less value-charged and subjective terminology is briefly stated by Crown counsel. Indeed, it is Crown counsel that has given us our advice on this particular amendment. The advice given from Crown is that they prefer the new wording simply because the definition of due diligence is apparently established through common law. They know how to work with that; they understand that. Whereas the other one, as the member quite correctly pointed out, is perhaps problematic because it is ultimately subjective.
It's worth noting, by the way -- and I think the members opposite might like to know -- that this was an issue that was apparently raised by the business representatives in the focus groups. They were concerned that this perhaps set too high a standard, and therefore we needed to clarify it -- and thus: "due diligence." I hope that explains the matter and satisfies them.
On the amendment.
K. Krueger: I would just like to make the point with regard to the amendment, as my colleague did with regard to
[ Page 8233 ]
the original wording, that it seems to us one of the great flaws of the workers compensation system in British Columbia is the almost absolute authority that the WCB enjoys. While with this amendment they won't have the ability to say whether or not the employer took every precaution that was reasonable, they will have the ability to judge subjectively whether the employer exercised due diligence -- which from my point of view and probably from the employer's, is not a whole lot different. Once again, they are at the mercy of this all-powerful board that makes the rules and judges itself on appeal and causes tremendous grief to a lot of our constituents.I just heard from more of them over the weekend -- people caught in this situation of having partial long-term disability. They seem to be the people who are most abused by the current system. I don't know; I'm kind of mixing something else in here. But the point I'm trying to make is that the WCB, in my view, and in the view of many people, is far too powerful and doesn't have sufficient curbs and reviews; it has too much autonomy.
I spoke in second reading about section 15, section 111, which lists all the functions, duties and powers of the WCB and then, in subsection (o), actually goes so far as to add: "
To give the WCB this kind of authority over employers and employees is an ongoing mistake, in my view, that this government is making. I appreciate the spirit and the intent of the amendment. But I'd certainly like this government to be thinking about taking back some of this tremendous emperor-type authority that the Workers Compensation Board holds so dearly to its chest.
Hon. D. Lovick: I appreciate the member's comments, and I think he speaks for a number of us who have obviously come into conflict and contact with WCB. I would note, however, that I think what the member is talking about has to do with the whole area of claims rather than occupational health and safety. But the concern is raised legitimately.
I just want to make two points, though. Number one is that obviously it is inevitable that some power of judgment will be conferred on this board -- or any board, for that matter. The question simply is whether that power is too great, and we obviously all have different opinions on that.
The second point, though -- and connected to the first -- is just that one of the reasons for this legislation is effectively to grapple with precisely the problem the member referred to -- namely, that there must be a statutory authority for the board to function. The member may recall from my introduction of the bill that the board itself, to its credit, perceived that it was in fact exercising judgment in areas that properly belong to this Legislature and to government -- to elected people, rather than some body that isn't in fact answerable -- thus this legislation to give that regulatory authority by way of statute. So I think that goes some way towards dealing with the issue that the member raises.
Also, I would point out that the royal commission is still alive and well and is going to be making the kinds of recommendations that address the concerns raised by the member, which I happen to share with him. So I thank him for the intervention.
Amendment approved.
Section 15, section 196 as amended approved.
S. Orcherton: Hon. Chair, I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today are a number of grade 6 and grade 7 students from Cloverdale Elementary School in my constituency. Accompanying them is their instructor, Mr. Tippett. I'd ask the House to make them welcome to this chamber.
On section 15, section 197.
C. Hansen: In this section, where we talk about the review of orders in relation to administrative penalties, there are several changes to the appeal process -- the time line for various appeals that take place. The other thing that's changed in this section is the number of different stakeholders, for lack of a better word, that have access to the appeal process under this section. I also note that the minister has an amendment to move under this section, so there are two things: the minister could explain for us how this section has changed from what has been in place prior, and also we could deal with the amendment he has.
[10:30]
Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for reminding me that there is indeed an amendment to this. May I suggest for clarification's sake that we might deal with that amendment, simply because it's a technical one? It's in fact a technical editing error. Just for the record, I will state now what the error is. If we go to section 15, section 197(2)(b), what we discover is that the sentence doesn't have a predicate at the end; it needs a verb. Therefore after the words "the time limit under section 201(1)" we would put in the words "has expired." In other words, the amended line would read: "Interjection.
The Chair: Order, members.
Amendment approved.
On section 15, section 197 as amended.
Hon. D. Lovick: I can't say aye, because I promised to answer the member's question on section 197 as amended.
Let me just take this section from the beginning -- the purpose of the section. This section states that once a penalty notice has been served, the order to which the penalty relates cannot be reviewed separately through the review process, which is set out later in division 13. Although it cannot be reviewed separately, the order can be reviewed along with the decision to impose an administrative penalty, if the employer
[ Page 8234 ]
wants to make representation to the board -- only, though, if the order was not previously reviewed under division 13 or if the time limit for requesting the review has not elapsed.Historical orders which may have some bearing on the final decision to impose a penalty or on the amount of the penalty can be considered in the context of the penalty, but they cannot be reviewed separately. Currently, historical orders can be subject to review, I am advised, and this results in a very drawn-out process. And that, in fact, was one of the criticisms enunciated by the royal commission -- i.e., an abuse of the power to draw it out. The purpose of this section, then, is to address that abuse.
C. Hansen: I find it interesting, hon. Chair, that in other cases we are extending the time limits for matters. As an example, yesterday we had the time limit that was allowed for a worker to file a complaint extended to a year. In other areas where we have the ability of employers to appeal sections, we have that shortened down on us. Certainly, if you start looking at the levels of appeal, I think a lot of people would like to have more levels of appeal when it affects them. But I think one of the problems we have with the WCB act generally is that we have too many levels of appeal, and they can go on for far too long. What we have in this section is not the length of time that an appeal can go on for but the time an employer has in which to launch an appeal. That's what is being shortened here. I'm wondering if the minister could explain the rationale for that.
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm still conferring, because I'm getting some information I wasn't aware of. If I understand the member's question correctly, the argument is that the bill as written is somehow restricting the employer's time and opportunity for appeal. The answer to that is that the existing review system with respect to orders is both lengthy and operationally cumbersome. Many have therefore voiced concerns with the current system, which allows for review by the regional manager -- i.e., the direct supervisor of the office; then further review by the director -- i.e., the direct supervisor of the manager; and finally, further review by the vice-president -- i.e., the direct supervisor of the director. Understandably, the royal commission was somewhat critical of that existing review mechanism which is set out, as we know, in policy rather than in legislation.
Division 13 of the bill, on the review process, allows for one formalized review mechanism where an employer, worker, union or other person has 60 days to apply for a review. The royal commission, as well, recommended that the person launching the review or the appeal do so within a set period of time. That's what we're trying to address here.
Section 15, section 197 as amended approved.
Section 15, sections 198 and 199 approved.
On section 15, section 200.
C. Hansen: Section 200 is the clause that really extends the right of review to other groups. That includes not only the employer, the worker, the supplier and the union but other persons, which the minister referred to a moment ago. My understanding is that this reference to other persons is a new addition, and I'm wondering if he could explain why that was added. What kind of other person is envisioned taking advantage of a review, other than an employer, a worker, a supplier or a union?
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm happy to answer the question. The example that comes to mind would be the surviving relative of a worker who was perhaps killed on the job. That's the kind of thing that we're envisioning here.
Section 15, section 200 approved.
On section 15, section 201.
K. Krueger: I'm not sure this is the correct place to raise this question, but perhaps the minister will indulge me. He might not even feel that it's a correct question anywhere in this legislation. But on the issue of reviews and appeals, a particular concern of mine and of a number of constituents whom I have encountered
I'm thinking specifically of motor vehicle collisions and some of the tragic consequences that flow
The outcome has been a perverse one, because initially ICBC thought it would be responding. There would have been a very substantial claim under the Family Compensation Act if the gentleman had not been ruled to have been a worker. But in the final result he was. And obviously, because the courier van driver was also a worker, he was precluded from any tort action. He ended up being at the mercy of the Workers Compensation Board, who essentially can't pay him much at all, because he wasn't showing much income.
That is one of the areas where I would really like to see people have recourse to someone other than Workers Compensation Board. No doubt the minister won't find it expedient to deal with that in this legislation. But if he wouldn't mind making some comments about that provision, especially given the fact that, as I say, the net was widened considerably in recent years
Hon. A. Petter: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. A. Petter: I am very pleased that joining us in the House today for this part of the debate is a delegation visiting from my constituency of Saanich South. They are a grade 5
[ Page 8235 ]
class from St. Joseph's Catholic School, and they are here with their teacher, Ms. Buckler. I hope that they are enjoying the debate and their visit to the parliament buildings. I'd ask members to help me in making them feel very welcome.Hon. D. Lovick: I appreciate the sincerity and the concern manifested by the member from Kamloops in raising the question, and I'm glad we indulged that. However, the question is clearly beyond the scope of this bill, and I would be irresponsible if I dealt with that in any significant way.
What I would like to say, though, is this. The royal commission is obviously still examining those larger policy questions regarding how the board operates and ought to operate, and the matters of how one defines worker and employer. When are you working and when aren't you? This question is a problematic and vexing one -- there's absolutely no question about that. If the member wants to canvass that in terms of our personal opinions and how we think we ought properly to address those difficult and foreign-jurisdictional sorts of issues and -- dare I say? -- demarcation issues, I would invite him to raise those matters during the estimates when we talk about the royal commission and the WCB's activities. I would certainly be happy to have that discussion then.
Section 15, sections 201 to 206 inclusive approved.
On section 15, section 207.
C. Hansen: I just want to clarify an issue again. This came up at the technical briefing and I had an answer to this, but I did want to get it on the record. My understanding is that costs can be awarded in these cases where there is an appeal that comes forward. If the appeal is granted, there is a mechanism whereby costs can be awarded to the party that was found not guilty or where the penalty was not applied in the end. I'm wondering if the minister could explain what that mechanism is. I understand that it's there today but that it is used very rarely. I'm wondering what that particular mechanism might be.
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask the member if he wouldn't mind elaborating on that. My staff advise me that they are not aware of that question arising from the technical briefing. Certainly I don't want to dismiss the question, but I'm sorry, I don't know what the member is referring to.
C. Hansen: I apologize to the minister and his staff, because it may have been that I raised this in another context. In my memory it was through the technical briefing.
The issue is that if you wind up with two parties in a court case and the court finds in favour of one particular party, then the court can award costs to either party in a case. But in this case we have a whole new court system that is being set up under the WCB and which does not have recourse to our standard courts. This is a court unto itself. What I am wondering is if they are found to be not guilty after a process under this act, whether or not costs can be awarded to one of the parties -- the party that brought a complaint forward, that type of thing.
Hon. D. Lovick: There is no discussion or provision or anticipation of costs in this bill. What we're talking about, as the member knows, is essentially an administrative framework, and costs just aren't entertained -- to the best of my knowledge from reading the bill and discussing it.
[10:45]
C. Hansen: I guess that could be seen as a shortcoming in that you wind up with complaints being brought forward. In the case of unsafe work, there is provision there for discipline. But in other areas where somebody brings a complaint forward, you could wind up with some very, very expensive costs that are going to be imposed on an employer, a union or a supplier in order to defend themselves from complaints that are brought forward. If those complaints are in any way seen to be frivolous by the board, then there is still no recourse to go back to recoup costs that may have been incurred in defending oneself from what may otherwise be a frivolous complaint.Hon. D. Lovick: Two points, Mr. Chairman. One is that this section is talking about an appeal to an appeal tribunal, and I don't think the analogy to a court holds up that well. That's point one. Point two is that if, prima facie, the appeal and the entire case is proven to be frivolous, then it would seem to me that the individuals who carried out an activity which can be demonstrated to be malevolent or frivolous or whatever would be subject, I would think, to some kind of disciplinary action, like loss of job at some point. The employee who did this for no good reason whatsoever and who cost the company significant time, energy and perhaps money won't get away with that. "I'm sorry, but we don't want an employee like you around any longer." I think that's a legitimate conclusion if indeed there's a flagrant abuse of the system of the kind intimated by the member.
Section 15, sections 207 to 211 inclusive approved.
On section 15, section 212.
C. Hansen: In this section there is a provision that I understand is part of the operation of the WCB today. I really have to express my disapproval of the process that is here, because I think there has to be another way of addressing these issues. Section 212(3) says: "A decision of the appeal tribunal on any matter in which it has jurisdiction is final and conclusive and is not open to question or review in a court on any grounds." My understanding is that this clause is not repeated in any other legislation that's ever come through this House. This is unique to the WCB only. When you start looking at the ramifications of it, you could have a case where somebody has been imposed a million-dollar penalty and given 12 months in jail, yet there is no appeal of that to a Supreme Court or to any other court. In fact, we are setting up a new court of law in British Columbia that has very, very strong powers when it comes to imposing penalties, yet there is no recourse to it. I invite the minister to comment on it. I just wanted to put on the record that I feel that that is particularly onerous.
Hon. D. Lovick: Again I would emphasize that we're talking now about an appeal to a tribunal. Court-imposed penalties -- a higher standard of punishment, if you like -- are always appealable. I want to emphasize for the record that the nature of the Workers Compensation Board, we should never forget, is a historical compromise. You establish a board and you give a board certain powers. In return what occurs is that the workers give up their right to sue that company. That's the historical compact that created workers compensation legislation. The logical corollary to that, if you will, is simply that if in fact you're depriving those individuals of a legal remedy that they would normally have, then you need
[ Page 8236 ]
to give the board the power to make decisions that won't get caught in an endless round of appeals forever and ever after. That's the historical explanation.C. Hansen: I accept the fact that it is desirable to put a limitation on the endless appeals. But there are provisions with some very severe penalties, and I think it is unduly restrictive to allow individuals who are being faced with some very severe penalties not to have that avenue of appeal to a court. I certainly understand in terms of the routine operations of the WCB. We don't want those going on to endless appeals. I can understand the reasons for that. I'll just leave it with those sentiments on the record.
K. Krueger: I just want to follow up on the minister's comments and reiterate that this kind of supreme power that the Workers Compensation Board retains is a problem. People don't see it as right. Certainly the workers have given up the right to sue, and everybody understands that. It's probably a good thing overall that all these many, many cases don't clog the courts. We'd require a whole lot more court personnel to deal with them.
But that doesn't necessarily follow logically to the conclusion that nothing the Workers Compensation Board decides ought to be subject to appeal by the courts. These are, after all, appointed people. The courts ought to be, in my mind and in the minds of many people, a higher authority than the Workers Compensation Board on matters -- at least some matters -- that are appealable. This attitude of having supreme authority -- the fact of having supreme authority -- tends to permeate down many levels of the Workers Compensation Board and manifests itself, I think, in the way claimants get treated by individuals up and down the chain.
I certainly don't mean to tar all employees or managers of the Workers Compensation Board with the same brush, but in any organization involving human nature, you're going to find individuals who tend to put themselves on a pedestal, on a high horse, and take advantage of the authority that they have. People working for the Workers Compensation Board know that at the end of it all, the decisions of the board are not appealable to the courts. I think that shows up often in the way that claimants are treated. Indeed, claimants often feel -- pessimistic is too soft a word; cynical is probably too soft a word; abused is probably not too harsh a word -- abused by the workers compensation system. They feel that all the appeal routes are fruitless and pointless because in the end, the Workers Compensation Board will look after its own.
I'm sure that the minister has no intention of changing this legislation at this late date, but it's certainly something that we hope is working in the minister's mind as he considers the upcoming results of the royal commission. I think we've made the point many times: we thought this legislation should wait until after the full results of the royal commission. Possibly I wouldn't have to be talking about this if that had been done. I want to leave the seed not just germinating but growing in the minister's mind that this board has too much power. It's wrong that people can't resort to the courts -- in some situations, at least. We certainly hope that he's really turning his mind to that question as he anticipates the legislation that will flow from the royal commission results.
Section 15, section 212 approved.
On section 15, section 213.
C. Hansen: In this section -- division 15 -- we're talking about offences. Under section 213(1), it says: "A person who contravenes a provision of this Part, the regulations or an order commits an offence." I'm wondering if the minister could explain to us at what point the consideration of these offences is dealt with by the WCB -- a tribunal -- or by the Provincial Court.
Hon. D. Lovick: Insofar as we are talking about offences, the answer is the Provincial Court.
Section 15, sections 213 and 214 approved.
On section 15, section 215.
C. Hansen: I know that we canvassed this in great detail when we were talking about responsibilities, but I do want to put on the record my concerns that were expressed when we discussed that previous section -- I think it was under division 2 of the act. I have nothing new to add to that, but I didn't want to let this section pass without at least making some comment on it.
Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for that and recognize that we are talking now on section 215, the defence of due diligence. What I want to do is simply propose the amendment that I believe is on the order paper.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm sorry; it isn't on the order paper. My apologies, Mr. Chairman. We've given you a copy, and a copy is now going to the member opposite. It is substantially the same
[SECTION 15, in the proposed section 215 of the Workers Compensation Act, by deleting "took every precaution that was reasonable in the circumstances" and substituting "exercised due diligence".]Amendment approved.
Section 15, section 215 as amended approved.
Section 15, sections 216 to 218 inclusive approved.
On section 15, section 219.
C. Hansen: Section 219(1)(b) talks about how a person may be required to pay to the board an amount "for the purpose of research or public education related to occupational health and safety." That somewhat implies that there may be a dedicated fund set up for this purpose. Certainly that's the way the language reads, but if it were a dedicated fund, that would be a new initiative for the way that funds of this nature have been treated. I'm wondering if the minister could explain if moneys that are paid for the purpose of research or public education would go into a dedicated fund or into one of the other existing funds: the accident fund or the compensation fund.
Hon. D. Lovick: The answer to the question is that those moneys would go into the accident fund of the WCB, which is analogous to the consolidated revenue fund.
C. Hansen: I'm wondering if the minister could explain how the board will go about ensuring that moneys that go
[ Page 8237 ]
into the accident fund for the purpose of research or public education are in fact used for that purpose. Is there an internal accounting system that will earmark this money for that purpose? I'm just wondering what kind of accountability there is to the public in terms of how those funds are used in the end.Hon. D. Lovick: If I understand the member's question correctly in terms of where the money goes and what controls and mechanisms are in place to ensure that it is appropriately spent, the short answer to that question is that the internal mechanisms that the board uses under the widely accepted procedures of accounting and all of that would be in place. That would in fact be -- what? -- the fallback point, I guess.
K. Krueger: I was on my feet for section 216, and I failed to catch your eye. I wonder if I could just raise something at this point and have the minister deal with it without necessarily going back to section 216.
The Chair: By agreement, member, you can deal with it.
K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Chair. It may be a small matter. I'm just troubled by the use of the word "and" instead of use of the word "or" at the end of section 216(a). It seems to me that if a worker is acting on instructions given by his employer or supervisor, then it's they who are potentially guilty of an offence, not the worker himself. When we use the word "and," we seem to be putting the onus on the worker to actually object to the instructions of his employer or supervisor. Many workers would simply act on the instructions received. I don't know if that's the minister's intent. If the word "and" really is the intent, then I think one of the sections is redundant, because the worker is responsible either way.
[11:00]
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm delighted to answer the question, and I thank the member for it. Yes, it is the intention. This is part of that prevention culture that we're talking about. We want to emphasize to workers: "You too have a responsibility for occupational health and safety, and if you're given an instruction by an employer or supervisor that in your best judgment puts you in peril, then you ought to -- and we encourage you to, by this legislation -- go on record and say you object to the instruction being given." We want to encourage workers to do that, rather than fall into the trap
K. Krueger: That makes sense, except that
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I think I missed the last part of the question. Why don't I give the member an opportunity to restate it.
K. Krueger: I'm thinking of a worker caught in the situation of perhaps having had some doubts about whether or not he ought to follow an instruction but feeling a little too overawed by authority. I'm particularly thinking of young workers or inexperienced people. They proceed on instructions without having objected, as section 216(b) says, and end up wishing they hadn't. It seems to me that it's a pretty subjective call by the board as to whether or not a worker did have or should have had the judgment to know that this was a risky action. I wonder how much latitude there'll be and how much trouble a young worker, for example, could get into under this section. I'm not sure that we really want the word "and" there. Obviously the minister thinks we do.
Hon. D. Lovick: The only point I would make is simply that we're not just talking about a minor matter here; we're talking about committing an offence. That's a higher level, if you will, of gravity. In that sense, the extra caveat given is absolutely appropriate, it seems to me.
Section 15, sections 219 to 224 inclusive approved.
On section 15, section 225.
C. Hansen: Here we have a section dealing with the power of the board to make regulations. I don't want to revisit the whole discussion we had about the power of the board versus the power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations, although I do have some comments on that. I do want to zero in specifically on section 225(2)(b), where it says that the board may make regulations "respecting specific components of the general duties of employers, workers, suppliers
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, my apologies again. I wanted to make sure I had that clear.
The board doesn't have the power to add general duties, which I think is the member's concern. Rather, what it does have is the obligation to specify what the general duties actually are. That's essentially the purpose of that section. It's not to add new ones; ultimately that would be a cabinet authority, if they wanted to suggest that there were some. Rather, it's simply to specify what they are, and thus that list.
Section 15, section 225 approved.
On section 15, section 226.
C. Hansen: Section 226, I think, is a welcome addition to this legislation. In fact, it's the kind of language that I personally would like to see in other legislation that comes through this chamber. Specifically, what I think is good about this is the requirement that before regulations take effect, they in fact go to a public hearing where appropriate and that there be an appropriate length of time for a regulation to be discussed before it takes effect. Obviously it's not something that should apply to every single piece of legislation that goes through, but certainly in legislation such as this -- which is as complicated as the WCB act and where the regulations are as complicated -- where there are very stringent requirements being put on those who have to work with the act, it's important for the regulations to be clearly understood before they take effect.
[ Page 8238 ]
The point I would like to make under this section is that here we have a provision in the act that requires that there be public hearings on regulations that are enacted pursuant to this legislation, yet there is not a public process of review of the legislation itself. So on one hand, we've got the regs that are going to be imposed having this review; in fact, as I'm sure the minister will point out, we've just gone through a six-year process of regulatory review that has resulted in the latest incarnation of regulations that we have. Yet here we have legislation which is very significant in its language, and it's not language that was in the public domain prior to this legislation being tabled. I think we've already seen, as we've gone through this particular bill, that there are clauses that need some fine-tuning. There are technical amendments the minister has brought in; there are amendments that we've argued for; there is interpretation. I think in the end we did get some specificity in terms of interpretation.What worries me in dealing with a bill of this magnitude is what we've missed in going through it. I suggest to the minister that if this bill had been tabled in this House for first reading and then had gone to a process of public consultation, as is envisioned for the regulations, we would have wound up serving the interests of occupational health and safety much better than with language that was brought into the House, where we try to pick up a few things here and there. Certainly I don't feel that we've given this legislation the scrutiny that it truly deserves from being in the public domain for a period of time, for a period of analysis.
I ask the minister -- even though this bill is obviously going to pass through this chamber -- that it not be proclaimed until such time as there has been adequate time for people to look at it. My fear, though, is that at that stage it's too late to come back and amend sections that are going to cause problems -- unless at some future legislative session, say, we have provisions brought in through miscellaneous statutes, for example. I certainly want to support these sections, because there is that public consultation for regulations. I only wish that there was the same kind of open, public consultation and time for review for the legislation itself.
Hon. D. Lovick: For the record, I just want to say to the member that I don't think he need be so self-abnegating. It seems to me that he and his colleagues have done an excellent job of asking questions about the legislation. I think they have given it the kind of scrutiny that opposition ought to give legislation, and I commend them on that.
I guess we've been at the bill too long, though. I will remind the member that we did have a discussion -- a rather extensive discussion -- on precisely this subject under section 109, where there is indeed a provision for review of the legislation and regulations. Finally, I will just make the point that the legislation clearly will not be proclaimed until such time as the regulations are prepared. So there will be some interval of time before the new regime descends upon us.
Section 15, section 226 approved.
On section 15, section 227.
K. Krueger: It struck me, in comparing section 228 to section 229 -- which of course we'll be dealing with next -- that the onus on the board to deal with the results of its ongoing review of its regulations is a lower onus than the minister will have under section 229 to deal with the input that he either comes up with on his own or receives from other channels, including backbench government MLAs and opposition MLAs, I guess. I don't understand that.
It seems to me to be almost a continuation of this issue that I've raised several times: the board has so much authority that people are beginning to act as though we're all subservient to it. It's almost a sacred cow that can't be touched; it gets to do what it wants. We tell the board in section
Interjection.
K. Krueger: The minister says I'm from beef country. Perhaps that's where the analogy comes from, all right.
We tell them in section 15, section 228 that they "must undertake a process of ongoing review of and consultation on its regulations to ensure that they are consistent with current workplace practices, technological advances and other changes affecting occupational health and safety and occupational environment." Well, fine. I'm sure they'll say they do that from now on. It might be very cursory; it might be a glance through. We don't really know. We like to assume that people are going to act responsibly, but there's no further provision in section 228 requiring them to do something with those results or to make sure that they keep them current.
In some jurisdictions, a lot of legislation is subject to annual review. The people who think it's important to their organization, ministry, board, Crown corporation, etc., have to vouch that it's still current legislation and still makes sense. Otherwise it dies. It has a sunset clause. It's out of the public's face; they don't have to deal with it anymore.
Perhaps there should be some such provision for these Workers Compensation Board regulations, as well, that the board actually has to come to the minister on an annual basis and say: "Yes, we've done that task that was assigned to us under section 228, and the regulations that we'd like to see changed, to keep abreast of technological advances and so on, are these," or "They all still make sense, and we want to keep them all as they are" -- a kind of rule-it-out program that's in place in perpetuity, where the board is required to demonstrate that it's doing this task that's set out.
As I say, in section 15, section 229 we see that there are four different sections for the minister to concern himself with, but in section 228 there's just this general assignment: "Be good people, and make sure that you're staying current and not imposing a needless, unnecessary or silly regulation on people that doesn't apply to them anymore, and we'll trust you forever to do things that way." I don't think that's wise. I think it adds to this whole general concept people have that with Workers Compensation Board in British Columbia we have a tail-wagging-the-dog situation -- that these folks get to make their own rule book, judge themselves on appeal and basically do whatever they want.
I'm sorry to kind of harp on that issue -- perhaps the minister's feeling that way -- but I have files
Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for his intervention. We disagree, I think. At least we disagree on the notion that the ongoing review is sort of going to be done by whim and whimsy. It seems to me that section 226 and section 228, taken together, make it very clear that the board has a legal obligation to carry out an ongoing review to ensure that its practices and regulations are current. I think that to try and formalize it in a more significant and stringent way than we do might indeed be counterproductive.
[ Page 8239 ]
[11:15]
I would just remind the member that the last review took six years to complete. What we want to do, clearly, is to try to avoid the necessity of having to go through that exercise again and thus these sections that say "an ongoing review" -- also giving the minister some discretionary power to respond, for example, to things like questions in the House. Here is an illustration, let us say, where the regulations don't seem to be serving the people for whom they were designed, and therefore we should do something. I think we have the mechanisms in place to solve the problem. Having said that, I would remind all members that I believe we're actually on section 227, so we should deal with section 227 before we go on to section 228, where I think those questions were coming from. Not a big deal.Section 15, section 227 approved.
On section 15, section 228.
K. Krueger: The minister is quite correct. I jumped the gun, and those comments were meant to reflect on section 228. I'm jumping ahead a tiny bit, but in response to the minister's comments, I don't disagree that the minister should have the responsibilities and options laid out in section 229, but when the minister says that sections 226 and 228, taken as a package, address the concerns that I've voiced, I don't agree.
I think that section 226, as my colleague from Vancouver-Quilchena said, is a good thing, and we'd like to see more of this in the way the provincial government deals with adding regulation. But in the minds of the Workers Compensation Board appointees, section 226 may well militate against performing their section 228 role zealously if they feel that they have identified regulations in their ongoing review process that are no longer consistent with current workplace practices, technological advances and so on.
If, according to section 226, they then have to go through an advertising process and a public hearing process and so on in order to delete regulations, they may well not do it. They may feel understaffed and overworked -- these complaints that you hear periodically from our various organizations -- and they may just elect not to act this year. That can roll on and on, year after year.
I don't think that we should assume
Once again, I want to make it clear that I'm not tarring everybody with the same brush, but we've bumped up against those people. I'm sure that all of us in office and anybody who has worked for government or maybe for any large corporation, and certainly any large Crown corporation, have seen people like that -- Peter-principled people who are just in the wrong place. They're not particularly interested in serving the public.
It obviously isn't going to be dealt with today, but it could be dealt with in the upcoming legislation. I'd like to see the onus on the Workers Compensation Board -- that there actually be a procedure they have to follow, that there's actually some accountability to show that they have done what they're required to do in section 228, and that they've done it with the thoroughness that only people who are associated with the work of the Workers Compensation Board on a day-to-day basis could exercise.
For the rest of us, of course, it's one of many, many duties. One of my colleagues said one day that this job is like having 120 channels on your TV selector and being expected to know what was on each one yesterday. Obviously we can't. But these people are the experts. They should know, if they're tracking them, where the complaints are coming from and where the problems are, where the employers -- and the employees, for that matter -- are saying that the regulations aren't consistent with current workplace practices, technology and so on.
They ought to have to report to the minister on that, and they ought to have to deal with it. They ought to be able to assure him
That's my final word on the subject, I think. It's not that I'm on a crusade, but as I've said a couple of times, I think that the Workers Compensation Board is the most out-of-control organization we deal with in the provincial government, and it doesn't make sense to me to give the minister more responsibilities under this section than we give to the board itself.
Hon. D. Lovick: I appreciate the member's comments. Let me just respond quickly. I won't say I'll allay his fears, but just give the counterpoint. The case he is arguing, it seems to me, is addressed in the legislation, in my considered opinion. Let me explain why.
Section 228 talks about an ongoing review of board regulations. I want to emphasize that the power conferred there isn't discretionary; it's very specific -- indeed, it's emphatic. Let me just quote; section 228 reads as follows: "The board must" -- my emphasis -- "undertake a process of ongoing review of and consultation on its regulations to ensure" -- again, my emphasis -- "that they are consistent with current workplace practices, technological advances and other changes affecting occupational health and safety and occupational environment." That's point one.
Point two. I would advise the member
I'd also just remind the member that if you look in section 112, on the annual report, again it's not vague and not imprecise. It's quite clear. It says: "The annual report of the board under section 69 must include (a) a review of its activities under this Part for the year, including financial, statistical and performance information, and (b) an assessment of the occupational health and safety record of workplaces in British Columbia."
[ Page 8240 ]
So I think the board is mandated to do precisely the kinds of things that the member is asking for. I don't think our disagreements are significant, but I just want to clarify that for the record. I thank the member for his attention.K. Krueger: Our disagreements might not be significant, but our experience appears to have been significantly different. This Workers Compensation Board of ours has an organizational culture and an attitude that's a problem to employers and to injured workers in this province. It's particularly a problem to those who are partially disabled over the long term. While the minister in good faith is saying that the responsibility is being very clearly laid out here, I want to caution the minister that it's all about the attitude of the people who work under the regulation or the legislation from now on.
Whether or not they have a zeal to perform this responsibility well is another question. I have seen so many examples of the Workers Compensation Board not performing its role with zeal or with the best interests of the injured workers at heart -- or of the employers, for that matter -- but just operating as a giant machine that rolls along, looking after itself and not being particularly concerned with those whose whole lives are wrapped up in the decisions that the board makes or with the extreme slowness with which it makes those decisions. I have no faith at all, without spelling out their responsibilities in clause (b), (c) or (d), etc., that the Workers Compensation Board will be trustworthy to fulfil this responsibility in a zealous way.
I don't understand why we have to actually
So why not put more responsibility on the board itself, in section 228? I hope that the minister doesn't end up having these remarks in Hansard quoted to him by dozens of injured workers or employers in future, because it seems to me that we're being a whole lot easier on the Workers Compensation Board than we are on the minister, with this combination of sections in this piece of legislation.
So I hope the minister will take that into account. I think he's reaching the point of irritation with me belabouring this point. From my point of view, I'm not flogging a dead horse. This is a horse in training, and it's a horse that has often taken off on its own. We need to deal with these people, and we don't do it by giving them all kinds of latitude while obliging the minister to go through a process just to get them to listen to him. I can't get them to listen to me as an MLA. My constituents can't get them to listen to them. They're a source of huge aggravation in this province, and I want them dealt with. I want us all to be thinking about that as we deal with legislation that will affect how the Workers Compensation Board conducts itself.
Section 15, section 228 approved.
On section 15, section 229.
C. Hansen: The minister still has the estimates process to look forward to.
As much as I was complimenting the minister for having that provision of review built into section 226, under section 229 what we have is the ability of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to impose regulations -- to actually supersede the board's power to make regulations and to in fact make regulations directly through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. But what is not in section 229 is the provision for review. So in the case of the board, what we have is a review process that goes out to public hearing. The regulations can't come into effect for at least 90 days, which, as I indicated earlier, we certainly support. Now we get to section 229, where the minister is taking the power to overrule the board when it comes to regulations -- to impose regulations through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council without any review, without any consultation and without any delay mechanism in terms of when it becomes effective. I'm wondering why the minister would not give the same provision for public notice in this section that was in section 226.
Hon. D. Lovick: The member quite correctly points out that this section does indeed allow the minister to instruct the board to reconsider board regulations, and it requires the board to consider the minister's instructions and report its response to the minister. This is a new concept for occupational health and safety in B.C. The minister has not previously had this authority to direct amendments to board regulations. The royal commission voiced pretty strong opinions and concerns about a lack of accountability by the board with respect to regulations -- i.e., the body making the rules was also enforcing the rules
Interjection.
Hon. D. Lovick: Well, I've been singing it for a while but sadly the member apparently wasn't listening.
That's what led to the recommendations that cabinet have ultimate responsibility for all regulations. While the recommendations of the royal commission have not been adopted, this should address to some extent their concern for greater control by government and greater accountability.
While the board cannot fetter the discretion of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, it would be highly unlikely that the government would proceed with unilateral amendments exclusive of stakeholder input. In short, they wouldn't just say: "Well, we're going to make changes because we have the power to do so." Rather, they are obviously going to respond to perceived needs.
[11:30]
But the issue is ultimately accountability. As I say, frankly, the thrust and the justification for this entire package of amendments is accountability. It's to say that there must be a statutory authority for occupational health and safety regulations, which we did not have before. Thus this bill.C. Hansen: I think that what's important when we talk about the need for consultation is that we don't get ourselves into a very limited, narrow box as to what consultation is all about. I know that the minister has often referred throughout the debate on this bill to the reference group that was shown drafts of the legislation. Certainly that referral to a reference group is better than nothing, but it is no substitute for the kind of broad consultation that is envisioned under section 126 -- where you put language, whether it's regulation or legislation, in the public domain and allow everybody to look at it. It's not
[ Page 8241 ]
just a hand-picked reference group that the ministry might have look at the wording; it's open to broad consideration. Frankly, some of the input that I've had on this legislation from the time it was tabled has not come from associations. It hasn't come from organizations that, in turn, represent individual employers or groups. Rather, it's input that has come directly from small businesses that have looked at the legislation and relayed to us their story as to how it impacts them.
What we often rely on in the consultation process is
Hon. D. Lovick: I don't disagree with the thrust of the member's argument. As one who has had considerable experience with the consultative process
That, effectively, is what is behind this particular section. I suspect that the member opposite would agree with me that that is indeed not surprising or radical; that's essentially something that happens on an ongoing basis. I think we all perceive that. It's a matter, however, of balancing the need to consult with those individuals who will be directly affected by legislation with the ultimate obligation that one has to make decisions. As long as we endeavour with our best efforts to achieve a balance between those two, I don't think we'll err very badly.
Section 15, sections 229 and 230 approved.
The Chair: Members, we're at a point now where we can proceed through the sections, or we may wish to deal with stood-down sections.
Hon. D. Lovick: If my colleagues opposite are agreeable, I would prefer to deal with the section that we stood down
Interjection.
Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, who is responding to that.
While we are sorting ourselves out, Mr. Chairman, I understand that one of my colleagues would like to make an intervention. Perhaps this would be a good time.
G. Bowbrick: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today are 26 grade 11 students, along with their teacher, Ms. Vit, from New Westminster Secondary School. I had the pleasure of visiting with them when I spent a day at their school a few months ago -- in early March, I think it was. I'd ask that all of my colleagues in the House here join me in making them welcome.
The Chair: Members, we could deal with the consequential amendments while we're waiting.
Section 16 approved.
On section 17.
The Chair: You have an amendment, I believe, minister.
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I am flustered. I am searching to find my way through this massive corpus of material here before me. It's shocking.
We're on sections 17 and 18, I believe, and I have a technical amendment that I believe appears on the order paper. I have shared that with members of the opposition. It's a technical editing error, and correction is required to ensure the appropriate referencing of the supplement. The amendment simply amends the consequential referencing of the supplement to the Building Safety Standards Act. That's the clarification that is required.
Accordingly, I would move that amendment.
[SECTION 17, by deleting "the Supplement to the Building Safety Standards Act" and substituting "the Building Safety Standards Act, as enacted by section 1 of the Supplement to the Building Safety Standards Act,".]Amendment approved.
Section 17 as amended approved.
On section 18.
Hon. D. Lovick: I move the same amendment.
[SECTION 18, by deleting "the Supplement to the Building Safety Standards Act" and substituting "the Building Safety Standards Act, as enacted by section 1 of the Supplement to the Building Safety Standards Act,".]Amendment approved.
Section 18 as amended approved.
Sections 19 to 37 inclusive approved.
On section 38.
C. Hansen: Earlier we talked about the amount of time that may be necessary to pass before this act is proclaimed. I would like to ask the minister to give some sense of what kind of time line is anticipated, as well as the process that may be required before this legislation can be proclaimed -- whether or not we envision it being proclaimed in its entirety or whether it's going to be piece by piece. I'm wondering if the minister could enlighten us.
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm not sure I can give an absolutely definitive answer to the question. It is likely that the entire bill
[ Page 8242 ]
will not be proclaimed for some while, but we may need to bring in the part of the bill dealing with the board's ability to review its regulations. The reason we may need to do that is simply to ensure that we don't have either duplication or conflict. It quite conceivably, then, will be a two-stage process. We will start with giving them the power to carry out the review, to ensure that we don't have problems, and then we will proclaim the entire document. We would guesstimate that that would probably take several months. That's about as definitive as I can be. I hope that's helpful.Section 38 approved.
The Chair: We can deal with section 156, which was stood down.
On section 15, section 156.
Hon. D. Lovick: On section 156, Mr. Chair, I am now giving you an amendment, a copy of which I am also sharing with my colleagues opposite -- both the critic, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, as well as the member for Richmond-Steveston, who raised this issue and brought this matter to our attention.
We have done some checking with legislative counsel
Accordingly, then, the amendment that I am proposing is as follows
[SECTION 15, in the proposed section 156(3) of the Workers Compensation Act, by adding at the end ", if the board considers this advisable in the public interest".]On the amendment.
G. Plant: I think that the amendment does in fact address the issues and concerns I expressed yesterday. The minister makes an important point, I think, when he speaks about the fact that the Freedom of Information Act is drafted in a way that generally contemplates that if its provisions are to be overridden by other legislation, then the other legislation must say so expressly. I agree with the minister that that is the way the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is intended to operate with respect to other legislation.
I can inform the minister, however, that at least on the basis of some of my interaction with members of the, shall we say, information and privacy community, they have from time to time expressed a sense of concern about the way in which legislation enacted subsequent to the FOI Act has dealt with information and privacy issues. They have a concern around this interrelationship and a desire to ensure that the supremacy of the Freedom of Information Act is preserved in the manner contemplated.
In this particular case, given that section 156 will in this subsection be conferring on the board an express power to make disclosure or publication of information, I think it is an improvement on the provision to add the qualifying words that require the board to consider the disclosure to be in the public interest. I think that the amendment posed by the minister is an improvement, and I will be pleased to support it.
[11:45]
Amendment approved.Section 15, section 156 as amended approved.
Section 15 as amended approved.
The Chair: We will now go to the stood-down sections, sections 1 to 14.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.
On section 4.
C. Hansen: I appreciate that sections 1 to 14 are consequential amendments, and I know that under section 15 we dealt with virtually all of the issues that I think arise under these sections. But I didn't want to pass section 4 without making some comment on it. Section 4 says: "Section 36 is amended by striking out 'expenses incurred in administering the Workplace Act,' and substituting 'expenses incurred in administering part 3 of this act.' " The effect of that is that the Workplace Act is being deleted, and we have this entirely new part being added to the WCB act. The expenses that pertain to the Workplace Act used to be charged against employers through the premiums that were assessed by the WCB. What we have here is the ability to have that same cost allocated to this new part that is being enacted.
I gather from comments made about other sections that the minister does not have any costing of what the financial implications are for the WCB. I certainly invite him to correct that if that's not the case. I have some real concerns about the extent to which costs are being added, both to the WCB and to employers, to administer this new legislation. I will certainly be looking for some numbers from the minister in terms of what the cost implications are when we get into the estimates process, because, quite frankly, I think that kind of costing should have been done before the legislation was brought into the House. But clearly in this part we've got the requirement that the WCB produce new reports for various parties that are affected by the act. We have the costs of inspections. The minister indicated there were no new inspectors to be hired; yet there are some new obligations being imposed on them. Clearly there is an increased-cost side to this legislation, and I
[ Page 8243 ]
just want to put it on the record that I think that's the kind of information that should be brought forward before a bill is debated in the LegislatureHon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for his due diligence in putting that on the record. I would simply offer the fact that we are advised by the WCB that they anticipate minimal financial impact as a result of this legislation.
Sections 4 to 14 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. D. Lovick: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 14, Workers Compensation (Occupational Health and Safety) Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.
The committee met at 10:09 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SMALL BUSINESS, TOURISM AND CULTURE
(continued)
R. Thorpe: Within this branch of the ministry, how many staff are dedicated to working on sport and recreation?
Hon. I. Waddell: There are 17.
R. Thorpe: When we look at the budgets of this branch, what are the total funds dedicated to sport?
Hon. I. Waddell: The total is $10.676 million.
R. Thorpe: What role do you see your ministry, your branch, playing in amateur sport in British Columbia today?
Hon. I. Waddell: I'd say there are three: development and policy -- coordination of all the different parts of it -- and funding, as much as we can.
R. Thorpe: I wonder if the minister could just expand on the coordinating aspect of it. What do you mean when you talk about coordinating?
Hon. I. Waddell: The way the system works is this. The branch develops programs, using its expertise, and then basically the stakeholders run the programs. It's decentralized to the people in the field -- that is, the sports organizations. Then we evaluate what's happening and try to develop the next generation of programs. By and large, it's a successful system because it's pretty cost-efficient and it involves the stakeholders. I think that on a per-capita basis, more people participate in amateur sport in B.C. than in any other province.
R. Thorpe: If I understood the minister correctly, it's a top-down development of programs in the branch. Is that correct?
Hon. I. Waddell: No, I wouldn't characterize it as that; I would characterize it as a policy that works with the stakeholders. Ideas and programs percolate up from the stakeholders -- who, after all, know things. They're in the field doing things.
R. Thorpe: With respect to the funding, I think you said that the funding from your branch is approximately $10.7 million, if my memory serves me correctly. That's the number I wrote down. The details that I have here indicate that it's $9.126 million. Where is the other $1.6 million, please?
Hon. I. Waddell: I just want to add to the previous answer that there are advisory committees for each sport. With respect to this question, there's a sport fund of $1.55 million. I believe that's why there is a difference in figures. It's a separate line in the blue book.
R. Thorpe: In fact, I think that's the special account -- the $1.55 million. How does that special fund work, and where do those funds flow to?
[10:15]
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm told they're amalgamated into the sports grants.R. Thorpe: One of the concerns that we've received -- and we've heard from sports groups throughout British Columbia -- is that the government seems to be lessening its enthusiasm and profile for sport. I would like the minister's comment on that. Is there some concern with the future of sport with respect to the ministry and this government, or is sport still considered important by this government?
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer to that is that there is a strong commitment to sport, on behalf of the department and this minister. In the recent reorganization of titles and so on within the ministry, part of the ministry emerged as the community development branch. It's now called sport and community development, to send a signal to stakeholders in the field that we have not backtracked in any way from our commitment to sports. The division is culture, recreation, heritage and sport.
[ Page 8244 ]
R. Thorpe: In fact, I do have copies of correspondence sent by the sports organizations to the ministry requesting that the ministry restore the word "sport" to the title. I think that is a positive signal for them.What are the three or four key issues facing sport in British Columbia today? The minister doesn't like it when I give him one set of numbers, so I'll say three or four just to give him a little bit of room for adding some more comment.
Hon. I. Waddell: With respect to the letters that the hon. member received, I've written back to these people, and I'll share that with you.
With respect to the list, I thought I would stay up and watch David Letterman last night so that I could practise a top-ten list, but I couldn't quite make it. However, I'll deal with the top four but not in the Letterman order -- and you don't have to applaud after each one. No. 1 is
Interjections.
The Chair: Through the Chair, members. Order, members.
Hon. I. Waddell: No. 1: Reorganize provincial participation in the recreation delivery system. These are the priorities. That's what I was asked.
R. Thorpe: The key issues, actually.
Hon. I. Waddell: Here are some of our priorities and key issues: (1) reorganize provincial participation in the recreational delivery system; (2) work with post-secondary athletic directors and provincial sport organizations to develop a mutually agreeable athlete assistance program; (3) work with provincial sports organizations and Sport B.C. to develop the measurement instrument and process for Sport Discovery III, a systemwide triennial evaluation of sport organizations receiving funding from the province; and (4) continue the development and implementation of the SportSafe program, designed to make sport and recreation safe for all participants but particularly young people.
R. Thorpe: With respect to No. 1, reorganization of provincial delivery, what was the issue, and what are we trying to correct or make better with this reorganization?
Hon. I. Waddell: We're looking at roles and responsibilities to deliver the most efficient programs. Recreation tends to be largely a municipal responsibility -- there are a lot of municipal programs -- so we're trying to work with the municipalities to
R. Thorpe: So we're looking at reorganizing the provincial delivery of programs, and we want to shift it
Hon. I. Waddell: Yeah, that's a good question, and it will give me a chance to clarify that. No, it's not off-loading to municipalities; it's not even
R. Thorpe: Out of the $10.7 million for sport in B.C., how much of that -- maybe just use last year, or you can use your budget for this year -- has traditionally been funnelled down through municipalities to deliver the programs?
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is zero. It all goes to the sports organizations.
R. Thorpe: That's why I'm a little puzzled, hon. Chair, in looking at this reorganization and at working with municipalities. How are we working with municipalities in this reorganization, when in fact the funding and the programs go not to the municipality but to the sports groups?
Hon. I. Waddell: All we're talking about is that the municipalities have their money, and we have money. It's working with them in terms of sports programs, so that we've got some general, overall view of what's happening.
R. Thorpe: Where do the sports groups fit into this equation?
Hon. I. Waddell: Let me just give the member some statistics. We guide and support 69 provincial sports and 16 provincial recreational organizations. That's in the budget; it's $4.586 million. We have an athletes and participants section to support the development of quality participation; it's a $1.6 million budget for next year. If the hon. member gives me a chance later, I might read some letters from athletes that we've assisted, thanking us for the assistance.
There is the community development section. This is for coach, coordinator and instructor positions in targeted regions of the province, and increased leadership and participation opportunities to assist small, medium-sized and large communities to provide quality recreation and sports programs. It's a budget of $2.605 million. The equity and access section -- to enhance awareness of barriers to participation, particularly with underserved populations, $315,000; coaching and leadership section -- to rebuild, train and retrain volunteer coaches, $494,000. That's the budget, in essence.
R. Thorpe: I really do appreciate all that detail. But unless I missed it, I don't think the minister answered my question. I'll repeat it; maybe I wasn't too clear the first time. My question was: the ministry is going more with municipalities which get zero funding, according to the minister, so where do the provincial sports groups fit into this equation and this reorganization and delivery of programs?
Hon. I. Waddell: One has to look at it as two separate groups: sports and recreation. We fund the 69 sports groups, as I said -- the main part of that sport budget. Then you've got the recreation. We're funding some recreation, and then the municipalities do a lot of that. One of the things we want to do is work with the municipalities so that we have proper coordination with them. That's why it's a new kind of priority for next year.
R. Thorpe: I want to make sure. I'm sure they're not listening right now, but I'm sure they'll be interested in the Hansard of this -- that whether it's 64 or 69 provincial sports
[ Page 8245 ]
organizations, they are going to have a key role in whatever this reorganization is going to look like when it's final.Hon. I. Waddell: I can assure the member and the assorted organizations that they will have.
R. Thorpe: With respect to further municipal involvement in these provincial delivery programs, I just want to ask this question. I don't like to ask it, but I'm forced to ask this question based on the historical trends of this government. This is not part of a downloading exercise in any way?
Hon. I. Waddell: No. I thought I said earlier that's it's not downloading; it's working with issues management. It just happens that they do a lot of recreation. They're funding community centres; they're doing all
R. Thorpe: Well, that was the reason for my question. There isn't a whole bunch that goes out now, so why
Hon. I. Waddell: I'll forgo answering the first part of the question and answer the last part. The answer is yes.
R. Thorpe: Point No. 3. The minister talked about measurement. I just wonder if the minister could expand in some detail upon what he was talking about with respect to measurements.
Hon. I. Waddell: Let me tell him that the goal of the department is to match funding to performance, so that when you get good performance, you get good funding. It's to try and have a handle on that.
R. Thorpe: So are we trying, in some format, to push down the accountability and performance matrix to these organizations? Is that what we're trying to achieve?
Hon. I. Waddell: What we're trying to do is establish clear performance standards, working with the organization, so that sports is put on a footing where it has standards and efficiencies, and so that, in many ways, it's a better industry. It's putting in these kinds of modern standards that, in the past, sports didn't have. I think this is what the department's trying to do. There's no big conspiracy behind this; it's just trying to bring in modern efficiencies and a better way of running things.
[10:30]
R. Thorpe: The minister may have caught on during earlier estimates that I stand strongly for performance measurements. Is the ministry, then, developing a template for these various sports organizations? And is there any one particular lead organization that is going to champion this to the various provincial sports organizations?Hon. I. Waddell: This year, I'm informed, is the third cycle of using performance measurements with the organizations. It's becoming more accepted, and both the department and the organizations are getting more experience in it. We're trying to run the department by performance standards as one of the priorities.
R. Thorpe: That's good. But for argument's sake, is there one particular group
Hon. I. Waddell: In the first two cycles there was grassroots support for this, but it came more from the department. In the third cycle we're finding that it's now coming almost equally from the sports organizations. In other words -- to use a sports analogy -- we've handed off the ball to them, and they're running with it.
R. Thorpe: But it doesn't seem that the sports team has a captain, other than some staff in the ministry, on this particular issue.
The minister's been very cooperative to date, and I'm sure that will continue. I would very much appreciate receiving the templates of the first two phases of this performance management and the third if that's possible. I notice the minister nodding, but I would just like that confirmed for the record.
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, in terms of a captain, Sport B.C. has a board and a chair who are very supportive; they probably think they have captains. As to the material, I'll get the member any relevant material I can on it.
R. Thorpe: I understand that one of the issues
Hon. I. Waddell: Sport B.C. and officials from the ministry have met with the Gaming Commission to discuss any concerns that may arise out of gaming policy. There will always, of course, be concerns with respect to gaming policy; it's part of the animal. But we have met with them to take any concerns that may arise.
R. Thorpe: Those meetings were obviously done in a spirit of cooperation and good will with the ministry, Sport B.C. and gaming officials. Can the minister confirm that sports groups will not be adversely affected in funding this year and into the future, with respect to this government's change in gaming policy?
Hon. I. Waddell: The hon. member will know that I'm not responsible for gaming policy. It's not in my estimates, and I don't deal with gaming policy. I am, however, aware of the fact that it affects groups within my ministry -- specifically, cultural groups and sports groups that get some of their funding from gaming revenues. So I'm aware, and that's why the officials have met with Sport B.C. That's why we've met
[ Page 8246 ]
with the Gaming Commission: to express the concerns of the stakeholders in the area about gaming policy. The main concern, of course, is that they keep getting sufficient funding.R. Thorpe: We've heard, many times, the minister say very proudly what a strong advocate he is for the areas he represents in his ministry, but the proof is always in walking the talk. What I would really like this minister to say today is that he's going to be an advocate for funding sports groups throughout British Columbia and that he is going to aggressively pursue this at the cabinet table to ensure that sports groups' funding is kept whole, no matter what the gaming policy changes are in the province -- so the funding for small sports groups like swimming clubs, hockey teams, softball teams and girls field hockey teams is kept whole. They have great concerns out there. I think it's very, very important that this minister stand and give a commitment today to these various sporting groups throughout British Columbia.
Hon. I. Waddell: As the hon. member notes from the estimates, I've protected the funding of the sports groups. There have been cuts. I've made cuts elsewhere, but I have protected the funding of the sports groups, the Arts Council and the cultural groups, and I remain a strong advocate for those areas.
When I was in Kamloops at the Premier's summit, I was heartened by the fact that people said to me that I was a strong advocate for these groups. So I think the message is getting out, and I think they appreciate that we're having some success.
R. Thorpe: But, you know, that's like last year's snow. What we're looking for here and what the sports groups, especially the small groups throughout British Columbia, are asking for
Hon. I. Waddell: Let me answer the member this way. It doesn't snow much in Vancouver. You talked about the snow, but snow disappearing isn't something I can comment on. But about two months ago, I went up to Whistler. I was invited to speak to the juvenile ski teams from all over B.C. and indeed from other parts of the world, which were competing. I put my skis on and skied up to where they were doing the downhill. There was a long wait, and I had a chance to talk to some of the kids and some of the coaches. We sat there having hot chocolate up on the ski hill at Whistler, and we talked about this. We talked about helping kids and helping organizations. I gave a commitment to them that I would fight on their behalf to protect the kinds of programs they have. Later that night, I presented the awards and made the same commitment. So I've made that commitment quite strongly in other places.
R. Thorpe: One of the other issues that sporting groups throughout British Columbia are drawing to my attention is their concern with respect to employment standards and those laying all kinds of additional costs on some sports organizations. Can the minister tell us what work the ministry has done on this area and what its recommendations have been with respect to that work?
Hon. I. Waddell: I don't believe the ministry has done work on employment standards. This is a ministry that gives out athlete assistance.
If you'll forgive me, I just want to read into the record a letter I received from Michael Mensah, who wrote to me about athletic assistance:
"It is good to know that the government rewards young athletes who do well and is willing to help me achieve my goal of making it to the Olympics and not have to put all the financial burden on my parents. With this cheque I have received, I promise to buy things that will help me in my track season for this year, use it to become a better track athlete and stay on top of my age group. I also pledge to stay on top of my academics in high school, so that I will get a scholarship to a university. I shall also practice extra hard to make it to the nationals this year and to be eligible for provincial funding again next year. Thank you [to you and your department.] "That's the kind of thing the ministry is doing, and it is very grateful to receive letters like this."Sincerely yours,
Michael Mensah"
R. Thorpe: We too wish Michael well. It's always nice when young British Columbians recognize support in whichever form they get it.
But I am a little troubled, just going back to employment standards, because sports groups in British Columbia have been telling me that they have a concern with employment standards having a huge cost on their efficiency and their ability to run their organizations with their very limited budgets. I realize this ministry is not responsible for employment standards, but you would think that in working with sports groups across British Columbia, the ministry would be aware of this concern. Have this ministry and the people responsible been made aware by sports groups in British Columbia that they have a concern with employment standards?
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is that we haven't received any direct letters. I believe that the organizations know that Sport B.C. has been doing work on employment standards on behalf of those organizations.
The kinds of letters I'm receiving
"I would like to take this opportunity to express to you the full extent of my appreciation and gratitude for the funding that I received from your ministry this year. As I said, it is greatly appreciated and will definitely be used to assist in furthering my track and field career in Canada and elsewhere. I received this funding at a crucial time in my life and my career, and it will help to instill within me even greater determination and diligence when training, to ensure that I will have a bright future representing my province and my country in track and field.I'm proud to put that on the record, and I'm going to send a copy of the Hansard to this young athlete."This type of funding is, in my opinion, definitely a step in the right direction for B.C. Athletics. It gives athletes the type of encouragement and support that, unfortunately, is often lacking. I believe that in the next few years, we will all watch with great pride as an athlete who has come through and been supported by B.C. Athletics represents Canada on an international level. It is as a direct result of this kind of support from B.C. Athletics that such dreams can be kept alive and eventually achieved."
[ Page 8247 ]
[10:45]
R. Thorpe: It's very, very important that young people are assisted; it's more important that they acknowledge that and say thank you. In that light, and with the minister reading these letters into the record, I'm sure the minister will recall when we talked about culture yesterday and the letters we're getting from groups talking about ten- and 12-year-olds who have been abandoned by this government with respect to cultural and music support. So let us be very, very careful how selective we are, because sport should be available to all British Columbians, just as education should be available to all British Columbians. I think we recognize excellence, but I think we should also focus on all of the young people of British Columbia to whom sport is so important in their personal development. There are many distractions out there for young people today. We could be spending a lot more time and effort in directing funding to keep those young people active in their communities. That's why I'm so concerned about the funding issue.But going back to employment standards, I just want to understand this. The ministry has not received any written letters. Have they had any verbal concerns shared with them? In fact, my second question is: has this issue been handed to Sport B.C. to work on behalf of the ministry? Is the ministry anticipating a report on this issue from Sport B.C.?
Hon. I. Waddell: The department has had discussions with Sport B.C. around the issue of employment standards. Sport B.C. is taking the lead on the matter. I haven't personally received letters on this issue -- I've looked at my mail pretty closely. If the hon. member has any, or any concerns, please let me know. Let me just say that I haven't quite got the connection with the estimates on that, but if he wants to give me further input or letters, I'll dearly receive them.
R. Thorpe: I'm perplexed that the minister doesn't get the connection. The other parts of his ministry with respect to tourism and small business are saying that employment standards are killing their businesses and bringing all kinds of extra costs. I believe some of these sports organizations may have costs, and I believe these increased costs that may or may not come from employment standards are going to drive up some of those costs, in effect, and lessen moneys that are available to provide programs for children throughout British Columbia. So I'm perplexed that the minister doesn't understand that.
But back to my question, which is: is this ministry expecting a report from Sport B.C. on this issue, and is the ministry going to act on this report?
Hon. I. Waddell: The reason I have trouble answering that is that Sport B.C. really handles these issues; their concern
R. Thorpe: One of the issues I can remember the previous minister -- although the minister never talked about it, but I remember reading it in the paper
Hon. I. Waddell: That's a good question on a very important area. But I did mention it; it was No. 4: continue the development and implementation of the SportSafe program, which is designed to make sport and recreation safe for all participants, particularly young people. What we've done in the SportSafe program is this: we recently distributed the announced volunteer screening model; we've started to distribute the risk-management handbook developed by provincial sport organizations; we've developed a governance handbook for provincial sport organizations; we've initiated the second print run of a SportSafe harassment brochure -- you've seen the brochure, I think -- the "Coach's Game Plan"; and we've initiated work on the development of a resolution model for use at the community level.
I have personally, on the radio, supported Sheldon Kennedy's cross-Canada skate; I'd like to congratulate him on that. Let's all be there for him -- particularly in October, when he arrives in British Columbia. He's trying to raise funds to develop a ranch near Invermere for victims of abuse. So it's an important issue, and we've taken quite a leading role in doing this SportSafe program.
R. Thorpe: We too wish Sheldon Kennedy every success. I'm sure most members of the House are aware that he just left Newfoundland a couple of days ago. We wish him every success in this very worthwhile exercise and with the issues he personally has to deal with.
With respect to Sport B.C. and going back to the B.C. Arts Council, if I can flip back, has any thought
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, if it's a suggestion, it's an interesting suggestion from the member. Sport B.C. has had some preliminary discussions with our staff, and that's ongoing. It's something that could be considered.
R. Thorpe: The discussions are ongoing. Is there in fact a commitment from both parties to actually study this model? If there is a commitment, when will this group be formalized? Again, I think we would want them to study such a thing to ensure that we maximize the funding dollars that are available for British Columbians throughout the entire province. I'd like to know if the minister is prepared to commit that a formal study will take place and commit to when that study will start. Could we set a target date for completion of such a study?
Hon. I. Waddell: I don't think there is any plan for a specific study or report, but the chair of Sport B.C. has met with the deputy minister on a number of matters, including this one. They'll meet again within the next month. I'm a new minister, as I said the other day, and I want to have a chance to look at the relative efficiencies of these programs. Is it the right model, or is it more of a
J. Dalton: I have two or three points or questions about B.C. school sports. I'll start off by responding to a comment
[ Page 8248 ]
the minister made to my colleague earlier this morning about the minister's commitment to funding sports in this province. It might be interesting for this committee to know that the B.C. School Sports grant for 1997 was $103,000 from the government, and the 1998 grant is $90,000. That doesn't sound like much of a commitment to me.
The issue I want to draw to the minister's attention deals with the eligibility of high school students who transfer schools. It's becoming quite a hot topic and was even in the B.C. Court of Appeal not too long ago. At the annual general meeting of B.C. School Sports in Kelowna on May 9, they addressed some of the issues that came up, dealing with high school transfers and eligibility to compete in high school sports. I am advised -- and I would like the minister to confirm, if he can, that this is the case -- that dealing with international students who come in from out of country
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes, they're eligible, as long as they attend a bona fide international program.
As for the money, if the hon. member is advocating for more money for sports, I'll join him, and I hope he'll continue to advocate for that. It's nice to know that the opposition is here on record asking for more money for sports. I'll advocate that.
J. Dalton: The point I was making -- and it's right on the record -- is that the government has reduced by $13,000 its grant to B.C. School Sports. The minister volunteered the commitment, but the financial background doesn't seem to support that commitment.
The other issue -- and I think this is actually more significant than the international student issue
The other issue, I think, is a more serious one, and it has actually blossomed into one lawsuit -- the Peerless case, coming out of Point Grey. I talked to the father, who had the moxie, I guess we could say, plus the financial backing to actually take that matter all the way to the B.C. Court of Appeal to get an injunction that his son be permitted to participate in high school sports.
Just as a quick background, the student in question transferred from grade 11 at Vancouver College to a Point Grey public school in grade 12 specifically so he could take Spanish, which was part of his academic background that he wanted to make up. B.C. School Sports stepped in and said that because he had transferred without proper authority, he was not permitted to participate in high school sports in his final, graduating year. This seems very surprising when you consider that he used to go to Point Grey and actually transferred, I think, in grade 9 to Vancouver College, and his parents made the decision to send him back to the school he used to attend. But B.C. School Sports, in its wisdom, decided that that student shouldn't be allowed to participate. So Mr. Peerless, as I say, actually took the case all the way to the B.C. Court of Appeal and was successful in being granted an injunction.
I guess that begs the question if we're talking about funding. This is going to cause B.C. School Sports some financial difficulties, without question. In fact, attached to their financial statement -- and I've already referred, of course, to the government grant as part of that -- there's a contingency statement. Maybe the minister would like to react to this: "Legal actions have been commenced against the association by various parties with respect to student participation in school sports. The directors of the association are of the opinion these actions are without merit. However, the outcome of these actions cannot be determined at the present time." Well, that actually isn't the case now; one of the cases was successful. It's surprising to me to have the director suggest that these actions are without merit. I think the B.C. Court of Appeal certainly had a different approach. In fact, one of the three justices of appeal was Allan McEachern, the Chief Justice of this province. He made a comment -- something to do with the playing fields of Eton; I'm sure the hon. minister will remember the reference -- that as part of a student's schooling, it is very important that he or she be entitled to participate in high school sports. I fully agree. So at least the majority -- it was a 2-to-1 split in the B.C. Court of Appeal -- had the good sense to recognize that given the facts presented to it on that one case, the student should be permitted to participate. Unfortunately for Mr. Peerless, the son, he was primarily interested in playing basketball, and the basketball season was over by the time the injunction was granted. But at least from an academic point of view -- no pun intended -- the case was successful.
[11:00]
Can the minister, however, comment on the sort of problem that B.C. School Sports is facing? It is going to cause some financial difficulties. Somebody has to pay the legal bills. I would add for the minister's information that Mr. Peerless Sr. told me -- I don't know whether he's changed his mind now -- that in the aftermath of the B.C. Court of Appeal injunction, he was prepared to take the matter back to the B.C. Supreme Court for a full trial on the entire issue. That would really cause some financial headaches to B.C. School Sports. I'd be interested in comments from the minister.
Hon. I. Waddell: Well, there are a lot of matters there. The playing fields of Eton
First of all, the first part of the question. That $13,000 cut was part of the 25 percent across-the-board cuts that government had to cut the years previous in order to put more money in education and health care. We all, including this department, had to bear some of the costs of that. Since I've become minister, we've held the budget firm. I've told the sports groups and the arts groups that
With respect to the system, the hon. member tried to explain it a little bit. Let me just reiterate that a bit. If you move from one school to another, you have to sit out from athletic programs for a year. That was put in to prevent schools from recruiting stars, and B.C. School Sports runs that, B.C. School Sports is making its own rules. The stakeholders -- the schools -- are making their rules. They have an exception process, where a board looks at an application for an exemption. There's a right to appeal. It's a good due process; you can go to the courts, as in the case the hon. member pointed out. So B.C. School Sports makes its own rules, and they have a fair due process which I think is adequate. And they went to the court -- somebody; a parent, I guess -- on this Peerless case. That matter is before the courts, and I don't want to comment any further on it.
[ Page 8249 ]
J. Dalton: Well, I don't know whether in fact that matter is now before the courts. It certainly was before the courts. It's on record; an injunction has been granted. However, that's not the issue.I just read that into the record, because B.C. School Sports has to recognize that there's a lot of angst out there by parents and students about the way that some of them have been treated over the years by B.C. School Sports. It seems unnecessary to me for a parent to have to go to those extremes, both financially and legally, to get some justice.
Secondly, the impact that B.C. School Sports is going to have on its budget and its operation by these lawsuits
The other thing I would like the minister's comment on is the other part of the change that B.C. School Sports brought in from their AGM last month, dealing with students at a junior secondary. This is only a summary, but it's from Jo-Ann Ward, who is the president of B.C. School Sports, so I presume that what she's stated certainly summarizes the change. She says that if a junior high school student transfers to a public school within the same school district -- it doesn't have to be within the catchment area of that student, but within the same district -- then as long as certain academic qualifications are confirmed, that student would then be eligible to participate in the next year after having transferred.
The reason I'm raising this -- and this is why I got involved -- is that I was called by a constituent in North Vancouver in late winter, whose daughter had transferred from a junior secondary -- it was actually Balmoral Jr. Secondary in North Vancouver -- to Collingwood School in West Vancouver, which is a private school. So her parents made the decision to send their daughter to Collingwood in grade 11 for academic reasons, and B.C. School Sports said: "Well, I'm sorry, but you cannot participate in high school sports for one year." What this student was apparently supposed to do was go from Balmoral to Carson Graham Secondary, which is her catchment high school in North Vancouver. When I heard that, I said: "This doesn't seem fair to me." What's wrong with a student, for academic reasons, going from a public school at the end of grade 10
Apparently B.C. School Sports, with what I would describe as a half-measure, has now recognized that transfer within the same school district would be permissible. But I would presume you would read into it that transfer outside of the district -- such as to a private school, heaven forbid -- may not be allowed or that transfer for legitimate academic reasons to another high school outside of the school district would not be allowed. Quite frankly, I'm not very comfortable with that.
This is the point I would like to draw the minister's attention to. I think we're going to see more lawsuits. Parents are not happy with the way this system is being administered. Certainly I think it's only fair to draw to the minister's attention that there is a danger out there that B.C. School Sports not only is going to be found wanting in the way it sets its own rules and procedures but is going to suffer a great impact financially. Maybe B.C. School Sports will be coming to the government and saying: "Bail us out, because we ran into a $100,000 lawsuit, and we can't afford to defend it or pay." Is that potential there, and what would the minister say about B.C. School Sports? Perhaps reviewing its eligibility process dealing with public school students as opposed to, as I described it, a half-measure that they've implemented now
Hon. I. Waddell: I want to point out that I had said that the B.C. School Sports procedure was adequate. I thought this was an adequate procedure, because it has people closer to the situation -- the stakeholders -- making their decisions, making their rules, making their eligibility, and they're trying to do it for a group. Sure, there are going to be aggrieved parents. Parents are sort of like that in many ways; they focus on their kids totally. And they have to work out a process that they think is fair for the whole community.
I think we should leave that procedure to B.C. School Sports, as long as it's an adequate and fair procedure. What I was saying was that the procedure was fair in that they have rules, they have exemptions, they have appeals, and they have final access to the court. There are 100,000 kids in B.C. School Sports, and they seem to be doing very well. As a matter of fact, I'll restrain myself.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, members.
Hon. I. Waddell: I've had letters from West Vancouver and North Vancouver and one from Peter Cardle and one from Nicole Kaffka, thanking us for the help and the grants that they got. But I'll restrain myself and restrict my answer to that.
J. Dalton: Well, thank you. That's fair enough. I just want to make one more comment. Coincidentally, oddly enough, the minister just referred to Nicole Kaffka, who is a student at Sentinel in West Vancouver. I had the pleasure of attending high school with her aunt
A Voice: Grandmother.
J. Dalton: Thanks a lot. My colleague suggests it was her grandmother. It wasn't that long ago. And her other relatives
We'll keep tracking B.C. School Sports activities, because I think they haven't got it quite right. They need someone to watchdog them, and I'll be more than happy to play that role in some small way, as much as I can.
Hon. I. Waddell: The letter was not from Franz Kaffka; it was Nicole Kaffka.
R. Masi: I'd like to compliment my colleague from West Vancouver for his presentation of the difficulties in high school sports. I would also like to reiterate that recruitment problems are becoming a very serious matter. For those of us who do read the sports pages, there's been a number of almost full-page articles on this area. I believe that it's becoming almost endemic in terms of high school sports. We're talking
[ Page 8250 ]
not just about basketball and the odd kid; what we're talking about here is a number of sports, including track and field, volleyball and football. As you know -- and I think the minister pointed this out -- they are looking for the quality players, the stars. What we have here, I believe, is a problem that hasn't really been dealt with.
I also brought this forward in estimates with the Minister of Education. Of course, it's not a thing that he wants to hear at this time. It's hard to know in which ministry this problem sits. The education people are very concerned about this. I've had numerous discussions and calls with people in the field about the seriousness of this matter. It's when we deal with the courts now
I would like to change gears here a bit and talk about university athletic scholarships, if I may. Could the minister tell me the total dollars allocated to university athletic scholarships in the coming year?
Hon. I. Waddell: First of all, let me say to the member for Delta North that I'm listening to what he's saying, and I will endeavour -- it's now two members who have raised this -- to look into that and flag it; that is, the issue of transferring students and setting out the rules that are made under that and so on.
Secondly, to answer the latter part of his question, athlete assistance is $1 million.
R. Masi: I wonder if the minister could provide me with a per-university breakdown of the $1 million.
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes, but I don't have it right here. I'll send it to the member.
R. Masi: Could the minister tell me the criteria that have been established for the distribution of these dollars? Is it in terms of enrolment or number of participants or perhaps another way?
[11:15]
Hon. I. Waddell: The $1 million is split 50-50: 50 percent for provincial sports organizations and 50 percent for post-secondary institutions. Then it goes to the athletes. I believe over 1,200 high-performance athletes have received some funding. It depends on how many sports they participate in and other criteria.R. Masi: Maybe my question wasn't well phrased. How does that, then, affect university sports such as basketball and football -- you know, the general array of university sports? I'm not sure if the answer applies to teams or individuals.
Hon. I. Waddell: I thought it originally applied to individuals, but it applies to teams and individuals. So there may be money for a team, as well, under this program. But I'll get the member the breakdown of where the money goes exactly.
R. Masi: Take one university -- Simon Fraser University, say. Does Simon Fraser in fact get a pot of money and then distribute some money as it sees fit? Are there criteria attached to that, where some of the money has to go to individuals and some to teams? What I'm trying to get at here is the method of distribution once the money is at the university.
Hon. I. Waddell: I'll give the member an example. Simon Fraser would get a pot of money, and they would distribute it. The pot of money is based on their athletic programs and so on. There are five different levels as to how much you get. I'll have to get you the list of where it is distributed and how, but that's how it appears to be distributed.
R. Masi: In terms of the timing of the distribution of the money
Hon. I. Waddell: The money is distributed twice a year: in the spring for the following September and then in the fall following that. The coaches want to know as soon as possible, because they have to recruit. So we try and get them
R. Masi: Is there any protection or guarantee for the future that there will be scholarship money available to universities? Is this money held in a kind of trust or any sort of affirmed fund that will be there for years to come? Or is this year by year?
Hon. I. Waddell: I think I understand what the member is getting at. There's a similarity between questions that were raised yesterday about, say, arts funding: "Couldn't we get a commitment for three years?" I remember I raised the question with national examples. The CBC has always wanted that. Arts councils, like the Canada Council, always want a commitment for years. One could say that there are some similarities here with
R. Masi: It seems to me, going back to history again, that at one time we had a university scholarship fund. I may be wrong on this, but it seems to me that there was a minister, who was well known from university days, who set aside a certain number of dollars for university scholarships. I believe it was Pat McGeer. I don't know whatever happened to that. Governments come and go and things change. I just wonder if there's some move and some way of securing funding in this area so that our athletes will have some reason for staying home and not taking off south of the border.
Hon. I. Waddell: I'm informed that in the old days there was a pot of money in education, and it was transferred to this branch about seven years ago. I can certainly take note of what the member is alluding to and look into that.
R. Masi: I'd like to thank the minister for his forthright answers.
J. Weisbeck: I received a letter from one of my constituents, the athletic coordinator at OUC. He's very concerned
[ Page 8251 ]
about the funding that athletics has received over the past while. He says that since 1995 provincial sports organizations have had difficulty with their grants. At that point in time, in 1995, they were getting $4.50 per person. In 1997 the organizations were receiving $3 a person. He's stating that along with the increased competition for gaming revenues, the sports organizations are having a lot of difficulty funding their organizations. He has asked me to ensure that the funding levels for provincial sports organizations, based on this little formula he has used, will remain intact for the coming fiscal year. I'm just wondering if you can give me the dollar value per person that the grant will supply for the 1998-99 fiscal year.Hon. I. Waddell: We're just doing math on this. With respect to the drop, it's what I answered before: there's the 25 percent cutback that went across the board, and sport was affected.
While I'm doing that, perhaps the hon. member could tell me
J. Weisbeck: Basically we're talking about spending priorities. We talk about the money being spent elsewhere. We just want to know that the funds that they claim are available for sports are going to be there for these organizations.
I still haven't got the number there. How much is that per person, and how does that relate over the number of years? In 1995 you had $4.50, and in 1997 you had $3.00. What is it in '98 and '99?
The Chair: Prior to answering, I would just like to remind all members and the minister that before standing and answering or asking a question, you must be recognized by the Chair. Continue, minister.
Hon. I. Waddell: I think the best way to do this is for me to get those numbers for the hon. member. Spending priorities. Yes, spending priorities were health and education. If the hon. member would like to commit himself to the record for more money for this area, I'd appreciate hearing from him. Since he has the opportunity, he could perhaps do it now, and I could get him those figures.
R. Thorpe: I'd be pleased to speak on behalf of our caucus with respect to this issue. We believe very strongly that the young people of British Columbia would be much better served if some of the funding that is being spent to the tune of $3 million a month on government propaganda were being diverted to very useful programs like sport throughout British Columbia. So if the minister
My last question on sport and recreation -- I believe it's the last question, depending on the answer; one never knows -- is with respect to the recreation grants. Can the minister advise what process is used to decide where those grants go?
Hon. I. Waddell: We currently fund 16 recreational organizations, and they are meeting performance criteria that we had talked about earlier.
R. Thorpe: I also believe there have been a number of community grants in this area, or I think there have been. Would it be possible, hon. Chair -- and the minister has been most cooperative so far, and I would expect that that cooperation would continue -- to have an analysis prepared by staff at a later date -- not too late, but after the estimates are finished here shortly -- with respect to the funds and the different programs? Could that analysis be prepared by riding in British Columbia. Would that be possible?
Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is no. I'll cooperate with the member in any way I can, but I don't look at things by riding. I try and look at things by need. If I can give him any information about who received the grants, who the participants are
R. Thorpe: Again I'm puzzled by the minister's not wanting to do that, because I'm sure that's available. Since the minister doesn't want to do that, I guess we would do that. There must be something there the minister doesn't want to share with us.
But just ending the sports
Interjection.
R. Thorpe: I didn't hear the minister, though, who says he's an advocate for sport, say that he would take the concerns that have been brought by various members of the official opposition with respect to deficiencies, and some concerns of the sporting groups
[11:30]
Hon. I. Waddell: We're funding 16 sport organizations, 16 recreational organizations and 750,000 registered sport members, of which 450,000 are youth; 1,700 athletes are funded annually, of which 43 percent are female; 13,000 coaches are trained annually; 31 conferences are supported by 150 international participants; 46 coaches are employed through a regional delivery program, the highest per capita in Canada; and we had 61,000 participants in programs offered by the regional centres in 1996. It's a good program. But I'm listening closely to what the members have said here with respect to movement of athletes in school districts. I'm listening to questions on SportSafe; I'm listening to questions on criteria for funding and the amount of funding at the university level for high-performance athletes -- what pot goes to which universities -- and all those questions.I would be more than pleased to take those questions that have been raised that relate substantially to these things and the questions that the hon. critic has raised. He does look at these things in dollars and cents and performance criteria, and
[ Page 8252 ]
I appreciate that. I will raise all those points and flag them for future consideration in this year. I think that's what these estimates are about.
R. Thorpe: Just for the record, we'll note that the minister chose not to answer my previous question. I know the minister just overlooked this as he appeared to me to focus in on the dollars and cents issues and the performance measurements. Those are obviously only secondary to the human faces and to the communities throughout British Columbia. Those are the most important things. Let us never forget that it is the young people
With respect to recreation commission grants, what criteria are used on the allocations of those grants?
Hon. I. Waddell: To those remarks on youth, I was about to say amen. But I didn't want to offend the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville who's listening intently to this. I don't want to use "amen" lightly, but I will use it here with respect to the youth.
In answer to that particular question, these are grants of about $400 to small and remote communities.
R. Thorpe: Are there any special criteria to receive those grants?
Hon. I. Waddell: These are grants to help remote communities establish a recreation commission or to help in the programming of the commission so they can plan some things.
B. Barisoff: Just getting back to the comments that the minister made, the member for Okanagan East was asking for more money for sport, and the money had been cut back, and the member for Okanagan-Penticton indicated that there were areas in government that the minister could look at, and one was in some of the propaganda advertising that takes place. I'd just like to re-ask the question of the minister: would he take this forward to the cabinet table to redirect some of this money that's spent on some of this advertising back into sports for the young children of British Columbia?
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: I hesitate to read more letters, but I do have some wonderful letters from people who have benefited from these programs. I'm very grateful that they've written, including people from the Okanagan.
The answer to the question is that there were cutbacks that have been pretty well stopped. They have been stopped, and we've stabilized the grants. I will be advocating to put money into sport -- hopefully, with the support of the opposition. I think I have that today; I thought I heard that. I'll be advocating to try and get as much as possible to that area from whatever area I can.
R. Thorpe: That concludes our questions in this area. Through the Chair to the minister, I'd like to thank the staff very much for taking the time to be here today. We appreciate your inputs.
Hon. I. Waddell: I thank the member for that.
I just want to make a correction to something I said the other day. During questioning yesterday, I indicated to one of the members that the Hamber Foundation was supporting the arts and education program. Do you remember I said the Arts Council and the Vancouver Foundation and the Hamber Foundation? It's actually the McConnell Foundation. My apologies to the McConnell Foundation in particular for the error, and to the members across the way. So it's an arts and education program, and we've got the Arts Council, the Vancouver Foundation and the McConnell Foundation.
We're putting the sports people on the bench, and we're getting on the ice the community grants people to aid me.
G. Abbott: To begin, just so that it's clear that we're not comparing apples to oranges or using some other fruity metaphor: has the community grants branch remained substantially the same in terms of its organization in the current fiscal year as it was in the past, or has it been part of the reorganization that has occurred in the ministry?
Hon. I. Waddell: In answer to the member's question, it was part of the reorganization. It was folded into sports and community development, and it was downsized. Just to understand this, it's basically administration. There are programs that come from other places, and decisions are made in other places, and we administer some of these funds.
G. Abbott: I appreciate the response. I just want to make clear that there has been a reorganization in the branch so that comparing, for example, the cost of administration of the branch or the number of FTEs and so on may be difficult because the branch has been reorganized. Is that correct?
Hon. I. Waddell: I think I can answer those questions on comparing the FTEs. In 1997-98 there were seven; in '98-99 there was one. That's just for community projects. There are various other ones as well. Sorry, it's from ten FTEs to six FTEs.
G. Abbott: Ten FTEs to six FTEs. Just so I get it right, I gather the community grants branch has been renamed to something different, or does the name remain the same? Is it still the community grants branch?
Hon. I. Waddell: This is not my area of expertise, I could say that. But I can say as minister responsible that it's rolled into a new branch called the sport and community development branch, and it's part of that. You'll know from previous questions that there are grants going through sports, so we've got certain synergies working together in this department that make it rational to roll it into that, and we've got some cost savings.
G. Abbott: Could the minister advise
Hon. I. Waddell: I just want to ask the member, by community grants, does he mean community projects? There are community projects, in-province travel and infrastructure.
G. Abbott: Community projects.
[ Page 8253 ]
Hon. I. Waddell: There were 58 applications received, and 33 community projects were approved.G. Abbott: Sorry -- could you run those by me again?
Hon. I. Waddell: We had 58 applications received and 33 approved.
G. Abbott: The numbers surprise me. That's 58 community project grant applications for the entire province.
Hon. I. Waddell: That's just for community projects for 1997-98. That doesn't include infrastructure applications.
G. Abbott: Here's where we're going to start to get at least mildly confused. Perhaps the minister can do whatever's necessary with staff here to get this sorted out. There are community projects, but there are also the B.C. 21 project approvals within the community grants branch. These, as I understand it -- from last year's discussions, at least -- are distinct from the B.C. 21 major infrastructure approvals, which fall under the Ministry of Employment and Investment. Perhaps what we need to do here -- initially, at least -- is sort out the corporate structure in terms of community projects: B.C. 21 as distinct from the B.C. 21 major infrastructure projects associated with Employment and Investment.
Hon. I. Waddell: The community projects are the old B.C. 21 grants. Then there's Canada-B.C. Infrastructure Works. Then there's in-province travel grants and part of the old GO B.C. program, which is almost -- 99 percent -- gone. Those are the three areas.
The applications for the infrastructure program were
Interjection.
Hon. I. Waddell: Sorry, that's staff money; that's different money. Let me go back.
The number of applications to community projects is 58; Canada-B.C. Infrastructure Works community, 163 applications; and in-province travel grants, 2,694 applications. We administered 2,915 applications.
[11:45]
G. Abbott: I appreciate that explanation. The reason why I'm confused by 58 received, 33 approved, is that in the last fiscal year I wrote letters in support of at least a dozen projects in the Shuswap riding alone. In fact, very near the end of the fiscal year, I received copies of rejection notices on nine of those applications. Unless the Shuswap riding is particularly active in terms of submitting applications, which I'm not sure is the case, the numbers seem to be off from what I would expect, given the volume that have come out of my riding alone.Hon. I. Waddell: Noting the hour, I'm just going to get those things, because I share some of that concern. I'll get the member the figures, maybe after lunch.
I recall some of those Shuswap applications. When I became minister, there were a whole slew of applications that hadn't been dealt with or answered. In fact, there were a lot of applications and a small amount of money. One of the first things I did -- with not much relish -- was bite the bullet. I figured that these people should get an answer. I sent out mostly rejection letters -- not much fun -- but I thought it had to be done as part of the way government should deal with people. You deal with them upfront and quickly, and you don't leave them hanging. So I dealt with that very early on after becoming the minister.
Some of the them may have actually applied in previous years, because they were waiting for a long time. I can give you some
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada