[ Page 8633 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

R. Neufeld: It's not very often that I get to stand up and introduce someone from as far away as the north. It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a young lady by the name of Alaina Soucie, born and raised in Fort Nelson, who now lives in Vancouver. Would the House give her a warm welcome.

K. Krueger: I have two introductions today, Madam Speaker, if the House would indulge me. The first is a large group of young people from Raft River Elementary School in beautiful Clearwater, at the foot of Wells Gray Park, with their teachers and sponsors. They may not be with us yet, but I would appreciate it if the House would make them welcome, regardless.

The second introduction is of a gentleman I've never met, but my legislative assistant knows him well. His name is Ed Sem. He is past president of the Universities Model Parliament Society and part of a huge and rapidly growing group in British Columbia: people who are now B.C. Liberals but used to support the B.C. Reform Party. Would the House please make Ed Sem very welcome.

S. Orcherton: In the gallery today are two visitors from Ontario: Mr. Hugh Rose and Mrs. Shela Rose. They are visiting Victoria on holiday, and they're thoroughly enjoying both the social and the political climate here in British Columbia and Victoria. I had a lovely lunch with them today. Accompanying them is their son, also named Hugh Rose. I'd ask the House to make all three of them very welcome in this chamber.

Hon. J. Kwan: It is my pleasure to introduce Celine Maubaulos to you today. Celine is a student at UBC; she has worked in the downtown east side community and is currently working with the community development unit under Jim Green with the Ministry of Employment and Investment. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today is Dr. Félix Peña, who is the Undersecretary of Foreign Trade of Argentina. He is accompanied by Francisco Ferro, the minister in the embassy of Argentina in Ottawa. I'll be meeting with them later on this afternoon. I would ask all members of the House to please make them welcome.

D. Symons: I see in the gallery two people whom many of us, as members of the Legislature, have probably heard from over the years. We have Mr. John Ratel and Ellen Chesney, who are government relations and public relations officers with the BCAA. I think we all get material from them dealing with traffic safety, and we appreciate their efforts on behalf of traffic safety. Could the House make them welcome.

G. Abbott: I'd like to make a couple of introductions today as well. I see that my former political science professor from UBC is here, Paul Tennant. I suspect he is here tending well, as he always does, the legislative internship program. I'd like the House to make him welcome and commend him for the great job he has been doing with his interns.

I'd also like to introduce the executive of the AVIM -- Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities -- who are here in the gallery as well. There is the president, Councillor John Crook of the district of Langford; first vice-president, Mayor Frank Leonard from the district of Saanich, who has been introduced before; second vice-president, Councillor Pearl Myhres from the village of Zeballos; directors-at-large, Councillor Stan Dixon from the district of Sechelt, Roxanna Mandryk of the Comox-Strathcona regional district and Joe Allan of the Cowichan Valley regional district; and the past president of that organization, Mayor Jim Lornie. I'd like the House to make them all welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: It is a great pleasure for me to introduce some very good friends of mine visiting the gallery today: Dr. Setty Pendakur, an old professor of mine who gave me my worst grade, and his wife Rajinder Pendakur; Setty's brother Dr. Manji Pendakur, dean of the faculty of information and media studies at the University of Western Ontario, and his wife Roja Pendakur. I'd ask all members to make them welcome.

W. Hartley: Hon. Speaker, on your behalf I would also like to recognize Prof. Paul Tennant. He is accompanying next year's legislative interns on a brief orientation to the Legislature. The interns with Dr. Tennant are Faith Armitage from UBC, Paola Baca from UBC, Jitesh Mistry from Simon Fraser University, Tera Nelson from UVic and Quentin O'Mahony from the University College of the Fraser Valley. Would all members please welcome them.

The Speaker: Got another one?

W. Hartley: Yes, hon. Speaker. I also have a group to recognize from Fernwood Elementary School in Bothell, Washington. There are some 26 grade 6 students with their teacher, Mr. Teague. Please welcome them.

L. Stephens: In the precincts today there are 60 grade 7 students from Simonds Elementary School in my riding of Langley. They are accompanied by their vice-principal, Mr. Bennett, and several parents. They're here to observe firsthand the government demonstrating the democratic process at work. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Penner: There are approximately 22 grade 7 students visiting us today from Chilliwack Christian School, and I'll be speaking to them shortly. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Brenda Bakker, and several adults. In fact, I'll be fielding some of their questions immediately following question period. I look forward to that.

G. Wilson: If only Dr. Pendakur had shared that grade with the rest of the people of British Columbia; he might have saved us some problems here. [Laughter.]

In particular I would like to welcome Mr. Stan Dixon, who is here with the members of the AVIM. People will remember that Mr. Dixon was formerly the chief of the Sechelt Indian band and in fact shepherded in the Sechelt Indian government district, the most successful Indian self-government in British Columbia. So I want to give a particular welcome to Mr. Stan Dixon for the work he has done on behalf of the establishment of Indian self-government. Would the House make him welcome.

B. Goodacre: Visiting us in the gallery today from Esquimalt and Smithers are my aunt Muriel Dunn, with whom I spend time when I'm in the capital, and my mother and father, Margaret and Jim Goodacre. Aside from naturally

[ Page 8634 ]

Oral Questions

NORTHERN B.C. AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Would the Minister of Health please explain how it is that a seriously injured man whose doctor is recommending immediate air transport could be forced to wait in excess of three hours because of a shift change? In fact, it turned out to be in excess of six hours, because there was a shift change and the service just wasn't available.

Hon. P. Priddy: I don't know the details and have not seen a letter from the referring physician. I will have my staff look into that, and we'll get back to the family.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: A new question. A couple of weeks ago, I chastised the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine for spending over $4,000 on a private air charter. My question to the Minister of Health is: what does it say about government spending priorities when the government will spend $4,000 flying a backbench NDP member of this Legislature who doesn't want to wait an hour for a commercial flight, but a man who's been run over by a train, whose leg is on the verge of being amputated, can't get air ambulance service out of the north to the treatment he needs desperately in order to save that leg?

[2:15]

S. Hawkins: Patients in northern rural B.C. have watched in horror as the NDP have gutted their ground ambulance service. They were assured that, at the very least, they would have a 24-hour air ambulance service. The fact is that this patient from Smithers was in a life-and-limb emergency situation and had to wait in excess of six hours to be airlifted out. My question is to the Health minister: why are she and her government failing to provide air ambulance service and putting rural patients' lives at risk -- a service that this government promised them and that they were assured they would have?

Hon. P. Priddy: What I said to the previous speaker was that if that situation is indeed true, then it is unacceptable. But we are not denying the air ambulance to everybody in the north; let's be clear here.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Okanagan West.

MARKTREND POLL ON B.C. HEALTH CARE

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

S. Hawkins: . . .than for urban patients. My question is to the Minister of Health: will she finally stand up today and admit that she and her government are the problem? Or are two-thirds of the people in B.C. wrong?

Hon. P. Priddy: Not wishing to speak to the veracity of the Marktrend poll. . . . Maclean's magazine has just published an entire issue on health care, where it said that in almost every area, British Columbia leads this country in health care: in the number of physicians per capita, in the funding of health care per capita and in the health of British Columbians. Not wishing to speak for the perception of people, research that was done quite objectively, using national data, says that B.C. has the best health care system in this country.

FRBC AND FOREST SECTOR JOBS

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order, please.

G. Abbott: . . .the former head of the Canadian Forest Service, Les Reed, the NDP's new silviculture hiring hall will double the cost of planting trees in this province. That means that only half the area that should be planted will be planted. How can the Minister of Forests justify his union-hiring-hall system, which would replant only half the area that should be planted in the forests of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't know of any studies that Mr. Reed has done. They certainly have not been sent to me.

The studies that do count are the studies that are accepted by both employers here -- that is, FRBC and the companies. We have had a study done by Price Waterhouse that tells us that if anything, all silviculture costs would be less than current market rates.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: That's right, and I'm going to have a Porsche under my Christmas tree on Christmas morning. There's about the same guarantee there.

[ Page 8635 ]

The Speaker: Hon. members, let the question come.

G. Abbott: Forest experts were predicting four years ago that the cost of the Forest Practices Code was going to double the cost of doing business in B.C. forests and kill jobs. They've been proven right. Now those same experts are saying that the NDP's silviculture hiring hall will result in fewer jobs and fewer trees being planted in this province. Will the Minister of Forests listen to the experts for once and abandon his union hiring hall before it drives up costs and puts even more workers out of business in this province?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I've said before in this House that it is not a union hiring hall, which is where you have to be a member to apply through the hall to get a job. Once you apply for a job, you do have to belong to a union and be covered by a collective agreement. But you don't have to be a union member to apply for the job -- there's a difference. New Forest Opportunities is an opportunity for all displaced workers to have an equal opportunity to be hired. It is a mechanism to take displaced forest workers and put them to work in the woods.

SCHOOL TRUSTEES AND EDUCATION AGREEMENT-IN-COMMITTEE

Hon. P. Ramsey: There is one part of the member's statement which is accurate -- that is, this week and next the trustees will be voting on the agreement we have reached with the British Columbia Teachers Federation. I will continue to say to trustees that this is an agreement where the teachers of this province have deferred wage increases for two years, because they want to put classrooms first. It's an agreement that the government has committed to, and trustees should know -- and I'll say it again in this House, as I've said it repeatedly -- that there's $150 million to reduce class size in kindergarten-to-grade 3, hire 1,200 new teachers across the province and build 1,000 new classrooms for those smaller classes.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: This minister knows that there is not enough money in the system to implement this agreement. The minister knows today that the majority of trustees have already voted against the deal. Will the minister tell us today that with that information at hand, he will order them back to the bargaining table? Or will he come clean with British Columbians and tell us that he will legislate this agreement and thereby get rid of the school boards?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me make it clear to this member in this House, as I have to school trustees and their superintendents: the dollars to make this agreement work are there. This government is committed to making it happen for our children. It is important that we advance this education initiative to reduce class size, and what I am committed to is making sure that those resources get into our schools this September so we can hire those teachers, reduce class size and improve education in schools around British Columbia.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: I want the minister to tell this House: is he prepared to legislate this agreement and thereby render the school boards irrelevant? Will the minister come clean and tell us what he is preparing to do?

FRBC AND FOREST SECTOR JOBS

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I want to hear the question.

R. Coleman: Can the Minister of Forests tell us why, if FRBC is seen by experts like Mr. Reed in this light, the public should have any faith that FRBC isn't anything more than a slush fund for him and the Premier?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's a little hard to take lectures from members like that, because they're usually wrong in the reports they quote -- dead wrong, which is proven time after time after time. They presented a report on the shake and shingle industry that was done by a student and tried to somehow present that as a government report. If they would dignify that student's report by asking the student or the college to explain it, they could have a totally different explanation. The opposition doesn't know what they're talking about.

Rather than a speech by Mr. Reed, let me quote from the study that costed the collective agreement. The study says: "Based on the planned distribution of FRBC funds, there is very little difference between the current industry costs and New Forest costs. Assuming current productivity levels, the New Forest costs are estimated to be 1.7 percent lower on a weighted basis." We've said it's a cost-effective collective agreement, like the Island Highway project was.

RELEASE OF FOREST SECTOR LAYOFF REPORTS

[ Page 8636 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Because this opposition doesn't know the difference between question period and estimates, I'm going to prevail a little bit on my side's patience and explain that what I said last night was that it has been. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: They never listen, hon. Speaker. I said that I would consider releasing information that. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. We heard the question. Now let's hear the answer.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I've explained that I'm prepared to talk about numbers in my estimates. We have an agreed-upon database to assess job creation and the status of employment in the forest industry. We'll do that. I said that I would consider releasing reports, but there is some. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, they should check the record.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, I know the opposition is confused. The point is that there is confidential information that is the property of industry. Information is collected on that basis, and I'm quite prepared in estimates to talk. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: Hon. member, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Richmond-Steveston will come to order.

That's the end of question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, we have a report to come forward now.

Reports from Committees

Motion approved.

F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

F. Gingell: This report basically deals with four issues. It deals, first of all, with the responsibilities of the select standing committee in dealing with records retention and disposal.

It follows through on a recommendation to the Ministry of Finance to allow volume 3 and section D of volume 2 of Public Accounts to be published on the Internet, and so reduce publishing costs.

[2:30]

I also wish to take this opportunity to impress upon the government that it's not just ministries within the consolidated revenue fund; there are big issues, critical issues, to do with Crown corporations and Crown-funded agencies.

Hon. Speaker, I commend this report to the government, and I ask that this House adopt the report.

G. Wilson: Speaking to the motion, and as someone who has sat on Public Accounts from time to time and who is now back on that committee, I would hope that all members of this House, but particularly members of executive council, take the time to read and seriously consider recommendations 1 through 4. These are recommendations that I think have a great deal of importance to the operation of government, and I would strongly recommend that they be implemented -- and implemented as quickly as is feasible.

In speaking to this report, I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the member for Delta South, who I think has been an outstanding chair of the Public Accounts Committee and who has made this committee work to the advantage of all British Columbians. And for that, we should all be grateful.

Motion approved.

[ Page 8637 ]

Tabling Documents

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS
(continued)

R. Thorpe: The first thing I'd like to say -- because the minister had the opportunity to wrap up, and the record will show what he said about himself -- is that I am not going to argue with any of the words the minister said about himself. So I just want to get that on the record.

With respect to the subject we were talking about -- the contracts that seem to be held up with respect to noxious weeds operations -- does the minister now have the information that he undertook to get during the lunch break?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I did undertake to get it. I did speak to people about it before lunch, and we've got it coming right now.

R. Thorpe: Perhaps as soon as the minister has the information, he will get up and share the answer with us.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The information I have is that we're still waiting on the dollars to be allocated to complete the work. This is the second year of three-year contracts. There are four contracts between $25,000 and $30,000 -- something like that. The wish of the people managing contracts would be to complete the work by the end of July. But it's still waiting on dollars to be allocated.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister confirm, then, that these dollars are in fact in his budget? What seems to be the problem here in management making a decision to go forward on these four contracts?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is very simple. With budget cutbacks, we're examining every program to see if we can create some savings. You know the story. We aren't able to meet all the existing expenditure levels from previous years, so everything is being looked at. At this point, the dollars have not been allocated to this program.

R. Thorpe: When can we expect a decision to be made on these four contracts in the Merritt forest district?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Soon.

R. Thorpe: Is the minister aware that the employees who work on these contracts are, for the most part, students, and that summer co-op students from the University College of the Cariboo have actually signed on. Soon, hon. Chair, is not good enough. It's not good enough for the contractors or for the students. We need a decision. The reason we need a decision. . . . Hopefully, this government still has some concern for students, because these students have all signed contracts with the contractors. These contracts say they may not seek other employment or accept any subsequent offers of employment. So "soon" is not a good enough answer. Can we not have a date on which the decision will be made on these contracts for these students and these contractors?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I said it would be soon. I'm not going to make an administrative decision on the floor of this House; it would be irresponsible. The program managers are attempting to accommodate these contracts. They are all contracts subject to funding. If a contractor signed a subcontract, that's their problem. I sympathize with the students. We aren't in a position to guarantee every student every job they've had in the past. There are other areas where we can create employment. But in this case, it is a resource management issue: we are attempting to find ways to carry out the responsibilities of weed control. So "soon" is my answer.

R. Thorpe: It's unbelievable, hon. Chair, that the minister would take a position that contractors in good faith would go out and hire students, and in fact some of them are paying that. The minister insults those people by saying: "That's too bad." Can the minister advise how many other forest districts find themselves in exactly the same position with respect to this issue?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The information I have is that two other regions use contractors.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise what those two other districts are? And the next questions would be: how many contracts are outstanding, and what is the value of those contracts?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That wasn't information you asked for before; this is highly specific information. I'll endeavour to get it for you. You know, this side doesn't appreciate lectures from that side, who would lower taxes, have less money to spend, slash everything and pretend, somehow, that you can balance the budget without any cuts. This government is trying to be very careful about expenditures, find savings and administer our responsibilities under our programs in a cost-effective way.

[2:45]

[ Page 8638 ]

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Point of order, hon. Chair. We're discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, and the member is somehow wanting to get into some general budget issues. We'll speak about the Ministry of Forests budget.

The Chair: May I remind the member to stick with the Ministry of Forests estimates, please.

R. Thorpe: That's exactly what I was doing, hon. Chair, and I do appreciate the guidance.

The issue here is that free enterprise and timely decisions will result in summer students -- forestry co-op students -- having the jobs out in the forests, out in the ranges, to do the contracts. Make your decision soon!

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We could have cancelled the contracts. We're trying to honour all the work.

G. Abbott: I presume that all the staff for Forest Renewal B.C. is assembled here. I would like to begin with a review of the current financial position of Forest Renewal B.C., in the wake of a couple of things: the recent announcement of stumpage relief and, of course, the fairly dramatic downturn in softwood lumber prices, particularly on the American market, and the implications that has for revenues to Forest Renewal B.C.

Could the minister begin by outlining, in detail if he would, the altered fiscal position of Forest Renewal B.C. as it pertains to the relief from stumpage that was announced a couple of weeks ago in Kamloops? I appreciate that the relief just came on stream as of June 1, but obviously it's going to have an effect on the final six months of revenues that flow to Forest Renewal B.C. Could the minister provide the detail around that, please?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I want to tell the member that with respect to Forest Renewal, as he knows, the business plan is in front of the committee. I am prepared to talk about the responsibilities I have, as the minister, for policy and so on, but I will refer detailed project information to that committee.

Forest Renewal B.C. funding is not derived from the consolidated revenue fund, so that's not estimates. I just want you to know that I am prepared to engage in some questions around government policy associated with FRBC.

About the issue around revenues, we expect $234 million less to flow from the government to FRBC this year. It won't affect this year's business plan for FRBC; it won't affect the expenditure level. It will affect the inflow of dollars at the end of the year.

The Chair: Member, may I just remind you that Forest Renewal B.C. has a business plan which is under consideration by the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Therefore any questions directed to that may be left for that committee.

G. Abbott: I do appreciate that we have a business plan and that it will be reviewed by the committee. It's actually not news to me; I'm the Deputy Chair of that committee and fully aware of the situation. Not to be difficult or unreasonable here, but I think the general nature of the questions that I'm asking are entirely in order. I'm not asking about the details of the coming business plan; I'm merely trying to ascertain the business financial position of Forest Renewal B.C. in the wake of a substantial announcement that affected them. Am I doing anything unreasonable here? I hope not. I think it's perfectly in order. There's a whole range of questions that need to be asked here, and I fully intend to do it.

The Chair: Member, it was simply a caution. Maybe your line of questioning can be directed more to the estimates of the ministry, rather than that committee.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The purpose of making the comment was just to preface. Perhaps I should have done it before your question. Your question was in order; I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't.

The business plan of FRBC will be amended next year to reflect this change in positions. In the business plan that was issued, we didn't have a decision on stumpage, so it couldn't incorporate the decision. The revenue stream for next year will be incorporated in next year's business plan. We anticipate that it will be $234 million less than they would have got if we had not made the stumpage change.

G. Abbott: Could I interrupt myself to ask leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

G. Abbott: I see in the gallery Theresa White, who is with the Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association. I'm not sure, but I think that the other ladies with her may be employees of the ILMA as well. No? I guessed wrong there. I'd like the House to make Theresa and her guests welcome.

The minister notes that it's anticipated that the recently announced changes to the stumpage system will result in $234 million less to FRBC. Given that those changes came into play on June 1, is the impact of that going to be half of $234 million, or what's the situation there? I understand those figures to be annualized figures rather than balance-of-year figures.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: A lot of the revenue comes in in the month of March, before the fiscal year-end, and then there's two or three months during breakup and the final part of winter where there isn't a great cash flow. That is an annualized amount, and that is based on all the assumptions for lumber prices and so on that we made when we made the adjustment. If something happens in lumber prices and so on, there will have to be revised estimates made.

G. Abbott: Maybe we could just get this clear. It's a semantic thing. I don't think we're arguing here; we're just trying to get it clear. If $234 million is an annualized figure, does that mean that $234 million is the loss for the balance of 1998? Or will the loss to FRBC be some portion of the $234 million?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As it stands now, given assumptions and so on, that would be the amount -- entirely a loss of revenue to FRBC in this year.

G. Abbott: I appreciate the clarification. When the minister and the Premier made their announcement around stumpage relief in Kamloops a couple of weeks ago, they also put out the anticipated level of stumpage relief for 1999 and the year 2000. I ask the minister to refresh my memory on what

[ Page 8639 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll try to get that for you. We took a rough, rounded average of $600 million over three years. The reason we did the rounding was because we're not sure exactly what lumber prices will be or what pulp chips will be. We expect that that amount will decrease if pulp chips come up, so that's why we did a rounding. The $600 million was a notional one. I'll try to get those figures, but bear in mind that those were based on estimates at that time -- estimates of volume and so on. I'll get that.

G. Abbott: That's fair enough. The point I am leading to is this. Given that the $234 million is an amount that's going to be saved by the industry and/or lost to FRBC for the balance of 1998 -- that is, the months of June through December 1998, inclusive. . . . The set of assumptions that went around lesser numbers for 1999 and the year 2000 are not clear to me, when those in fact were full years of stumpage relief.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The calculations were as follows. The reduction in stumpage for '98-99 was $249 million, less the chips. There would be a recovery on pricing for chips, so there's $15.5 million. That nets out to $234 million.

In the 1999-2000 year, the reduction would be $275.8 million. But on the plus side, there would be a recovery on chip pricing of $54.7 million. That puts you down to approximately the $220 million figure that you were using earlier.

In 2001, it's $291.9 million, but the chip forecast would have a positive of $106 million. So the difference there would be $185 million. Hence the rough rounding over three years.

G. Abbott: That helps, although I'm not sure at this point that I entirely understand the other assumptions that must be implicit here. If we go from June through the end of 1998, that's a period of only -- what? -- six or seven months. I'll never be Finance minister either. It's somewhere in that area. We've only got a portion of the year in '98; yet we're assuming $249 million, minus the chips. In 1999, with a full year of stumpage relief, we're looking at $275 million minus $54 million for chips. So I guess my question is: are we also building into the model an assumption of a considerable rise in lumber prices on the American market? What accounts for the full-year versus partial-year discrepancy -- or apparent discrepancy?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. The $234 million net amount for this year. . . . You're just missing April and May. So it's ten months, because most of the billing happens in those other ten months. But if you want to know the assumptions, we've assumed that the U.S. lumber price of below $300 will recover to $350. Then the hemlock squares price built into these assumptions is the current $535 (U.S.), and from that current figure to $650 (U.S.). . .but not for it to recover to previous levels, which were substantially higher than that. We've assumed that pulp will strengthen to $800 a tonne.

[3:00]

The suggestion that there's an assumption built in here of increasing prices for random-length dimensional lumber from $300 to $350 (U.S.), and for the hemlock squares from $535 to $650 and the pulp up from around $550 -- I think the current level is -- to $800. . . . Are those assumptions made for the balance of '98, plus '99, plus 2000? Or does it come and go through that period?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, the numbers I've given you are for over the next five years; that's over the cycle. Based on it being a slow recovery over those five years, what we've picked up in the computations here is the next three years -- this year and the next two. So the assumptions built into that are partial recovery, not the full recovery. That will take the full five years of the cycle.

G. Abbott: So it's over a five-year cycle that it's assumed that dimensional lumber will go from $300 to $350 (U.S.), hemlock squares from $535 to $650 and pulp to $800. That recovery is over the five years, and we are building in increments of improvements through those first three years. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes.

G. Abbott: That anticipates my next question. I've pretty much got clear the stumpage relief aspect of the fiscal position of Forest Renewal B.C.

In part, I'd just like a quick review, but also there's a question here. To my knowledge, softwood lumber prices, particularly dimensional lumber and random-length dimensional lumber in the U.S. market, has slipped substantially in the last few months. I think it's either at or just below the level at which superstumpage for the funding of Forest Renewal B.C. kicks in. I think we're around $280 now; I think it's at about $300 that the funding curve begins to kick in for Forest Renewal. Could the minister, with the assistance of staff, refresh my memory with respect to when the funding curve kicks in for Forest Renewal and also briefly outline what the experience for the first few months of 1998 has been with respect to dimensional lumber prices on the U.S. market and what impact that has had on Forest Renewal B.C.?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It depends on two factors. One is the exchange rate, and one is the price of lumber in U.S. funds, which is currently $260. The exchange rate is very favourable; it's 68 cents. There is a very complicated calculation to get a precise number. I'll undertake to get that for you. I don't have it here, and we can't calculate it here right now.

G. Abbott: If the minister's staff could provide that over the course. . . . I think it would be useful. It's not because I'm particularly interested in the details around that. It's just that as these factors change, it can have a very substantial impact on the level of funding that's flowing through to Forest Renewal B.C. As a consequence, it can have a considerable impact on their ability to deliver programs, if not in the short term, certainly in the long term. As a matter of being -- hopefully -- a useful Forests critic, I'd like to understand how those things are working.

The changes in the stumpage formula and the stumpage relief that was announced a couple of weeks ago, which, as has been noted, is going to produce a net of $234 million less to FRBC in 1998. . . . I presume, from some of the earlier comments I heard, that the plan at this point is for Forest Renewal to continue on with the current business plan, the

[ Page 8640 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, the current business plan level of expenditure, the $517 million, is the target; but we will be prudent. If some project fails or doesn't meet their expenditure program, we're not going to be pushing to reach that. We're going to be very careful. That's because there will be much less money going into the forest renewal fund.

G. Abbott: I didn't really hear a definitive answer. If there isn't one available, the minister could say so. Is that the plan? Setting aside the "Yes, we're going to be prudent and all that" -- obviously anyone would be -- the aim of Forest Renewal B.C. is to continue to deliver the programs for the current year, as set out and discussed in our previous business plan meetings, and they are going to make up the shortfall for delivery of those programs via the corporation's reserves. Is that correct? I've asked the question before. I just need a little more precision in the answer.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is yes. The shortfall between what FRCB takes in and the $517 million will be funded out of the reserve. We will continue with the business plan for this year.

G. Abbott: After the FRBC reserve has been reduced by roughly $234 million, what will be the balance remaining in the reserve of Forest Renewal B.C.?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The balance in reserve, which is the total equity, will be $393 million.

G. Abbott: Beyond the impact of stumpage relief, which we've defined quite well, and beyond the impact of the downturn in softwood lumber prices, which is rather more difficult to define, for obvious reasons, but which nevertheless is likely to have substantial consequences through the balance of 1998. . . . Beyond those two factors, which will affect FRBC's ability to deliver programs in the short term and in the long term, are there any other factors or elements which Forest Renewal B.C. anticipates may impact on their ability to deliver programs in the short term or the long term? Are there any other factors or influences or considerations which may have a bearing in the longer term?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, we haven't identified any other factors that would affect it.

G. Abbott: I think we have determined that the impact on the current year's programs should not be substantial. At least, I gather from the comments that have been provided that the impact of stumpage relief and of the other factors will not alter the delivery of programs in any material or substantial way in 1998-99. Could the minister, in consultation with FRBC staff, advise on what is anticipated in the longer term? We have an anticipation of a further $220 million net in stumpage relief in 1999-2000, and additional stumpage relief of $185 million is anticipated for 2000-01. Is it anticipated by Forest Renewal B.C. that they will deal with that reduced funding through a reduction in programs and a further reduction in the ongoing balance of FRBC's reserve fund? Or do they anticipate some combination of those two?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The board of Forest Renewal will have to make the decision on whether there's a program reduction versus using up the unappropriated equity. That's a board decision. They're in a planning process now and will decide in preparation for the next year's business plan.

J. Sawicki: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Sawicki: I thank the hon. member across the way for giving way.

In the precincts this afternoon, although I don't see them physically in the chamber right now -- unless they're behind me -- is a class of 53 grade 6 and 7 students from Cascade Heights Elementary School in my riding of Burnaby-Willingdon. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mrs. Hurd and Mr. Low, and eight parents. I met them over the lunch break, and they asked me some very probing questions about what we do here. I want the House to join me in making them welcome.

G. Abbott: I also want to address some questions around the issue of incrementality shortly, but I want to see whether any of my colleagues have further questions related to the impact of recent changes to FRBC's fiscal outlook.

[3:15]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

First of all, in a two-year period it's clearly evident that there have been changes made to the format, content, programs and sections of the plan and the organizational structure of Forest Renewal and the '97-98 and the '98-99 business plans. A comparative analysis of the '97-98 and '98-99 Forest Renewal B.C. business plans basically comes up with a few differences.

The first difference between the two business plans is the incorporation of program targets that existed in the '97-98 business plan and the removal of program targets in the '98-99 business plan relating to FRBC programs. Just to outline briefly, in the '97-98 business plan, investments were configured within five activity areas: land and resources, environment, workforce, communities and value-added. Within these five activity areas are specific programs related to each of the areas. The program objectives and purposes are discussed in a paragraph, and following the paragraph are the projected

[ Page 8641 ]

However, in the '98-99 business plan, the format of the programs has been changed. The activity areas are now in the format of seven objectives, and within each of the objectives the programs are discussed. The description of each of the programs has been decreased significantly. More importantly, there are no program targets for each individual program, and they have not been solely comprised under the entire objective itself. Each program is now only explained in a paragraph, and the costs are provided in chart form at the bottom of the page. See page 25 in the 1998-99 program.

I guess my first question would be: why are there not specific targets given for each program in the 1998-99 FRBC business plan when the providing of target amounts allows for a measure of accountability and performance?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, it really is a question of formatting. The board, as I understand it, went to more direct, strategic objectives, and they have targets for each of the objectives. So that's a very legitimate question for the discussions around the business plan.

R. Coleman: I'm sorry, I didn't get the last part of that answer. I just got the first part, and I wonder if you could repeat the last part.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I said the questions about the format of the business plan -- and the objectives and targets and budgets behind the lines in the business plan -- are quite legitimate to ask when the select standing committee discusses the business plan in some detail.

R. Coleman: How does FRBC intend to evaluate the success or failure of programs if there are no targets or goals given or set for each of the programs?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I just wish to tell the member that I don't think I'll answer any more of those questions. If he refers to page 19, there are program targets, so he can evaluate against the program targets.

R. Coleman: Isn't it amazing that we have a half-a-billion-dollar Crown corporation that refuses to answer questions about how it operates and how it does its planning.

The Chair: I recognize the minister on a point of order.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's not a question of not. . . . I've made it clear that we'll answer detailed business plan objectives. That was agreed upon.

The Chair: If I could add to that, the Chair has also made a statement in regard to the substance. I could read it again, if the member wishes.

"Pursuant to section 10(6) of the Forest Renewal Act, the FRBC business plan is currently under consideration by the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources of the Legislative Assembly.

"The Committee of Supply is considering the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. Questions in this committee may be out of order if they deal with matters included in the FRBC business plan which is before the Forests Committee. Established practice in this House discourages debate on matters appointed for consideration in the House or in one of its committees.

"Given that administration costs of FRBC are funded through voted appropriations of the Ministry of Forests, the Chair will allow questions on administrative cost issues but would ask members to avoid questions on business plan issues."

R. Coleman: Thank you, hon. Chair. Just a point of clarification, then. Am I allowed to ask questions with regards to investment targets and corporate administration sheets relative to the business plan, or are these also exempt from questions?

The Chair: The minister may wish to clarify that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. What we can discuss is government policy and things within the purview of my ministry and my responsibilities as the Minister of Forests. But a detailed review of the business plan has a place, and that is that committee, and it is currently in front of that committee.

R. Coleman: I'm aware of it being in front of the committee. Was a comparative analysis of the two business plans ever done in committee -- the one from '97-98 and '98-99?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm informed that precisely that kind of comparative analysis -- two years, comparing one year to the other -- has been done in committee. I understand that it's happened both times, and it will happen again.

G. Abbott: At this point, I want to address the principle of incrementality. Now, incrementality is a horrible term. I don't know who created it, but it's one that has been used fairly widely around Forest Renewal B.C. since its inception in 1994. One of the big concerns about Forest Renewal B.C., from its inception, has been that because FRBC is a corporation with a lot of money, there would be an enormous, overwhelming temptation on the part of ministries that may at times be cash-strapped for a variety of reasons to attempt to off-load their responsibilities onto Forest Renewal B.C. -- because Forest Renewal B.C. had money and the ministries didn't. That, as it turns out, has been a very legitimate concern.

In fact, it's a concern that has been extensively discussed at meetings of the Select Standing Committee on Forests. In their discussions of the FRBC business plans, they have discussed the principle of incrementality in great detail over the years, and the problem of off-loading. Where we left this. . . . I think we had an interesting and in some respects a useful discussion about this issue at the last two business plan meetings of the select standing committee. I think it was very much the consensus of those assembled that this was an issue that needed to be raised in the special forum we have here, the B.C. Legislature.

The principle of incrementality has, I think, been strained; it has been stretched; it has been distorted beyond the wildest imagination of anyone who anticipated this back in 1994. Just to briefly review here the issue and what incrementality is, even back in 1995 -- I suspect at one of the first, if not the first, business plan discussions of the select standing committee -- the member for Delta South extensively questioned the FRBC staff, who were assembled for the business plan meeting, about the notion of incrementality.

[ Page 8642 ]

On questioning from Mr. Hurd, the former member for Surrey-White Rock, Mr. Stanyer further clarified the point:

"As for what we actually mean by incrementality, as I said earlier, it is a question of activity. The Forest Act defines the obligation of the licensee or the ministry, and anything over and above that is considered to be incremental activity. In some cases it has been funded through FRDA programs and in some cases it has been funded on a hit-or-miss basis by the ministry over the years -- those kinds of things. It is now within the purview of Forest Renewal."

The object of incrementality was to ensure that Forest Renewal B.C. added to our ability to restore and enhance the productive capacity of the forest -- not to take on the projects, activities and special purchases that any line ministry of government might like to throw at Forest Renewal B.C. down the line.

At our last business meeting, I and my colleagues discussed some issues which certainly, in my view, offended in a serious way the principle of incrementality, and I want to discuss those today with the Minister of Forests. Again, I think that unless we forcefully highlight some of these issues, there will be a continued and perhaps more pronounced trend on the part of government ministries to try to fund their programs through Forest Renewal B.C.

That is the essence of the concern, and we can talk about those things specifically. But we did raise issues like, for example, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways not wanting to fund bridges to forested areas. By simply refusing to fund those bridges, they put a lot of pressure on Forest Renewal to take that on as an activity. The purchase of the Empire Valley Ranch is another example of where the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks wanted to add to the province's holdings through that purchase and did it by off-loading that onto Forest Renewal B.C. There are other examples here, as well, that we will be raising and discussing.

I would like to hear from the Minister of Forests as to what his views are with respect to incrementality. Does the term, as it was discussed in October and November of 1995, still have some meaning? Or has the principle of incrementality been strained so far and in so many directions by government that it really no longer has any meaning in the context of 1998?

[3:30]

G. Abbott: The point that I think needs to be made is an important one. We can't, from year to year, have such a loose definition, such a loose idea, of what is incremental or not incremental to the role of Forest Renewal B.C., so that we can simply say -- being completely pragmatic or using reasons of convenience -- that something is now incremental to Forest Renewal B.C. that was not incremental in the past. I want to pin the minister down -- and this may be difficult -- on whether we need to have a more substantial, fixed and rigorous notion of what is and what is not incremental to Forest Renewal B.C.'s role. That way we won't have, in the short term and in the long term, continued pressure on Forest Renewal B.C. to take on projects, undertakings, programs and purchases which otherwise might not happen.

It seems to me that for a government ministry that is very heavily pressured to find funds to do things which may seem absolutely worthwhile, appropriate, necessary and all the rest. . . . If the funds are not there in the ministry, I think there is an overwhelming temptation for those ministries to chase Forest Renewal as a potential source of funding.

I again want to pose to the minister and to the board of Forest Renewal B.C. this problem, this dilemma, that they come under serious pressure from ministries of government to do these things. For example, on bridges across roads that are necessary to access forest resources in British Columbia. There is an overwhelming pressure on Forest Renewal to take those things on so that the resource can still be accessed, but without the Ministry of Transportation and Highways having to put up their funds, their money, to do it. I'm asking the minister whether we need to pin down in a more precise way that definition of incrementality so that we can protect those incremental tasks -- the enhancement of the forest and those roles that are supposed to be at the core of Forest Renewal B.C.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think you could always try to straitjacket various agencies so there is no room to move with the changing times. That would require a whole lot more inflexibility that would, in my view, be detrimental to achieving the collective goals of the various agencies. Let me read to you the funding principle of incrementality. It says: "Forest Renewal B.C. funds should be used to expand the overall level of investment in the forest economy rather than displace existing spending. Forest Renewal B.C. will only invest in programs and projects that would not otherwise be undertaken by government or project proponents."

G. Abbott: The minister seems to be reading my mind, because I was just about to read that out as well. It goes on to say that proposals that contribute to Forest Renewal B.C. investment goals may be considered incremental if they are (a) non-obligatory activities -- activities which proponents are not obliged to do by statute regulation or policy; (b) activity accelerations -- activities which a Forest Renewal partner already funds, but which would generate broadly available forest sector benefits if current levels of investment were enhanced; and (c) new obligations for newly required activities where no obligation existed previously and which provide benefits beyond a single organization. It seems to me that in some of those, (a), (b) and (c), we do provide. . . . Actually, we can go to (d) as well: ". . .beneficial initiatives for activities which may not meet one of the previous conditions but which the board considers to be beneficial and consistent with the mandate of the corporation."

I would say that (d) in particular swings the door wide open for Forest Renewal B.C. taking on projects, purchases and activities which have been rightly funded in the past by

[ Page 8643 ]

I'll invite the minister to comment on that one more time, and then I'll leave the general point about incrementality. I think it's an important one. I think the point that's being made here is an important one; it's a critical one, particularly in consideration of the fact that over the next three years, we are -- I think for good reasons -- going to see substantial reductions in the amount of revenue that flows to FRBC. There is going to be even tighter, fiercer competition for those remaining dollars going to Forest Renewal B.C.

I think that in fairness to the many excellent ideas and projects that exist out there in the province -- industry may have them, communities may have them, individuals may have them -- we need to protect those funds that are left. I think that unless we honour the original intent around incrementality, we are going to see the displacement of very good community projects with perhaps much needed but nevertheless inappropriate ministry funding.

I'll again invite the minister to comment on that, and then I'll want to pursue more specific examples of the problem.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is that we won't straitjacket the board of FRBC. There are 14 people other than government people on the board, and they represent a series of interests, from labour to the community to the environmental movement. Those people all have an opinion on what FRBC should or should not spend its money on, given the terms of reference. So I recognize that there will be pressures; there's no question that there will be pressures. But this year, for example, there's probably less being spent in areas that might be called government program responsibility areas. We recognize the trend and the pressures that the member has pointed out.

G. Abbott: I'm pleased that the minister recognizes those. I guess the issue is: do we go beyond recognizing those pressures to acknowledging them and in fact bolstering our understanding of incrementality to ensure that the unfortunate scenario I outlined of fewer dollars and more demands for the ministry doesn't become reality? Is there any disposition on the part of the minister to tighten up that understanding so that we not only recognize that this is a problem but in fact put in place some defence against the continuing erosion of incrementality?

Hon. D. Streifel: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'd like the House to welcome some folks and some friends from my constituency. Mr. Ewert and 27 grade 7 students from Fraserview Elementary School in Mission have come over to tour and to watch, look and listen. They asked me some great questions out front. I bid the House make them welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not prepared to have government direct the FRBC board around what is incremental or not. We won't straitjacket the board. There's no appetite on the part of government to straitjacket the board, because they need the flexibility.

I would just point out to the member that we recognize the problem. It has to be discussed within government when government does its budgets. The FRBC board has to make discussions, and there will be contact between government and the FRBC board on their respective approaches to program funding. So the answer is no to straitjacketing the board around a further definition of incrementality.

G. Abbott: One of the issues I want to discuss in terms of the issue of incrementality is the issue of the Ministry of Forests' responsibility for backlog reforestation. It seems to me that we have one example of backlog reforestation with the Ministry of Forests off-loading their statutory responsibility onto Forest Renewal B.C. and then in a direct way onto the licensees -- although, of course, FRBC funds that task via the licensees. It seems to me that right within the minister's own ministry is one example of where the concept of incrementality has been offended, at least as it was originally defined. To begin, perhaps the minister can refer to the definition of incrementality, which he and I have jointly managed to outline, and can explain how the transfer or off-load of responsibility for backlog reforestation onto Forest Renewal B.C. can be defined as incremental.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll give an answer and then say that any more specifics should be discussed around the business plan, because any given program and the details around a program can be appropriately debated there. What the backlog reforestation program did was take lands that wouldn't otherwise be reforested in that time frame. It accelerated the reforestation program backlog. It essentially took responsibilities that weren't previously the industry's or the government's by statute. It's in the north, it's accelerating; therefore, it's incremental to what government would have done.

G. Abbott: The issue of incrementality that I'm raising here is, in my opinion, appropriate to this forum. Although the minister was not in attendance -- and I don't expect that he would be in attendance -- at our Forest Renewal plan meetings, we discussed issues like incrementality. Mr. Stanyer and Mr. Doney can engage in debate with me around these questions to a certain level, but quite appropriately for them as public servants, they don't want to be engaged in vigorous debate with me about principles of incrementality or other political sorts of issues once they're pushed to a certain point. In fairness, we did take this very interesting debate around incrementality to a certain point in our business plan meetings, but there comes a point where Mr. Doney and Mr. Stanyer can't, in fairness, be expected to debate these principles with me or with any other member of the opposition. So that's why they're here. Again, I'm entirely mindful of the opportunity that the opposition members of the standing committee have to deal with the business plan in the appropriate forum, but there are some questions which have to come here as well.

[3:45]

[ Page 8644 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The backlog reforestation program is not a statutory responsibility. Therefore it's incremental. I haven't got the code in front of me here; you may have it. I don't know what it says. But I would have to say that with respect to debating issues, you were calling it an off-load. I'm saying that it is an incremental activity that government would not have undertaken. But the definition of incrementality is not something given to the board by government. It is taken on by the board of Forest Renewal. It is their job to come up with that policy.

I think it is entirely fair to discuss that with the chair of the board, who represents the board when he comes to the meetings of the standing committee.

G. Abbott: The issue of that is also raised in a letter I just received. Actually, it's a copy of a letter to the minister, which I've just received from the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association. I'll read it:

"Your government, through the enactment of the Forest Practices Code, placed a legal obligation on holders of Crown land tenure, including ranchers, to manage their tenures in a manner that will ensure biodiversity. It has been stated by rangeland experts that one of the greatest threats to biodiversity is weeds. For this reason, we find it incomprehensible that Treasury Board would reduce the budgets of various ministries, including the Ministry of Forests, to a degree that would result in the virtual elimination of an effective weed control program on Crown lands.

"Notwithstanding the fact that the Ministry of Forests, under the Ministry of Forests Act, has a legal obligation to 'manage, protect and conserve forest and range resources' of the Crown. I would refer you also to sections 1(e), 2 and 13 of the Weed Control Act, which we believe infers further legal obligations on your ministry to control noxious weeds on unoccupied Crown lands."

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The information I have is that weed control may be a Crown responsibility, but it's not a statutory responsibility of the Ministry of Forests.

G. Abbott: One of the issues which we did discuss at the last business plan meeting, which is a considerably important issue from the incrementality perspective, is the acquisition of the Empire Valley Ranch. I was hoping that my colleague from Peace River North would be here for this discussion; perhaps he will be able to join us. I'll just deal at this point with the issue side or the incrementality side of this, and I hope that he will be able to join us at a later point and talk about some of the specifics around this acquisition.

I just want to deal with the principle side of this. This is a Forest Renewal acquisition. I have the details here about the value of the purchase and so on. It was considerable. The argument that was made at the business plan meeting, as I recall it, was that the Empire Valley Ranch contained some unique terrain and flora and fauna features and so on that made it worthy of acquisition. I guess what puzzles me in all of that is: why, if it's worthy of acquisition and is something that the government in the longer term might convert into a park or something that's going to be appreciated by the public for its natural diversity, would that not be an expenditure much more appropriately given to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks? I have had difficulty from the start in understanding where the acquisition of the Empire Valley Ranch would appropriately fit into the acquisitions plan of Forest Renewal B.C.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I refer the member to the business plan -- the private forest biodiversity program -- which states:

"This new program supports the acquisition of interests in private lands to conserve biodiversity, in collaboration with Nature Trust of British Columbia. The goals of the program include: conserving sites that have unique or exceptional biodiversity attributes; fostering private and public sector funding and management of partnerships; and providing educational and research opportunities."

G. Abbott: I think we're getting exactly to the point here. How far do we stretch, push, pull or expand the role of FRBC in undertaking these kinds of purchases? It seems to me that the purchase of the Empire Valley Ranch is exactly the kind of thing which was a concern in the creation of FRBC. It does take us down a road that seems to me -- and I like to think I have some reasonable grasp on reality. . . . What's been done there is far removed from the stated intent of Forest Renewal B.C. to enhance the productive forest base in British Columbia. I mean, quite apart from the words the minister has just spoken, which seem to me to be a lot of gobbledegook around, "We can do anything in terms of acquisition if it is somehow diverse or enhances biodiversity, or something like that," we could say that about literally anything. We could purchase a piece of land in downtown Vancouver and say: "This is really special. This is as much biodiversity as we see in downtown Vancouver, and therefore FRBC would be entirely in line in purchasing it." I think there's a big problem here. I think that the purchase of the Empire Valley Ranch is not consistent with the core mandate of Forest Renewal B.C. There may be "wish words" around biodiversity, and so on, as the minister spoke about, which may provide theoretical justification for that purchase, but it seems to me that we have gone way over the line here in terms of what FRBC ought to be doing. I'll defer to my colleague from Peace River North, because I know he has a number of questions on this too.

But I want the minister to respond to my general comment in making this purchase, that we have really, really pushed the notion of what FRBC ought to be doing. What is the province going to do with the Empire Valley Ranch, having acquired it? Are we going to have it sit there on its own as an example of biodiversity? Are people going to be able to visit it to enjoy the biodiversity? Are we going to be creating a provincial class A park there in due course? Is it going to be a protected area under the protected-areas strategy? What's going to happen with it? Beyond the mumbo-jumbo about enhancing biodiversity, what is it going to do to enhance the forest capability of the province of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Amongst other things, the purchase will bring completion and certainty to the land use plan of the Cariboo-Chilcotin. The board sought legal advice; it got an opinion that it was within the intent and purpose of the act -- which, let me remind you, is to renew the forest economy of British Columbia, enhance the productive capacity and environmental value of forest lands, create jobs, provide training for forest workers and strengthen communities. It's within the

[ Page 8645 ]

G. Abbott: The reason we're raising it here, particularly, is that -- and I guess I stated it as well as I could at the meeting of the select standing committee back on November 26, 1997. . . . I said to Mr. Stanyer: "Thank you for that response. I'm not going to pursue that particular point any further at this time, because I think the argument is one that should be engaged in with the government rather than with Forest Renewal. You were responding to an order-in-council from government to acquire the Empire Valley Ranch. So we'll leave that as it is now and take it up with the government in estimates in due course." So I certainly didn't leave unnoted the point that I thought it was important that it be followed up here -- in part, at least, because of the order-in-council.

I appreciate that the minister responded to a portion of the issues I laid out there, and I did lay out a number of them in my last comments. I do still want to hear from the Minister of Forests what Forest Renewal B.C. plans to do with the Empire Valley Ranch. Is it going to be a protected area? Is it going to be a park? What is the probable disposition of that piece of ground?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: A perfect question for the Minister of Environment, in her estimates.

G. Abbott: I can't believe what I just heard. How can it be a perfect question for the Minister of Environment, when it was an OIC that was signed by the Minister of Forests?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Because the control and responsibility for the land is with the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks.

G. Abbott: Then why the heck didn't the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks buy it, rather than Forest Renewal B.C.? I don't get that connection. Here's where we're coming off the rails. Why is it that the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks has control? Why is it appropriate to direct questions to her about the Empire Valley Ranch, but we find FRBC buying it on the direction of the Minister of Forests through order-in-council?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The decision to purchase was a decision under the biodiversity program of Forest Renewal, to complete the land use plan in the Cariboo. Having done that, then the question of who would administer it, how it would be administered as a protected area -- since it was a protected area. . . . The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks undertook the role of managing, since FRBC isn't in the business of managing land under these kinds of conditions, under this land use plan.

[4:00]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The question has been answered.

R. Neufeld: A few questions about the Empire Valley Ranch. I hope that we can get some responses to some of the questions that I have surrounding the Empire Valley Ranch. It's interesting to listen to the minister defend why he thought Forest Renewal B.C. should be buying the ranch: because of biodiversity. It's the responsibility of Environment, Lands and Parks now, and you can wash your hands.

I want to go back to the beginning. Because this is so close to the Forests minister's home, I want to ask him when the government first started thinking that it should purchase the Empire Valley Ranch -- and I'm not talking about having FRBC do it for them. When did the Ministry of Forests first decide, along with, I guess, the Ministry of Environment, that the Empire Valley Ranch should be purchased?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I guess the government started to think about it as soon as the Cariboo land use plan was completed.

R. Neufeld: You guess, or you know?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This member really wants some precision, and we'll give him as precise an answer as we can. As soon as the land use plan was completed, and in the discussions when the government accepted the land use plan, they knew that this element was in there. It was a recommendation from the stakeholders that were, in the final days, negotiating what would become the land use plan and what would be a protected area, and the undertaking was made. The plan undertook to see that this, when available, would be purchased.

[G. Robertson in the chair.]

R. Neufeld: Could the minister give me the time frame -- a month and a year -- for when the Cariboo land use plan was going through -- when those discussions actually started taking place?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As you know, by agreement we were discussing Forest Renewal, so I have Forest Renewal officials here. If you wish to discuss the Cariboo land use plan, I'll endeavour to get the people here that can discuss the Cariboo land use plan.

R. Neufeld: No, you don't have to do that, because I imagine you would defer that to the Ministry of Environment, anyhow. I'm asking you to put on the record when your government -- when you -- started discussions around the purchase of the Empire Valley Ranch. You said it was during

[ Page 8646 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm happy to talk about the Cariboo land use plan when I'm able to get some officials who know the details of the plan -- details that I don't have with me. But I'll answer the member. I'm not sure where he's going or what point he's trying to make.

There have been a number of interests in seeing that area become a protected area. But as far as government was concerned, government considered it during the land use planning process. The land use process was developed, as you know. There was a stakeholder group leading up to it. When government adopted the land use plan, they then considered the elements of the plan. It was in the elements. The date and time when government actually accepted it -- I'd be happy to get that for you.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure why I would have some of those details -- the actual date and month -- at my fingertips. But I'd be happy to get that for you. It's really irrelevant. Where are you going with the questioning, and what do you want to know? I'll try to get you the answers.

R. Neufeld: We're trying to get some answers around when. . . . I know you're a little hesitant about wanting to answer about when you decided as a government to buy the Empire Valley Ranch. I can understand why you'd want to move around that and all over the place and not commit to it. You've waffled on the whole issue around the Empire Valley Ranch. Your whole government has waffled on it -- not just you. The Minister of Environment was right along with you. What I want to do is find out from you when government first decided. Obviously, as the member for the area and the Minister of Forests, you're telling me you don't know. And if you don't know, you don't know.

Are you telling me that the order-in-council was the first time that you discussed the purchase of the ranch? The order-in-council, so you know -- and I have a copy of it here -- is dated July 29, 1997. Would that be the first time it was discussed within your government?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm interested in what point the member is trying to make. The purchase of the ranch, as I was saying, was long considered by various people inside and outside government.

R. Neufeld: It's obvious that the minister doesn't want to commit to the time frame of when he and cabinet started discussing. . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Why do you want to know?

R. Neufeld: Well, I want to know. I mean, the minister is catcalling me: "Why do I want to know?" I want to know. I mean, it's a pretty straightforward, simple question. Maybe that's the problem; maybe we have to go about it a different way. So could the minister tell me, then. . . ?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Point of order, Chair.

R. Neufeld: Could the minister tell me. . . ?

The Chair: There's a point of order, member. Take your seat, please.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: My point of order, Chair, is that we explained very calmly that we've discussed FRBC. Details of the business plan and issues around incrementality -- whether specific projects, purchases or business decisions -- legitimately can be discussed at the FRBC hearings and when the business plan is discussed by the standing committee. My point is that I explained to the member that if he wants to discuss the details of the land use plan and the relationship of decisions that government makes around the land use plan, I'd endeavour to get that so I could be accurate. I don't remember which month, which day or whenever. I'm asking what the importance of that is. If the member wants to explain that importance, then that might help me in answering his questions. But the sort of leading questions or something. . . .

R. Neufeld: You don't remember, eh?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, if that member has any recollection of when he first considered the land resource management plans in his area and when certain zones and uses were first contemplated by him. . . .

The Chair: Minister, are you finished your point of order? Okay.

The member can carry on.

R. Neufeld: Thank you, hon. Chair. I was just wondering if that was a point of order, a statement or a response to a question. Maybe you could clarify that for me.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's a point of order.

R. Neufeld: I'm asking the Chair.

The Chair: Possibly the point of order may not have been too. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, order. Possibly the point of order may have carried on for a while. But I think the point was made, anyway, so we'll carry on.

R. Neufeld: Okay, we'll deal with some of those at a later time when the minister gets the information.

Something that FRBC actually could answer is: how did they value the Empire Valley Ranch? How did they put a value on that piece of property?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I will be tolerant. I think the rules were that specific projects, specific items, specific purchases and programs should be discussed during the business plan discussions at the standing committee. But in the interest of expediting the debate here, I will answer that an assessor was hired by the appropriate government agency that handles that ---- that is, Lands and Parks. They hired an assessor and made the assessment available to Forest Renewal.

R. Neufeld: Can you tell me how much that. . . ? What were the results of the assessor's findings to Forest Renewal B.C.?

[ Page 8647 ]

The Chair: The member for Chilliwack rises on what matter?

B. Penner: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Penner: It's my privilege today to introduce about 21 students -- I believe they're grade 6 students -- from Vedder Elementary School. They've had some wonderful weather today during their visit to Victoria. They're accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Miriam Taylor, as well as five parents. Amongst the parents is the district manager for the Ministry of Forests in Chilliwack. Perhaps if the Minister of Forests needs some help in answering the questions here today, he could call on the services of Gerry Kennah. Would the House please make these people welcome.

R. Neufeld: The minister said in his earlier comments that the Ministry of Environment hired an assessor. They went out and assessed the ranch and provided information to FRBC. You have your FRBC staff here. I'm asking that you tell us what FRBC found out from the assessor as to the value of the ranch and how you arrived at that value.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll remind the member that he's getting into details that are more appropriately dealt with in the committee. Again, it is done. . . . When a report is received by the FRBC staff, they then consider a decision, based on the appraisal information that was given to them, and they give direction to negotiators.

[4:15]

The second part of the question is: were any moneys at all paid out of the Ministry of Forests to complete any part of that assessment to find out what the Empire Valley Ranch was worth? Was this totally, 100 percent funded out of the Ministry of Environment, FRBC or your ministry?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, I don't have the officials here who can advise me on the answer to the latter part of your question. I'll endeavour to get that information for you. The officials are watching, and I'll get the information and report it to you when I have it.

R. Neufeld: I wonder if it would be in order. . . . The difficulty that the minister is having, not being able to answer some of our questions, which are fairly straightforward and are within his. . . .

The Chair: The Minister of Forests rises on a point of order.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: By agreement of the members opposite and the critic, we said we would have the officials here who could answer the question. FRBC officials cannot advise me on expenditures of the Ministry of Forests. I'll endeavour to get the information for you on an orderly basis. That's the way it works.

R. Neufeld: Then I'll ask again. We know by your admittance -- you admitted just recently -- that the information that the Ministry of Environment put together in assessing the value of the ranch was given to FRBC for them to make the determination on purchasing the ranch. You have FRBC officials with you now. What I am asking the minister is to put on the record what process was used and how he arrived at a value for the Empire Valley Ranch as it was given to FRBC. Now, you should be able to do that.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. The point I'm making about the purchase with FRBC funds. . . . Questions around that can legitimately be asked during the select standing committee. That's the purpose of that review, and that's where they can be best asked and best addressed. We're in the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, and your question was around whether or not funds from the Ministry of Forests were expended to do evaluations. I undertook to get that information for you. I don't have it here; I'll get those officials. I have FRBC officials here who, as far as they're concerned, only know about funds that are expended under FRBC.

R. Neufeld: I guess I'm just having a bit of difficulty trying to get my question across.

You have FRBC staff with you now. As I understand the minister, FRBC was given the assessment that was done on the value of the Empire Valley Ranch by the Ministry of Environment. Why can we not get the information as to how the evaluation was done from the FRBC people that you have here in the House today? Obviously they must know; they're the ones who purchased the ranch. You ordered them to. Through an order-in-council you ordered FRBC to buy the ranch. It had nothing to do, I guess, with FRBC wanting to or not. You -- government -- signed the OIC. You and the Premier signed the OIC to order FRBC to purchase the ranch.

Now all we're asking for is the information that FRBC has as to how you valued that ranch to arrive at what you were going to pay for it.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't have the report here, and in any event it wouldn't be appropriate to have it here. It would be appropriate to discuss the details somewhere else.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: At the select standing committee. The issue around. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, member.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is a little troubling when there are a bunch of experts over there on how we agreed to handle the estimates and in what order who weren't even part of the discussion.

[ Page 8648 ]

To answer the member's question again -- and it's going to be the same answer -- FRBC has an evaluation that was provided to them by Environment, Lands and Parks. Based on that, they gave negotiators a value and a mandate to negotiate the purchase of the ranch.

R. Neufeld: We'll try this a little bit differently. Maybe I can start with: who owns the ranch now? Who actually owns the Empire Valley Ranch?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The information I have is that the Crown -- British Columbia -- owns the ranch. It is administered by Environment, Lands and Parks; they are the land manager.

R. Neufeld: Could you explain to me why FRBC, the Crown corporation, purchased the ranch and why the land now is owned by the Crown and administered by Environment, Lands and Parks?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The reason the ranch was purchased was because it was part of the land use plan. Government was asked to give direction. The board of FRBC asked for a directive; a directive was given which mandated FRBC to purchase it. The purpose of the purchase was to stabilize the land use plan in the Cariboo. Anything we do to implement the land use plan, in all its parts, stabilizes forest and environmental management in the area and moves towards protecting biodiversity.

R. Neufeld: The minister earlier put on the record that the ranch was purchased for its biodiversity. It fell within all the guidelines of FRBC for a whole host of reasons, and that's why FRBC should buy it. Can you tell me, then, why FRBC should only buy it and not administer the operation of the ranch? If it's in the best interests of the province from a forestry point of view, which you ably put forward, then why would FRBC not own the ranch so that they can continue to make sure that we maintain that biodiversity, so that they can make sure that the trees continue to grow and make sure that it's replanted? Why would FRBC not continue to own it, if it was such a good idea for them to purchase it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, FRBC is the investment agency. They aren't land managers, in the sense of a day-to-day administrative responsibility for managing the land. Some other agency, appropriately, picks that up. But the management is guided by the land use plan.

R. Neufeld: So actually FRBC was the bank to purchase the ranch, and that's, I guess, the start and finish of FRBC's involvement with the Empire Valley Ranch. Could I then assume that FRBC, from purchase day forward, has no further interest of any kind in the ranch?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, there are some caveats around the purchase to protect the sort of interest and purpose for which FRBC bought it. We can get that for you. But I'm not sure where the member's going. And if you'd like to ask, we'd be happy to try to respond. Let me say that it will be managed. The agency charged with the management of it has to manage it in concert with the purposes of that area, that zone, in the Cariboo land use plan.

R. Neufeld: Well, where I'm going is to find out just what FRBC's involvement will be from the date of purchase. The minister has confirmed to me through his responses to my questions that FRBC was used as a vehicle to buy it, and that was FRBC's total involvement. All they were there for was as a banker. They wrote the cheque for government so government wouldn't have to have it on their financial statements. That would be the only purpose for which FRBC was involved, because they could come up with the money more easily than either your ministry or the Ministry of Environment could.

So after determining that and putting it into the record, could the minister tell me how much timber was harvested off the Empire Valley Ranch prior to FRBC purchasing it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have that information here. I may be able to get it, or the Minister of Environment may be able to get that.

R. Neufeld: When we're talking about the harvesting of timber, I would hope that the Ministry of Forests would have that information. If they don't. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: The minister on a point of order.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If they would play by the rules that are agreed to. . . . If you want to talk about the Ministry of Forests, I'll get the appropriate Ministry of Forests people here. We have FRBC people here.

G. Abbott: If I could speak to the point of order. . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Whenever that member is done, I'd be happy to speak to the point of order.

The Chair: You have the floor, member.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members. You have the floor, member.

G. Abbott: Thank you. I just didn't want to compete with the additional conversation on the side, hon. Chair.

The point here is an important one, and fundamental. I've tried to be entirely straight up with the minister in the way I've conducted these estimates. At the start, I advised the minister of where we would be going and that we would be doing Forest Renewal B.C. at this point. I had every expectation that in doing Forest Renewal B.C., we'd be discussing important things like incrementality and the purchase of the Empire Valley Ranch.

[4:30]

[ Page 8649 ]

To which Mr. Stanyer responded -- and this is the basis on which this is being pursued here and may well, if we need to, be pursued when we go back to the Ministry of Forests situation as well:

"We go back to what I said earlier about providing the best examples, that would mean that government acquires the private lands for this thing or maybe sets aside a poorer example of Crown land that would impact more on forest development and these kinds of things. Whether or not it's entirely proper for Forest Renewal to be doing this kind of thing is something that the board felt was within their mandate. In order for us to make these kinds of commitments, we need the authorization or order of cabinet to do these kinds of activities.

"It's government oversight of the Forest Renewal Act that looks to see whether or not it fits within the mandate. It's within the programming of Forest Renewal. We developed the private lands acquisition program and sent that to cabinet for approval of whether or not this fit within their view of the Forest Renewal mandate. Our reading of the act was that it did, the opinion of the board was that we should do it, and cabinet has given us the authority to participate in such a program. It doesn't necessarily mean that everybody agrees with us."

But the important point here is that there is some question around the appropriateness of this. Appropriately, I'm directing that. . . . I mean, there's no point in me arguing about the appropriateness of a cabinet order or a cabinet decision with Mr. Stanyer or Mr. Doney. I can't do that. This is the appropriate forum to do that. We've tried to be entirely straight up about this. This may be a difficult and embarrassing situation for the government in some respects, but I think that what we're doing here is entirely appropriate.

The Chair: Thank you. Both points of order are well taken. The Chair made an earlier statement in regard to what we're discussing here, and that is matters dealing with the administrative costs of FRBC, funded through voted appropriations of the Ministry of Forests.

I understand that there was an earlier agreement between members. If there is some confusion about that agreement, then that might be something you might want to take up outside of this room. But right now we should be dealing strictly with the parameters of the discussion that we decided upon earlier. If there's difficulty in doing that, then perhaps we should pursue another line of questioning and pursue that one later on.

Interjection.

The Chair: Is it on the same point of order? I recognize the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

G. Farrell-Collins: It is customary in this House to debate those items which come under the purview of the minister responsible for those items. In the case of Employment and Investment, that includes B.C. Hydro and other Crown corporations and agencies. Although there are no direct funds that one can trace from the ministry to the Crown corporation, other than the supervision of the duties of the minister and the minister's office, the minister's office vote is required to play a major and significant role in the oversight of Crown corporations, agencies and other bodies which come under the purview of that minister. So the dollars and cents that are being expended within the minister's office are being expended to comply with the duties of the minister, over top of all of those items which fall under his or her purview. All of these questions are in order. I understand that there is an agreement between the two members here -- the minister and the opposition critic. But if the minister is unable to answer the basic questions with the staff he has available to him -- and from the time I've been listening, it should certainly fall within the purview of that -- then it's the obligation of the minister to get whatever staff he needs here to answer the questions.

The opposition tries to help and to avoid having huge numbers of staff sitting around waiting for questions to be asked by structuring the estimates in such a way that the minister can anticipate the issues to be handled. The questions raised by the member for Peace River North and the opposition Forests critic all fall within the purview of Forest Renewal B.C. or the Ministry of Forests. If the minister is unable to answer those questions, I would suggest that he send out a message to his ministry staff and ask them to come and be present immediately so that we can move on with the estimates in a thorough manner. If he is unable to do that, I expect that these estimates will take a longer period of time.

The Chair: The Chair would just remind members that established practice in the House discourages debate on matters appointed for consideration in the House or in one of its committees.

The minister on the point of order.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member makes an argument, and I don't think there is great disagreement. But the member for Peace River North was leading into items that were under the purview of other ministries and that were under the purview of other committees. There is a difference here: this Crown corporation is directed by legislation to present its business plan, unlike most other Crown corporations, as the member full well knows. This is somewhat unique. I would remind the member that had he been here, or had he been listening. . . . We addressed that at the beginning, and I am attempting to. . . .

The member for Shuswap did bring the debate back to the topic. I am prepared to do that. I have who I think are the appropriate officials present, and there are others listening. If they think it is a matter where they can advise me and bring me the facts and figures, they will come and do that.

If you want to talk about the order-in-council, I can answer that.

G. Farrell-Collins: A further submission. The minister states that Forest Renewal B.C. is in a unique position because its business, as he put it, is referred to another committee. I would remind the minister that it's strictly the business plan and the examination of the business plan. That is not an estimates process that takes place in this House. He is aware of that. The two are different items. It's a debate in committee; it's a discussion in committee to seek approval of a business plan. It is not a debate concerning the minister's responsibility and accountability and the role of the ministry in Forest Renewal projects.

The questions that the member for Peace River North was making certainly pertained directly to the role of the

[ Page 8650 ]

The Chair: No further submissions? The Chair can only say that members will have to decide for themselves and make the agreement. Perhaps the minister wants to. . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Perhaps I can clear it up and try to respond to some of the policy issues. I can discuss the policy issues around why government did what they did with an order-in-council. That's fine. How that policy was implemented by a particular agency is appropriate for the discussion around the business plan. The member shakes his head, but he has to be aware that it is an estimates-like process in the sense that specifics around expenditures under that business plan are under the purview of that committee and are discussed under that committee. I am assured by the officials that individual projects get discussed.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm mindful of not entering into a debate on procedure, but it seems that that is what we've gotten ourselves into. The member for Shuswap -- the critic for the Forests ministry, who also, I believe, is Deputy Chair of the Forests Committee, which examines the business plan of Forest Renewal B.C. -- just read a statement out of Hansard from the chair of Forest Renewal B.C. which directed just the opposite. What's the process? Where is it that the minister wants to answer these questions? The questions aren't being answered at the committee level. The questions aren't being answered by the people at Forest Renewal B.C. at that level, so we're directed to come to the ministry level, to come to the level of the government. We do that, and the minister tells us: "No, you can't do that here." So where does the minister expect us to get those answers? If Forest Renewal B.C. doesn't want to answer them and the minister doesn't want to answer them, does he know who we should go to to get answers to those questions?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member wants to wrangle on a lot of procedure. Let me make it very clear: if you want to know why cabinet directed FRBC, I can answer it. They asked for direction; they asked to confirm that this was in the mandate of FRBC. The board felt it was within their mandate. They asked for direction. Why did government direct FRBC? Why did they give direction, give permission? Why did they pass an order-in-council? Because that's the appropriate thing to do. It was done with the advice that cabinet usually has. The purpose of the purchase was the objective I outlined before -- which I'm sure the member doesn't understand -- which is implementing the Cariboo land use plan. It has many objectives, one of which is to stabilize grassland and forest use in the area, and complete a system of protected areas that conserves biodiversity. The biodiversity program of FRBC was a program that actually had the budget in it, and then the board directed that it be purchased under that program.

Where the member was going before he came in the House. . . . He may have been listening, but I'm not sure how well he was listening. He was asking about evaluations of timber -- in other words, carrying out the direction and the policy. I'm saying that that can come up in discussion in front of a committee charged with the responsibility of reviewing how the business plan is being implemented. It's part of the business plan.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister may say I don't know anything about forestry, but he'd be wrong. And if he says I don't know anything about procedure, he'd also be wrong. The reality is that it was not just a question being asked about the cutting or harvesting of timber. He was also being asked a series of questions about the assessment that was done on the purchase of this land. Those questions clearly fall within the purview of FRBC and fall within the purview of the minister. The minister doesn't listen. No wonder he doesn't understand the argument that's being made. No wonder he doesn't understand the procedures. When we're having a discussion about it, he seems to be wandering off talking to someone else. No wonder he stands up and makes his intervention like he has never seen the inside of a rule book.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: We're on a point of order -- exactly. I rest my case. The minister doesn't get the procedures.

The fact of the matter is that the member for Peace River North was asking a question that clearly and concisely falls within the purview of the Minister of Forests and FRBC, all of which can be examined and should be examined and are open for examination at this level of the estimates. That is clear. If the minister feels otherwise, he should show me the rules. He should show me the precedents. He should tell me where he's dreamed up his justification for his assertion. There is nothing in the standing orders or in the precedents of this House that would lead that to be the case at all.

The Chair: Members, I think we need to bring this matter to a close. We're not moving forward. I think it has been made very clear in statements by the Chair and in statements by both sides where we are with this matter, and we either have an agreement or we don't. If we don't have an agreement that was established earlier, then I think we should move on to another line of questioning.

G. Farrell-Collins: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have just received a note that I have some students visiting here from Blessed Sacrament School in my constituency. There are 27 grade 5 students, their teachers and their parents. I'm sorry I wasn't able to meet with you earlier, but I want to welcome you to this House. I hope you are having a good visit in Victoria. Would all members please help me make them welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: On a point of order, there may be some things that are not covered by the rules of the House. For example. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Minister, I would like to see us go on to another line of questioning. I think we've dealt with this matter as thoroughly as we can.

G. Abbott: In view of your guidance, perhaps what we can do to resolve this matter in a way which will satisfy our continued and pressing interest in details around this matter but which also achieve the goals that the minister wants, is. . . . If he is prepared at some other point in these estimates

[ Page 8651 ]

[4:45]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: For the member's edification, I do have with me Ministry of Forests personnel who can talk about the role of the Ministry of Forests in overseeing assessments. I have people with me who are prepared to answer within the purview of my ministry's estimates.

The point that I would make on FRBC, though, is that I've said from the beginning that Forest Renewal's funding is not derived from consolidated revenue. Therefore the corporation's investments, like the purchase of land, aren't required to be discussed in estimates. But I've given lots of latitude here to discuss the policy. It isn't a policy that the member for Peace River North has been reaching. . . . I've been endeavouring to answer the questions if they are relevant and within the purview of these estimates.

Let me explain to the member for Peace River North, who asked that question, which I considered a fair question, that I now have the official with me. The Ministry of Forests did advise Forest Renewal and the Lands branch of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks on the accuracy. . . . They gave an opinion and assisted in the evaluation of the ranch and, in particular, on the timber value, because that's their area of expertise.

R. Neufeld: Okay. I'll ask some questions about issues surrounding this referring to both FRBC and to the Ministry of Forests. The assessment that was done by the Ministry of Environment, obviously with the involvement of the Ministry of Forests. . . . Could the minister please tell me whether or not the Ministry of Forests did a timber cruise on the Empire Valley Ranch prior to or after receiving the assessment from the agency that had assessed the ranch?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What happened is that the assessment was done, as I understand, by FRBC and the Lands branch. The Ministry of Forests didn't expend its funds to do a cruise. There was an assessment done of the timber value and the details of when and so on. I can get some details and make them available to the member later. We don't have those details here with us.

R. Neufeld: As I understand it, there was no cruise done on the timber at the Empire Valley Ranch to arrive at an assessment of the value of the ranch. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No. If the member had listened carefully, I said that the Ministry of Forests did not do the cruise. All the assessments were done by other parties. We checked the information. Our role was to check the information made available on the appraisal of the ranch.

R. Neufeld: The minister stated that the Lands branch and FRBC did the cruise. We have FRBC staff with us now. Can the minister please tell me when FRBC completed the cruise on the Empire Valley Ranch as part of the evaluation of the property?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I undertook to get information about the details of the assessment for the member. I said there were appraisals done by FRBC and the Lands branch. We checked whatever information they had. Whatever assessment information was done on the values, we did it. I'm saying that the Ministry of Forests did not do a cruise. I don't know what level of information, what level of analysis, was done by FRBC and/or the Ministry of Lands. I undertook to get that information for the member later today.

R. Neufeld: I'll leave that line of questioning. I've been asking that question of the minister since February 10, so I'm hopeful that maybe a little bit later this afternoon or by Monday we will actually get that information. It seems to be pretty difficult to come by.

Maybe I can ask a question around FRBC. When did FRBC first discuss issues surrounding the Empire Valley Ranch at any of their board meetings? I would like a date and a year.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't have the minutes of the board here. But the information about the board's decisions and discussions has been released by FRBC to various parties, so they are in the public domain. We'll endeavour to get you copies of the minutes, and with those will be the precise dates.

I'd just like to remind the member, regarding the previous line of questioning, that the Minister of Environment has the information on details around the purchase of the Empire Valley Ranch. She is quite prepared to discuss those. She can answer for the work that's been done by her ministry in that respect.

R. Neufeld: I have a set of minutes from a board of directors' meeting on July 10, 1997. In fact, it reiterates that the government is expected to direct Forest Renewal B.C. in the near future to make a payment of up to -- and I believe that's where the whiteout came in -- X million dollars for purchase of the Empire Valley Ranch. Could the minister confirm with the FRBC staff: is that the first time that FRBC discussed purchasing the ranch for all the good things that the minister talked about -- the biodiversity, saving the rangeland and all those kinds of things? Or were there discussions that surrounded all those issues prior to July 10, 1997?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It sounds like the member is opposed to the purchase of the ranch. I'd just like him to confirm if that's his party's policy.

But to answer the question, the information you're seeking -- what you allude to as being whited out -- was privileged. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I know. At the time of the release of the document, it was appropriately severed from that document. Since then, however, the order-in-council disclosed that information, and once that happened, then this information could. . . . If they sent those minutes out again, that shouldn't be severed; the information is public. What was crossed out is $3.25 million. The reason that wasn't in the minutes was so the owners wouldn't know what the mandate of the negotiators

[ Page 8652 ]

To fill out the information. . . . You're looking for something that probably isn't there. If you want to tell me what you're looking for, I'd be happy to answer. You asked the question: when did the board consider it? The minutes reflect when the board considered it. In the development of the private lands program -- what might be done? why do we need a private lands program? -- a number of lands would have come up in discussion, amongst them Empire Valley. There's no secret around this; everybody knew that it was an intent of the Cariboo land use plan to have this land purchased by government -- by someone, by an agency of government. There was no secret that there were discussions, so I'm not sure what you're asking for. I'm trying to divulge the information. I don't have all the minutes with me. I could get them. I don't know if there are other minutes. There might be, and you may have them. If you have them, tell me: "On such and such a day, and then on such and such a day, and then on such a day. . . ." I'll try to confirm what I know as a board member, and I'll ask the officials to try to assist.

You're going on an extended fishing trip here for a reason. If you want to get right to the point, I'm sure we can get on and discuss many other relevant topics.

R. Neufeld: If you want to get with the program and start answering some questions, we can go on to a whole bunch of topics. But what you have been doing is beating around the bush, just like yesterday. You've been all over the place. You haven't come through with a straight question for two days now -- or a straight answer.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Nor have you.

The Chair: Members, through the Chair, please.

R. Neufeld: In any event, are you confirming, then, that FRBC never. . . ? I guess I'll go back to the minister's explanation. Again, he's all over the place. He talks about private land programs and that Empire Valley Ranch would have come up at that time. I'm not interested in that. I'm asking: when was the first time that FRBC discussed the purchase of the Empire Valley Ranch at a duly-constituted meeting of FRBC?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member's grandstanding. I said I would attempt to get the minutes. We don't have all the minutes of the board here.

G. Farrell-Collins: Why not?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Because we'd have 40 boxes of information. We're endeavouring to get the information on a timely basis. Normally, we give some time. . . . We'll get you the information.

R. Neufeld: Well, get your 40 boxes and we'll get some answers, I guess. Or whatever it takes, you go ahead and do what you have to do to be able to respond. . . .

The Chair: The minister, on a point of order.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: My point of order is this, Mr. Chair. The level of detail they're asking for is beyond this committee. I'm happy to discuss the policy issues. If I don't have the information, I'll undertake to get it, and I have undertaken that.

The Chair: Thank you, minister. On the point of order, the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

G. Farrell-Collins: There is nothing in the standing orders about the level of detail at which a member may ask a question in estimates. This is not a point of order. If the minister doesn't like the question, that's his problem. If he chooses not to answer it, that's also his problem, because we're going to be here a lot longer. I doubt that the minutes of FRBC would constitute 40 boxes. You would think the minister would have the material here and be prepared to answer questions about a topic that he knows is one of political and policy concern. There is nothing in the standing orders -- nothing, not one word -- and there's not one word of precedence that limits the types of questions or the detail of questions which members can ask in estimates.

If the minister has a problem with that, then he should give up his job and let someone else come in and do it -- someone who's prepared to answer those questions. He should also take some time and read the rule book.

Interjection.

The Chair: Members, thank you for those points.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, I will once again -- because I feel I have to -- remind the committee that established practice in this House discourages debate on matters under consideration in the House or in one of its committees. The business plan of FRBC deals with matters with respect to the expenditures to be undertaken by or on behalf of Forest Renewal B.C. that include the following: revenue, expenditure and lending proposals, a statement of assets and liabilities, other information that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may specify. The business plan stands referred to a select standing committee with responsibility for Forests. Now, if we can continue in that vein, the member for Peace River North.

[5:00]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: FRBC has not provided funds to purchase other land. Just so you know, as a technicality here, FRBC doesn't purchase the land. The capital is provided; the money is provided for the purchase. That's FRBC's role. There are, in this year's business plan, funds dedicated to the purchase of private land for the biodiversity program, and there are moneys in there that could be used for purchases of other properties. But to date, no others have been funded. . . . No purchases have been funded; let me use that language.

R. Neufeld: So to date, the only funding that FRBC has provided is the money for the Empire Valley Ranch, but

[ Page 8653 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The private forest biodiversity program indicates that we work in collaboration with the Nature Trust -- page 20 of the business plan. There is a committee, between the Nature Trust and FRBC, that works on. . . . And there is a list of proposed purchases. I can't and won't disclose the nature of those -- what they are -- because in some cases it involves negotiations.

R. Neufeld: Going back to the Empire Valley Ranch, does Forest Renewal B.C. have any further obligations to the Empire Valley Ranch in any way, other than the money it provided to purchase that ranch for the Crown? I'll be specific: things like silviculture or any of those issues. Is FRBC expected to expend any more money than the $3.25 million that has already been expended?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm advised that there are no further obligations.

R. Neufeld: I'm going to defer to the member for Cariboo North for a few questions in regards to the Empire Valley Ranch.

J. Wilson: Is that $3.25 million cash?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That figure was the mandated amount; they had a mandate for that amount. If you want to know any details about the purchase, the Minister of Environment is prepared to answer questions about that.

J. Wilson: If the $3.25 million was a mandated amount coming from FRBC. . . . I want to know if the $3.25 million that was put up is the amount of cash that was paid for the Empire Valley Ranch. Or were there additional moneys paid through a trade-off or whatever -- through timber?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The FRBC contribution to the purchase was actually less than that amount. We can get the actual figure for you.

J. Wilson: What I'm hearing the minister say is that it was not $3.25 million that was paid; it was less than that. Is that correct? Where did you get $3.25 million from? If FRBC paid less than $3.25 million, where did you make this figure up?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The order-in-council we're discussing was an authorization for FRBC to make a contribution of up to $3.25 million towards the purchase of the Empire Valley Ranch. They didn't spend that much.

J. Wilson: It's my understanding that in this transaction, the Ministry of Forests contributed a significant amount of Crown timber to make this deal possible. Would the minister tell me how many metres of timber were taken out of our provincial forest, off our Crown land, to go against the trade-off on the Empire Valley Ranch?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have the number with me. I'm going to answer it this way, because the details of the purchase can be asked at the committee. . . . You can discuss details of the purchase arrangement with the Minister of Environment. The role of the Ministry of Forests was to work with MELP, to support them. We reviewed reports and verified analysis methods; we provided the information on timber values and a number of other concerns. We assisted the purchasing agent, which was the Ministry of Lands. It was a combination of timber swap and land purchase; a package deal was made.

J. Wilson: Am I to understand that in one of the first transactions of its kind that we've had for as long as I can remember, the minister doesn't know how much timber his ministry donated to this project? Was it under the control of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks? They are not in the same business as the Ministry of Forests -- the timber on our Crown land. What I would like to know is the volume of wood that his ministry gave to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks in this deal.

R. Neufeld: Do you want me to answer that for you?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If the member has it, let him read it out. I don't have the information. . . .

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Sorry. I don't have the figures with me here. We'll get it and provide it to you. That happens quite often; it takes us some time to get the details. We were discussing FRBC, and with what you're now asking, we're back on the Ministry of Forests. I had an official who was familiar with the service we provided to the Lands branch, and I've said that some of the details of the package could appropriately be discussed with the Minister of Environment. I'll attempt to get the details for you; I will get the details. The ministry does know; I don't have the figure in my head.

Now, if your side knows the figure, if you have a member with the figure, does that member have it in his head? If so, talk about it. You're dancing around the subject, and I don't think we're. . . . The government made it clear when they purchased the Empire Valley Ranch what the terms and conditions were.

Interjection.

The Chair: Members, through the Chair, please.

J. Wilson: There was nothing clear about this purchase right from day one, and it's like the rest of the land deals that they're now considering out there: They won't even talk about them. We don't know where they are and where they'll occur until after the fact. That's exactly what happened here. And we do need some details. I have a whole series of questions that I need answers to, and I would appreciate it if the minister could supply those answers. I'll come back tomorrow, and hopefully, he will have them here.

I would like to know the number of metres of wood traded. I would like to know the number of metres of wood left on the Empire Valley Ranch. I would like to know the logging costs of equivalent wood on the Empire Valley Ranch to that which is adjacent to it on Crown land. I would like to know the logging costs of wood traded by the Minister of Forests in the south Cariboo region and in the north Peace. These are all factors we need in order to determine how much this has cost the taxpayers of British Columbia.

And further to that, I have a question which maybe the minister can answer. It has nothing to do with numbers; it is

[ Page 8654 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We'll attempt to get the numbers that the member has asked for. They will be on the order of average costs, because we probably don't have the internal business of a particular firm -- and we rightfully don't have that. The question the member is asking about land. . . . We were trading timber on private land for timber on private land. It was exchanged like for like. It became private land; it was made private land. You know that; you were told that. There are no secrets being revealed here at all. It was all explained at the time of the purchase. It was all told at the time of the purchase. What wasn't told were details of negotiations when negotiations were underway. And if we had revealed those, you would be complaining about us having revealed them.

[5:15]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: A good amount of information that we had and could reveal was revealed to the member for Peace River North in previous correspondence and releases. I understand that some of it was released under FOI, so it was done properly. We'll take the questions -- we have them in Hansard -- and we'll undertake to come back. . . . If you want to come back to it and use the time doing that, that's fine.

G. Farrell-Collins: What the member is saying is this: we will be looking for answers to these questions. We'll be giving the minister until Monday at 2 p.m. to collect all of the information so he has it at his disposal. So when questions are asked, he'll be able to provide the answers. We'll begin that process at 2 p.m. on Monday. If the answers are not forthcoming, we'll continue that process until they are forthcoming, however long it takes. I think that is very simple. The minister can reduce the amount of time he spends doing that by being prepared, by taking the weekend, if necessary, to have the staff collect that information and be briefed. At 2 p.m. on Monday, we will start that process, and we'll complete it whenever the answers are complete. If the minister doesn't have the information, we'll just wait until it comes.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Just to be clear, I will answer what is appropriate under my estimates.

G. Abbott: We have been discussing the issue of incrementality this afternoon. I guess the foregoing discussion around Forest Renewal B.C.'s purchase of the Empire Valley Ranch is one of the examples of where, in our view, the principle of incrementality has been distorted in a serious and substantial way. I think that's one of the reasons why we've had the interest in it today that we have had. Again, to put this in context, our concern -- and I've tried to reflect it in my comments today -- is that particularly given the fiscal challenges that Forest Renewal B.C. is going to be facing over the next three or more years with respect to their funding levels, their commitment levels and so on, it is essential that the issue of incrementality be well defined and clearly and certainly defined, so that the remaining funds that we have available for the programs in FRBC are directed to the appropriate locations. I've talked about a couple of examples already today of areas where we feel the issue of incrementality has been distorted.

I want to ask the minister about one more. . . . I don't want to spend the rest of the day on this. It's an important enough point, and I want to make it again. It's the issue of whether it's appropriate for the maintenance of Ministry of Forests recreation sites to be borne by Forest Renewal B.C. We know from our discussion yesterday that for two years, Forest Renewal chose to assist with the maintenance of those sites to the tune of $1 million a year. I gather that the funds have not been forthcoming from Forest Renewal B.C., but again it's another example of where I think incrementality has come into question. I invite the minister to advise me of how, under the incrementality provisions that we've been talking about, the maintenance of the recreation sites was an appropriate expenditure of FRBC funds.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, over the last two years -- particularly last year, when it was known that this was not going to be covered by the Ministry of Forests -- the board opted to get involved in funding rec site maintenance. This year, given the scarcity of funds and the downward pressures on FRBC's budget, they decided that this wouldn't be part of their program. It was not a high enough priority for the board.

G. Abbott: It does seem to me to be a fairly clear example of taking an existing responsibility of the Ministry of Forests and transferring it -- we can use the value-neutral term "transferring," if we like, or we can use the more value-loaded term "off-loading" -- to Forest Renewal for those two years. Is there a justification from an incrementality perspective, or is it an example of stretching and distorting the principle of incrementality? I have a reason for asking all this, as you might expect. I just want to hear the defence of that particular program -- if indeed there is one, apart from: "We couldn't do it; therefore we got FRBC to do it."

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There's no magic to this. There are things that FRBC may opt to fund. There's a whole range of them. There are many, many things they could do. They have a test, and that is whether or not government is doing it. If government isn't doing it, then they may consider doing it. It meets the definition of incrementality. And so this could happen through a whole range of things from forest health to more basic silviculture. There are a whole lot of things. You could spend billions of dollars. It's a question of availability of funds -- of who has funds.

G. Abbott: I think I have persuaded the minister of the proposition that I advanced at the outset of the estimates this afternoon -- that, in fact, because we have revenue-strapped

[ Page 8655 ]

The issue of what we do in the post-June-1-1998 era of FRBC programs is, I think, an important one and one that we need to think about here. There have been some very ambitious job creation targets put forward in the jobs and timber accord for Forest Renewal. Is it the view of Forest Renewal and the minister that, given the new fiscal climate in which Forest Renewal B.C. exists, they will be able to meet those ambitious job targets for FRBC, which have been posed in the jobs and timber accord?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It will become increasingly difficult -- it is difficult -- to meet the targets. The board is currently going through a strategic planning session to look at the weights of the various programs -- how much will go in various programs -- in order to consider the commitments and the objectives. I'd just remind you that the purpose of strategic planning is to do precisely that, but it will be very difficult.

G. Abbott: I think the upshot of that answer. . . . Again, I think I've actually done okay at summarizing these responses over the course of the estimates. To just sort of summarize where we're at, there are the ambitious job targets for Forest Renewal B.C. as posed in the jobs and timber accord. There is a frank appreciation by Forest Renewal B.C. that in the post-June-1-1998 era they're going to have considerably less dollars to work with in the final years of the jobs and timber accord period. At this point in time, they are revisiting the commitments made in the jobs and timber accord with respect to Forest Renewal B.C. and job creation. They are in the process of revisiting and reviewing those at this time, and there may well be, in the weeks and months ahead, some conclusions formed by Forest Renewal B.C. around the adjustment of those job targets. Is that a fair assessment of what's been said? Is that the outcome that we should expect?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It isn't exactly a fair interpretation. What I said was that the board, during the strategic planning, has to consider the job targets.

Just to give you background information, this year in the plan we had some 5,600 jobs as a target, and last year there were 7,000. Next year the target will be the same: 5,000. So it'll come down to the original target. We're always kind of planning a year ahead.

Anyway, that's one of the considerations: where the money is in the FRBC budget and the various targets, commitments and objectives of the program.

G. Abbott: I'm not leading up to making any great political point here. I was just making the very straightforward one -- we can call it a strategic planning process, or we can call it a review -- that FRBC is going to have to realistically, in the new world of reduced stumpage funding, try to assess whether those job targets are still realizable or not. If they're not, I presume that we will be telling the world about it with the same gusto as the original anticipated job creation was.

There are some other issues, again, which relate to my concerns about the post-June-1-1998 world that FRBC lives in. I want the minister, with the assistance of Forest Renewal staff, to help me interpret a resolution from the Forest Renewal B.C. board of directors meeting of October 9, 1997. I hope you have those minutes there.

I'll read the resolution in any event, and, hopefully, you can help me interpret it. On the face of it, it gives me some cause for concern, but perhaps there is an entirely reasonable interpretation of this which will soothe my concerns. It is tab 6 of the 1998-99 business plan -- budget building: "Whereas: preliminary investment targets are required to continue with the development of the 1998-99 business plan. Let it be resolved that: the overall investment level for 1998-99 be established at $550 million; [and] a preliminary allocation of $175 million be made to cover 1998-99 investments outside of the five land-based programs."

[5:30]

I understand the five land-based programs, too. . . . It's the $175 million. What's happening with it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm advised that that was a target that was set so that the people administering the various envelopes could go out and construct their budgets around it.

G. Abbott: I'm just quickly translating that into something that makes sense in my mind. Is the $175 million used for Forest Renewal staff to go out and construct programs around the five budgetary envelopes? Are we talking about the administration of this? Is the $175 million a targeted amount for administration? I presume it's not, but maybe the minister can -- in very simple farmer terms -- tell me what the $175 million is going to be used for.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The $375 million was for the land-based programs. The $175 million is for the other programs. That totalled $550 million. In the end, the business plan was $517 million. So those were targets, not the budget. They were the targets that were given.

G. Abbott: Could the minister just briefly outline, for my edification, where the $175 million went?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can refer the member to page 30 of the business plan. It says: "Environment; Workforce; Communities; and Value-Added." Those are the other-than-land-based land and resources programs.

G. Abbott: I appreciate that explanation. My mind is at ease now.

I want to ask a question on the same set of minutes -- again, October 9. This one is tab 3, and I guess it's point 3 in the business that was conducted that day. The motion reads:

[ Page 8656 ]

"Whereas: Forest Renewal B.C. operates programs on a risk-management basis by entering into commitments for greater amounts than anticipated expenditures; and based on a detailed review performed by the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks -- including the determination of their risk-management exposure on the basis that there may be an extended field season -- subsequent to the board meeting of September 11, 1997, it has now become evident that the ministries may have to cancel some approval-in-principle and contract commitments in order to manage to the business plan budgets. . . ."

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is a common practice to approve a greater amount than you will actually expend, in order to make sure that you have some room rather than have slippage. There's always going to be some slippage during the year. What happened at that point was that because there was an extended field season, it looked like you might get closer to the target and the amount that was contracted for. The alternative, of course, is to never spend what you budget and to take the heat for not spending it. So they try to get close to the targets that are set, by having a few more approved. It was simply a matter of the field season looking like it was going to be longer, and therefore more of the committed work would be done, and therefore we'd have to manage to come in on budget.

G. Abbott: I understand that explanation, and it is useful. Let me put this proposition to the minister. I'd be interested to hear whether he thinks it's reasonable. I'll use an example from my own riding. For two years now, there has been work done on the Chase Creek watershed -- near Chase, naturally, in the Shuswap. This is a project that has enjoyed Forest Renewal B.C. commitments and, to a lesser extent, Forest Renewal B.C. funding. But they are constantly concerned that the commitments made to them by Forest Renewal B.C. are not realized. I guess that's inevitable when you have a situation where you overcommit -- or make additional commitments beyond what you know to be your resources -- and as a consequence can't meet them all. I understand the point about slippage and that some overcommitment may be a valid point.

What I'm wondering here. . . . In the interests of the many community groups, companies, individuals -- the whole range of people that may be accessing FRBC programs and funds in any given year -- there might be some prioritization. There might be some way to deal with that issue in a way that wouldn't create false expectations. For example, you could have a set of funding called the "A" funding, or the green funding, or whatever, where people would be assured of that funding. Further, there might be a group -- and this would be the group where it falls into an overcommitment -- where people might be told very clearly that if projects in the "A" group or the green group fail, they may get funding but they should not anticipate funding in the current fiscal year.

That way, the groups that thought they had a very clear set of funding and that thought things weren't going to suddenly disappear on them. . . . We wouldn't get into this bind, which I know has occurred on more than a few occasions in the province. Perhaps there might be some way of dealing with that, other than overcommitting and then having to disappoint and frustrate people. I'd be interested in the minister's view of that, in consultation with his staff.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think this is a concern of the board. I'm on the board, and as an MLA. . . . Just as the member is concerned as an MLA, we're all anxious to see as much certainty as possible. In the ramping up of FRBC expenditures -- it was proposal-driven, as you know -- we tried to move to a strategic planning model. We're now getting closer there. But just to make it clear, there are approvals-in-principle that are then subject to contracts. Once the contract commitment is made, then it can be honoured. There's always going to be a number of approvals-in-principle that are subject to funding. I get your point about strategic planning. What we're doing is ranking watersheds. So the highest-priority watersheds will get the commitment to funding.

All of this, of course, is going to come under pressure because the FRBC will have less funds at its disposal. But we are moving to multi-year agreements so that we can flow dollars from one year to the other -- so that the multi-year agreements are there and there's some assurance. We have to make sure that we don't overcommit the multi-year agreements. But there is now a mechanism to do precisely what you're suggesting. Whether or not that particular example gets funding, I can't say. It would depend on the priority. But we're moving in that direction.

G. Abbott: There's nothing that's been said there that I disagree with.

The essential point that I'm attempting to make is that, particularly when it's gone from approval-in-principle to being a contract over the years, there's still, I must say, a good deal of uncertainty out there about whether the contracts will all be honoured. That may be particularly the case with 1999 and year 2000 projects, where we're working in a universe where there are fewer dollars to go around. What I'm saying here is -- and this is not directed to the minister so much as perhaps the board: don't go out there and make a bunch of commitments to make people happy in the short term, because it just makes them really unhappy in the long term and frustrates everybody in the system.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The FRBC staff and I, as a board member and the minister responsible, agree. We have to bring down expectations and not make commitments that we can't follow through on. We will be managing accordingly.

The other side of it is that we do get a lot of pressure from individuals, projects and communities that this needs funding and that needs funding. Increasingly, we're steering people to the public advisory process so we can try to get some consensus on the priorities in the area. But when I announced FRBC's budget plan and some of the regional plans, I said that we were going to get an awful lot of pressure. We've gone through a transition over the last five or six years, and we'll keep going through it. But don't count on the same levels of funding being there for many of the programs, because we do have an awful lot of commitments on the land-based programs, which include watersheds and enhanced forestry. That's where we see a lot of the jobs that we feel obliged to commit to, and the multi-year agreement is the mechanism to do that.

G. Abbott: Again, I agree with all that, and that's good. I hope that helps to underline why we have today been placing such emphasis on ensuring that the principle of incrementality

[ Page 8657 ]

We've been discussing the "whereas" section of the resolution that was passed at the October 9 meeting of the board of directors. I'll go to the resolution section of that motion right now. What I want to do is hear from the minister, in consultation with the staff, what this means and whether this is something which we should be concerned about from an incrementality perspective. I'll quote:

"Let it be resolved that: based on the recommendation of the joint executive [and] finance committees, the board of directors approved that $30 million be made available from the unappropriated equity funds for enhanced forestry and watershed programs. Staff are instructed to advise the Ministry of Forests that their contract will be increased by $20 million from $298 million to $318 million in 1997-98, and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks that their contract will be increased by $10 million from $110 million to $120 million in 1997-98. The ministries are to be advised they are not to exceed this budgeted amount and they are to minimize project carry-overs to 1998-99. The revised program targets for Forest Renewal B.C. for 1997-98 will be $655 million."

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This isn't an issue of incrementality. The dollars were within the programs that FRBC funded -- enhanced forestry, watersheds and those kinds of things. They were not incremental or whatever. They were part of the goal money. What happened, when we saw that the field season was extending, when we saw that people would deliver on the commitments. . . . The risk management suggested we'd better put some more money in there, and that's exactly what the board did.

[5:45]

The issue of multi-year funding. I think the notion of going to the multi-year model is a good one. Theoretically, if all things are kind of equal and things are carried out in a reasonable and businesslike fashion, multi-year agreements should be a win-win for the corporation, the industries, communities and so on. What I want to come to grips with at this point is: with the new world of reduced FRBC funding post-June 1, 1998, what effect will that have on those multi-year agreements that are now in place or will soon be in place with the major licensees and with others over the next five years? How are we going to square up those two things: the reduced funding world and the multi-year agreement world? How is that going to be reconciled?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The board has known for some time, since we got into the timber-jobs discussions, that FRBC was one of the resources that would be used to achieve the purposes of the accord. Either it would be used to fund something -- in this case stumpage, which we've been talking about a bit -- or to fund programs directed toward creating jobs of a more permanent nature under the FRBC jobs. . . . So we've known that for some time. The FRBC board has had this notional budget, on average, of $400 million a year, and based on that, they were prepared to design and consider a portion of it going to multi-year agreements. Our commitments are less than half of that. What we plan to put out in multi-year agreements is less that half of that. But again, that is precisely one of those things that the strategic planning committee of FRBC will undertake to examine.

But there's no question that to maintain the land and resource envelope, there will be tremendous pressure on the other envelopes. We put that signal out and try to reduce expectations for exactly that purpose. Similarly, the expectations around land and resource budgets are going to have trouble being funded, other than what's in the multi-year agreements and designed to deliver those jobs that we committed to. There's no question of the pressure on the FRBC budget.

G. Abbott: I guess the point I was getting at -- and again, I don't disagree with what's most recently been said here about this. . . . Obviously, some very tough decisions are going to have to be made around the reduced funding world that FRBC's going to be working with. One of my favourite expressions in political science was -- and perhaps it was one of the minister's as well: "Politics is the allocation of scarce resources." It seems to me, with the reduced-funding world, that that's exactly what we're going to have to deal with here.

There are five envelopes. Through FRBC business plans, we have been putting a certain amount of money into each of those envelopes over the past few years. I gather that what's going to happen here as part of this strategic planning process -- and I guess probably some hard decisions by the board too -- is some decision about which envelopes are going to lose money and which envelopes are going to be maintained. I gather that there have been no decisions on that. Perhaps the minister can advise if there have been, but I gather that the board is in the early stages of the strategic planning exercise around the reallocation of funds from the different envelopes.

Clearly there isn't the money there that there has been, to put in every envelope, so something's going to have to give. Are we in the early stages of the strategic exercise to determine which envelopes are going to lose money and which ones are going to be maintained? Is that a fair comment?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer to the question is no.

G. Abbott: The reason I was curious for a moment is because I asked whether in fact the board was in the early stages of the strategic exercise to determine that. I presume the answer to that one is yes.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes.

G. Abbott: I keep harping on this, I'm sure to the frustration of the minister. But the reason I keep harping on it is because, again, in the allocation of those scarce resources, I think it's very important that a government and a series of line ministries that are also in their own way trying to work with the issue of the allocation of scarce resources are also looking at FRBC as a possible source of funds. Again, I hope the minister's coming away from this discussion with an appreciation of the emphasis that we on this side are trying to give to that issue.

There is one more question. I think we've got a couple of minutes left here; I hate to stop, but I know you probably want to eat. It's more an observation than a question. This is a concern that because the ministries -- in particular the Ministry of Forests, I believe, and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks -- have to sign off the multi-year agreements that are executed between Forest Renewal B.C. and the major

[ Page 8658 ]

I'd like the minister to comment on that: the sign-off by the ministries and the concern that that provides those ministries with an inordinate influence over what they can impose on the companies in those multi-year agreements.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What we're attempting to do with the multi-year agreements is expedite multi-year planning. The ministries don't sign the multi-year agreements. It's FRBC that signs them. But then we require a work plan to be signed off. The whole idea is that we don't get hung up in prescriptions for the watershed restoration or enhanced forestry work, so we get the approval up front. It's either blanket approval and wait for the permit to do particular work, or try to get as much of it signed off ahead of time.

There are going to be requirements. We have to do the work subject to the Forest Practices Code, and I think you'd agree that that's acceptable and necessary. That's the purpose of the multi-year agreements.

Noting the time, I'd like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 5:55 p.m. to 6:35 p.m.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In Committee A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Labour, and in Committee B, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

G. Abbott: I would like to continue the discussion on Forest Renewal B.C. at this time. The next questions I have are around improving efficiency, reducing red tape and hopefully achieving that through the new delivery model associated with multi-year agreements.

Under the terms of the new delivery model and the multi-year agreements, proponents are expected to provide Forest Renewal with written notification quarterly if they expect to vary from their required outputs -- that is, budget, job, number of hectares treated and so on -- by 21 percent. They must amend the agreement, if they differ in those outputs by 10 percent in the first year. Given that we're obviously dealing in a province where weather and field conditions can change quite dramatically from expectations, I would suggest that keeping within a variance of 21 percent per quarter is going to be a very difficult proposition for the licensees or indeed anyone else who may be on a multi-year agreement.

I'm asking the minister, and I hope the Forest Renewal folks can assist him in this: is there a way to improve efficiency and achieve the goal of keeping people relatively to their objectives but at the same time reduce the red tape? Is there a way to reduce the requirements to notify when we have a particularly wet season or the snow leaves late or, heaven knows, the million and one things that can happen that suddenly change the situation by 21 percent or more? Is the obligation for notification, in short, excessive? Can we see some reduction in red tape on this?

It is, after all, the licensees using their stumpage dollars to improve the forest, which they will eventually harvest and benefit from. So there's a built-in interest among the licensees in performing properly. Is it really necessary to add this fairly onerous, I think, burden on them of advising and rewriting, and so on, if certain outputs are not met?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, the reason they're asking for notification is because on a $5 - 10 million annual plan that a company might have, the slippage could be significant. So we think a 21 percent variance by quarter leaves lots of room. I wasn't aware, and I haven't heard from industry, that that was unduly onerous. Perhaps the member has. I think there has to be some accountability, because they are public funds and we do expect accountability. They have to achieve their goals. On these big projects they can move around some of the goals, I understand. They just have to achieve within 21 percent per quarter overall.

G. Abbott: I have heard that it is considered onerous and quite possibly excessive in relation to what might be reasonably expected, given the variances with respect to the weather, terrain and field conditions that may occur in our large and diverse province.

I don't intend to engage in a long debate on this point. Again, I think that the companies should absolutely be accountable for achieving their commitments with FRBC dollars. They are, strictly speaking, public dollars. They may have come from the licensees that cut the timber, but I'm not going to engage in a philosophical argument around that. I'm trying to address a practical point here. Yeah, let's keep them accountable but perhaps keep them accountable on a yearly basis. The point I'm making here is that if we're going to make them accountable and if we're going to be consistent with the approach we're hopefully taking on the Forest Practices Code, we should put more responsibility into their hands and say: "Look, you've got to meet the goals. We're going to give you the freedom to move, but at the end of the day we want to see that you have achieved these objectives."

That's what I think we should be looking at. We should be saying: "On an annual basis, we want to see that you came within 21 percent of your goals." But to ask them to do it on a quarterly basis, it seems to me, is not going in that direction. You can achieve both the goals of accountability and flexibility if it was on a one-year accountability model, for example, as opposed to a quarterly one -- which I suspect is going to be a

[ Page 8659 ]

[6:45]

If it turns out to be too onerous after a year, we can reconsider it. But having quarterly reports on large projects is a big step ahead of being accountable on a project-by-project basis. We have to put it into a bit of perspective. These are large agreements. They should have the built-in flexibility and some kind of alternative strategies to get to the goals, bearing in mind what might happen with the weather.

G. Abbott: Frequently experience is the best assistant in determining which argument is correct. I hope that, consistent with the experience around the Forest Practices Code, in the months and years ahead we will see the experience of Forest Renewal B.C. with these multi-year agreements. Hopefully, there is a growing comfort, not only at FRBC but among the licensees as well, that the system can work in such a way that we don't have to double-check at every quarter what's going on. There will be a growing comfort with doing that on an annual basis or some other basis that is appropriate.

I also want to touch just briefly on a topic which occasionally emerges as an important issue with respect to the experience to Forest Renewal B.C. I think it's fair to say that in the earlier years of Forest Renewal B.C., the level of overhead in the organization was high -- certainly higher than anyone had anticipated and higher, I think, than was acceptable to anyone either. There are all kinds of different evaluations of levels, and I don't want to get into a long dissertation or argument about levels of overhead and so on.

The question I have is: in the interests of ensuring that Forest Renewal is accountable and effective in its allocation and administration of resources, is the auditor general in the process of setting up an independent audit of Forest Renewal B.C.? And if indeed this is the case -- and we understand that it is -- when will the results of that audit be available?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm told that a report will be available from the auditor sometime in the early fall. I don't know if it goes through an iteration or not, but that would be a draft report to which FRBC would respond, and so on.

G. Abbott: A draft will be available in the early fall. Presumably that will be a closed document until the final version of that appears. That's par for the course, and fair enough. But the focus of it is to look at the level of effectiveness in the administration of funds by Forest Renewal B.C. That is the centrepiece of the thing. I see a suggestion that it's not. Could the staff better define for me what the document is likely to be entitled and what its focus will be?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I understand that the two issues that are being addressed are planning and the enhanced forestry programs.

G. Abbott: I presume, for those two topics that are being looked at, that the auditor general will be measuring the effectiveness of the delivery of those areas.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, it's a value-for-money audit.

G. Abbott: I'm going to yield the floor to the deputy critic, but -- just in terms of giving the minister a little advance notice so that we're ready to deal with this -- after my colleague deals with some issues that he has, I'd like to go to the 1998-99 objectives in terms of the different kinds of enhanced silviculture in the province. I'll be looking at the levels for the different forms of enhanced silviculture on the coast and in the interior. Perhaps, if those figures are not readily available here, staff can cause them to be available when we get there in a little while, just to expedite the debates.

R. Coleman: I have some philosophical questions and some questions relative to outcomes to this industry and to Forest Renewal B.C. I'd like to start out by taking a step back. We have Forest Renewal B.C. here today, with a number of different programs and job programs and what have you. I'd like to just go back for a second to 1994, when Forest Renewal came to be. I'll start out by asking the minister if what we have today as Forest Renewal B.C. is what he thought we would have when we passed Bill 32 in the third session of the thirty-fifth parliament or what he thought we were actually setting out to accomplish. . . . Have we actually changed our direction dramatically from what the concept was at day one?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: While nobody could imagine what would happen when we got into planning and what the program structure would be, the basic functions and purposes of Forest Renewal are essentially what's there in the legislation.

R. Coleman: Thank you for that answer, hon. minister. The reason I ask these questions is because in visiting 40 or 50 communities around the province, I don't get the sense from what they thought we were doing as legislators back in 1994 with the original plan -- which has a covering letter from the then Premier, Hon. Mike Harcourt -- that we've gotten there. In the opening comments presented by the Minister of Forests of the day, it was basically his position that Forest Renewal B.C. and the Forest Renewal Act were for a genuine long-term plan for sustaining and renewing B.C. forest lands. I'm just wondering if the minister could comment on whether some of the programs, including recreation programs and what have you, relative to what we do in Forest Renewal B.C. today really go back to the root of what we tried to accomplish.

I've read through the debates in which the minister took part in those days, and I don't get the sense that we set out to take $2 billion out of the industry and not put it all back in the ground. I don't get the sense that we put it back into the ground. I think that's a real concern to people in the industry, and it's a real bugbear for people out there who are saying: "We have an industry that lost $400 million in the last two years. You have taken well over $1 billion out of it in the last four years. You're taking more money out of it this year." As part of a long-term plan to change the way we manage forests, which was another of the goals outlined by the Premier of the day, we were going to a more rigid Forest Practices Code which put additional costs on industry but obviously changed how we did business. So some of the sustaining of our forests and improving the directions we were setting out to do was being accomplished by that.

[ Page 8660 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member might want to clarify it, but basic silviculture is only a very small part. Planting of trees is only a very small part of what FRBC is doing, and that's the backlog part. It was never intended that all the money go back into the ground. Renewing the forests has to do with everything we do -- everything about the industry. We talked about training. We talked about communities in transition -- all things that are important, looking holistically at the forests and the forest communities that are out there.

R. Coleman: I guess that goes back to enhanced forestry and the backlog silviculture programs that are outlined in the business plan, so maybe I can rephrase the question for the minister. In the enhanced forestry and backlog silviculture, how much of the money that we've brought in and spent have we actually put into that area, which was seen to be one of the guiding principles of Forest Renewal in the first place?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We'll get the addition of that. We can give you the last couple of years. But let me understand: do you want to talk about enhanced forestry or land-based programs? Because putting the money back into the land also involves watershed restoration. If you want just one program, fine, but it's back into the land itself. . . . We'll get those figures added up for you.

R. Coleman: Those are the figures that I'd like, and I'd like them versus the revenues taken out of the industry. As you look at the original business plan that was done back in 1994 or 1995, it had pretty crystallized goals and certainly was nowhere as complicated as the business plan for Forest Renewal for the last two years. When we sold this to industry and to the public, I guess we had to decide what we sold them and whether. . . . When we get comments -- and we do get comments. . . . In all fairness, we might as well admit that we get comments; I'm sure the minister gets them. I certainly get them, I get the comment of a boondoggle. I get the comment of money not going into the ground at the rate that it should, but more of it being spent on administration and planning than is being spent. . . . We get those types of comments. In fairness, not having the annual report to compare to the business plan obviously makes it a bit difficult to know how we made out.

When you look at forest renewal from the outside, you say: "Okay, it's forest renewal. Does that mean recreational programs? That doesn't seem like forest renewal to me."

So I go back to the meaning of the goals. I think it was supposed to work to set an atmosphere of the promise of wealth in the forests. Obviously it was set up to sustain our forests for future generations. We're going to create more value and jobs from the wood we cut. We're going to protect our environment and other values of our forests. We're going to meet the demands of a changing international market, and we're going to foster cooperation and partnerships instead of conflict and confrontation.

Those were the challenges we laid out for Forest Renewal a number of years ago, and today I see Forest Renewal, as part of the jobs and timber accord, taking on the responsibility of creating jobs. I'm wondering why we have Forest Renewal money not just going into the product and having the industry create the jobs, but having Forest Renewal create the jobs.

[7:00]

The member asks: "How is recreation a part of renewing the forest?" Well, the forest is more than just trees. People do recreation in the forest; water runs in the forest; there's game in the forest. Environmental restoration, enhanced forestry -- it's all part of the forest, and it is all employment. I doubt very much that a company, if left with the stumpage, would put money into community transition. I doubt they'd put money into developing recreation trails or into worker transition. All of that was part of the original vision; the target that was set way back then was 50 percent in land and resources.

Now, you can say that's not what people expected, but if you look at the literature around it and the forest renewal plan that was set out, that was what we said we would do: 50 percent in land and resources and 15 percent in environment, for a total of 65 percent back into the land in some form or another. The workforce was 20 percent; communities, 7.5 percent; value-added 7.5 percent. So renewing the forest -- and the industry is dependent on that -- is going to require that we get more value out of every tree. Creating more jobs in remanufacturing is getting more value out of every tree.

R. Coleman: I think the minister should understand that because somebody asks a question and because it's being asked of them out in the public, that shouldn't be taken as criticism. That should be taken as an opportunity for the minister to clear the record and put that on the public record, so people understand how forest renewal is operating and how it is returning to the public versus what people thought it was back in the beginning. I think it's important that we go through an exercise like that for the benefit of the people that are asking those types of questions. That way, when they do ask it again, we can say: "Here's the public record from Hansard, where we discussed this particular item, and here's your information."

The follow-up question to the 50 and the 15, which was the 65 percent, is: did we achieve that? Have we achieved that 65 percent?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's fair enough. What we have achieved since its inception is that 75 percent of the funds have been invested in land resources and environmental programs. We have exceeded the target of 65 percent in those two programs by about 10 percent.

To answer your other question, from '94 to '98, the total for silviculture -- and that's basic, and the backlog in the enhanced programs -- is $376 million. So anyone that asks can be told that $376 million has been put back into those parts of the land-based program.

R. Coleman: I just want to deal with some outcomes so that we can know how we're doing. It's basically relative to

[ Page 8661 ]

Last year we had an objective or an outline to spend $101 million in enhanced forestry. Basically, we were planning to work on 83,890 hectares and 25,520 person-years of direct employment, and we were going to do forest health treatments on 215,800 hectares. Not having the annual report, how much did we actually spend on that program last year, and how close did we come to reaching those goals?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We'll give you some figures. Maybe they're not for the exact period you're looking for, but we just finalized the expenditure plans and that's got to be reported out to the select standing committee. B.C. Stats does an assessment every year, but they haven't completed last year yet. So it will be done. I don't know how long it takes, but when it's done, then it's reported out. We expect that by the beginning of August or sometime in August. The figures should be available when the select standing committee meets.

The '97-98 expenditure for silviculture was $121 million, and as I said, the output figure is still being finalized.

R. Coleman: I don't want to go off on a tangent and get confused here. Just so the minister and the officials of FRBC understand what I'm doing here, I'm basically looking at the business plan for last year and asking how we did -- basically the outputs. I was in the enhanced forestry program. . . . The minister said silviculture, and I am assuming that you meant the enhanced forestry program when you said $121 million. Could you clarify that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It includes both.

R. Coleman: So when we say it includes both, would that mean that in our outputs today there is $121 million in enhanced forestry program and backlog silviculture? Would that be correct, when we're talking about both?

I assume, by the nod, that it is. So our objective was to put out $160 million in the plan and $121 million. . . . Do we anticipate that figure being up when we have the final figures for '97-98 relative to those two portions of the plan, as to what we've spent?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have just confirmed that $121 million is what we spent last year.

R. Coleman: Was that $121 million spent on the enhanced forestry program and the backlog silviculture backlog program combined? We had an objective of spending what would appear to be $161 million. So we spent $40 million less than we had actually planned. Therefore we obviously didn't hit the hectares or the person-years of employment that we set out to do, and I'm just wondering what the explanation for not reaching those two particular goals would be.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't have that level of detail here. As I said, that's something that would best be got out of the committee. I can tell you, though, that the figure that you're working from in the plan -- roughly $150 million -- does include admin and overhead. The dollars I gave you may involve some shortfall in goal achievement, but it is the money spent on the two programs, exclusive of the admin and overhead.

R. Coleman: I want to clarify that in committee -- and I've just been put on the committee and reading Hansard relative to this committee -- the practice is to review the business plans of FRBC, but not the annual report and the financial outputs of FRBC, and that's why these questions are being asked in estimates versus there.

The backlog silviculture program is part of a provincewide initiative to reforest approximately 250,000 hectares of Crown forests -- land harvested before 1987. Could the minister give me an update as to how far along we are in the reforestation of that approximately 250,000 hectares?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't have that level of information here. We'll get it for you. That target was over 15 years, and we're two years into it. We can provide you with information on what's been done over the two years.

R. Coleman: I'd appreciate the detail coming to me when the minister has it. I'll put these questions on the record. If you don't have the detail, then get the detail to me. We did that satisfactorily last year when we were in estimates. I did a session where I asked for some information and the minister provided it to me, so I have no difficulty with that, if that's the situation.

Before I move on from these, I think we should note -- for the public; not so much for the minister, obviously -- that Forest Renewal B.C. has put $121 million into two programs, one of which is the enhanced forestry program, which takes care of planning work for stand management, other activities and forest health treatments on land, and also provides some direct years of employment. Also, the backlog silviculture program, as the minister said, over the next 15 years -- well, there's now 13 years left -- is planning to reforest 250,000 hectares of land. That's a good thing. That's what a lot of people want Forest Renewal to accomplish for the people of British Columbia.

On the resource inventory program, we set aside $102 million last year, and basically. . . . I'll drop right down to the objectives, because there were 475 inventory projects throughout the province and 1,110 person-years of direct employment. I wonder how we did on those objectives with that program last year.

[7:15]

R. Coleman: Could I have the minister's undertaking to get them to me when they're available?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, we can do that.

R. Coleman: Then we went on to the watershed restoration program, and it had objectives as well. We were spending $103.5 million on watershed restoration programs. I'll just lay it out so people know will know what I'm talking about here. We were talking about the treatment of 10,000 kilometres and the planning of work for another 173,600 kilometres of road and hill-slope rehabilitation projects; the treatment of 4,600 kilometres of streams and the planning of work for another 79,500 kilometres; Fisheries Renewal B.C. watershed work, including treatment of 1,500 kilometres of streams and the planning of work for 26,700 kilometres; replacement of 30 bridges; and 880 person-years of direct employment. I guess it's the same question: how are our outputs, and how did we do in that particular area?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As you might imagine, if B.C. Stats hasn't produced it for the other things, they haven't produced

[ Page 8662 ]

R. Coleman: The difficulty for Members of the Legislative Assembly is that not every Member of the Legislative Assembly is on the Forests Committee. Also, the difficulty is that the agenda times are limited with regards to the committee, and if there's an opportunity to deal with the public record in estimates, to show. . . . I tried to review the plans earlier -- to do an analysis of the two years of plans -- and was told that that wasn't allowed. So some questions are allowed and some are not. We've discussed the first six or seven, and I have been told that I can have the information and responses. I don't think it's necessary to take up the committee's time with some quick questions relative to outputs. You know, seeing as this is the estimates of the ministry, it's just not too much. We don't need to belabour the fact, we can just move on and just ask the questions relative to the recreation program and the woodlot expansion program. How did we do on those two?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: When the information is available, it's reported publicly. It doesn't need to be reported out here in estimates. That information is not available yet. I'd have to add the comment that the previous member said that we shouldn't have quarterly reports. One of the problems is that you've got to have quarterly reports to even get the information that we want on a timely basis so that we can report out. When the B.C. Stats reports are available. . . . When the information is available, it will be reported out publicly.

R. Coleman: I'm not talking about B.C. Stats here. This is a corporation that has a year-end, and after a year-end it produces an annual report. The annual report for the last cycle -- the latest one I've got -- is 18 months old. So most of this would be included in an annual report. Unfortunately it's not here, so I'm asking the questions that would be relative to an annual report. If I had an annual report in front of me, I would just be canvassing the annual report. At that point, you'd be answering questions on that. I don't think that we're stepping out of the lines of discussion.

I think it's just a question of whether the will is here to deal with these estimates in a manner that we can move along or get sidetracked for two hours at a time and lose a couple of days. I think that we can finish these estimates in a precise and concise manner if we deal with the answers in a precise and concise manner. I think the critic and myself have planned that out to a point -- in a systematic manner -- that we've been able to do that for the most part. I don't think there's any reason to be rhetorical relative to what we have to ask. My colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson has a few questions to ask because he's got some meetings and some other commitments. I will cede the floor to him.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I want to be absolutely clear. If the information were available, I would provide it to you. The information is not available; we don't have it. This isn't rocket science, you know. Figure it out. B.C. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, I answered the same question several times. I want to give you a simple explanation, because I think the member should know this. B.C. Stats collects it for Forest Renewal. Then it is available for Forest Renewal. They contract to collect the information as a somewhat independent organization. Now, to make it clear, that's what happens. B.C. Stats does it; when they collect it, it's public information. Then it's available for annual reporting or anything else. I've said that when it's available, you'll have it at the same time as I have it.

R. Coleman: I don't think it's necessary for the minister to refer to rocket science when dealing with this. If he recalls the conversation that took place earlier, I received answers for my first two series of questions. I received an answer of $121 million going into two programs. I got some objective answers. Then we went into another one, and we found out that you didn't have the information. It wasn't for me to know that on the next question relative to the same questioning, you might not have that information, when you had it on an earlier question. That's all it was. It's just basic questions and answers. It wasn't that I was looking for somebody to take some snide or cheap shot across the floor of the House relative to having to try and do some legitimate questioning of the minister.

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, members.

K. Krueger: I just rushed in here from doing my role in the Labour estimates debate, so I'll ask the minister's indulgence if I'm asking a question that he might have answered just before I walked in.

Certainly it's obvious that over the last couple of decades, the government of B.C. has been moving towards insisting that those who log off of Crown land contribute to the reforestation. In answer to some of my questions the other day in the House, I think the minister made it clear that he believes that loggers and government together are keeping up with planting trees where trees have been harvested. I've been hunting and hiking in British Columbia all of my life, and I know that before government moved to this situation there were huge tracts of land that had never been formally replanted, and there were others that had been. Certainly some of that land would have been growing back wild long before now -- all of it to one extent or another, I guess. I wonder if the minister has ever done an inventory of how much of the logged-off Crown lands of British Columbia never had any formal reforestation in those days prior to the way things are now.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: For the member's information, the latest is a 1997 summary of backlog and not satisfactorily restocked forest land. So we do keep it -- pre-'87 and post-'87. It's summarized by region, and there are summaries by year. It's quite a lengthy report. I'd be happy to send you a copy of that report. Yes, we do collect the data on an annual basis.

K. Krueger: The questions that I referred to moments ago that the minister was answering the other day had to do with an apparent surplus of seedlings that nurseries are advising us they have been destroying this spring because the ministry is unable to take delivery. Some of these are being shredded, others are being burned, and some are being put in landfills and covered over with earth. I wondered if it wouldn't be feasible. . . . The minister had responded that you can't replant what you haven't yet logged off, which obviously

[ Page 8663 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I certainly agree with the member that that would be ideal. Yes, there is a factor there. If there is something that's been site prepped so that it can take the seedlings. . . . If the land is ready, if the seedlings match the type of land that's ready and all that sort of thing. . . . When people make their plans, they make their plans with the money they have for the backlog reforestation. So I would hope that no seedlings have been destroyed that were destined for backlog reforestation, because that would certainly be bad planning.

I do understand that every year they shred seedlings. They do try to dispose of them if there is somebody to take them, either a private landowner or somebody with money in the public land. But you can't just say, "Here's a bunch of seedlings that were destined for harvested areas at a lower elevation," and move them a couple of geoclimatic regions further north and then just plant them. I'm sure we can trust that people will be trying to match those things up, because nobody would want to destroy something. I understand it is done every year. If they've been waiting for weather and so on and the weather doesn't materialize, sometimes you can't match the planting. In principle, I completely agree with that member, and I trust that everybody working in the system is trying to make the pieces fit together.

K. Krueger: The minister, in response to a question the other night, had specifically asked me to hold it over until he had his FRBC people with him. That question was about an update on the status of what's rumoured to be the government's intention to negotiate a kind of IWA hiring-hall arrangement with regard to preparations for silviculture in the interior. I wonder if we could have that update now.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The status is this. As you recall, in the jobs and timber accord there was agreement to work with a mechanism that would deal with displaced forest workers, first nations and local hire on a priority basis. That's the intent. It would be covered by a collective agreement. There is a small group of IWA and industry people working on it. It's being monitored by a mediator, who is in a position to mediate should the bargaining and the discussions fail.

K. Krueger: I had mentioned in that question the other night that I have a number of silviculture contractors in my constituency. I've also been to the Silvicultural Contractors Association's conference, where they talked about many members being in a similar position. I was told in May that there were a thousand unemployed silviculture operators who had decided they were going to descend on the economic conference in Kamloops to protest that their employees don't have any contracts, and they are trained, ready and willing and eager to work. They didn't end up doing that, because they got forest fire fighting jobs in Alberta instead, but they'll be back when the fires are out. They are very upset and annoyed about the lack of employment. I'm anxious to hear whether the ministry has plans to avoid the fundamental unfairness of those people remaining unemployed, which could happen if this hiring-hall format is used. What plans does the minister have to avoid shutting out those people who are already in the trained, experienced workforce and have been waiting, with growing impatience, for employment?

[7:30]

K. Krueger: The minister made a commitment to me the other night that he would deliver numbers to me -- specifically, the surplus seedlings that exist around the province, of which the government is aware, and also those for which the government has contracts to pay, whether or not they go in the ground. So if we could know the specific number of seedlings that are available, that don't look as though they will be planted this spring -- rapidly turning into summer -- and also the corporation's financial exposure for those seedlings. . . . I just wonder when the minister expects that those numbers will be available.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I undertook to get the figures, such as might be available, and make them available. I don't have them yet. I'll check and see if someone has them. It wasn't the topic that I thought we were on. If the connection is FRBC funding, there isn't enough funding in the silviculture programs to take all these seedlings even if the plans were done. What we're trying to do, through multi-year agreements, is set up ahead of us so that we know with some certainty how much work there is going to be. We knew there was a risk of putting a whole bunch of people to work because FRBC had the money. You may have been part of the drive to spend the money because it was there, to get people to work. Well, we did spend $617 million last year. That's way more -- half again as much -- than what we ever intended to spend on an average basis. There are going to be people whose requirements and expectations aren't met, but I can assure the member that these people will get equal access. They will qualify if they're indeed from the industry and have had the requisite number of years and months of work in.

K. Krueger: I'm not meaning to belabour this; in fact, this is my last question. I just have a proposal for the minister. It seems to me -- and I'm not trying to practise rocket science here either -- that we have a backlog of Crown lands that have never been reforested and that the ministry has obviously been tracking -- has mapped and catalogued and reports on regularly. I didn't know that, and I appreciate the minister's offer to provide that documentation to me; I'll look forward to it. So we have a backlog of unreforested land. We have thousands of unemployed silviculture workers and upset contractors who haven't had contracts. And we apparently have millions of seedlings, which the government is

[ Page 8664 ]

I'm not meaning to be a smart aleck in making that proposal. It just makes sense to me. We have all these resources, and they just aren't coming together somehow. It grieves me to think of the waste that's going on, and I know it upsets the people that have contacted me. I wonder if the minister would make a commitment to approach the association and see if they could come up with some way of making it happen.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We certainly can approach the association. While I've said I agree and I think it would be wonderful if that could happen, it still would take money to get them in the ground. It would take plans, and the seed prep would have to be done. It's easy enough to make that undertaking; I just can't guarantee that it will happen.

But you asked for information, and I did have it on hand upstairs. With respect to the seedling destruction issue, the forest industry is not required to supply the ministry with information on the number of seedlings destroyed. That's the industry part. Some seedlings are destroyed every year. This is the normal cost of doing business. Our best guess is that the total, from all funding sources for 1998, will be about two million seedlings, the coast being one million and the interior being a million. That's all sources.

On the government-funded seedlings expected to be destroyed in '98, since planting is still happening up until the end of June, seedlings have as yet not been destroyed. The best estimate of expected seedling destruction is as follows: in the interior, for two-year-old spruce, the number is 700,000; the value is 24 cents; the total value is $173,600. The loss was in the Mackenzie district. It was due to the rate of harvesting in the district being less than the anticipated rate, and the seedling orders were made two years ago. Consequently, less reforestation is planned this year, and fewer seedlings are needed. Backlog reforestation in the district this year will be less than what was anticipated when the seedling orders were made two years ago. That's backlog. The smaller backlog program is primarily due to the FRBC funding allocation decisions for this program across the province. And for the coast, 125,000 are potentially to be destroyed, at a value of 27 cents, for a total of $33,000. So the total value of government-funded seedlings that are expected to be destroyed would be $207,350. That's 2 percent of the value of seedlings.

Better numbers wouldn't be available until July. Any amount is unfortunate; it's regrettable. I wish there was a way to do it, but if we were even able to redirect funds, it would seem to me that it would be shutting down some other project somewhere and moving it. That's of course the question you're asking: can we shift it? I don't have an explanation. I'd just say that I trust that people would have thought of that to try to make use of a resource and not waste it.

G. Abbott: I just want to follow up on page 17 of the business plan, which outlines the $22.7 million startup money to Fisheries Renewal B.C. Could the minister advise whether the contributions from Forest Renewal B.C. to Fisheries Renewal B.C. will be confined to the startup in the current fiscal year? Or is it anticipated that Fisheries Renewal B.C. will require an infusion of resources from Forest Renewal B.C. again in the coming fiscal year?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The commitment was $22.7 million over three years.

G. Abbott: Okay, so it's divided over three years. Thank you.

Moving on, one of the issues which I wanted to discuss with the minister is that of Forest Renewal B.C. and five-year silviculture plans. My understanding is that when Forest Renewal was created in 1994, there was a commitment at that time that there would be ongoing five-year silviculture plans, targets and so on that would be associated with the business plans and the annual reports. While there are some financial budgets and all the rest in the plan, we don't see the five-year silviculture plans and targets. Can the minister explain why that early commitment on the part of Forest Renewal B.C. hasn't been followed through on?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The FRBC relies on the Ministry of Forests five-year silviculture plan. So when we ask what can be done by the partners of FRBC -- in particular industry -- the planning table has that silviculture plan, and it's matched up with investment strategies.

G. Abbott: I'm not sure that really answered the question. The understanding I have is that there were going to be five-year plans and targets included in Forest Renewal business plans from the time it started, but those haven't been there. I understand from the minister's response that FRBC was going to rely on the five-year silviculture plans of the Ministry of Forests. I guess the issue is whether those two things are identical; I presume they're not. Why doesn't FRBC, with its funding priority and plans, set out its own objectives, plans and targets around those things, as opposed to, as I think I understood the minister to say, going to the Ministry of Forests and borrowing or relying on theirs?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is a process, and it involves this: the Ministry of Forests has plans for what it thinks should be done out there in silviculture, and then FRBC takes that, along with the view of what industry has. They have plans; as you know, they're responsible for TFLs. The whole land base, then, has some kind of a silviculture plan on it. Then the two are worked together to come up with a five-year work plan for silviculture that FRBC uses to guide its investment.

G. Abbott: I'm not going to belabour the point; I think I've made it with respect to FRBC developing their own, presumably in conjunction with and complementary to what's done in the Ministry of Forests. But again, theoretically at least, we may have different funding and different mandates here to some extent. So I'm not sure that the two have to necessarily be the same.

Having five-year targets and having five-year measures of accomplishment are, consistent with the recent direction that's been extended to government from the Public Accounts Committee, to establish performance and accountability measures. I think Public Accounts has put enormous emphasis on this recently: that government can't just sort of proceed ad hoc; that there need to be in place different measures, different ways that we can appraise the performance of different programs and different branches of government. That's one of the

[ Page 8665 ]

As well, I think there is another aspect of the detail provided by Forest Renewal B.C., which would be very useful as we move into the long-term future. That is whether the reports could provide detail on treated areas by activity. For example, we could get some measure of one- to ten-year juvenile spacing records; a record of pre-commercial thinning that's being done in the province; a record of commercial thinning, fertilizing, pruning and so on, so that we could begin to establish some baseline measures for performance in the future.

As I recall, in the last business plan meeting we had, I asked Mr. Doney why they had restructured the activity areas. He indicated to me that that was aimed at enhancing accountability and performance measures and so on. I think that's good, but in order to have even more quantifiable and other measures of how well we're doing, I think we need to have some of those things which I've outlined as well. Those would be useful ways in which, over time, we'll be able to look back and say, "Well, this looked good; this was something that turned out to be very valuable," or the reverse: "This was something that perhaps, on the basis of performance for dollars, we could have done better elsewhere."

I'll just throw that out for discussion. If the minister would like to comment on it, I'd certainly appreciate it. Perhaps, in consultation with the staff from FRBC, we could get some indication of whether there is a good reason to do that or not do that or to give some consideration to that.

[7:45]

G. Abbott: We've had, of course, some very interesting results show up recently in terms of growth and yield on the second-growth trees in the province. The next question I have relates to whether FRBC or the Ministry of Forests has been looking at ways of measuring, establishing targets and predicting how the regime of enhanced silviculture or forestry, including commercial and pre-commercial thinning and so on. . . . Is it possible, by looking at those measures, to see whether these things are going to help us through the falldown period that we're looking at in around 2020? Is Forest Renewal or the ministry looking at increased timber availability through that period, through the combination of improved growth and yield results we've had and the impact of enhanced silviculture in the 1990s and onward?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The short answer is yes. But it depends a bit on what happens in each region. Productivity in each region is a factor. There's always a struggle about the desire to put in the investment to get a better yield in the better growing sites at the coast. So the growth and yield data that we have indicates very positively about some of the yield from second-growth stands. That investment in those studies has paid off big-time in giving us better assurance of being able to mitigate falldown in the future.

So yes, we are better able to decide where the best investments are, but there is no simple way to determine it. Regional equity is going to come into it, and the bang for the buck is always greater where the higher sites and longer growing seasons are. So we do have to factor in investments compared, perhaps, to other investments in that region, and we expect that the regional investment plans will do that kind of balancing.

G. Abbott: I don't want -- at this point in time at least, and perhaps not in the estimates at all -- to get into a really extensive discussion around the efficacy of the different methods of enhanced silviculture. I know there is a considerable debate among people in the forestry community who are infinitely wiser and better educated on all these issues than I am. I'm not sure that I even want to start leaping into that debate at this point in time.

What I do want to pose to the minister is the suggestion that, given very vigorous debate around those methods is going on. . . . For example, at the most recent convention of the Interior Lumber Manufacturers Association, there was a very interesting presentation around the efficacy of different forms of enhanced silviculture. The conclusions were that genetically altered tree stock was the most effective way of improving growth and yield down the line, that fertilization was the second most efficacious, and so on, and that some things like pruning may actually reduce yield down the line.

As I said, I don't want to get into that, but what I do want to pose to the minister is the suggestion that we really need -- in order to have a good determination, in the long run, of the efficacy of those different treatments over time in different regions -- to establish those baseline figures in. . . . Forest Renewal B.C. documents may be an appropriate place; I don't know. We need to establish that baseline, so we can, over time, form the right conclusions based on complete and comprehensive and persuasive data. Does the minister have any comment with respect to that matter?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think I got to it a bit in one of my previous answers. From our understanding of it -- and we ask these questions for the basis of the kind of planning that we need to do, particularly for Forest Renewal, on the enhanced side -- it is very difficult to do on a provincewide basis. It has to be done region by region, and then there are a lot of comparisons and trade-offs. The principle of equitable treatment -- about doing a certain amount of enhanced forestry to help that region and its falldown -- may be more costly.

These are very difficult economic debates, and so I expect the debate will go on. There's a conference coming up this fall that will debate it even further, and I know that it is still controversial. We'll have to make policy decisions around it and make some kind of best judgment based on the science. We would hope that the growth and yield data could give us that information base. We're hoping that we get there. It is a science. A discussion of the science is very difficult because we don't have quite enough yet, but we're gathering more and more. We really feel elated, having been getting the results of the growth and yield studies. It's very hopeful.

G. Abbott: I think there should be some elation over that. I think that the growth and yield studies were wonderful news for the future of forestry in British Columbia. It was an indication that we won't be suffering the full magnitude of the potential socioeconomic downturn of the forest industry in the second and third decades of the twenty-first century.

I know that I sometimes wax a little long here, and perhaps it's difficult to respond to all the points I raise, but

[ Page 8666 ]

Again, to use the example which I'm pretty sure was the conclusion of the speaker at the ILMA. . . . That was that pruning, while labour intensive, was not something that was adding to our prospects of improving growth and yield over the long term. I don't necessarily want to pick on pruning, but I think it was the one they pointed out as particularly problematic in terms of being labour intensive but not enhancing the forest.

I'm not trying to promote an argument at this point around whether pruning should or should not be part of our toolkit of enhanced forestry. That's something that I think we have to determine after looking at those five-, ten- and perhaps 20-year results from the test plots and so on. The important thing here is that Forest Renewal B.C., hopefully in conjunction with the Ministry of Forests, arrives at those conclusions based on solid data as quickly as it possibly can. Perhaps we should, for that reason, be bringing in those five-year targets and measures of how well we're doing in order to ensure that we're spending FRBC funds as wisely as we can in those areas. Hopefully, the minister can address that narrower point.

The Chair: Minister, noting the time.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, noting the time. Given the information, when it becomes available and the science can inform the making of the strategies, we will use it. Hopefully, we'll get better and better. As I say, we have a lot more information this year than we had a couple of years ago.

I'll just make the point that pruning is done not for volume but for value. There's a different factor there. It's not going to grow more trees, more fibre; it's a different value of fibre. So it's not so much a volume one -- I thought I heard you leading that way. I know the member knows that.

Noting the time, I just want to say that if members want information, I'm happy. . . . If they can serve some notice, we can get the precise information. It is a collective over here of what I know and what my officials know, and I do appreciate the notice on some of these questions. Where we don't have the information, we will make efforts to get it and try not to make suppositions about whether a member is setting me up or trying to be deliberately difficult or anything. I didn't mean to suggest other than that sometimes you get the feeling that you're trying to ask the same question, and you know we haven't got the answer. It doesn't make it any easier to try to answer and repeat consistently.

Noting the time, I'd like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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 8 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

L. Reid: Where we left off in this morning's discussion was, I believe, on a legislative accountability framework. One of the comments of the hon. minister that I want to come back to was regarding his sense that the organization is at arm's length. My reading of the interim report of the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation in British Columbia is that it is suggesting that the Legislature take a more proactive role, if you will, in terms of how services are delivered. I know that the minister will be aware of the interim report. I'm wondering if that report has had any impact on how the administration of the organization will continue to unfold over the coming months.

Hon. D. Lovick: I was confirming with staff that my understanding of that is theirs -- namely, the interim report and the recommendations had to do, I think, with occupational health and safety and the prevention culture, rather than the other part of the mandate for WCB. The other part of the mandate is an issue that we shall examine as and when the royal commission final report comes down, at which time we will consider those structures and that governance issue.

L. Reid: I'll move now to a consideration of some materials that were requested and, I'm pleased to say, received after last year's estimates debate. The report that I queried at that juncture was the "Management Review of Compensation Advisory Services." I was basically looking for a status report. I was interested to know which of those recommendations had been implemented and what the benefit of those recommendations would be. I'll put the comment on the record:

"With respect to the status of the report 'Management Review of Compensation Advisory Services,' many of the recommendations have been acted upon since this report was tabled with my ministry. However, resource constraints have not allowed us to implement all these recommendations. Those which have not been acted upon will be considered as resources permit."

Hon. D. Lovick: Could I ask the member if the question is specifically referring to worker advisers and employer advisers?

[ Page 8667 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: Okay. That is indeed the case, so we can give you some information.

Could I ask the member, then, if she could give me. . . ? I don't have the November letter, so perhaps she could give me some more specificity, and we'll deal with it.

L. Reid: I'm happy to do that. Frankly, I'm happy to provide the minister with copies of this material. Let me put on the record that my dealings with the workers adviser offices have been exemplary. The individuals who work with Blake Williams do an outstanding job, in my view. I don't always believe they have been resourced sufficiently to do the volume of work that comes before them. So the question in terms of how much specificity I would appreciate today is simply to know if there is a decision pending that will allow for additional resources. The recommendations -- those that I consider to be the most important -- are all about service delivery. How many individuals can have their issues addressed in a timely manner? I appreciate that most of get their issues addressed, but the timing is a serious question. Would resources make a positive impact on that?

[2:45]

L. Reid: Yes. So the ones I am querying specifically are around service levels. Perhaps the minister could begin by simply indicating if there has been a decision taken or an increased level of funding to the workers adviser office. We can proceed from there.

Hon. D. Lovick: The budget information given to me advises that there has been just a very nominal increase in the budget -- I believe it's from $3.008 million in the 1997-98 fiscal year to $3.018 million in the 1998-99 fiscal year. So it's a nominal amount.

L. Reid: That's actually not bad. I'm delighted that there isn't a decrease, because certainly the opportunities to teach people how to file appeals, to gather evidence and to do all of those things are vital to the success of the appeals. Frankly, if too much time elapses, the quality of the material that is gathered diminishes. That wouldn't matter if it were this level of appeal or another appeal within government. I think we agree on that point, and if there are opportunities for this minister to inspire confidence in the workers adviser office by resourcing them more effectively as time goes on, that would certainly be a position that would be supported. I believe that that's a wonderful way to proceed.

Their mandate around training has allowed them, I believe, to look at training a total of 328 participants this current fiscal year. That's a very good number, but considering the many thousands and thousands of appeals that go through, it does make it difficult. Those are seminars that are open to employers as well as to employees, I understand, so that everyone who touches the paper, in terms of an appeal process, has the same understanding of how best to make the process productive.

So all of this is in aid of having the government continue to value this service and to continue to fund it appropriately. I would make the same claim for employers advisers, in terms of the skill set within each of those offices. I don't think it's ever appropriate to de-skill those offices to the extent that people's questions cannot be answered. Over my seven years, there has been a fluctuation, shall we say -- since this is not television -- in terms of the skill sets of individuals who have offered advice. These folks already have enough anguish in their lives without receiving bad information and being bogged down in the process. What this is today is an appeal for you to take some interest in how well this office is funded and to continue to make it a priority on behalf of injured workers in the province.

When we talked about accountability frameworks, one of the things I requested, regarding a number of aspects of the board, was the business plan -- and certainly the auditor general's review. I compliment the Workers Compensation Board for initiating and participating in the process. I think that was a very decent way to proceed. From that, a number of recommendations regarding accountability -- again, particularly the reporting aspects -- have been offered. Could the minister perhaps give me a status report on where that level of implementation now sits? Is it in the early stages? Have some of them been implemented? Is there a business plan that looks at implementation of those recommendations -- say over the next 12 months?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm simply going to find my notes from this morning, when I talked about the auditor general's report. Somebody is handing me something, in any event. I gave some specifics. . . . Yes, I have it here before me. The report apparently made 39 recommendations, all of which have been accepted by WCB, and we said that many of these are already being implemented. Action plans for implementing the others are being developed. Let me see if I can give the member some more detail beyond that.

I believe, first of all, that a number of the recommendations having to do with the WCB's annual report were addressed in the 1997 annual report. I think the other answers are more generic and general in nature rather than specific -- namely, that other recommendations, as the auditor general pointed out, are going to require, as the AG's office put it, significant time and resources to address. Clearly the WCB will do what it can to implement those recommendations but, again, will have to do so on the basis of resources permitting, as the member asserted earlier.

L. Reid: What I'm looking for is a target, some goal. Is it the desire of the board to have those recommendations in place by the end of 1999 or by the end of 2000? I'm thinking that that probably is a direction they're headed in. What is the cost of those recommendations? It would appear to me that if they know that sufficient resources may not be available, they will be able to provide to this House what each of those recommendations will cost the organization. So if we could have a breakdown of the cost of those recommendations, that would be helpful.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised, hon. Chair, that it's difficult to assign costs because it's essentially administrative costs and reallocation of existing resources and all of that. What I can advise the member, however, is that WCB management has put into place an action plan for the recommendations -- wherever that is possible -- in case something that they perceive to be feasible and doable. . . . We are also assured that they will be giving progress reports to the panel of administrators twice a year. As those reports come down, I think, we will thereby be able to generate the kind of detailed information the member is asking for. Whether there is any available now, I don't know.

[ Page 8668 ]

In terms of ongoing progress reports, what I think the auditor general's report speaks to is the consumer accountability question -- that individuals must participate in the system because, frankly, there is no other option. An injured worker in British Columbia has one choice: the workers compensation system. But they tell me, and they have told every member of this chamber, that oftentimes their anguish has only increased as a result of the way they are treated by the system. It brings me back to the auditor general's report, because I think it was on the right track. It was about user accountability mechanisms. People would have an ability to track, to be treated consistently, to have a single case worker deal with their case, etc. -- all the things that shift the mentality from being a client to being a customer. They would indeed be treated better as a result of having some more transparent mechanisms in place.

The people I met with around the time that the auditor general's report was in the works and was nearing completion were very positive that these recommendations would go forward. I accepted that; frankly, I was delighted. So in terms of a business plan -- and it doesn't have to be today -- what I would need to hear is X number of recommendations by the end of '99, X by 2000-2001 or whenever it happens to be. The criticism of the organization in terms of its public profile has been mostly around its interaction with the public and with its client base, so this, in my view, should be the priority and receive perhaps more attention than it's currently receiving.

I'm not one that's easily bought off by, you know, "as the resources allow," because I think that political will being what it is, if the will is there, the resources are found. And the minister knows that to be the case, particularly with this government. Resources can be found for all kinds of activity that is on the government's wish list, shall we say. So because this is communicated as a priority. . . . Talk is cheap; it has to be delivered upon. Again, the minister doesn't necessarily have to give me that information at this moment, but rather some sense that the commitment that was given for those 39 recommendations was believable and that the implementation plan has a calendar to it.

Hon. D. Lovick: A couple of points. I entirely accept and appreciate the member's comments about user accountability and it being the phenomenon that most of us as MLAs have had to grapple with and ought to be concerned by. I'm pleased to see that the auditor general's report addresses that issue. The board has, I think, given every indication of taking it seriously and proposing to take action to deal with all the recommendations. I am advised that next year's annual report, the 1998 annual report, will give a complete update, a progress report on all of those recommendations. That will be happening. I am also advised that all resolutions coming from the board since May will be posted on the board's Internet site, so that may also be helpful.

L. Reid: I look forward to having access to that information.

I want to move to a discussion and consideration of the widows' pension. I have a number of pieces of correspondence on this question. Probably the most recent one is dated May 4, 1998:

"On August 27, 1993, the B.C. Workers Compensation Appeal Board found that the WCB policy that prescribes payments to widows under the age of 50 years, payments which are substantially lower than those to a widow over that age, was contrary to the provisions of the Charter of Rights. There have been 16 subsequent appeal board decisions with the same result. So as of November 1996, there had been 17 cases where the appeal board had ordered the Workers Compensation Board to provide a pension to the widow, rather than the lump sum that is allotted for widows under 50 years of age. Now, on April 3, 1998, we have the eighteenth appeal board decision reaching the opposite conclusion. This time the widows get a tiny percentage of the amount awarded in previous cases.

"The next decision may be different, of course, and the next group of widows may again receive a pension. This diminishes credibility. It gives less the appearance of law than it does of a lottery. I submit that no regard for precedent undermines the law, making it irrational and unpredictable. If the appeal board does not give credence to its own decisions, how are we to take either the board or their decisions seriously?"

"This situation could have been prevented by the provincial government. In June of 1993 the Minister of Labour announced a public review of the section of the Workers Compensation Act that provides for benefits for surviving spouses and dependants, with particular reference to the provisions using a spouse's age as a basis for benefit. During the five years since that announcement, hundreds of thousands of dollars have been wasted by review boards reviewing the appeal boards, adjudicating and delivering 105-page decisions, and the widows bringing their cases forward to them both. This could have been avoided if the government had adopted the 1993 decision as binding, pending review and redrafting of the legislation, or pending an opinion by a superior court.

"The Royal Commission on Workers Compensation will address this issue and report its recommendations in September of this year. The commission members will be subject to much pressure from employer groups to cut compensation amounts to victims in general, but I'm sure that very few employers would consider it fair that their daughter would receive $36,000 as full compensation for the loss of her husband and of her planned futures. It would be particularly hard to accept in light of reported WCB executive severance packages of over $200,000 plus indexed pensions upon voluntarily leaving the organization.

"There is clearly an injustice here, and I can only hope that the royal commission members are up to the task, and that the legislative members insist that this glaring example of discrimination is erased."

Hon. D. Lovick: I can advise the member of two things. What she says is absolutely correct in terms of her facts. This refers, however, to what is very much a subset of persons between 40 and 50 years of age, to that group of widows -- women. What I am advised is that the royal commission has said that it will address that very specific and particular problem and make recommendations. We're anxiously waiting to see what happens. But I certainly share the member's conclusion that this is simply an aberration. This is something that is hanging outside of that circle where some justice has already been done, and obviously we have to complete that circle. I give that assurance. If I have anything to say about it, it shall be.

[3:00]

[ Page 8669 ]

An issue from July 12, 1997. It's regarding an article that a number of injured worker groups have brought to my attention: "Police investigate claims that a former female staff member conspired with a supplier to defraud the board." The title of the article is: "WCB Wants $850,000 Back from Employee." They have apparently tried, without success, to find out the outcome of this case, and Mr. Cott will tell us, I'm sure, that it's before the courts.

Perhaps the discussion of the larger principle, in terms of how suppliers and contractors and individuals who have the privilege of working directly with the board under the guise of being somehow associated with the board. . . . Are there other potentially damaging cases of this nature that we need to be aware of? Indeed, has anything been put in place as a result of this case, to ensure that this level of fraud, frankly, is not currently taking place?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm sorry. I'm smiling, Madam Chair, because for that relatively discrete and straightforward question I have -- if I need it -- three pages of answering material. I'm not sure the member really wants all that. How be it if what I do is give the short version, and then I will share with you the detailed stuff, rather than taking up the time simply reading it into the record? If that's agreeable to the member, I will do that.

Suffice it to say very quickly that the WCB identified the problem and brought it to the attention of the authorities. They found it on their own; they found out where the flaw was within the system. They have repaired that flaw so that the system apparently can no longer break down in precisely that way again, at least.

To answer the member's question about the amount of money, I believe it was $850,000. Legal remedies are being undertaken to mitigate that amount. The WCB, we should remember, though, is indeed insured for the loss, so it isn't a case of the public and the workers and the ability to perform the service of WCB being the losers as a result of that decision. Beyond that, I'd be happy to share these more detailed notes.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's commentary. This case apparently transpired for more than ten years. This level of fraud was a ten-year operation. The individuals who have ongoing concern regarding this, first off, question why it was ten years. Even to me, that seems like an enormous length of time for theft and fraud to be unchecked, shall we say. I appreciate the minister's comment about insurance, but we all know that insurance premiums go up. I need some background, if you will, on what kinds of checks and balances are in place today so that these kinds of instances that may begin are not allowed to continue for a decade.

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer is simply that ten years ago, I think it's a fair conclusion to say, the technology was primitive by today's standards. It's about electronic technology, essentially, and I gather that's how the fraud was perpetrated. The new system is such that apparently that just cannot happen anymore. It has indeed been corrected, and I would guess that as these systems get developed and refined, it will become harder and harder and harder -- at some point, indeed, impossible -- to do something like that.

L. Reid: It warms my heart.

My next issue is regarding background documentation that I requested from the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation, because I do think that the credibility of the report will be based on certain submissions they received. They say to me: "On receiving your request, I revisited this decision with Judge Gill, and we came to the same conclusion. I hope this does not greatly inconvenience you, but with the resources allocated to the commission and the limited time provided to us in which to complete our work, we will not be distributing research information." I'm trusting that by raising this issue, at some point the minister can indeed make available documentation that will support the recommendations. Again, if this extension was granted for six months three months ago. . . . Upon reading the final report, I would like to have the ability to go and reference a particular item in the report: they based their recommendation on X number of submissions that suggested this outcome. I would like to be able to go back and reference the original information.

What I need from this minister are assurances that it's possible but also some guidance on previous royal commissions. I have seen background information, particularly from the Gove inquiry -- Thomas Gove. So I'm wondering if the same access provisions are in place for all commissions across government. Or is there something under the Inquiry Act that prevents individuals from seeking that information? Again, I will make the statement that I indeed had access to information under the Gove inquiry. How does this one fit in the grand queue?

Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that the royal commission has made it clear that all the information they received and on which the report will ultimately be based will be placed in the archives and therefore will become accessible. Whether that is the pattern or the norm in terms in the Inquiry Act and so forth, I do not know. But we can find out. I'm not aware. . . . It's the pattern, I am further advised, of most royal commissions. Perhaps that is the question the member's asking.

L. Reid: For my clarification, is that the British Columbia archives here in Victoria?

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes.

L. Reid: With the minister's indulgence, there are a number of issues I just want to move through fairly quickly. One is regarding policy around surgeries outside the province. I have a number of cases. Again, I've only chosen one as opposed to putting them all on the record, but these are individuals. . . . In this particular case, a Kelowna resident was told that she was going to be sent to Calgary for her orthopedic surgery. She was told that the reason she had to go to Calgary was because the WCB would not pay Kelowna doctors the same amount as the Vancouver doctors, so Kelowna doctors will not perform that operation. Vancouver has a six-month waiting list. The decision was then made that she be sent to Calgary. It was very upsetting for this particular patient. She didn't wish to have a new doctor at that juncture in her care, and she didn't want to leave her family and her support system in Kelowna, in terms of travelling to Calgary.

My calls really didn't net a reasonable response. So I'm wondering if there's a direction that's changing at the board in terms of disregarding patient wishes, if you will, and saying to them: "Either it's out of province or the service is not available to you." That was the impression -- and probably more than an impression. This is what the patient believed she was told.

Hon. D. Lovick: Thank you, member, for the question. There are indeed surgeries being performed outside the

[ Page 8670 ]

The justification for that is one that I'm sure the member is well and truly familiar with -- and, I suspect, will accept. It is just that all the evidence -- overwhelming evidence -- demonstrates that the longer we delay providing that medical work, the greater the likelihood of the patient not returning to work. That's why it's not a happy solution, obviously -- not a preferred one. But the judgment is that it's better to send these people out of the province to get that work done sooner rather than take a chance on delay and then discover that we may jeopardize their future health and ability to work.

L. Reid: I certainly agree with the minister's comments that timeliness is the critical factor here. If someone's going back to work, they need the care almost immediately to ensure that it happens. My concern -- and again I'll ask the minister for clarification. . . . Is he suggesting that orthopods in the Okanagan Valley have not reached an agreement in terms of salary, or is this a situation that pervades the entire province?

Hon. D. Lovick: The agreement, I understand, is apparently with the B.C. Medical Association, but the subsection called "orthopedic surgeons" has effectively said: "No, we don't accept the BMCA agreement." So I guess the answer is yes, it means every orthopod in the province -- theoretically, at least.

Just to put that in context, the member might appreciate knowing that so far this year, apparently 69 cases occurred.

L. Reid: Just to confirm what the minister just said, 69 cases have been treated in the province of Alberta? Or have they been treated outside this province?

Hon. D. Lovick: Alberta.

L. Reid: Could the minister tell me how many patients went to Washington State for treatment through the workers compensation system?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised none.

L. Reid: I want to return to the orthopod discussion. I will accept the minister's commentary in terms of whether or not there is a consistent salary paid across this province for orthopods. They tell me that the Vancouver orthopods in fact receive a higher salary -- or higher payment, if you will -- for performing the same service. I'm wondering first off, if that is true. Secondly, how is it that the WCB would negotiate something that's outside the blue book for payment of physicians and then selectively do that across the province?

Hon. D. Lovick: The issue, I gather, is expedited service, and surgery is the issue. One pays a premium for that, and they want a premium for that. It's a matter of working extra hours, and at times that may not otherwise be convenient, or something like that. Apparently the reason for the differential between Vancouver and other regions is simply access to operating rooms, I gather.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comment on access. But was I correct? Do orthopedic surgeons in the lower mainland indeed receive more dollars for performing the same type of orthopedic procedure?

Hon. D. Lovick: Not unless it is expedited. In other words, you pay more to get the expedited service, and in that case it is a negotiated agreement, apparently.

L. Reid: Who pays more? Would the WCB pay more money to jump the queue for the current waiting lists in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Lovick: The way this works, apparently, is that more money is paid, because the doctor who would normally perform an operation has reached his or her quota in terms of available surgeries for the month. The WCB will pay extra money in order to get expedited service -- to get the doctor to work beyond his or her allocated quota. Again, the reason is simply the one that I gave earlier on, which the member agreed with: keeping people away from work for any longer than is absolutely necessary will cost us hugely more in the long run. That becomes the justification, in effect, for paying more.

[3:15]

Hon. D. Lovick: The member is correct, in effect, but let me just make two points. Number one, yes, WCB does that for just the reasons I outlined, which the member agrees with. We may not like what it finally translates into, but we accept the proposition, and therefore I think we have to also accept the conclusion.

I would also point out that if indeed we use those physicians to perform those services and pay them extra to do so, then we're in effect shortening the queue on the other end for those other people who are normally receiving those physicians' services. I'm not as concerned as the member seems to be that this amounts to some terrible queue-jumping. I think it's absolutely defensible when you consider the cost that attaches to workers having to wait an extra period of time for surgery as a result of job accident and job injury and what that can do to their productive working life. That's the issue we're trying to address.

L. Reid: Where we differ, hon. minister, is simply that we as members of this opposition would demand the same level of health care for all British Columbians.

Hon. D. Lovick: Are you willing to pay for it?

The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. minister.

L. Reid: What I will say in conclusion is that you're not saying anything different today that isn't a glowing endorsement for private health care. Based on your remarks today. . . .

[ Page 8671 ]

L. Reid: Yes, and this is a form of private health care. This is the workers compensation system purchasing medical care that's not readily available to other British Columbians. Those are the minister's words; I am not misquoting this minister.

So if this workers compensation system is purchasing additional operating time for this doctor, are they paying this doctor the same rate? Or when he says that they're being paid extra, is he meaning time and a half, double time or two and a half times the cost of the original procedure?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer, I fear, is more complicated than I would like, but I think what the guiding principle. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: No, no, member from. . . . Come, come, Quilchena; you don't need to do that -- through you, Madam Chair.

The issue essentially, I gather, is equivalence. What we're talking about is that if the doctors are doing above and beyond what their normal allotment is under MSP, we ask them to do this extra work because of the urgency of that treatment, given that it is a worker injury and given the need to get them back to work. What we do is we accept, too, that because the WCB does not have to make the same payments to MSP as others do, given its nature, therefore we have some obligation to perhaps give a differential in payment -- more money by way of a fee. I am assured, however, that at the end of the day we come about as close as we can to equivalence, in terms of the fact that it's not a differential rate system. Put it this way: it isn't possible for anybody to do just WCB work because you make more money at that. That simply can't work.

I want to refer to something else here too. There are no non-WCB patients being displaced because of WCB's use of MSP, and the WCB is funded entirely through assessments that, as you know, are paid by employers of British Columbians. We've been working with the Ministry of Health and with regional and community health boards to ensure that the unique needs of injured workers are met. We think that we've worked out a modus vivendi. It may not be perfect, but, as I say, given the incredible evidence that suggests the gravity of the circumstance if we don't get people back to work as quickly as possible, I think it's a pragmatic solution, and it seems to be working pretty well.

L. Reid: Allow me to make a number of comments, and I would ask for the minister's comment. Two workers are employed at the same firm: one falls off his garage on a Saturday and breaks his ankle; one falls at the worksite on Monday and breaks his ankle. One gets preferential treatment in British Columbia today, based on what you've said. Both are workers. As to the comments you made earlier -- that it's important to get people back to work -- there's no question, no question in my mind, but get all workers back to work, not just workers who are injured as part of a WCB worksite operation. That distinction is only about inequality.

This is a discussion that's near and dear to my heart, having served as Health critic for many, many years. This minister will know that if this government had adequately funded those operating rooms, we wouldn't be having this discussion. They'd be open Monday to Friday, and that's a fact. . . .

L. Reid: That's a fact, hon. minister. We are now seeing a situation where that level of service has been reduced to the extent that availability is up for purchase. That's a fact, based on what this minister has said in this afternoon's discussion.

The basic premise on which the minister operates -- that it's important to get everybody back to work -- I absolutely agree with that, but I don't believe it's appropriate to say to the worker who is injured on a Saturday: "Getting you back to work in a timely fashion is not half as important as the worker who is injured on a Monday." I have to think that the minister would agree with me on that question. He prides himself on being fairly logical. That's a logical comparison.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm going to be terse -- positively laconic -- in my response. First of all, we are talking about the Workers Compensation Board. To suggest that somehow the Workers Compensation Board is not doing its job because another worker, who is injured while on the golf course or at the garage, doesn't get the same benefits because he or she isn't at work and isn't covered by the WCB is preposterous.

We're talking about the WCB. We're talking about workplace injury. To suggest another category that should be treated precisely the same because they happen to have one thing in common -- namely, that they work for a living -- is a logical absurdity. If the member wants, at some point, I'd be happy to draw her the little circles on the board, to show that the classifications she is using don't overlap. Workers working on the job site are protected by WCB. Other people who are injured in some other way. . . . The fact that they happen to be workers is merely coincidental. It doesn't make them the same and subject, then, to the same treatment by an organization dedicated and devoted only to taking care of workers injured on the job. That's point 1.

Point 2 is that if the member wants to start getting into the great political rant about this government not adequately funding health care and that's the tragedy and then tell me why she and her colleagues stood in the Legislature and cheered wildly when the federal government announced that it was cutting 40 percent in terms of health care benefits to this province and said they didn't go far enough. I am willing to listen to questions -- and good questions, for the most part -- but I am not willing to sit quietly and accept the kind of illogical proposition that was presented to me, or the suggestion that somehow this government is a nasty player on the block because it happens to be funding health care in a way that it can't do any better, thanks to our friends in the Liberal government of Canada. Let's put that on the record. Let's be honest with each other at least about that.

L. Reid: What I hoped this minister would do was actually respond with some sense of logic, because he knows for a fact that these examples are valid. There's no doubt in my mind that he appreciates that. What we would look for is a guarantee that any injured person in the province of British Columbia has access to this same tier of medical care. What the minister has said is: "No, the person who is injured on a Saturday will wait; the person who is injured on a Monday will get expedited service." That's not what the other members of this government have been saying. So it's an intriguing commentary.

Hon. D. Lovick: Good. Well, enjoy it.

The Chair: Order, members.

L. Reid: I trust that that continues to be your sentiment, hon. minister.

[ Page 8672 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: I am advised that the dispute with the orthopedic surgeons is relatively recent. We ratified an agreement not very long ago, and this has happened since that time. So it hasn't been a long time -- about three months. I am also advised that we are optimistic that a solution to the problem is attainable and that it will not be too far off, we hope.

L. Reid: Earlier the minister referenced 69 procedures performed in the province of Alberta. What's the overall number? What percentage is 69 of the overall number?

Hon. D. Lovick: I am advised that there are 8,000 per year of orthopedic surgery. The number, as you say, is 69. My math isn't that quick, but I think the percentage is rather small.

L. Reid: So it's 8,000 in a calendar year, and it's 69 to date -- from January 1 to June 10, roughly. So six months' worth. If we look at that in terms of possible outcomes, roughly 150 cases if this issue. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Through the Chair, members.

L. Reid: Thank you, hon. Chair.

If this issue is not resolved by year-end, the possibility is there for possibly 150 cases. Have there been other types of procedures performed in the province of Alberta or in Washington State?

Hon. D. Lovick: As a general rule, the procedures are carried out here in British Columbia, but I gather that for logistical reasons and proximity and so forth we will sometimes send people across the border. I guess if you live in Revelstoke, it's a lot easier to get to Calgary than to Vancouver and, similarly, sometimes down to Washington State or something for an MRI. But the normal practice and procedure is in B.C., yes.

L. Reid: In terms of perhaps extending this discussion into one of rehabilitation. . . . These folks have now had the surgery -- hopefully in British Columbia but perhaps in another place. The individuals who come to me and raise concerns raise them around the calibre, the quality of the rehabilitation programs. Many of these programs are not offered on the WCB site itself. They are the contract individuals in all corners of the province who hang out their shingles.

[3:30]

In terms of training, I want to talk a little bit about that this afternoon. I want to talk about what appears to be a resistance by these individuals on contract to the workers compensation system to indicate to the client their training. I've had clients ask: "Where did you learn to be an occupational rehab person? What kind of training? Talk to me about the kind of success you've had in the past." That information is absolutely not available to them.

Now, I think that this minister and I would probably be slightly apprehensive about dealing with individuals who told us nothing about their previous professional lives. When these individuals take these concerns back to the board, they are told: "You must participate in program X or your funding is no longer available to you." So they feel a certain amount of intimidation around this question, and they don't believe that the individuals at the board actually follow up their concerns.

In some instances I know that to be the case, because I indeed have followed up for a number of these folks and called these different rehab contractors. They feel no more inclined to tell me than they do to tell the client, and I'm not the one who's experiencing the anguish and the pain and the rehab necessity. That information in my view should be available to those clients. I'm wondering if the minister has a policy on how those folks are hired, who is hired and what kind of background checks are done on those individuals.

Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that physiotherapists and occupational therapists working within the system must be licensed. I understand, as well, that their rehabilitation centre is now accredited by CARF, which I gather is the official stamp of authority, as it were. I understand, as well, that by the end of the year all those providing the service will be required to be accredited. That is our effort, I guess, to guarantee that only those who are properly qualified will be performing that service -- as it should be, obviously.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's clarification, and in fact that was my understanding of those who are within the Workers Compensation Board offices in Richmond. I believe that happens. The people I'm concerned about are the ones on contract -- the ones who hang out the shingle in Vanderhoof, in Mission, in Chilliwack and, frankly, also in Richmond -- but separate and distinct from the board, who would appear on the surface to have no background or training or credentials. What is asked of those individuals when those contracts are let to them?

Hon. D. Lovick: By the end of the year we expect or anticipate that all of those outside contractors will be accredited or will no longer be performing the service. That's the way to deal with the problem and, I'm sure the member would agree, the right way.

L. Reid: Fabulous. I could not ask for a finer response. Certainly if the uncertainty that's currently in the field is going to be cleared up in six months' time, I'd be absolutely delighted.

A number of questions regarding personal injury. This is a comment from "south of the border" -- they even have that title in their newsletter: "British Columbia workers compensation laws do not bar tort suits for accidents in Washington." The person who brought this to my attention apparently was in an accident. I can probably give the minister a little more detail. It was a trucking accident in Washington State, and a large number of individuals who currently own trucks and do cross-border traffic between British Columbia and Washington State have been in to see me and have actually brought me this material. They are not clear how this works.

I'll give you the case, and this goes back to 1993: "On July 5, 1993, a tragic accident took the lives of two British Columbia

[ Page 8673 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: This is fascinating, actually. I understand that the general rule is that the worker has an option to choose which jurisdiction, in effect. Sometimes that can be problematic, because it is conceivable that we might not have a jurisdictional agreement with some other province or state. Generally speaking, the injured worker has the option to choose. I am advised by Terry, from WCB, that this one does get incredibly complicated, and he would be more than happy to chat with you after and see if he can provide more detailed explanations and answers for those people you have been meeting with. I would be happy to see that happen.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's response, because he's quite correct: it's very convoluted. I agree that the minister is correct, that the injured worker would have the right to choose. In this instance, both individuals were deceased, and it did not appear that the family members were given a choice. So if Mr. Bogyo is the correct contact, I'd be happy to have these individuals make contact directly. Thank you very much.

If we can move to a consideration of the ergonomics question and the ongoing debate at the board about how best to ensure that a worksite, a workstation, is appropriate and doesn't challenge anyone's body shape or form unnecessarily. Certainly it has been a contentious issue during my time as critic, and I think it continues to be. If the minister could spend a few minutes and give some background as to where the ergonomics discussion now sits, whose desk it might be on, where it is in the priority queue. . . .

Hon. D. Lovick: As the member knows, the WCB regulation -- "the regulation," as it's known -- was introduced not too very long ago, and the focus was on the issue of ergonomics, in large measure, and in particular repetitive strain injury, muscular-skeletal and all of those things. I understand that the WCB intends to produce a series of pamphlets to explain how to apply the regulation. . . . Aha! The member seems to have one, Madam Chair. We think this will be of special and particular use to small businesses, obviously, who want to ensure that their workplaces are safe.

The ergonomics regulations are intended to address a growing -- and, I think, serious -- problem. I'm not sure that there is much more to say, if I understood the member's question, except that I thought the process of assessing the problem was captured in the new regulation. But the member is talking about an ongoing evaluation and analysis? Perhaps you'd like to elaborate, and I'll be happy to try and answer.

L. Reid: Going back to the draft ergonomics regulations, the date on these. . . . This discussion goes back four, five or six years, that I've been involved in it. The issue was around enforceability and compliance. The physical changes required of some workplaces were hugely significant. The one example that harkens to mind is that the height of the sink in a number of different workplaces had to be a certain relationship to the individual body size of the worker. In that over a 24-hour period three vastly different people were working at this workstation, the discussion was that the employer would have to modify the sink -- i.e., put in three separate sinks to accommodate this regulation. Failure to do so would result in some form of penalty.

I think this is where the rubber hit the road around regulation that was hugely expensive, and the research, frankly, was unclear as to the true benefit. In terms of where these now sit. . . . I appreciate the minister's comment that perhaps some of this has been captured in the new legislation. Where do the original contentious issues from the ergonomics regulations sit? Is there going to be forced compliance? What is the penalty? What is the enforceability?

Hon. D. Lovick: The penalties, such as they are, would be found in the regulation -- or, indeed, in the new legislation. Albeit, that's a more generic thing, rather than saying: "For this offence, you get the following." The real question I think the member wants to know is: what is the status of implementing, and has the board moved away from what appeared to be a bit of a punitive approach? I think the answer is yes. I am told that the implementation would be very much graduated. It will be much more workplace-sensitive. It will be over a period of time, starting with the more high-risk circumstances in the immediate present, then the medium risk in the shorter term and then the lower-risk ones in the longer term. The intention is obviously to make all workplaces safer and happier for workers, and I'm sure the member agrees that's desirable. However, we obviously have to balance the legitimate limitations that employers have in terms of suddenly having to retool the entire operation because of having three employees working at the same sink, or something like that.

The other point -- and I think this will please the member -- is that what happened between the original document that caused all the furore and concern and where we are today is that the regulation, what used to be a regulation. . . . As you know, there's no appeal to a regulation; a regulation is, and you must comply. Now what has happened is that the regulations have in fact become guidelines. It seems to me that that indicates the willingness, if you will, to accommodate on the part of the WCB.

L. Reid: Thank you for that answer. That will be very much appreciated. In terms of the minister's reference to short term and long term, just give me a tighter ballpark. Is that a year, two years, three years or five years, or six months to a year?

Hon. D. Lovick: I wish the record could show that the minister shrugged à la Pierre Trudeau, or something. I don't know if I can give a very definitive or specific answer. Suffice it to say that the prevention division will be working with employers, obviously trying to establish some kind of circumstance and approach that will work well for both.

[ Page 8674 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: That one I remember. Yes, indeed, when the regulation was announced, it was made very clear that all the regulations had a grace period, effectively for one year, from April to April.

L. Reid: To be clear, the grace period applies only to the regulation. The guideline is something that is permissive.

[3:45]

L. Reid: I think that the clarification I require is if there is going to be a penalty attached to a guideline. My understanding of the term "guideline" is that it is indeed permissive, that it is there to act as a guide. If people choose not to accept the advice of the guideline, that's their choice. But a regulation truly is something that's enforceable.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm being advised that rather than trying to answer this question, because there may be permutations and combinations whereof we know not, I should simply promise the member that we will be sure to look into the matter and get back to her. I would like to say, though, that the legislation. . . . My memory of it is that it's pretty clear that it isn't intended to be punitive. But if there were something like a flagrant and mean-spirited, "To heck with you guys; we're not going to come into compliance," then at some point, with a guideline as well as a regulation, I suspect that yes, there could be consequences -- and should be consequences, I think. But I suspect that given the nature of this complex issue, that probably won't be the case. In any event, we shall indeed endeavour to provide some other information.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for the future information. It's a question that I get more than twice a week: "What does that grace period really mean? Does that mean that if I don't comply 100 percent, I will be fined? Or does it mean that if I'm making attempts to move towards April 15, 1999, I will be given some respect" -- for lack of a better term -- "for that?" But between this point, and that point there's tremendous possibility for fines of upwards of many thousands of dollars. I'm sensitive to the question because it appears that today there's not a clear answer, so if there's any way to communicate that more effectively. . . .

And I absolutely agree with the minister that if this is about a flagrant violation, the penalty should be in place. If it is about individuals who would be perceived to be demonstrating some level of goodwill in terms of making those accommodations or modifications. . . . There should be some comprehension of what a grace period truly is, and if that April 15, 1999, date is reached and those changes have not been made, absolutely at that juncture. . . . But the grey area is vast, so any further clarification would certainly be appreciated.

In terms of the other issues around ergonomics, the minister tells me that the most contentious issues have now been shifted into the format of guidelines. I appreciate that. Certainly the one I will reference that I have read is: "How To Make Your Computer Workstation Fit You." It was very helpful to most of the people I have shown it to; they believed it was a very useful document. It's finally a document that is not weighty -- in terms of a word. So I would commend the Workers Compensation Board for actually communicating with people and doing it visually, by the use of diagrams. My question would be: is this kind of information translated? Is it in a variety of languages?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised that that issue of translation -- to be or not to be -- has been discussed for some time. What complicates the question is simply that some advice has been received that suggests that maybe translation is not the most efficacious way of proceeding. Rather, simple English might, in fact, be the best thing -- to make it really simple English, with a heavy, heavy emphasis on the visual. As a former educator, that has some resonance with me. I see the member nodding; she understands that argument. Also, if we're trying to help people to learn English as a second language, it's a wonderful way to reinforce it. In any event, I'm happy to report that the WCB is certainly mindful of that fact. It's part of its effort, I think, to be user-friendly and to be helpful to its clients. I'm pleased by that.

L. Reid: I'm going to be bold here and suggest that if the intention and the goal of this minister is that everything that now emanates from the workers compensation system be written in plain English, he would absolutely have my support. I know there are many pieces of correspondence received by my constituents, and they bring them in and say: "What is this?" And some days, the message that is intended to be communicated in that correspondence defies description. So, again, that would warm my heart.

One question that I missed from this morning -- and I apologize: when do the appointments of the panel of administrators expire, and what is the likelihood of their reappointment?

Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that all of the appointments expire around the end of this month: three on June 25, one on June 30 and one on July 13. The plan is to reappoint all of those people for a one-year term pending the final report of the royal commission.

L. Reid: Which actually adds credence to my earlier comment that if it will be a six-month receipt date for the royal commission report -- i.e., this December -- if the extension is granted, six months to make it operational would certainly allow for next June -- June of 1998. So I accept that. Thank you very much.

I want to move to the appointment of someone who I think has been a godsend to many, many clients of the workers compensation system, and that's Peter Hawkins, in the office of the Workers Compensation Board ombudsman. He's done some wonderful work on behalf of constituents and on behalf of folks from all over this province. Certainly he has been very, very helpful to me, in that the majority of the more interesting cases have certainly tended to flow through my constituency office in its proximity to the Workers Compensation Board in Richmond.

I'm wondering what the future is in terms of staffing, in terms of commitment of the board to see that that office

[ Page 8675 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: I think that the member is seeking reassurance that the office will continue -- and continue, moreover, to perform the good service it apparently has. I'm pleased to note that my information is that everybody is indeed very happy. In fact, the overall thrust of the WCB now, under the heading of being more user-friendly, would seem in fact to be in keeping with the nature of the ombudsman's office, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that the ombudsman probably had something to do with moving the WCB in that direction. So I think we should be thankful. But to answer the question specifically, the department has a projected budget for 1998 of $262,300 and a staff complement of three FTEs. To date, I understand that the office has handled 2,615 complaints. There are certainly no plans to reduce that service, and I am sure that if they could find the wherewithal, everybody would rather like to enhance it.

L. Reid: I do appreciate the minister's comments. I know for a fact that in the first year of operation, January 1 to June 9, there were 650 complaints, and there was, like, a person and a half, which was very, very difficult. Again, I give great credo to Peter for having handled the job in such a professional way, because I'm sure it was an overwhelming task.

If the FTE staff has moved to three, that's only to the good. Certainly my research tells me that Manitoba has a fair practices advocate and that a number of American states have someone who operates in a similar role. But it's not necessarily an approach that has been adopted by the majority of other provinces. I think it's a very good thing on the part of the British Columbia WCB to have taken some leadership on the question, and I would commend them for having done so.

Certainly some of the legislation I researched from other provinces. . . . This is the statute from Nova Scotia. My reading of it convinces me that it is focused on being user-friendly, that it is truly written in plain language. I don't know if the minister has had an opportunity to review it. But certainly Nova Scotia and, I believe, Prince Edward Island have made dramatic strides in a very short space of time when it comes to ensuring that if the monopoly is going to be present, that it is accessible, that it has some public profile and credibility, and that it welcomes people in to understand how the system works. Through my conversations with Mr. Bogyo, I believe that is indeed the goal. I'm wondering if there's anyone, perhaps through the policy branch, who is making comparisons between the legislation of other provinces and how far that discussion may have evolved.

Hon. D. Lovick: To the specific question, I'm advised that the WCB does indeed review on a regular and ongoing basis what is happening in other jurisdictions with a view to whether we can thereby learn from and improve our system. As well, the member perhaps knows -- if not, I'm sure she'll be pleased to know -- that the cornerstone of the strategic plan for the WCB, which we referred to, is to make the service more accessible and consumer-friendly. So it would seem to me, then, that anything that would fall under that heading would probably get encouragement from the board and from others working there.

L. Reid: There are a number of pieces of correspondence from employers. I would simply seek some clarification on a reduction in costs to employers, which I believe the minister referenced earlier. If you could just lay the groundwork for what that looks like, perhaps over the next three years.

[4:00]

What I read into the record this morning was that there has been an average decline of 2.1 percent in assessment rates, with 79 percent of employers paying today the same as or less than in 1996. I also want to refer the member opposite to a document that I know she will have some familiarity with -- namely, this year's annual report.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, I'm sure this is bedside reading. This is page 3 of the report, in the graph. It shows the 1997 actual, the 1999 target and the year 2003 target, under that heading. The 1997 actual rate was $2.12 per $100 of ratable payroll. The 1999 target is $2 per $100 of ratable payroll. And the year 2003 target is $1.50 per $100 of ratable payroll. So, as you see, significant progress (a) has been made and (b) is projected.

R. Kasper: I just have -- I won't call them questions -- maybe some comments, just so that the minister. . . . In my deliberations as an MLA, I guess, I'd consider that I have been a reasonably strong advocate for encouraging the rights of injured workers and for urging WCB to make the system more user-friendly. I can't help but say, and I've said this in the House on a number of occasions: get rid of the red tape in the WCB. I would urge this of the minister over the next year, between now and when he is back here again with his estimates, so that we'll see some changes and some suggestions brought forward by the commission. The minister may well be aware that I made a presentation to the commission, which urged what I consider only fair changes to the act, to the legislation. So that's my opening comment.

But I have a question that relates to the number of MRI scans done in the capital regional district, and also in the rest of the province, that are paid for as fee-for-service by WCB to the hospital and/or the Medical Services Plan for that service. I know that there are cases where the WCB disputes the need for an MRI but it is requested by the practising family physician and/or the specialist.

I would also want to know: does WCB keep a record of those disputed claims, where the physician has made the request for the MRI and where WCB has said that it's not needed? I don't necessarily need the answer now, but if it is available, I'd look forward to receiving that answer.

I thank you for the indulgence of the opposition; I know this is their time.

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for his comments and questions. Yeah, he's quite right; he has indeed been a

[ Page 8676 ]

Regarding red tape, yes indeed, that initiative is underway. Some steps have been taken, hon. member. I'll be happy to share that information with you. As well, I would point out that the commission -- looking at red tape and achieving greater efficiencies and less of an overburden on business and enterprise within this province, I understand -- is making some recommendations not only about business in general but also about the WCB and, indeed, the interaction between Crowns, businesses and, I guess, administrative bodies of different kinds. I think the member will be happy to hear that.

Re the MRI scans and the number requested via doctors versus those accepted by the board. There is indeed a record of those claims, and I will be happy to get that information for the member at the first opportunity.

R. Kasper: I would also urge the minister, during his deliberations over the next year, to seriously consider the provision. . . . And I don't mean to venture into future -- or what could be deemed as future -- legislation. But to be cognizant of the fact that injured workers who can no longer return to their previous type of employment have a written right to retraining. . . . The legislation states that they may be retrained. From my own personal experience as a tradesperson, I think that if I had suffered an injury where I could no longer venture forth in my previous trade. . . . It should be a right for everyone to be retrained, so that they can be valuable, contributing members of society and gainfully employed. This, all too often, has been at the discretion of the board, as to whether or not retraining takes place. I think that's wrong. I think that goes against the grain and against the sole purpose of what the Workers Compensation Board was established for, and that's to get injured workers back in the workforce. The only guarantee that an injured worker has is to ensure that it's inherently written into the legislation.

So I don't mean to venture into legislation -- food for thought. I know that you are going to be very busy over the next year dealing with the deliberations of the commission when they complete their work later on this year.

Hon. D. Lovick: I would respond ever so briefly by simply saying that. . . . I'd love to make a speech at this point, but I'll resist the temptation. The speech I would like to make -- and I will; I'll find an opportunity at some point -- is about the exciting concept of disability management. I had the pleasure of witnessing, in this building, the signing of a historic accord between the representatives of the International Labour Organization and the disability management institute, and I have not felt so keen and excited about a concept for a very long time in my political career.

I think the member is absolutely correct to say that the aim of the WCB. . . . I would add something to it, but I would say that, first, it's prevention. Second, it's fair and just treatment of workers who are injured or hurt on the job, and along with that, taking care of their dependents, should they, unfortunately, be killed or die. Third, to whatever extent possible, they should be given every opportunity to return to work, to some kind of productive existence that would give them back their dignity and their sense of purpose in life. I accept entirely that aim, and I am hopeful that within the next relatively short while, maybe even in the next decade, we will see that the proposals and plans of the disability management people become the norm in this country and indeed, perhaps, throughout the world. So I would be more than happy to chat with the member about that issue sometime outside these rather confined circumstances. I thank him for his intervention.

C. Hansen: I just wanted to take exception with one point that the member raised earlier, and that's with regard to the estimates process being the opposition members' time. Certainly I welcome the intervention by a member of the government benches. I think it's incumbent upon all members outside of the executive council to raise issues when it comes to the adjudication of government spending.

I would like to raise some issues that came out of our discussions on Bill 14. There were three areas in that debate, where I did mention. . . . Actually, the minister suggested we save it for estimates, or I suggested that it might be more appropriate for estimates. One area that the minister suggested would be more logically discussed under estimates is the area of education programs. In Bill 14 there is a provision that says that education programs provided to members of health and safety committees would either be provided by the board or would be programs approved by the board. I'd like the minister to give us some outline as to where the board currently is in developing an approach to the implementation of those training programs or the approval of training programs.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm embarrassed to say that I can't give the member the kind of detailed information that I thought might be available; it isn't. We're in the process, I gather, of developing curricula and syllabi, etc., for those kinds of courses. I believe that what I said in the chamber when we had our discussion was that I am sure there is a huge corpus of material out there, ready to go. What I can say though, in general terms, about education and the obligation the board assumes regarding education, is that the regulation that was recently published -- the one that is the brand-new statement about how we maintain worker safety and all of that -- is written in plain language. It's also, in my mind, in a very user-friendly format. It's well indexed; it's got tables of contents and subsets and everything, so I think one can find the way through it without too much difficulty. It's also worth noting that it replaces some ten previous documents, which were written in very different and disparate styles.

Perhaps I should stop there. Rather than making a speech in anticipation of what I think the member wants to ask, why don't I simply let him perhaps be more specific? I'll do my very best to answer the question.

C. Hansen: I appreciate those comments. Perhaps the best way to approach this is if the minister could give us some sense of the kinds of training programs that the board currently offers and, secondly, the kinds of programs that the board authorizes, where there is specific training. My understanding, for example, is that in order to be certified in first aid training in this province, you must have training that has been authorized or certified by the board. I'm wondering if the minister could outline for us the types of training the board offers and, secondly, the types of training the board approves of for certification purposes.

[4:15]

[ Page 8677 ]

Second, the member's question regarding what is approved -- I think that too will have to be part of an exhaustive list that we will endeavour to provide. I do know, however, that the board certainly does some curriculum work. For example, the board has the youth safety -- the Youth Works. . . . I've forgotten the name of the program, but it's one that they take into the schools, in order to promote consciousness of workplace safety among young people who are about to start their first job. So there are a number of those kinds of initiatives out there, and as I say, I would be more than happy to get that detailed information for the member opposite -- ideally, with examples.

C. Hansen: I would appreciate receiving that information. I wonder if the minister could give us an outline as to where the board is in terms of expanding the range of training. I gather from his earlier comments that the board isn't a long way down the road of looking at the kind of training that may be offered for health and safety committee members. Has there been any initiative at all in terms of what type of training that might be? Obviously we're going to be looking at a range of training that's far in excess of what is currently offered by the board or subject to the approval of the board.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised -- and I guess I sort of knew this, but I'm excited by the prospect -- that the Workers Compensation Board is apparently the largest publisher of health and safety information manuals, guidebooks, etc., in North America. We also have a huge library of those kinds of materials available, all of which, of course, are made available to employers, workers and safety committees. Indeed, most of the materials are apparently designed for that purpose.

The materials are all accessible, but what needs to be done -- and this is the task confronting the board -- is for those materials to be packaged and organized in such a way that they comply with the requests that will inevitably come as a result of the regulations. That's a daunting task, but I don't think it's beyond their abilities, energies or expertise.

A good question, and I'm happy to report that I think the board is well and truly aware of its obligation and will address it.

C. Hansen: I don't have Bill 14 in front of me, but my recollection of it is that the requirement for eight hours of training a year for each member of the safety committee is to allow them to participate in courses -- well, maybe courses isn't the right word -- to participate in training that is provided or authorized by the board. So the board is going to have a major role in developing this curriculum, if that's the right word for it.

I know that in the discussions that we had on Bill 14, the minister indicated that it may be several months before we'll be proclaiming that legislation -- once it is passed in this House. But I would think that the development and the approval of courses is something that could potentially take much longer than three or four months. I just wonder if the minister sees this as something that may hold up the proclamation of those particular sections of this bill.

Hon. D. Lovick: Regarding curriculum, I understand that, for the most part, the kinds of materials that would be suitable for training safety committees and so forth, and making sure they're aware of their responsibilities, what they ought to be doing and how they should be guided are hugely available now. It's essentially a matter of packaging it in such a way that it becomes, as I say, readily accessible for particular purposes. In other words: "Here's the kind of operation I have; this is what my business looks like; this, then, is what I require. Please send me some information."

What the WCB has to do is simply take that huge pile of resources it has and make sure it is able to answer those questions expeditiously. I'm advised that we think we can do that very quickly and that it isn't going to hold up the proclamation of the legislation.

I see that my deputy on my left has grabbed my next prop, so I have to reach over and take it away. It's not a prop for debate purposes, I assure you; I simply want to refer the member to a document. We'll give the member a copy. It's called "Health and Safety at the WCB: Focus Report, 1997." It talks a little bit about the WorkSafe program I alluded to earlier. What's most interesting in the document is simply the last page. I knew about some of these documents, but I didn't know about the last page. I'd just like to tell the member what it says. There's a boldface headline there that says: "Need Help With Your Occupational Health and Safety Program?" It then says if so, here's what you do. "For general information" -- God, that is small print, isn't it? -- "about occupational health and safety programs. . . "

L. Reid: It's plain language, I hope.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member says, "It's plain language, I hope," and she's quite correct.

". . .and answers to safety and health questions, contact your local WCB office or call the prevention information line at. . . ." It then proceeds to give a list of numbers, toll-free outside the lower mainland. "For information about courses on occupational health and safety programs. . . ." Again, it does the same thing. Then it says: "To order WCB publications and videos. . . " and it says how to contact those people. I think, as I say, we're probably already pretty well along that path to doing what the member asks. I hope that's helpful.

C. Hansen: In the discussion we had on Bill 14, we talked about the kinds of training that might constitute this eight-hour requirement. I gather from what the minister has just said that it may be a case of getting a package of material and allowing a safety committee member eight hours in which to go through that material and familiarizing them with it. That would constitute meeting the terms of eight hours of training.

I think that a lot of people, in reading the legislation, might be of the impression that this is to attend a course per se. I know that we did talk in the House about videotapes and things like that, but now the minister is giving it a little bit of a different definition, which may be reassuring, especially to workplaces in remote parts of British Columbia. If we're looking at it from the point of view of time to review materials, that might be quite different than actually attending an actual course for eight hours. I'm just wondering if the minister could elaborate.

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't think it's a case of saying that one goes out and does self-study, you know, where you curl up in your den for eight hours or something like that. I don't think that's the intention.

L. Reid: That would be pleasant, though, wouldn't it?

[ Page 8678 ]

C. Hansen: I don't want to belabour the point, but I think that therein is the dilemma we may be facing as this legislation is proclaimed. There are some videos available in this area, I understand, but certainly most of the material we have is printed material. If a health and safety committee member is to get the benefit of the material that the WCB has today, we're talking mostly printed matter; we're not talking about videos. And we're talking about a limited number of courses that are available. So I'm concerned that there may be a significant demand for material that is really going to be mostly in a printed state and that won't really lend itself to a course per se. Rather, the materials would lend themselves to self-study, to use the minister's words.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised that a number of people could very well be qualified to carry out this kind of program, but a number of businesses with experience in occupational health and safety could certainly access given materials and then put on a workshop at the place of work. Similarly, officials from the WCB might be called in. Community colleges may well have people with expertise in that area who. . . . As I believe I said in the House, I don't think it's the case that one employer would necessarily have to bear that cost all by herself or by himself. I think, rather that they could pool their resources and say: "Right. We are going to put on a seminar on this day and five of us as employers are going to bring in somebody that we think is really good to be a facilitator with this material" -- or something like that. So I guess my point is that I don't think there will necessarily be too onerous a burden or too exorbitant a cost or anything like that. I would certainly hope not, because if that were the case, then I think it's fair to say -- and I would agree with what I think the member would contend -- that that would be a self-defeating thing. I'm sure that the intention of the legislation is to improve things, not to make them worse, obviously.

C. Hansen: One of the other areas arising from our Bill 14 discussion, which was deferred to estimates, was the issue of the costs of implementing the act: the increased demand that may be put on WCB officers as a result of information that can be requested by health and safety committees and by safety representatives, the need for WCB officers to respond to those information requests and also to the increased requirement for inspections and other enforcement that come as a result of Bill 14. I'm wondering if the minister could advise us as to what kind of increased cost the WCB is going to be facing as that legislation gets implemented.

[4:30]

The Chair: The minister has suggested a five-minute recess. Is it the wish of the committee to take a five-minute recess?

Interjection.

The Chair: So ordered. We'll reconvene in five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:30 p.m. to 4:37 p.m.

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to respond to the question the member ended with before we had our brief recess, which I understand may have been more than five minutes. There is, indeed, a study underway in terms of what the cost implications of the legislation are. . . . I'm sorry; I'm not saying that absolutely correctly. It's not so much in terms of the cost implications but rather what we need to do in order to get everything in place and implemented and working well. We recognize that some new forms will clearly be required as a result of the legislation -- old things that are now obsolete. . . . I'm advised, however, that some of those things had to change in any event because of a new regulation, for example; because of the ongoing changes in the operation; and because of the efforts to make the Workers Compensation Board more user-friendly, the evidence of which we have certainly seen in the last two or three years.

I understand as well that there are ongoing adjustments -- we are looking at changing some data systems and various operations and so forth. That process will be used to accommodate the legislation and the changes resulting from the changed legislation. I am advised, as well, that there may be some short-term costs, some additional costs, simply because until we get the new system we may have to bring in some people to help put the new systems in place and so forth. Finally, I am told that we are looking at probably ten to 12 months before the new, revised system will indeed be up and running. I think I've answered all the member's questions.

C. Hansen: Is that information that the minister may be able to share with us, as the implementation of Bill 14 progresses? He talks about a report. . . . He used the word "study," but I gather that there are documents which may show what has to be done, to make sure that they're ready for Bill 14.

Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that status reports will be brought to the panel, and those, of course, will become available to members via the Internet connection we talked about before. I don't think there is any plan to say that we must prepare a report on the particulars and the specifics of this. Rather, it is simply an ongoing operation of the board, accommodating changes -- but largely, answering the question, just in terms of status reports. I think that's the proposal from the board.

C. Hansen: While I'm on the subject of asking for documents, the minister earlier today referred to the auditor general's report and the fact that all of the recommendations will be implemented. He mentioned that many of them have already been implemented and that there are action plans in place for how the others will be implemented. I'm wondering if the minister might be able to share those action plans with us.

Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that the action plans, with a view to implementing the legislation, are being developed for each of the divisions. Those will eventually take the form of business plans, and the business plans -- the report on

[ Page 8679 ]

C. Hansen: Actually, that sounds preferable, because the last thing I need on my desk is more paper. If I can raise one last issue before I turn it back to my colleague from Richmond East, it's the issue of courses that are offered in first-aid training. This is, again, an issue that I raised briefly when we had the discussion on Bill 14.

My understanding is that the WCB actually conducts some first aid training -- that they have people on staff who provide training towards getting first-aid certificates. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also understand that there are outside organizations to which the WCB gives approval to conduct the training that will lead to the WCB certifications. I'm wondering if the minister could confirm my understanding of that and tell me how it would break down between WCB training and training that would be done by other organizations.

Hon. D. Lovick: The board trains the trainers, does the testing and writes the curriculum, but virtually all of the actual instruction is provided by outside contractors.

C. Hansen: In other words, the training is done for the board. This is WCB training that is done on contract to the WCB, as opposed to approval for a training course outside that is certified, say, by the WCB. I want to get clear on whether it's a contractual arrangement to do WCB training or whether it's somebody that's authorized to do WCB training that the WCB will approve.

Hon. D. Lovick: WCB approves the contractors -- the teaching institutions, if you will. They provide the materials, the curriculum and so forth to those individuals. The people who pay for the service, however, are those individuals who go and take the course put on by the trainers.

[4:45]

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm glad the member said "perception," because I am advised that there is indeed no preferential treatment accorded one over the other.

C. Hansen: One of the concerns that was brought to my attention was access to space in WCB buildings around British Columbia. As I understand it, St. John Ambulance has been given the right -- if that's the right word to use -- to lease space that is adjacent to or part of WCB buildings around the province. The concern is that that may be part of what's feeding this perception that in fact the St. John Ambulance courses are somehow part and parcel of the WCB. Also, I guess, to finish my question on that. . . . It's about whether or not there has been equal access to that space -- whether it's gone out to some kind of open proposal for the use of that space or whether, in fact, St. John Ambulance has been given somewhat of an inside track on leasing that space.

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to share the interaction off-mike, as it were. My deputy leaned over to our representative from the WCB and said, "You've got the briefing note at the office, but not here," and then said: "But I am assured that there is no preferential treatment accorded." I will obviously undertake to get that extra information for the member. But as I say, we are advised that there indeed isn't any preferential treatment.

L. Reid: I would conclude for this minister that I think he's blessed to have the staff that he has with him today.

In terms of a second question that I actually missed from this morning, what are the costs of the royal commission on the workers compensation system -- the cost to date and the number of FTEs that are currently involved in that exercise?

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't have that information, but I would just advise the member that that cost is borne by and budgeted by the Attorney General ministry. I'm sure that that would be available, but I don't know the answer.

L. Reid: I appreciate that it's under the Inquiry Act, so it falls under the Attorney General. The information has simply not been made available to me to date, after a number of inquiries. If there's any way that the minister could expedite that process, I would be grateful.

I just want to make a couple of comparisons here and ask him where the discussion might be headed around WCB benefits and compensation rates. My research tells me that there are only two parts of this country -- British Columbia and the Yukon -- that are still paying gross. The rest of the provinces are all paying net compensation rates on earnings. I'm wondering where the discussion currently sits in British Columbia. I know the discussion is probably a decade old, if not older. It has been going on during my seven years in this House. Where is the discussion as we speak?

Hon. D. Lovick: The discussion is with the royal commission. I understand that there was a whole day of presentations to the commission at its hearings by the main stakeholders involved in the debate. So we're looking forward to their recommendation, and we'll respond accordingly.

Just because I think the member said that she had had difficulty getting that information, I will share with her the anecdotal information I have. The royal commission apparently has some 30 FTEs, although it fluctuates, I gather, from time to time. But that's what I have now, and I'll get something more detailed eventually, if I can.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comment. Perhaps if he could recall what the actual initial budgeted expenditure was. . . . If he doesn't have it today, I'll accept that. But if it could come at some point, I would appreciate that.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm caught with an ice cube, Mr. Chairman. I feel like Scotty Bowman or someone.

Again, this is anecdotal, but our recollection is that the original estimate for the royal commission is something like between $6 million and $7 million, I believe.

[ Page 8680 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: I gather that the regulation review committee ceased to be once the regulation was tabled. However, I think one needs to say that the final report of the royal commission will inevitably have some impact on regulations, and another committee of some sort will probably have to be constituted at that point. Whether it will bear any resemblance to its predecessor in any way, shape or form, I don't know.

L. Reid: I appreciate the clarification. So roughly two weeks ago -- well, a little bit longer -- when the legislation went through the House, this committee ceased its activity.

Interjection.

L. Reid: So it was April 15; that's more than a few weeks. My apologies.

One of the other issues that comes to my office -- and I believe it comes to many offices -- is the discussion around severance and the workers compensation system. The article certainly makes the claim that it has been in a huge discussion, and it actually says that the Workers Compensation Board is fingered as the top offender in the George Morfitt worst-case scenario:

"From 1985 until now, says Morfitt, the board's policy on severance for its senior managers has resulted in excessive payments. Morfitt says it all began in 1985 when the WCB board introduced a policy allowing for up to 36 months' severance for its managers -- 50 percent higher than what the courts have said should be the maximum. WCB changed its policy in 1990, but still agreed to pay the higher amounts to anyone who had joined the organization before 1985. That, says Morfitt, meant that in the six years between 1990 and 1995, seven WCB executives received payments ranging from 24.7 months' salary to 36 months', amounts Morfitt called 'excessive and unreasonable.' And even in the 1990 policy the maximum severance was set at 30 months. 'We believe this revised policy to be excessive as well.' " This is an article from May of 1997 "In 1994 the WCB policy changed again. This time the board abandoned any written policy and, following legal advice, decided to handle each executive's departure on an individual basis. Morfitt, however, says that without a written policy, it's much more difficult for a Crown corporation to negotiate a settlement. Instead, the auditor general urges that 'clearly stated severance policies be periodically reviewed to ensure consistency with legal standards.' "

Hon. D. Lovick: I am advised that that particular ghost has been laid to rest, that the board has now changed policy, so it is now bound by the Public Sector Employers Council's guidelines or regulations. They are now fully compliant with those guidelines, and therefore that problem, which the member quite correctly read into the record, has indeed been addressed.

L. Reid: Can the minister indicate when that new policy came into effect?

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't have the exact date, but it would have happened when the legislation was introduced creating PSEC last fall. Since that time, I am further advised, there have been no severances at the senior level in the WCB.

L. Reid: To clarify that last comment, the departing president would not have received a severance package in the last number of months?

Hon. D. Lovick: The member is correct. The former president will not receive a severance package; nor, I understand, would the current president, should he leave on a voluntary basis.

L. Reid: What severance provisions are in place for the panel of administrators?

Hon. D. Lovick: None.

L. Reid: One of the other issues we perhaps may canvass for more than a few moments is regarding the structure of the appeal process and the various levels. Those are other areas that certainly often confound the users of the system, and their contention continues to be that the system is simply not transparent. They don't seem to comprehend why it is that person X receives this particular treatment and person Y does not.

Fully appreciating this, there are the vagaries of dealing with each case on its individual merit. There seems to be some discrepancy in decision-making found in the board. I have typically come at this issue around the training of the individuals who are entrusted to make those decisions. I'm sad to say that my concern has not lessened. The major oversight that I continue to see is around risk assessment, with the adjudicator or the case manager not appreciating the level of personal anguish of some of those claimants, who end up in some cases doing some terrible, terrible things to themselves in the course of a very protracted appeal process, which oftentimes is many, many years long. On my repeated visits to the board, they assure me that some of those things will be corrected by the E-file approach and by the single-case-manager approach.

My bigger concern is the skill sets of the various people on the various appeal boards, and I'd make the same comment I made earlier regarding rehabilitation -- that the background of those individuals is not shared readily and oftentimes results in claimants questioning the credibility of the decision, because they have limited faith in the person who made the decision. Does the minister have a sense of how the changes that have been proposed over the last 18 months. . . ? I'll say 18 months, because that's probably when most of these changes were at least on the table. Has there been a dramatic change in the level of decision-making, which hopefully will result in speedier processing of the more complex claims? I appreciate that this is a tough question. It's not about the 80 percent that move quickly; it's about the 20 percent that get bogged down in the system.

[5:00]

The case management one: what that translates into, and cashes out as, more than anything else, is simply that a num-

[ Page 8681 ]

In the continuum-of-care approach, what we're talking about is the recognition that -- as I understand it, at least -- it's not a matter of saying: "Well, this is the therapy or whatever you need" -- end of story. Rather, it's: "Well, we may start with this. We'll get through that; then we'll go on to the next stage and the next development." The conclusion to all of that is essentially the assurance and comfort that my advisers from WCB give me that yes indeed, the system will improve that, and those matters will be expedited.

There are at the moment, by the way, two pilot projects underway. One is in Prince George, and the other is in North Vancouver. So we will obviously also learn, I hope, something from those and get better at what we do.

L. Reid: My understanding of the Prince George project is that it is the pilot E-file project. Is that something different?

Interjection.

L. Reid: The case management file. Is it also the case management file that's underway in North Vancouver?

They're nodding in agreement. Thank you very much.

My question is heading back to the levels of appeal. I ask a specific question regarding the medical review panel. The question that's posed to me is: whom is that body accountable to?

Hon. D. Lovick: In the final analysis, the medical review panel is accountable to the chair of the panel.

L. Reid: So if the medical review panel is accountable to the chair, prior to this structure it would have been accountable to the chair of the board of governors. In that there are individuals who have had difficulties under both processes, if you will. . . . Can the chair perhaps relay to the minister how many times, if indeed any, contact has been made with the chair regarding individuals who've had difficulty with the medical review panel? Is it something that. . . ? Is it common practice? Has it happened at all during his tenure as chair? It seems to me that the folks who have difficulty today have truly come to the end of the road. Is it possible to receive a hearing from the chair in terms of how best to proceed next?

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. D. Lovick: To answer the question, I need to clarify that the decision of the medical review panel on a particular case is final and binding. That is not changeable by the chair of the panel, nor is it appealable. That is, I think, a necessary separation. The overall conduct and operation of a medical review panel, however, is ultimately the responsibility of the chair of the panel. I hope that clarifies it.

L. Reid: If a claimant wished to have a discussion about the mechanics of how that appeal was conducted, as opposed to the decision and the outcome, it would be appropriate to make contact with the chair of the panel. They're very separate. I can assure the minister that the majority of complaints are about the conduct of the hearings; it's not about the outcome.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the member raises a point that has some real resonance. She will be pleased to know that the board is mindful of and resolved to improve upon the situation. I am told that some educational seminars for MRP members have indeed been undertaken. I am also told that a new director was just appointed three months ago. Leigh Sheardown is the name of the new director, apparently. As well, I understand that the proposal is to add some new panel chairs to the MRP.

The member is quite right that it is a problem. I've certainly seen a few of them cross my desk -- long before I got this job, too, I might add. Those are complaints we hear. Again, without judging whether all complaints are equally valid and all of that, I am happy to report that the systemic problem, if you will, has been recognized, and apparently steps have been taken to address it. I'm sure the member will welcome that news, as I do.

L. Reid: I appreciate that. I know the minister will appreciate that some of the remedy could have been found by simply offering an apology in terms of how people were treated in the past. I trust that that sort of ongoing public relations is a priority.

Certainly in terms of medical advisers and the appointment process, the individuals who would sit as members. . . . I believe that oftentimes at least one of those individuals is a medical adviser, a physician of some description. In last year's estimates there was talk that that process would change, that there would be more "contemporary" appointments -- perhaps that is a kinder characterization. There were concerns raised to me about the length of time between active practice and appointment to this body. Perhaps that's the kindest characterization. If the minister could give me some sense of the age range and the years of active medicine practised by these individuals, that would be helpful.

Hon. D. Lovick: I am advised that the board is working on that and is working specifically with the College of Physicians and Surgeons with a view to getting some new names -- or some names that are, as the member might have it, more current.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for that; I appreciate that. Hopefully, by next year's estimates. . . . I trust that some of this work will be nearing fruition. I don't believe the work will ever be complete. I think it's an evolution to where we're headed. I do believe that so much of what is of concern today about the board is the quality and the integrity of the decisions that are reached. Whether it's a board or appeal board decision, somewhere in the process, people begin to vehemently question the integrity of the decision. And I think that level of concern will only be reduced as the individuals become more forthright as to their credentials and perhaps develop some enhanced interpersonal skills.

I've certainly made in the past the commentary I will make regarding a specialist's opinion versus a general practitioner's opinion. I was assured last year that this indeed is an area that's been worked on by the board. I would simply inquire as to how many specialists are currently advising either the medical review panel or other aspects within the board. I know that early on in my tenure it was a fraction of

[ Page 8682 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: I am advised of two things: (1) that's precisely what case management in that particular approach is trying to address; and (2) I'm given anecdotal evidence, which I find interesting, that the newly appointed director has apparently made it very clear that this medical review panel is indeed a priority item. Being more client-friendly and more current and so forth is indeed a priority, so I hope that's comforting.

L. Reid: It would be comforting, hon. minister, if it were tied to a business plan. But I'm seeking a little bit of confidence here, so I appreciate that. I would hope -- and I've now probably asked this particular set of questions over five different sets of estimates. . . . I appreciate the answer that it's in progress. But perhaps in future, Mr. Bogyo would provide me with a bit more background before next year's estimates as to how much progress has been made with some of these questions.

We've all seen the newspaper articles about, you know, "WCB Doctors Too Old to Practise"-- and that was only written on April 10 of last year. So indeed there need to be some targets sets, outcomes measured and some reasonable reporting. I've always believed that "in progress" was a lovely term but was not to be overused.

In terms of other issues that I wish to canvass with the minister today, I can conclude that there are many and trust that we will make some progress. With the minister's indulgence, I will just reduce my commentary down to a few major articles.

[5:15]

I gave the minister an example which I'd gladly repeat, if he doesn't recall. There was a tiny portion of a trip involving work. The deceased was deemed to have been a worker. As a result, ICBC could not respond under the Family Compensation Act -- even though, I think, they probably felt a moral obligation to. The Workers Compensation Board couldn't come up with much for the widow either, because the deceased had been pouring most of his resources into the guest ranch business he was developing. That's a situation I don't think most of us in our society would ever want to see shape up, where someone is practically destitute when actually they had two different sets of very good coverage. The minister invited me to canvass his opinions and intentions in the estimates debate.

Hon. D. Lovick: Sorry for the delay, Madam Chair. I want to deal with not just this question but some of the others that will follow and to suggest a way in which we might proceed which I think may be helpful to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. I'm going to give, if I might, a very short answer to that question that I know won't be satisfactory. But then what I'm going to do is suggest two things. First, I want the member to give us other cases, as well, and to read those into the record, as it were. I can respond at the end of that in some brief form, if he so wishes. But what I will also do is give him my assurance that Mr. Bogyo from WCB will undertake personally to visit each of those cases and see if we can't provide some more detailed information to the member. I think that probably will be more helpful than my simply speculating on what I can or can't do.

However, to answer this brief question, let me just say that the rules governing the operations of WCB -- the law, in effect. . . . And I know as well as any that sometimes the law can be an ass, as Dickens said. But the law in this case is two things: No. 1, it is governed. . . . Your entitlement to WCB is determined by your earnings at the time -- that's the way the system works. For whatever circumstances, this individual's earnings, frankly, were very low, and therefore not much compensation was payable. That's one.

The second one is the fact that the two workers involved. . . . It's the clause that's referred to as, I guess, the "worker bar" -- the worker-worker bar. The ruling apparently is simply to prevent. . . . And I gather this is jurisprudence from a long, long time ago. The intention of the legislation is to set up a regime to protect one worker from being sued by another worker. Therefore it is the case that in this circumstance, with these two workers riding together, one couldn't blame the other; therefore neither in fact had the benefit of ICBC in this case. Again, as I say, I'm not for a moment saying that that will be a comfort or a definitive answer. But certainly I'll ask Mr. Bogyo to pursue that, to talk with the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, and I hope we can provide something better than this.

K. Krueger: We can certainly canvass the individual cases as they arise. I didn't actually come with a list; I came more with a point of view of seeking to direct some attention to this question.

I think everybody understands why the rule originated: you can't have everyone resorting to court actions when, for example, one factory worker injures another on the job. But what's evolved in British Columbia, of course, as the net has been widened with regard to who enjoys the benefit of WCB coverage -- particularly in recent years, when realtors and many occupations have been included in that net -- is a situation where workers who have absolutely nothing to do with one another, workers from entirely different industries, and employers can meet on the roadway in the course of their employment or, in the case that I just described, arguably barely within the scope of their employment and have a collision that is a random event or the result of one person's negligence and not the other's, as was the case here.

This was a case where the fellow who was developing the guest ranch met a courier van. They'd never met each other before in their lives. The courier van crossed centre line, a collision resulted, and death was immediate. It's such a far leap from the original rule that you don't want one factory worker being able to sue another to denying a claim in tort to this gentleman who was developing the guest ranch. He was a brilliant man, an engineer, pouring all his time into this beautiful ranch. It's called Nakiska Ranch in Wells Gray Park. His

[ Page 8683 ]

I had anticipated that the minister had applied his mind to that and was thinking that, perhaps as an outcome of the royal commission, there might well be some legislation. I'd like that to be percolating in everyone's mind. One answer might be to provide authority to the courts to have a look at anomalies such as the one I just described. I think that most of us, looking at the fact pattern I have seen -- because I've read the statements for that particular loss -- would think that probably less than 5 percent of the overall trip had anything to do with work. But the next stop on that trip was going to be at a window factory, where the fellow was hoping to arrange windows for his ranch. So it's not that the decision is illogical; it's just that the outcome is perverse. I wonder if the minister might care to comment as to whether his mind is open to those sorts of options as the royal commission's results come out.

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for that heartfelt explanation and plea on behalf of people like the individual in that circumstance. I think the case he makes is very compelling -- no question. The short answer to the question is yes indeed, I would open my mind to that. It strikes me that anomalous circumstances like that, which clearly have the effect of apparently leaving high and dry individuals whose interests otherwise ought to be protected by any rational calculus, should indeed become a concern, should indeed become part of a newly constituted Workers Compensation Board. I'm not at liberty, of course, to say, "Make it so," or something, à la Jean-Luc Picard of "Star Trek." But it would be nice if one could.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, I know. That was as Speaker; that was different.

What I will say is this, though: I understand that the royal commission did indeed spend the better part of a day on this subject. They certainly heard some again, eloquent and heartfelt presentations on this very subject. One would dearly hope that the issue, at the very least, will be addressed, and I will certainly be watching closely to see what comes out of that and will do what I can.

K. Krueger: I'm going to try and take up minimal time here, because we want to wrap up the WCB aspect of our questioning for Labour estimates within the time frame that we had suggested earlier. But another area that I'd similarly like the board and the minister to be applying their minds to, which will probably come up as a result of the royal commission -- maybe it has already -- is a situation where the person whose negligence gave rise to an injury is not a worker under the definitions in the act. For example, a motor vehicle accident again occurs -- those seem to be the scenarios I'm most familiar with. . . . And one example I can give that comes to mind is a gentleman who hit a horse that had appeared on a highway where it shouldn't have been. It wasn't open range, and arguably the horse was there because of negligence on the part of the person who owned it. Under the current regime, the Workers Compensation Board, once the worker claims, takes over the worker's right of action against the tortfeasor. The worker really doesn't have any option there except to waive his WCB claim altogether.

In a case such as the one I described or many others, the tort action may look like a real long shot. So the worker is abandoning something that's certain, which is his WCB coverage, for something that's very uncertain if he waives it. But it may also appear to be a long shot to the board, so it may not choose to pursue the claim against the person who owned the horse. So the worker ends up feeling snookered out of his option, risky as it might have been, to pursue a non-pecuniary general damages claim for loss of enjoyment of life, pain and suffering and so on. There again, I'd like to see a little more latitude for the worker to have a right to retain counsel or do it on his own and pursue his own general damages claim, with a proviso that the Workers Compensation Board receive reimbursement if he gets something in the tort award that the Workers Compensation Board has already covered. I know that's far too time-consuming an issue to really canvass here. I'd just like to know if the minister would give me the same assurance on that.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, I will give the member that assurance and with only this clarification: this issue too, I understand, was well canvassed by the royal commission. Compensation -- the entire system of compensation, of course -- is one of the major mandates of the royal commission. I'm hopeful that something will indeed come out of it.

K. Krueger: I'm going to roll these last three concerns of mine into one. I never mean to offend either the minister or the board by raising this sort of thing, but I have a conviction, and so do many people, that the board has too much power, too much law unto itself without being subject to review by the courts. I'd like to see a place of last resort outside the board -- at least for some questions -- because there's always this impression on the part of the injured worker that there is an inclination for an organization to protect its own.

You hear that about complaints against police, and there aren't very many organizations in our structure where people don't have final recourse to the courts. So I'd like to see that, particularly with regard to partially disabled but long-term disabled workers. We hear such horror stories, and I have one in my office -- a thick file. The person speaking with me now is a widow, but her husband fought a running battle with WCB for 20 years and then died of a heart attack. His injury was a back injury, but he had tremendous frustration. Frankly, I don't know who's right and who's wrong in this situation, but I'd like to see a court in a position of having a look at those questions. I know, obviously, that that kind of bumps into the philosophy we discussed earlier of a worker not being able to sue another worker, but surely there's some provision that can be made so justice is seen to be done in these situations.

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for the intervention. I'm not sure that I have anything to comment at the moment, except that. . . . In fairness, let me share with the worker that his starting point, I think I can fairly say, is a fear of too much power vested in a body. One of my pet peeves or pet fears, in personal terms, is of a too litigious society. I think the Americans are the classic case of what's wrong if we go with torts becoming the way of life and their sort of the modus operandi.

[5:30]

L. Reid: This document about the prevention information line, put out by the Workers Compensation Board, which

[ Page 8684 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: On the face of it, yeah, it sounds like the Workers Compensation Board's equivalent of a speed trap or something. If that's the case. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: No, I won't judge that.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yeah, you heard the line -- right? Well, I guess it's on the record. Photo radar -- I think that's a little different. The analogy doesn't quite hold up.

The notion that it would be used in that way, I agree, sounds rather frightening. Let me give you a little bit of information. Here is something called the "Information Line Call Response Summary." I'm quoting from page 67 of the annual statistics report for 1997. I understand that safety calls placed in 1997 were 13,818 in number, that hygiene calls placed were 7,372 in number and that total calls received were 21,190. Now, does that allay the member's fears by itself, or is there more? I will wait for another question.

L. Reid: Just the other two parts of the question: what is the cost of operating that line for this fiscal year, and does the minister have any knowledge if indeed any of those calls have resulted in penalties being struck against employers in the province?

Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that if the employer calls asking for advice on a particular thing, there are probably no instances where somebody would then end up being penalized. However, if an employer were to -- and again this is very speculative on my part, because I don't know -- say, "I want you to come out and have a look at this place, because I have a concern about it," and they discovered a major or flagrant violation or something, then by the rules of the game. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yeah. They would have to write up an order. That could happen.

L. Reid: So let's take the scenario of the worker who has, I think, some decent goodwill, because he's interested in phoning to see how the activity should be done. Is there any way he or she can get someone onto their worksite to have a conversation -- which is about an instructive, educational process -- that will not result in a penalty? I mean, they tell me that you can't just get advice. As soon as you invite someone onto your worksite, something happens that's a negative. If this is truly an instructive, educational process -- which is what I think a prevention information line should be -- service should be available that does not result in a penalty. It should be: "Thank you very much for calling. This is how you might wish to proceed."

Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that it would have to be a serious violation to be ticketed. It's not simply a matter of saying: "Well, I came out to look, and therefore I'm going to give you a ticket." I'm just seeing if we have any more statistical evidence here that might be germane or relevant to this question. I know that huge numbers of inspections beyond the specific line. . . . Huge numbers -- 40,000 inspections are carried out, many of those classified as educational in purpose. They're not with a view to being punitive or anything like that but rather to say, "Oh, look, you could do something to improve. . ." -- that kind of thing. Based on what I'm picking up here, I don't think it's the case at all that this system is set up with a view to being punitive, to saying: "Aha! You called in; here's an opportunity to get you" -- or something like that. I would dearly hope not. If so, I would be as offended as anybody.

L. Reid: I very much appreciate the minister's commentary, because certainly that's the case for a number of individuals who called today. What they want is someone they can phone who is truly expert in prevention, who will come and give them advice -- someone separate and distinct from the penalty enforcement provisions of the board. I know that we've touched on this philosophically in the last number of estimates for the workers compensation system. It touches on whether or not you can have the teaching component inextricably tied to the enforcement component. Good teachers know that you can't really do that, that you shouldn't do that and that the outcome is dubious when you do that. That's where we are, I think, regarding this aspect of delivery at the board.

There should be in place. . . . Employers who are prepared to put their company or business on the line and say, "Come in and tell me how to do this" should be able to do that without the risk of a penalty. The bottom line is that they'll stop calling. If this is truly about accident prevention, and someone says, "Come in and tell me if I have accommodated this worksite sufficiently or to the best of my ability or whatever the case happens to be," that, in my view, should be a discreet item. I would trust that this is something that the board will wrap its mind around in the next number of months, because more people would call. If the issue is to improve the safety of worksites, I can assure the minister that more people would call if the fear of penalty were removed. That's just basic human nature. So if the minister could wrap his mind around that direction in the next number of months, because that's truly the. . . .

Interjection.

L. Reid: It's a delight to behold.

If indeed employers were convinced that this service was legitimate, they would use it. That's what they tell me. But there are so many examples of individuals who have picked up the phone with the best of intention and been burned very, very badly and who will, I'm sure, write you, phone you, show you the $10,000 fine. It's a problem.

Hon. D. Lovick: I have wrapped my mind around this for the last moment or three, at least. Let me make a couple of

[ Page 8685 ]

Logically, I think there's something wrong. Let me just try and sketch that out. I think that if indeed one can simply call the prevention line and say, "Come on out; see what I've got here. But because I called you and was manifestly trying to be a nice person and duly diligent and all of those good things, I will not have any risk of a fine however flagrant the violation might be," the smart operator is going to say: "What I'm going to do is call you to come out, and then you're going to tell me exactly what I have to do to fix up my place, and I don't have to worry about it being in violation. I have a fail-safe mechanism of finding out what I need to do, and I don't have to take any responsibility for doing anything to ensure it does comply." That's point two.

The third one, again, is just. . . . Believe me, I'm not welcoming a great debate, and I will put my mind to this for the longer term. I just throw it back intuitively for the moment. The other piece is to say that it seems to me we should not forget that we're talking about serious violations here. Again, I don't know from personal experience, but I would guess that the preponderant majority of cases would be such that: "Look, you didn't put planking over that hole in the ground, and somebody is going to fall through." That's a commonsense response. That didn't need an elaborate sort of inspection. But again. . . . I'm sorry, member. I'm probably being more flip than I ought to be in answering the question. I will consider it. I think there is probably some validity there, but I can see an instant argument against it, as it were.

L. Reid: What I'm asking for is balance. I mean, am I asking that individuals should be rewarded for making an inquiry? No, but nor should they be punished for it. There should be a zero-sum game in this at some point for individuals who actually make an inquiry of the board. I don't think you punish people for that.

I think that for too long the mentality of the board has been more punitive than necessary. I would love to see a change in philosophy, where it's about acknowledging the best operators, the best players in the field, rather than -- as in the old logging industry -- finding the ten worst companies. What in the world would be wrong with finding the ten best companies? That's where I'm headed with this.

I think there's an educational focus missing from the discussion. I think it is possible. The goal should be to ensure that at some point people will have a service within the board that is truly non-punitive, so that they can phone up to seek advice and it will be given without penalty. That is a more than adequate goal, and I think it makes good sense. To do anything else flies in the face of human nature. The number of calls people will make will decrease if they are smacked every time they make a phone call. We know that to be true; as teachers, we know that to be true. In terms of what the future holds for the workers compensation system, more of an educational focus, as opposed to a penalty focus, would be my goal.

I want to spend a moment or two on the research and evaluation section of the board that was established in 1995. I want, hopefully, to conclude my remarks in the next 15 minutes, because I appreciate that a recess may be in the offing.

Hon. D. Lovick: I won't interrupt.

L. Reid: Thank you very much.

In terms of the status report on the research and evaluation section, my understanding is that it was established in 1995. At that point there were three staff members: a manager, a research analyst and a statistical assistant. They were going to fill an identified void in policy structure of the board. I don't know if there is a report out on how effective that has been. Their section activities of the day included prevention research and evaluation, systems design and prevention reporting, so it ties in very nicely with the discussion we're having. Where is this information today? What kind of applications are in place for this information? Indeed, what happened to this new creation?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm sorry, member. I must advise that we're not sure what the title of the report is that the member is describing.

May I take this opportunity to advise her that we have just been advised that the big House is indeed going to break at six and that therefore we have been asked to report out at 5:45 p.m. as usual, which is about now. However, I think I ought to give the last word and the opportunity to quote the title of that report to the member for Richmond East, and if she then wants to move the appropriate motion. . . . Is that preferable, or would you like me to move the motion?

L. Reid: If we are rising, I can probably condense my remaining remarks into four or five minutes and then not return after the break. If that's your desire, I'm absolutely open to that.

Interjections.

L. Reid: Some days it's a bonus to speak quickly in this life.

The research document is entitled, "Research and Evaluation, Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia." It's a document I actually received from the board on November 10, 1996. It talks about the creation of this new body and how they're going to interface with the rest of the organization. If there's not an update available, I will certainly await it.

[5:45]

Certainly there are issues around laboratory services, and again I would make the same request. I have spent a great deal of time going through some of the laboratory services at the board, and they indicated to me at the time that this was perhaps not going to be a portion of the board that would be enlarged. It was going to be maintained as a very small section, if you will. Some of those services may indeed be contracted out. I would simply be interested in an update on whether or not that happened, how many FTEs and the ongoing costs of that actual process.

These three documents -- "Claims Appeal Guide for Workers Independence," "Working with the WCB: Information for Workers Independence," and the "Claims Appeal

[ Page 8686 ]

I will conclude on the WCB campaign to urge young workers to work safe. Certainly the material appears to be very well done. I would simply be interested, -- now that the program is more than a year old, in what the status is. What happened in terms of the impact on young workers in the province? Particular reporting out around this specific program would be welcome, and I thank all members present for their time and attention.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:48 p.m.

The House in Committee of Supply A; E. Walsh in the chair.

The committee met at 6:42 p.m.

ESTIMATES: THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

K. Krueger: Referring to our opening statements in these estimates yesterday. . . . In response to some comments I made about the effect that I'd heard about of changes in the Employment Standards Act on restaurants, the minister said: "There were no changes for restaurants under the Employment Standards Act. . . ." That advice perplexed me, because I have certainly heard it from quite a few restaurateurs and people representing major chains in British Columbia as well. I've been pondering that, and not having lived through the history of it as long as the ministry has, I'd like some clarification. Perhaps the enforcement standards have changed.

I understood that some of the changes, which I'll just briefly touch on, have been brought about by this government sometime within the last seven years. The ones that seem to stick in people's craw the most, ones which they feel are making their operations marginal, where they used to be profitable, are things like the requirement that they pay a minimum of four hours when they bring an employee in -- the minimum daily hours provision is section 34(2)(a) of the Employment Standards Act -- and the provision on statutory holiday pay as set out in section 45 of the Employment Standards Act, particularly with regard to its application to part-time workers, and some of the statutory holiday provisions in sections 46 and 47. If a stat falls on a day off, for example, the employee gets an alternate day.

Some of the effects that employers have described to me of what they have described as changes -- and whether those were changes in legislation over the last seven years or changes in enforcement standards, they say there are changes -- include an unattractiveness for having part-time employees. They would rather, they say, have a much smaller number of mature employees than part-time employees. They say this has really dried up their interest in young workers. They say that they used to start a lot of people in their working lives -- get them started in their restaurants and get them accustomed to working a smaller number of hours per week. That is to say, a young person is not used to 40 hours per week, so they would start them at a shift or two a week, and they'd build up into the workforce.

[6:45]

I appreciate that a lot of these provisions of the Employment Standards Act seem fair to us -- our definition of fairness. But if they have the net effect of drying up employment for people in British Columbia -- particularly for young people, who then don't get an opportunity to get their start in the working world -- then it's a negative result. That's what I was talking about. As I say, it's not just one person telling me this; it's a lot of people in various types of employment, but particularly in the restaurant industry. So perhaps the minister would clarify that for us.

Hon. D. Lovick: I would be happy to clarify. I believe that when the member made his comments -- to which I responded -- we were talking primarily and particularly about the minimum four-hour call-in. Perhaps my response was precipitous, but my response was: no change. And there hasn't been. That was the primary point I was making.

The 50-cent differential for younger workers -- yes, indeed, we made that change. I certainly make no apology for it, and I'll give the member the very quick answer to that. Employers like to say that this gives workers an opportunity to be employed that they otherwise wouldn't have. The tragedy we have discovered is that there is a fair amount of statistical evidence to support the conclusion that all kinds of people, once they get to a certain age, suddenly discover that their employment ends and employers bring in somebody else. So it's a consistent way of paying people at a lower wage, and I don't think that was ever designed to be the case. That was the primary reason for changing it.

The other change that I'm aware of is that the liability for unpaid wages, essentially, was six months -- I think that's all one had that liability for -- and that was extended to two years. Those are the changes in employment standards that I am aware of. I want to thank the member for raising the question and giving me the opportunity to clarify.

K. Krueger: I covered too many points in my question. One that I wanted clarification on that the minister has omitted was whether there had been any change in the provision of statutory holiday pay entitlements for part-time workers.

[ Page 8687 ]

K. Krueger: The other point of clarification from the minister's first answer tonight is with regard to this minimum four-hour period of call-out. Is it the case, then, that employers who were bringing in adult workers -- I know there's a difference for students -- for two-hour shifts. . . ? I described such a scenario, where one particular group of employers had a number of women who would come in at the lunch hour to serve as restaurant hostesses during that busy time. Many of them had children who were in school, and so it was ideal for them to just come in for two hours over lunchtime, when the restaurant needed them. They would make a substantial amount of tips in addition to the two hours' wages, and they really enjoyed it. The restaurants felt that they would be operating in violation of the Employment Standards Act to continue that and laid off any who couldn't commit to working four hours in a day, at least on a split-shift basis. They tell me that that was a relatively recent change -- within the last several years -- under this government. Is that not the truth?

Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that that is not a relatively recent change; it has been there for a very long time. The only difference, apparently, is awareness: it was advertised that those were the rules, and therefore more people were responding to that,

K. Krueger: Are variances granted at all in the circumstances we've just been talking about?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is that they are, but rarely.

K. Krueger: I'll move on. I want to refer to a couple of pieces of correspondence written by Jill Walker, the former director of the employment standards branch. One is dated September 18, 1997. It was carbon-copied to other than the addressee, but it was initially written to Geoffrey Howes, provincial vice-president of government affairs for the Restaurant and Foodservices Association. Ms. Walker says:

"I am writing further to our recent discussions concerning employment standards in the restaurant and food services sector. The employment standards branch would like to work with employers and employees in this sector to see a higher level of compliance with the Employment Standards Act. To this end, once I have completed discussions with yourself and a representative from the Hotel Restaurant [and] Culinary Employees and Bartenders Union, Local 40, an action plan will be developed. We look forward to working closely with you and your members in this regard.

"Also, I confirm that we will exercise greater discretion in the granting of minimum daily pay variances and overtime variances. Specifically, we will investigate joint applications for variances to the four-hour daily minimum pay provisions and joint applications to average 80 hours in a two-week period. In such cases there must be employee support for the application, and in the case of minimum daily pay variances, the variances will be granted on an individual basis. I shall contact you in the near future to discuss this further."

"I am writing to confirm our telephone conversation earlier this week, during which I advised that I had revoked my earlier decision to authorize averaging variances and exercise greater discretion with respect to minimum daily pay variances under the Employment Standards Act. Although some minimum daily pay variances may still be granted, this will only occur when the criteria set forth in the Employment Standards Act and our interpretation manual are met. I apologize for any inconvenience that this has caused to you and your members."

Hon. D. Lovick: All I can tell the member is that the director has the authority to set that policy; it's not determined by the minister. What happened in terms of that individual and why one direction was given and then another one, I simply don't know; I wasn't there.

K. Krueger: I wonder if the minister would confirm whether the deputy minister and associate deputy minister, who are with him, were in those positions at the time of the letters quoted.

Hon. D. Lovick: I can confirm that.

K. Krueger: Then I'd ask the minister whether someone overruled Ms. Walker with regard to the position that she took in the first letter.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised that the director had the sole discretion to make the decision and indeed to change her position.

K. Krueger: Then no one in the room with us knows why Ms. Walker reversed her position so dramatically on that issue in a matter of a couple of weeks.

Hon. D. Lovick: I have no idea, and I am the only person answering questions at this moment.

K. Krueger: Clearly, though, the minister has an adviser on each side of him who were in their positions at the time this happened and who are senior to the position. Apparently Ms. Walker reported to these folks at the time this happened, and I'd appreciate any illumination that they can give us.

Hon. D. Lovick: I have no illumination, to use the member's words, to provide him.

K. Krueger: Then we're going to reserve the option to return to this specific line of questioning at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, and we'd ask if the minister would endeavour to get that answer for us.

Hon. D. Lovick: I will look forward to the questions at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, and if I can find any information to elucidate, I shall.

K. Krueger: Could the minister please advise us on what date Jill Walker ended her employment in this particular position?

Hon. D. Lovick: I will also undertake to get that information.

K. Krueger: Perhaps the response to this question will be the same: does the minister know where Jill Walker is now -- what position she went to from here?

[ Page 8688 ]

K. Krueger: We're about to leave this line of questioning, but I'd like to know whether Ms. Walker's departure from this position had anything to do with or, frankly, was a consequence of the original letter she wrote on this variance question.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: The minister has taken note of that, and we'll look for a response tomorrow morning.

With regard to our questions about Mr. Cronk yesterday and his selection. . . . We're not going to flog this question, but I'd like a little clarification on the selection process that the minister outlined for us. What we understood him to say was that all five of the candidates from whom the selection was made were referred by the B.C. and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council, and no other group or individual from those polled produced any potential candidates. We just wanted to verify that.

Hon. D. Lovick: I believe the member is correct. However, I believe there was also one other candidate from in-service, somebody already working for government.

K. Krueger: Was this selection handled through the Public Service Commission?

Hon. D. Lovick: The application process was handled under the act and by the authority of the act, because they were going outside the service to find somebody.

K. Krueger: Was there any posting at all within the existing civil service for this position?

Hon. D. Lovick: The member will note, as will his colleague for Vancouver-Quilchena, that I am reading from a document:

"The Nanaimo employment standards position was first posted as a temporary assignment open only to public servants, and that was done on February 16, 1998. There were no qualified applicants. The position was reposted on March 2, 1998, open to both public servants and non-public servants willing to accept an auxiliary appointment of less than seven months. Approval for the offering of an auxiliary appointment was received from Public Sector Employee Relations Commission. Laird Cronk was the successful applicant and began work on March 24, 1998."

K. Krueger: Just a couple more questions along the same line. It almost sounded to me, when the minister responded just now, as if Mr. Cronk was already an employee within the civil service -- perhaps a part-time or short-term employee. I thought the minister said that the posting was internal but subject to a seven-month limit, and that Mr. Cronk was the successful applicant for that.

[7:00]

K. Krueger: Has Mr. Cronk, then, been hired on the understanding that this is an appointment of less than seven months?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is yes.

K. Krueger: I'm a little befuddled, then, why we had such a fracas yesterday over the question of probation period and so on. Perhaps the minister would respond to that. Presumably, there is not such a concern about the probation period if the job ends within seven months anyway.

Hon. D. Lovick: The issue was not the probation period; rather, it was the grounds that were being adduced by members opposite, apparently, for why one would be considered to be an unacceptable candidate. Those grounds, as I articulated yesterday, have nothing whatsoever to do with one's performance on the job. It was, rather, concerns that might be expressed by a third party about the suitability of the person. That's what I objected to and would continue to object to.

K. Krueger: Just for the record, I want to make a clarification there, because I was an observer to the exchange. The grounds that the minister spoke of were never voiced by my colleague who was asking the question. Rather, my colleague was concerned about public statements made by Mr. Cronk with regards to what we perceive to be a personal vendetta that might be there or that seemed to be there at the time those comments were made. My colleague can surely speak for himself if the minister wants to pursue it further. I just wanted to have it on the record that I understood full well what he was saying, and it had nothing to do with disqualification because of involvement in the trade union movement. I've been involved in the trade union movement half my working life, and I know there's no such bias in our caucus.

When I asked about whether the Public Service Commission handled this selection process, the minister was careful to say that it was handled under the authority of the Public Service Act but didn't say whether the Public Service Commission actually handled the process. So I'd like clarification of that. It seems to me that it wasn't, and if not, I'd like to know why not.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised that the authority to hire is delegated to ministries. The Public Service Commission does not do that.

K. Krueger: Not ever? Positions like this are never handled through the Public Service Commission?

Hon. D. Lovick: I am advised no.

K. Krueger: Then going back to the minister's responses yesterday, we were told that the ICBA, the CLRA, the B.C. and Yukon Building Trades Council and others were invited to name names, and practically none of them did. The minister told us tonight that there was one internal applicant who apparently wasn't qualified -- I think that was the answer. And only the B.C. and Yukon Building Trades Council came up with somebody who was qualified. I wonder: if there had been this internal posting -- maximum seven months' job duration -- and people inside and outside were invited to apply, why was it necessary to invite those groups to name anyone?

Hon. D. Lovick: I thought I had explained, but let me do it again: simply because the internal process that was tried did

[ Page 8689 ]

K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Chair, and I apologize through you to the minister if I missed that response. I may have been thinking ahead to my next question.

Were there any newspaper advertisements with regard to this position or any of the others that were being considered at the same time?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is no, and the reason, apparently, is that the ministry does not use newspaper ads for short-term positions.

K. Krueger: I'm about to wrap up my questioning, reserving the right of my colleagues to follow it up. I have to move to the other debate. I wanted to ask the minister with regard to the 1-800 number for the employment standards branch, which we discussed briefly yesterday. . . . We seemed to have consensus that it's really not acceptable to have a 1-800 number when nobody answers the phone; it just frustrates people. I'd like to ask the minister whether the branch and the ministry have specific goals as to when that problem is going to be dealt with and some measurable target that we could all monitor to make sure that things are shaping up.

Hon. D. Lovick: A review of the inquiry centre was completed for the ministry by a business analyst, Ms. Linda Miller, in September of last year. The review contains many recommendations to improve the services offered by the 1-800 line -- obviously at varying costs to the branch -- and clearly one will accept those responses based on one's ability to pay.

Presently there are nine staff members filling eight FTEs, full-time equivalencies, who respond to voice, fax and e-mail inquiries from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Changes to the inquiry-line hardware and staff duty schedules plus the addition of a fax-back function have been implemented. This should result -- we're hopeful -- in the staff being able to address responses in a more timely manner and to be more available to those clients requesting to speak to a branch representative.

I simply want to make the point to clarify that it is not the case that nobody answers; it's rather the case that too often people have to wait, and too often there isn't a voice at the other end of the line. But it isn't the case that nothing happens when you call the number. Indeed, the record is that large numbers of people are served, albeit not as quickly or as well as we could perhaps wish.

K. Krueger: I didn't mean to suggest that nothing happens for anyone. Certainly there are people who are getting through, but there are those who never do get a human voice. They say that they get a recording, and at the end of holding the phone for sometimes 45 minutes, sometimes over an hour, they finally have to give up in frustration because they have to get on with their lives.

I wonder if the ministry or the branch has been doing any measurements and could tell us what the turnaround time tends be on one of those inquiries.

Hon. D. Lovick: I will undertake to get that information for the member. I don't have it with me at the moment.

K. Krueger: Just as a final undertaking from the minister, if we could possibly have it. . . . All areas of government are supposed to be setting targets for measurable results. This is clearly one where something like that could be helpful. Recognizing the financial constraints the minister has alluded to a number of times, we have to point out, nevertheless, that the minister said in his opening statements: "This is the law; it has to be obeyed."

Employers are under those constraints. Employers are required to post notice to their employees of their rights within the act. The inquiries are coming in. MLAs are hearing from frustrated individuals -- I have some of them myself -- who feel as though they were not just invited but encouraged to lodge their complaints, and then it goes nowhere. Their confidence in government and the credibility of government are shaken as a result. So if the minister could set some goals and publish what they are for the opposition, we'd appreciate being able to tell those constituents, when they call, that goals have been set and give them what advice we can about how the branch is doing in meeting the goals.

Hon. D. Lovick: We will endeavour to comply with the member's request. I'm not about to commit, you know, that one month from now there will be a set of goals or something. Suffice to say, however, that I think all of those people involved in employment standards are indeed working very hard to try and make sure the service operates unless there are changes to the operation with a view to improving it. I hope those will bear some results.

It seems to me that perhaps -- and again I say perhaps, because I don't know the individual concerns that the member talks of. . . . It would seem to me that much of what this service is designed to provide could be obtained in other ways too. A 1-800 number has a particular set of functions, but that doesn't mean there aren't other ways to access employment standards information. One can indeed visit an office; one can indeed get a copy of the rules and regulations. One can get a copy of the act -- in fact, it's on the Net.

Some of the standard inquiries that, I take it, are often made, have to do with minimum wage, vacation pay and statutory holiday entitlements. That's pretty basic stuff, you know. I don't think it's a case where one has to say: "Oh my gosh, I couldn't get a real, live, living, breathing, warm-blooded person on the other end of the phone, and therefore what will I do?" I think there are, as I say, other mechanisms, other means, available.

But again, that's not to diminish the concerns. Obviously there will be moments when people will phone and have every right to demand -- or to expect, at least -- some reasonable response time. Certainly I share the member's commitment to that, and I know my staff does, and I know the branch does. We'll endeavour to do what we can.

J. Wilson: I have a question or two for the minister. It's a bit of a problem that's developed in my riding, and it has to do with the B.C. interior log-truck drivers. I'm wondering if the minister is up to speed on what has been happening there, and if he could perhaps fill me in on what his plans are to deal with this situation.

Hon. D. Lovick: I was just refreshing my memory. Yes, I have some familiarity with the issue. There has been a committee struck. There have been numerous meetings held, and there are more meetings to come. I am advised that the committee is charged with making some specific recommendations that are acceptable to both sides in terms of the classic argument about variances: if the two sides can agree, can we

[ Page 8690 ]

J. Wilson: Has this committee been struck simply to gather facts and bring them back to the minister? Or is it put in place to help facilitate an agreement between the employers and the employees?

Hon. D. Lovick: The way the system works is that by committee, employers and employees will meet together. They will ideally come back with recommendations from both sides. The drill at that point is that those recommendations will eventually end up in cabinet with an application for a change to the regulation. Generally speaking, I think it's safe to say that if we get common interest expressed by the two sides, then we are receptive to doing so. In fact, there are a number of areas which I could point to where, when we get the two sides working and agreeing that this is to both sides' benefit, we're certainly receptive and responsive to the idea of making a change to the regulation.

[7:15]

J. Wilson: It seems rather strange that these workers were under a variance and were quite content to be there, and then, through an OIC, that was pulled right out from under them, and they had no idea that anything was happening. It gives me little comfort to hear the minister say that we're now in the process of going around and holding more meetings and more reviews and that sometime down the road, we're going to probably come to an agreement here. These people need action, they need it immediately, and they need it in such a way that whatever hearings are held out there, they are held in a manner that the people affected can attend.

Now, I don't know how many years the hon. member has spent driving a logging truck, but if he was ever in one for one day, he would realize the obstacles that they are faced with. You get up at 2 o'clock in the morning, and you get home at 8 o'clock at night, and you don't even get time to read a bulletin board, because probably your employer doesn't have one to put any notice on. So basically, these people are treated like mushrooms. They stay in the dark, they live in the dark and they work in the dark, when it comes to being included in the loop. Anyone in the situation they're in cannot take time off work to go to any meeting, especially during a workweek. It isn't in the cards. The only possible time that they can get to a meeting -- and that's with a little bit of difficulty -- would be on a weekend.

My question to the minister is: this commission that has been struck to study this problem. . . ? It is a serious problem we have here, because he's allowed these people to fall through the cracks, and there's nothing in sight for them to solve their dilemma. Is the minister willing to entertain the thought of giving some direction to the commission that is going out to talk to these people that they'll be able to do it during a time when they are able to attend?

Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, my understanding and my information is that there was no existing variance. Let's get that out first of all. I don't think that's the case.

Second, I think the member, in talking about a group that might be meeting, but that is inaccessible to workers, may be referring to a tribunal, rather than to this committee, this table, which is set up to deal with this problem. It isn't a commission. It's members of staff who go out to the communities and ideally try to set up times and places that are available to workers.

Further, it seems to me that it's probably a bit of a stretch to suggest that that's not workable, because it isn't the case that everybody affected has to be at the table at the same time. Surely, somebody representing heavy equipment operators and somebody representing truck drivers, etc., can be there and can speak for some others. I think that would be sufficient. I don't think it's a case where you need to have a convention of 50 people sitting around the table to address the problem.

We'll note the concerns, however, and if indeed the member is correct that the system is set up in such a way that makes it almost impossible to resolve the problem, then we'll certainly have a look at whether it should be changed.

J. Wilson: It's my understanding that there was a variance put in; it was 120 hours and then overtime. It affected almost all sectors of the logging industry: people running heavy equipment, feller-bunchers, processors, butt-and-toppers. Originally the log haulers were included in that. Then for some unexplainable reason, they were removed and the rest of the operators were still included in this variance. This goes back probably a year now. Can the minister clarify that for me?

Hon. D. Lovick: I have a little history now. I understand that there was a tribunal decision which changed, I guess, the regulation. The regulation used to cover. . . .

Okay, the tribunal made a regulation covering equipment operators and truck drivers. The equipment operators said they didn't like the regulation. The regulation was therefore changed to cover only truck drivers, the haulers. We understand that system isn't working. Therefore the committee has been put in place to try and solve the problem to the satisfaction of both sides. In other words: tried to solve the problem, didn't work, going back to try and solve it again.

J. Wilson: Do I understand the minister to say that the equipment operators, not the truck drivers, were unhappy with the variance of 120 hours plus overtime, which is still in place for them? My understanding is that it's still there, that they're still under that variance. It is the truck drivers that were removed from it.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the member, I'm advised, has it mixed up. He hasn't got it quite right. My suggestion would be that if he wants to meet with somebody from staff, we can take him through the background in some detail and answer those questions to his satisfaction. If he prefers that option, it's available to him.

J. Wilson: Then let's try another route here. What are the regulations governing equipment operators in the bush today, such as people who operate feller-bunchers, skidders and processors?

Hon. D. Lovick: They are covered by the act, which means eight hours a day, 40 hours a week before they qualify for overtime.

[ Page 8691 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: The member is correct.

J. Wilson: Now, the second part of my question is: what regulation or part of the act do the log haulers come under?

Hon. D. Lovick: Apparently the log haulers come under a separate regulation requiring 120 hours in a two-week period. After that, they get double time overtime. That's the regulation.

J. Wilson: I'll have to check that one out. He may be right.

There was something that the minister referred to earlier -- the process by which they were reviewing the concerns out there. My concern is that nothing has changed from where it was a few months ago. Basically, the process is still going to go on the way it was. Who these people will hear from are the owner-operators that may have a fleet of trucks or the contractors that control a number of trucks. They will be the people that come to the meeting to represent the drivers. You will not find the drivers at these meetings, because they can't get there. They cannot take time off. They don't get time off. They have to be in that truck, and they've got to be on the road. That's what it amounts to.

So if they proceed the way I suspect they will proceed here, it is not going to get to the root of the problem. That is my concern, and I would like a commitment from the minister that somehow they will get out there and actually talk to the drivers that are affected. They can talk to the owners and the contractors any day of the week, but they have to make a real effort to get to the people that have the problem -- the truck drivers. Now, I would like that commitment, if possible, from the minister.

Hon. D. Lovick: I would be more than pleased to offer that commitment to the member. What we will do is give him our assurance that we will endeavour to make contact with the people to whom he refers. Moreover, I will invite him to talk directly to my deputy, who would be more than happy to talk to the member in terms of his advice as to how we can, in fact, make contact with those people to ensure that their concerns are expressed. So I'm happy to give that assurance to the member, and I thank him for raising the question.

C. Hansen: I've been following this issue over these last few months. As well, I've had a chance to review material that's been copied to the minister and to my colleague for Cariboo North. I was pleased that my colleague was raising this today, because I think it fits into a bigger picture. I think it's a perfect example of part of the problem with the way we're approaching employment standards. We have set up the government, the ministry and the employment standards branch almost as everybody's touchstone when it comes to compliance, enforcement and information. Instead of a system that is certainly the system that we have advocated for, a system that allows for employers and employees to find mutual agreement when it comes to workplace. . . .

Now, I appreciate the fact that there are areas where there is coercion from an employer to get employees to agree to certain terms of employment. Obviously, we have to deal with those. But this strikes me as a perfect example of an area that, had the process been one that encouraged, as a first step, the employees and management to sit down and come up with standards and hours of work that were mutually agreeable, you could keep government out of it. The only time that government would get involved would be if those two parties could not come to a mutual agreement. I think that this is something we've been talking about for some time when we talked about flexibility.

I know we're not going to have a lot of time to canvass at length the backlog in the employment standards branch. I think the key issue in the backlog is not one of finding the magic bullet, as the minister referred to the other night, in terms of considerably more dollars to pump staff time into the employment standards branch to deal with the backlog. Instead, it's finding out what it is about our system. . . . What is systemic in the way that we have set up our employment standards process today that results in 60,000 calls a month trying to come through those lines without success?

I think that we need a system that puts a lot of those arrangements between employers and employees back in the hands of those two parties, rather than government playing big brother on that. I'm not going to set that up for the minister to respond to, because I just wanted to get that on the record and make that point. The minister is certainly welcome to, but I know my colleague from West Vancouver-Capilano has some points to raise.

[7:30]

Similarly, the kind of regime that the member is talking about is what trade unions are about. That's what collective bargaining is about. Most of the time employment standards are called into play only because there isn't a collective agreement in place. So I appreciate the member's comments; I accept entirely his points. I would just remind him of the logical extension of those points, however: (a) using the example of Cariboo to support employment standards, and (b) on the other hand to support collective bargaining.

C. Hansen: I think we've had a couple of debates on what "logic" means, and we usually wind up with two definitions as to what logical is all about. I don't want to belabour the point, other than to say that it appears to me, in reading through all of the material that the Quesnel drivers have sent us, that they found themselves in the middle of a variance that they did not see coming -- they did not appreciate was coming.

The system today is one where the employers can come to the branch looking for a variance. They found this after the fact. Now, if they were in a system that encouraged them, first of all, to develop a working arrangement that was mutually acceptable -- and, again, where there was no coercion in coming to that agreement. . . . I appreciate the fact that that is the challenge in this process. Let's come up with systems that allow people to solve their own problems in a mutually beneficial way and keep government out of the picture. That's the point I'm trying to make. I'll defer to my colleague.

J. Dalton: I would certainly endorse the remarks my critic just made. God bless us if we could keep government out of our lives. I guess that's why I'm on my feet, hon. Chair

[ Page 8692 ]

I'll be bringing to his attention in a moment the plight of the small business operator in Williams Lake. The last time I called her -- last week -- to get an update on her problem, she was at home. Why was she at home? She was so frustrated at the entire process that she had been put through since October of '95 -- going back quite a ways -- that she was ready to pack her bags and head to Alberta. She's not unique in her frustration, I can assure you.

However, let me just back up a bit. We don't want to go over the old ground of Laird Cronk. Of course, he's been brought up in question period, and he's been brought up in these estimates. I happened to catch the CBC radio this morning when Mark Tatchell was being interviewed. I believe he's the acting director of the employment standards branch. Is that his title? He said -- a direct quote, because I wrote it down -- he'd had "no complaints" drawn to his attention about the way Employment Standards is being operated. I don't know how long Mr. Tatchell has been in the job, but certainly in my previous life as the critic for Labour and in my life as an MLA since 1991, I've had all sorts of complaints about the way in which Employment Standards functions.

I think we have to bring a little dose of reality to this exercise, hon. Chair, so let me just give the minister a quick snapshot of the plight of this poor lady in Williams Lake who had the business acumen to start up a small business in downtown Williams Lake. She provides advice to people putting advertisements in magazines and newspapers and provides information for tourism in the area and things of that nature. She had a person on contract -- I won't use names. There is, by the way, an eight-page letter that this woman has written to Norma Edelman, the registrar of employment standards in Vancouver, so there is a fairly extensive record here about this case.

The person on contract was brought on in August '95. It was strictly commission. There were no benefits being paid by this small business operator. This woman was not only on contract with this businessperson but also at the time she was still working part-time for the Williams Lake Tribune, a newspaper, and also for the Cariboo Tourism Association. So that's just to give you a sense that this woman was not employed by the business in question by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, she did a lot of the work, telephone work, at her home, which is in a suburb outside of Williams Lake.

However, some falling-out happened between the business operator and this person on contract, and the bottom line is that in April 1996 the relationship terminated between the small business owner and this woman. At some point she went to Employment Standards to complain that she was owed back salary and other benefits. Unfortunately, when Employment Standards got their clutches on this unfortunate woman, the bottom line is that a determination was made, and she was ordered to pay $2,038.10 to this non-employee.

All of the evidence on record and the eight-page letter certainly demonstrate in part the background and the difficulty that was demonstrated here. All the evidence showed that this person was not an employee. She was not regularly in the office. She did a lot of work at home. She worked by telephone. She was working for other people in Williams Lake at the time and still is. And not only was that determination made, but they've now taken that money from her bank account. So that money has escaped the barn and is gone.

I'll just add one other thing, and then the minister can comment as he wishes. But in fact, on July 18, 1997, a $500 fine was imposed on this business operator for alleged violations under the Employment Standards Act. And then, quite unknown to her, on October 10 a review of that fine was conducted and the fine was cancelled, which was the only pleasing thing that's ever happened to her. I'm curious as to whether that's a normal process for a fine to be imposed and then, quite unknown to the person the fine has been imposed upon, it's been revoked for some reason that she couldn't understand.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm not quite sure what the member is asking me to do. He has given me an unnamed case and described what shows on the face of it to be rather one-sided and clear evidence that something wrong happened. Obviously I can't comment on that unless I have a great deal more information. I welcome the member's provision of that information to me and to staff. I would be more than happy to look at it. I have to make the point, however, that I believe the case is before a tribunal, if I hear the member correctly, which again makes it impossible for me to comment at this stage. We would be happy to deal with this matter, but I would suggest that we shouldn't do that in a public forum where it's public record. Again, I invite the member, if he wants to share the details of that case with me and with staff, I'd be more than happy to look at it.

If I might just before I take my place, I would just point out that Mr. Tatchell's reference this morning was not to employment standards; rather, it was to the specific skill development and fair wage enforcement team. That's what he referred to as "not aware of any problems." For the record, I think I ought to clarify that.

J. Dalton: I appreciate the minister's remarks about this case. Purposely, I didn't use names and I didn't want to bring them into the record. I will take him up on his offer. Unfortunately -- just to give another bit of background -- a tribunal hearing has already been conducted. In fact, that was done last year, and that was unsuccessful. The money has been extracted from her business bank account. In other words, this non-employee -- as I describe her -- has now been paid the $2,038.10. However, if there is an opportunity, I'd be more than happy to write a letter to the minister and to his officials, which I will do. Perhaps it would be an opportunity to revisit this. And I'm not pleading in the case of this woman that we should reverse the field, but if there is some chance for a second look, I know that she would be appreciative. Who knows? She may stay in Williams Lake instead of packing her bags and going to Alberta. I think we'd all be the winners for that one. So I thank the minister, and I'll take him up on his offer.

C. Hansen: I want to ask the minister about the section 7 committee that's provided for in the Employment Standards Act. There's certainly some speculation that that committee is going to be struck soon, and I'm just wondering if the minister could enlighten us.

Hon. D. Lovick: For the member's information, a small subcommittee, if you like. . . . I shouldn't say subcommittee. A small committee has been struck, comparable or similar to a section 7 committee, charged specifically with looking at the high-tech industry. I think the member is aware of that. The section 7 committee. Yes, indeed, we have said we're going to do that as well, and I believe we're talking about broadening the base significantly. We haven't determined the terms of reference and all of that, but that is still under consideration.

C. Hansen: Certainly I think there's a lot of frustration growing in terms of trying to make the Employment Stan-

[ Page 8693 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: I've just been reminded that section 7 of the Employment Standards Act is pretty much analogous to section 3 of the code. What that means, for the benefit of those who aren't familiar, is simply that there is a provision in the legislation that allows the minister and cabinet to review either the entire act or parts of it with a view to improving, streamlining, etc.

Section 7 in the Employment Standards Act has been bruited for some time, just because of things largely like the high-tech industry, and also because of some things that happened recently in the oil and gas industry. People said: "Look, on the basis of clear evidence, the old model -- the industrial model, if you like -- for employment standards does not seem to obtain. And therefore, if we care about trying to encourage economic development and investment and keeping the economic pot boiling, then we ought to recognize that perhaps a too-rigorous enforcement of employment standards could throw us in the wrong direction." In other words, employment standards could be a problem. Ergo, we need to have a provision to revisit periodically. That's cabinet's choice. I'm convinced that we probably will be addressing that, I suspect shortly after the high-tech committee makes its report, and we'll see what kind of success we had with that.

[7:45]

The issues of the taxi industry have been addressed; the issues of the oil and gas industry have been addressed; the issues of the trucking industry have been addressed; and now the issues of the high-tech industry have been addressed. I think the net result of that is that now there's a new kind of frustration, one that says: "Well, wait a second. This isn't affecting just those sectors. We're all hurting by the inflexibility that's there." There is a need for us to get on with the process of a general review. I think you will find that a lot of good positive suggestions come forward in terms of how the act can be streamlined -- to use the minister's word -- in a way that still allows for the protection of workers and also allows for small business, in particular, to live and grow with the act -- and allows for the workforce to grow.

I'll put that on the record. I appreciate that we're nearing adjournment, so I'll try to deal with some issues quickly before we adjourn.

I want to come back to the point of the backlog in the employment standards branch. I understand that there are some initiatives currently underway to deal with the branch, short of an infusion of money. I'm wondering if any work has been done to evaluate the nature of the complaints that are coming in. I think there's an anticipation that we may have 27,000 or 28,000. . . . Let me get the number here. The complaints actually received and processed by the employment standards branch in the last fiscal year hit just under 28,000, and it is anticipated to rise again this year. I don't have that latest number, but I know it has been given to me -- what it is expected to rise to.

I wonder if the ministry has done an evaluation to determine the types of complaints that are coming in, what industries the complaints are coming from and what the nature of the complaints are. Has any of that kind of research been done?

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, that information is available. We don't have it with us now, but I will undertake to get it for the member. I can tell him now, however, that restaurants are apparently one of the major concerns. More specifically, I gather that wages owed, statutory holiday concerns and those kinds of things are coming forth.

C. Hansen: Cases are brought to my attention -- certainly several a week -- of individuals who can't get through to Employment Standards. They can't access it. They're part of the 60,000 calls that come through. Some of them are truly cases where they are being taken advantage of, and yet they can't get their concerns dealt with.

On the other hand, I also hear of cases where the employment standards process is used more as: "Well, let's give this a shot; I just got laid off" or "My job is finished" or "I was fired for good cause; let's take a kick at it, because I know of a friend of mine that got money as a result of an employment standards determination." I'm wondering if there's any work being done within the ministry to try to. . . . The official answer, I'm sure, is that all complaints are important, but I think we all recognize that some complaints are certainly more legitimate than others. I'm wondering if the ministry has been able to do any of that kind of evaluation?

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, I understand that indeed some work has been done to try and make the determination that there are a certain number that are frivolous complaints, as opposed to serious complaints. I guess, for precisely the reason that the member mentioned, it is difficult to answer with any certainty. On the face of it, you have to work on the assumption that all complaints are valid, even if they may well prove to be quite the opposite.

C. Hansen: I think one of the problems is that we've created certain expectations on the part of significant groups in our society that this is an avenue that they can go after. Even though they don't feel that they've been personally mistreated in terms of standards, this is an avenue they can go after as a way of getting a determination that may go in their favour. My concern is about the efforts that are done by the ministry to educate people as to what kind of a claim would be appropriate to bring forward.

Also, in that whole area of general education, I am told that the ministry is looking at a communications program to educate employees about their rights. I'm rushing this a bit, but I would like to suggest to the minister that there is an equally important communications exercise to educate employers. Earlier today I was talking about the stack of papers that most small businesses have on their desk. Trying to get communication through to employers who are trying to manage business, in a way that they can distil it, is, I think, a real challenge for government.

[ Page 8694 ]

Perhaps the minister could comment generally on these sentiments that I've put forward. I would just like to close by urging the minister to put more emphasis on what it would take to reduce the casework that is coming into the branch, so that those who are really, truly being taken advantage of have an opportunity for their cases to be dealt with expeditiously. Right now, where we've got a wait-list of five months, it's totally unacceptable.

The Chair: Noting the time, minister.

Hon. D. Lovick: The emphasis in the branch is very much on education and, more particularly, on employer education, for just the reasons that the member described. In 1997 there were, apparently, 40 information seminars conducted across the province with over 1000 employers attending. I understand the same thing will happen in 1998. The predicament, of course, is that the volume of complaints and concerns, needless to say, takes away from one's ability to carry out the educational program. It clearly is an illustration of the proverbial catch-22. I think the member raises the right questions, however, about this, and I think it is, indeed, in everybody's best interest to make the system work better.

Just as we talked earlier about a prevention culture in workers compensation, so it seems to me in terms of employment standards that we ought to be aiming for the same prevention culture. I thank the member for his comments.

I see the lateness of the hour, so I guess it would be appropriate, then, for me to move that the committee do rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 7:53 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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