1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 9, Number 25

[ Page 7979 ]

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, it is a very special day for me. I am joined by four people who are very important in my life: my two nieces, Alexis and Erika, my sister Judy and my mother, Mary MacPhail. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

M. de Jong: It's an almost equally exciting day for me, hon. Speaker. I'm happy to welcome to the chamber for the first time my brother Rick, my lifelong friend. He's visiting with a business associate of his, Iain Sutherland. I hope the House will make them both welcome.

G. Plant: I was privileged to have lunch with two teachers from Charles E. London Secondary School in Richmond, Mrs. Fran Regan and Mrs. Karen Shigeno, and with four visitors from Wakayama, Japan: Mr. Tsunada, Mr. Yamamoto, Mrs. Kitagawa and Mrs. Naruse. They are all teachers or principals at Charles E. London's sister school in Wakayama. I hope the House will please make these visitors welcome.

E. Gillespie: It appears to be family day today in the House. I'm pleased to introduce to the House friends and relatives who have travelled from near and far: my cousin Susan Anderson, visiting from Vancouver, and my cousins visiting from England, Major Jack Smart and Mrs. Ruby Smart from Sawtry, Cambridgeshire. Will the House please join me in making them welcome.

G. Wilson: Travelling all the way from Sydney, Australia, is Mr. Brian Woolmer. I wonder if the House would join me in wishing him g'day.

Hon. C. Evans: Tracey Morrison, who is the manager of communications and public affairs for the Western Brewers Association, is visiting us here today. Would the House please make Tracey welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, upon reviewing the tapes from yesterday's question period, it's obvious that I repeatedly failed to attentively follow the instructions that you were giving me with respect to the time allocated for questions. For that, with my respect for you and for the chamber, I wish to apologize to you and to all members of the House.

The Speaker: Thank you very much, Mr. Premier.

I now recognize the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Farrell-Collins: No.

The Speaker: I'm sorry -- the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not even applying for the job, hon. Speaker.

Yesterday, obviously, there was some controversy in the chamber, and I made a comment to you directly. I wish to apologize to you for that comment. We've had our other discussions, and we'll leave the matter at that.

The Speaker: I want to thank you, hon. member, very much for those comments.

I will leave all of you with just one comment, and it's a quote from the seventeenth century. It's by Sir Thomas More: "Without freedom of speech, there can be no wide debate. Without order, there can be no debate at all." I also accept some responsibility for what happened yesterday.

I want to thank all of you for your words today and . . . . Let's go!

Oral Questions

ROLE OF B.C. TREATY COMMISSION

G. Plant: Alec Robertson is no longer the chief commissioner of the B.C. Treaty Commission. On May 7 he was told that he would be reappointed for a two-year term. On May 13 he learned that his appointment would not be renewed. My question to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is: what happened between May 7 and May 13 to cause the government to change its mind about reappointing Mr. Robertson as the chair of the B.C. Treaty Commission?

Hon. D. Lovick: I appreciate the question and the opportunity to clarify. First, Mr. Robertson was not told that he would be reappointed; he was told, rather, that a recommendation would be made to cabinet. Mr. Robertson's term of appointment was not extended. I want to clarify what is happening with the treaty process.

The province, as members of this chamber are well aware, is committed to working actively with Canada and first nations in order to improve and streamline the treaty process. As I have said before, we have reached a rough patch on that particular road. The discussions, however, are ongoing. The province believes now that it would be more efficient, in fact, to consider the appointment of a chief commissioner once the new directions for the Treaty Commission and for our tripartite process have indeed been established. That's the answer.

The Speaker: The member for Richmond-Steveston, first supplementary.

G. Plant: On April 22 Kathleen Keating, I am told, was appointed as the province's representative on the B.C. Treaty Commission. On the one hand, it looks like the province is appointing someone to the Treaty Commission, but weeks later it looks like the province has no interest in appointing a new chief of the B.C. Treaty Commission.

My question to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is this: is he deliberately trying to sabotage the treaty process, or is he just hopelessly inept?

Hon. D. Lovick: Given what I understand happened in the chamber yesterday, hon. Speaker, I shall restrain myself. It's difficult, however, to hear a question from the opposite side about anybody trying to sabotage the treaty process, given that they are as on record as demanding extinguishment, demanding cede, release and surrender, demanding cash up front and demanding a referendum -- all of which would doom the treaty process to extinction, very clearly.

The short answer to the question is that what happened -- and if the member had listened more closely, he would have heard -- is, as I have said publicly, that we reached a rough patch. We thought we had an agreement with the other two parties in negotiation. That did not work as we had hoped. It therefore strikes us, frankly, as imprudent and --

[ Page 7980 ]

dare I say? -- foolish to carry on with a new commissioner for a new two-year term when we aren't sure what the Treaty Commission's mandate might be within the next six months, let us say.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: The minister says we've reached a rough patch. Let's examine how rough the patch is. Today the former chief commissioner of the B.C. Treaty Commission says this: "Precisely at the time when the need for continuity, stability and impartial leadership by the Treaty Commission has never been greater, the province has chosen to decapitate the Treaty Commission." The question for the minister is: is there anything left of the B.C. Treaty Commission during this rather rough patch, or has he decided to abandon it altogether?

[2:15]

Hon. D. Lovick: I fear the member's question betrays some ignorance of what the Treaty Commission actually is. It's a tripartite process. The commissioners are appointed by all three parties working in concert together. There is a treaty commissioner, to be sure, but the commission can indeed carry on its work; the mandate still obtains.

What we are attempting to do is work out a process whereby we can streamline that long, difficult and complex circumstance of negotiating modern treaties in this province. If we were to carry on with the approach that has been taken thus far and taken historically, we would probably, at a conservative estimate, still be negotiating a hundred years from now. Also, we would bankrupt the province in the process. Thus the three parties have agreed to try and streamline the process. That arrangement didn't work, but we're bound and determined to find a new one expeditiously.

M. de Jong: Let's make sure we're clear on what the former chief of that tripartite organization is saying about the government. He's saying that this provincial government has "shown so little respect for the role of the Treaty Commission, has so casually undermined its effectiveness and has sent such a cynical message to the other principals and to the public regarding the province's commitment to revitalizing the B.C. Treaty Commission process . . . . " Those are the words of the former head of that tripartite commission.

My question to the minister is: in light of this unprecedented indictment of his government's politicization of the Treaty Commission process, how can anyone in this province -- aboriginal or non-aboriginal -- have any faith in this government's commitment to effectively settle the aboriginal claims issue in this province?

Hon. D. Lovick: The former head the member refers to is the person who has just lost the job. That letter that he quotes from may therefore well be regarded through somewhat more -- dare I say? -- skeptical lenses, rather than being taken as an absolute, incontestable truth about what the process involves. That's point 1.

Point 2 is that it is absolutely ludicrous, as well as illogical, to suggest that what has happened here and what has been explained to members opposite can in any way be construed as the "politicization" of the process. That is absolutely a foolish argument, with all due respect to the members opposite. We are committed to making the process work. We are going to do what is called in the trade a bilateral process: namely, the government of B.C. will meet with the First Nations Summit and will separately meet with the federal government. Then, once we work out a new modus vivendi, we will meet with the Treaty Commission -- a newly revised one.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Isn't it ironic, hon. Speaker, that the individual whom the minister is now so prepared to dismiss as an angry former employee was himself encouraged by this government to seek the position only a few short weeks ago? I notice that very few members on that side of the House see anything worth celebrating. More particularly, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville must be absolutely horrified by what he has seen happen with respect to this Treaty Commission process.

My question, again, to the minister responsible is: in light of his treatment of the former head of this Treaty Commission, in light of what he said only a few short weeks ago about a bankrupting of the process, a bankrupting of the province, is there anyone left in the province that he hasn't offended sufficiently? Can he again tell this House how he can command any respect in moving forward on a settlement of aboriginal treaty negotiations?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm at a disadvantage, I guess, hon. Speaker. I'm one who is mindful of the rules of this chamber, and I find that silliness like that is, quite frankly, not worth my time in answering.

LANGDALE FERRY SERVICE

G. Wilson: My question is to the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries. I only hope he doesn't take it on notice. On Victoria Day Monday, during that holiday period, over 2,039 cars sat waiting to get on a ferry at the Langdale terminal because it was overloaded. In one sailing alone, there were 590 vehicles left. That overload had to be picked up, finally, on Tuesday morning and wasn't cleared until 12:20 p.m. the next day.

Will the minister commit today, after years of asking, to bring in relief ferries for the summer and holiday weekend periods so that people travelling to and from the Sunshine Coast can actually get to where they're trying to go without having to wait six hours to get on a ferry?

Hon. D. Miller: I won't take the question on notice, although I will endeavour to get more detail to the member with respect to the particular incident. But let me say that B.C. Ferries has a mandate to serve the travelling public, and they clearly need the resources to be able to do that. It's interesting that there has been some controversy with respect to the operating and capital budget of B.C. Ferries, and I look forward to that member's support when these kinds of issues come up and we look at enhancing the ability of B.C. Ferries to serve the constituents of the member.

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

G. Wilson: The minister will certainly have my support if he's finally going to get down to a reasonable way of financing the ferries so that we can have them as an extension of our highways.

Clearly, the Queen of Esquimalt was necessarily brought in to pick up this overload. That's how serious the congestion was. Will the minister, in his investigation, commit to seeing if

[ Page 7981 ]

the Queen of Esquimalt might be used as a permanent relief vessel, so that this kind of problem no longer occurs on the Sunshine Coast?

Hon. D. Miller: Certainly we are prepared to look at any and all opportunities or avenues with respect to dealing with the service quality issues that the member raises.

FRBC FUNDING AND HIRING FOR LILLOOET RIVER PROJECT

G. Abbott: For the past three years, the Lillooet River Watershed Society has been undertaking watershed restoration projects, using students, aboriginals and displaced forest workers. By all accounts they have done an excellent job of that, yet they have been advised that unless they hire all of their employees through New Forest Opportunities Ltd., their project simply won't proceed this year.

I want to ask the Minister of Forests: considering that this society has done an excellent job for the past three years, without a lot of political and bureaucratic interference from this government, why are they being told this year that they must hire through the union hall, through New Forest Opportunities?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: For the member's information, no one is told that they have to hire through a union hiring hall. New Forest Opportunities is the employer, and they have a collective agreement which sets fair rates and hiring priorities. For the member's information, the project itself -- the sponsor, the Lillooet Watershed Committee -- and New Forest Opportunities have similar hiring priorities.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: We have correspondence which indicates very clearly that unless the Lillooet River Watershed Society will buy into the New Forest Opportunities concept, the FRBC funding for their project simply won't be there for years 4 and 5. In fact, the watershed society has been waiting now for two months for approval for their project, and because of this government's insistence on a union-only policy, the aboriginal band in this case has bowed out and withdrawn its support for the project. Why on earth does this government insist that in order to access FRBC funds, this society must go through New Forest Opportunities?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would caution the member on the other side, who's also the Forests critic, to check his facts a little more closely. This project was given an exemption to do timely work. They were offered an opportunity to start that part of the project that had to start -- an exemption from going through New Forest Opportunities. When the New Forest Opportunities collective agreement was signed, they were then told that they would abide by the policy. The policy was agreed upon by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the Summit.

That policy is that on those projects that have traditionally gone to first nations, the hiring priority will be as follows: first nations first, displaced forest workers second, and others afterwards. Now, those . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . . are the facts, hon. Speaker.

C. Clark: The Lillooet watershed restoration society is picking up the pieces from this government's disastrous forest policies. They are hiring local displaced forest workers, aboriginal people and local students for this job. And now, as a result of this government's insistence on unionization, the aboriginal band has walked away from the table, and the restoration society is not going to be doing its work this year. My question is this: where are the minister's priorities? Is he so determined that this job be unionized that he's prepared to let them shut down, rather than let a single non-unionized employee plant a single tree in the Lillooet watershed?

The Speaker: The Minister of Forests, briefly.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The trees that the member refers to are cottonwood whips to stabilize streams. This is not like reforesting, with those obligations. Just so we're clear, this is a very unique project and a good project. As I said to the former questioner, they should check their facts. The truth is that after two weeks of repeatedly phoning the sponsor of the project and two weeks of being stonewalled by the project sponsors, they have this morning finally phoned back to ask: "Can we talk?" So the door has been open. Their hiring priorities are identical. They can get the exemptions they need, and it can carry on under a NFO-sponsored employer.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast rises on what matter?

G. Wilson: I seek leave to table a petition.

Leave granted.

Petitions

G. Wilson: This is a petition from the people of Powell River who do not support the proposed new ferry terminal site along the Willingdon Beach trail, but rather propose to have the Westview site maintained.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines. In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Fisheries.

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

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[2:30]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: On behalf of the Speaker, I have the pleasure to recognize and ask the House to welcome students from Cathedral School. There are 22 grade 4 and 5 students from Cathedral School, with their teacher Tara Harrison. Would the House please make them welcome.

[ Page 7982 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FISHERIES

(continued)

On vote 42: minister's office, $407,000 (continued).

J. van Dongen: Before we broke for lunch I think we were talking about Baynes Sound and the broad-based committee that's been working there to improve the water quality. I have some familiarity with that, having talked to some of the staff in Courtenay. I just want to ask one quick question first about some of the staff in Courtenay that were involved in Fisheries issues. Would it be correct to assume that they will continue to operate out of that same office, working on Fisheries issues, or will they be separated from that office to another location?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes.

J. van Dongen: I think that's important, because from what I've seen, they've done some good work there. There's one thing I want to ask the minister, though. It seemed to me when discussing it some time ago that they had reached a stage where the solutions to further improvements in water quality required some efforts that were maybe a little bit more proactive, particularly with respect to on-site sewage disposal. I'm wondering whether the minister could tell us if any of those types of solutions are being pursued with the Ministry of Health and possibly with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

My understanding is that there are quite a number of on-site sewage situations that technically need upgrading, but that they do involve expenditure by homeowners. I'm wondering if there has been any thought given to further proactive solutions in that area.

Hon. D. Streifel: It is a MELP jurisdiction, and there's a process in place. We are working through our round table in an advisory capacity to MELP on this point-source identification of pollutions.

J. van Dongen: My response to the minister is that given the fact that it is a constraint on the industry, it is appropriate that the Ministry of Fisheries be proactive, support the industry and work with the other agencies like MELP and the Ministry of Health to try and find those solutions. I think there's been, as I said, a lot of good work done. It's been on a cooperative basis so far, but it may require a little more proactive effort.

The Coopers and Lybrand report makes reference to a program they describe as the shellfish 2000 development program, and I'm not familiar with that program. I'm wondering if the minister has any information on it. It's possibly a federal program; I don't know. Maybe the minister and his staff can tell us something about it.

Hon. D. Streifel: Just for the member's information, it merely references the title of an internal document that's helping to direct where we are moving. That's all it is. It's not any broad-based program, external or public; it's just some internal work that we're doing. Some of these things get a title on them, and that's the way they're identified.

J. van Dongen: In the next sentence, the report does make reference to an internal provincial government policy paper dealing with government-related constraints. Since this report was written about a year ago -- I'm talking about the Coopers and Lybrand report -- I'm wondering if the minister could enlighten us as to the purposes and intent of that internal policy paper and what results have emanated from that internal paper.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's just part of the internal work that's going on. There's no conclusion yet, and it's part of the process where we bring information forward to the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks and share information and documentation. This happens to be the title of it. It's ongoing; there is nothing complete yet.

J. van Dongen: Well, if it warranted mention in this report, then I think it should warrant some more discussion. I'm wondering if the minister could be more specific. Is this an initiative that has since been completed? Is it something that's up in the air? I'm looking at this from an accountability perspective, looking back on the past year. As I said, if it warranted mention in this report, I'm wondering why we don't have something more specific in terms of what it was, what it was intended to do and what results were accomplished.

Hon. D. Streifel: The problem with trying to answer questions from the critics in the opposition -- giving partial answers -- is the danger that we get into now, where the member wants to examine an advisory process that forms future policy. We step into the area where it's completely out of order to examine future policy within the bounds of the examination of these estimates. I have tried to be open with the member and inclusive by saying that this is just an internal communication process, and we are not going to share an internal communication process before we have some validity -- something to work with. In my opinion, that makes this completely out of order for examination in detail.

J. van Dongen: Well, I'm not going to pursue the specific issue any longer, other than to say that I think that part of the estimates process is to achieve some accountability in a review of the past year, with a view to establishing goals and objectives and performance standards for the future. So I certainly consider a review of the past year as legitimate discussion in these estimates.

Page 15 of the report also makes reference to a program of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which involves a classification system being developed for sites. This is an overall . . . . It involves building a computerized, digitized map database for potential sites and provides capability ratings for those sites. I would just like to get an update from the minister on the status of that. First, is that process complete? And second, will that work be used in terms of future efforts to increase the sites available for the industry?

Hon. D. Streifel: This becomes increasingly difficult, hon. Chair. I'm trying not to be picky with the member opposite, but ownership of the report that the member references does not fall to the Ministry of Fisheries, nor did it fall to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It's a report commissioned, as I understand, by the western diversification fund to examine some things. In their report there is reference to some work ongoing with this ministry.

If we could reference those items under the estimates of this minister, stay strictly within the bounds of order and examine those items under the ministry, as opposed to what may be referenced, almost in abstract, in a report that we don't own . . . .

I'm not responsible for the report. It was the western diversification fund that sponsored that report. I know that

[ Page 7983 ]

the member understands the bounds of those rules. We could be talking all day about something that we did not author, which only references some of our ongoing programs.

In fact, we have done work. Almost the whole coast has been surveyed or assessed for shellfish stock. But under our estimates it would be a different application of answers and questions than under an abstract reference in the Coopers and Lybrand report. I would prefer not to examine someone else's work. I don't have ownership of it.

J. van Dongen: With all due respect to the minister . . . . Yes, I'm quoting from the Western Economic Diversification report. It makes a direct reference to a study that was done by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I'll read the quote from this report:

"A classification system has been developed for the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by Cross and Kingzett (1992), which rates sites according to four classifications: high, medium, low and not advisable. The B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is engaged in a program to apply this classification system to the entire coast of B.C. It is in the process of building a computerized, digitized map database of sites which describes their capability rating and area in hectares."

I'm asking the minister about this specific program, which I understand was done by the Ministry of Ag, Fish and Food. If the new Ministry of Fisheries has not inherited that study, that program and that database, then I would like to know that.

[2:45]

Hon. D. Streifel: The answer I just gave still holds: we have almost completed applying what was included in the recommendations to the whole coast. We've almost got the coast mapped under this process. This is only one of the tools we're using to bring forward our shellfish aquaculture policy, and however we do it, a lot of this becomes future policy. But in fact, this is only one of the aspects. As the member references, it was in 1992 that this was done. We are carrying on that work that came from the Ministry of Ag, Fish and Food to the Ministry of Fisheries.

But I would again caution: if you could find this referenced in the estimates of this ministry this year, it would be appropriate for examination; if it is not, it is out of order.

J. van Dongen: Well, then, I'm asking the minister to confirm -- in his discussions and in the ministry's discussions with the Ministry of Environment in an effort to expedite and facilitate new sites . . . . Is this information going to be used?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes.

J. van Dongen: I can appreciate the minister's frustration, but it's critical that we not just engage in generalities but that we talk about specifics. That's why I'm raising some of these things. It's not good enough to take a hit-and-miss approach to what are some essential ingredients to expanding the shellfish industry.

I'm wondering if the minister could comment on the degree of labour intensity of the shellfish industry. Clearly there are tremendous employment opportunities. It is not a capital-intensive industry. Does the minister have any figures with respect to the multiplier effect, particularly from the labour perspective, for employment in shellfish as opposed to some of the other fishing sectors?

Hon. D. Streifel: I would actually prefer to debate whether we should be in generalities or specifics. As I understand the rules of estimates, it's very specific: under the jurisdiction of the minister's office and under the estimates of the ministry.

In this case, the information that we have for the member is that, depending upon the size of the operation, the kind of shellfish that are grown, the location -- where it's at, whether you live on site or you don't live on site -- and all these other factors, it appears that the job possibilities are approximately two per shellfish farm.

The Chair: Excuse me, member; the Chair would like to make an observation with regard to the estimates. If you could just take your seat . . . .

There is a requirement to deal specifically with the vote of the ministry in estimates. However, we're dealing with the first vote of the minister's office, which has a more far-ranging realm of debate and which I believe that we're following quite nicely. I haven't heard anything disorderly.

J. van Dongen: With respect to the issue of new sites, I know that the industry has been concerned about the issue of establishing additional sites for existing operations versus the concept of new sites and brand-new operations. Can the minister tell us what his ministry's priority will be in terms of new auctions of shellfish farming sites?

Hon. D. Streifel: As we move to diversify coastal communities and other things, we're now treading again into areas of future policy. We need to be more specific under the auspices of this office when we come forward and bring about economic opportunity within shellfish. There would be considerations for first nations, for existing farmers, for expansion of what's there and for future expansion -- keeping in mind that the tenuring of these sites is within the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

J. van Dongen: Will the Ministry of Fisheries not have any input into that process of priority -- how the auctions will be held and that kind of thing?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, we'll have input.

J. van Dongen: I think that there's an ongoing difficulty here, hon. Chair, and I apologize if it's my doing.

I would think that the minister would have a lot of input. We see the number of letters here -- all to the Minister of Fisheries. I have one letter from the Community Fisheries Development Centre; this is an initiative that's attempting to provide training and job opportunities for people looking for shellfish tenures. We have other letters from individuals. We have letters from the B.C. Shellfish Growers Association. I would think that the minister would be taking a very proactive role in the whole issue of tenures and priorities and when and how auctions are held.

I want to ask the minister about one of these letters; it's a letter dated May 11 from the Shellfish Growers Association. It deals with an initiative involving a Nanaimo native band in a shellfish farming interim measure, which is attempting to get native communities involved in shellfish -- which I think is a good thing. It's certainly supported in principle by the Shellfish Growers Association. But I think the question that they're asking is: will there be similar opportunities available to non-native residents?

Hon. D. Streifel: For clarification, tenuring is the responsibility of the B.C. Lands branch of Environment, Lands and

[ Page 7984 ]

Parks. It's difficult for me to answer for them: would others have opportunities. My previous answer is: the involvement we have and where we expect shellfish aquaculture to go is a broad opportunity for a whole range of individuals on the coast, whether they be first nations, non-first nations, coastal communities, individuals, etc. It's extremely difficult to say yes, no or maybe to an area where I don't have jurisdiction on the tenuring side.

I'm trying to be cooperative here, but I'm not going to set policy and give answers for a colleague minister on issues such as this. We've already indicated that we're working with Environment, Lands and Parks, with our input, to move this process along. We indicated prior to the lunch break that in fact we did have some movement: one of our staffers was assigned for 12 months to help facilitate 30 new sites.

We continually tread down a road that is out of my jurisdiction. It would be really helpful if we worked within the line numbers in my estimates. Keep it rigid, or otherwise we'll be viewing, philosophizing and supposing all day.

J. van Dongen: Maybe I could ask this question: does the Ministry of Fisheries have an established policy with respect to the issuance of tenures? Do they have any established policy with respect to that issue that the staff of the ministry are charged with pursuing on behalf of the industry and the ministry?

Hon. D. Streifel: It's frustrating, hon. Chair. We don't issue tenure.

J. van Dongen: Well, maybe the way to sum this up is for me to ask the minister what specific functions are included within the Ministry of Fisheries with respect to shellfish. I guess I would ask it this way: what will be the size of the staff component in the Ministry of Fisheries in the budget estimates of 1998-99 that will be devoted to the shellfish industry, and what will those staff be doing?

[3:00]

Hon. D. Streifel: It's difficult to answer exactly how many FTEs, because of double duties and overlap in doing different jobs. But the functions that are performed within this ministry are licensing; industry development -- a lot of that is research, development and assistance with plans for the industry; some work on future policy and developing an aquaculture policy; inspection and enforcement; and monitoring.

If I was to throw in a probably rough guess of full-time-equivalents here, we'd be dealing with anywhere from -- I don't know -- seven to ten or so in application, but noting that they are not necessarily exactly assigned duties here. There's lots of overlap on other duties that happen. But those are the areas where we're involved. I'll stress again that tenuring is not in this ministry.

J. van Dongen: Are there any other issues besides tenuring -- which are any responsibilities with respect to the shellfish industry -- that are part of the Ministry of Environment?

Hon. D. Streifel: I would recommend that the question go to Environment, Lands and Parks, because I don't have full knowledge of where they are. I would think that environmental impact would be one of the major ones, and parts we've already examined where there's some crossover jurisdiction provincially and federally with Environment in, you know, monitoring of pollution and stuff. But it gets far too dangerous to begin those answers, as we go somewhere that I don't belong.

J. van Dongen: Well, again I want to express a concern, hon. Chair, to you and the minister, that it is important to have some clarity about responsibility. It creates great difficulties for the industry, inefficiencies for government and difficulties for staff. It creates difficulties for achieving accountability when we're not clear about who is responsible for what. I have a real problem with that in an era when we are trying to achieve better accountability within government operations.

Now, I know that in previous discussions with the minister and his staff we've talked about the efforts that I think are going on right now between the Ministry of Fisheries and the Ministry of Environment to develop some form of single-window monitoring and regulatory processes at the regional level. I want to ask the minister if these discussions also involve the regulation of the shellfish industry. Is there going to be some joint regulatory, single-window monitoring efforts with the Ministry of Environment in the shellfish industry?

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, it's work in progress. It's one of the primary functions of this government, to reduce duplication and to identify areas where there is duplication and overlap and eliminate them wherever possible. As I say, we are working towards that goal and are constantly identifying areas where we do, they do or whichever could do, so that we don't both do it. I think, from our perspective and this ministry's perspective, that at this time my areas of jurisdiction are extremely clear under licensing and that.

J. van Dongen: I want to turn now to the issue of the environmental assessment office's work on the salmon aquaculture review. This was, I think, the first major project that this office carried out. It was a very major project, spanning almost two years in terms of the time it took to achieve this 1,800-page report. I'm wondering if the minister could tell us what stage the government is at in terms of considering this report.

Hon. D. Streifel: We're in the final stages of developing a response to aquaculture, based on the 49 recommendations from the environmental assessment office's review. It was extensive. It has set us in motion to have a viable finfish aquaculture industry on the coast and to bring that industry about under very, very rigid environmental regulations so that we can have economic activity while still respecting the environment. We intend to move forward under the direction of that review. At this time, that's where we're at -- in the intention-to-move-forward stage. There is no final decision yet.

There are a few other things yet that we have to move beyond in order to effect, I guess, the movement in this industry.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I ask leave to make an introduction, hon. Chair.

Leave granted.

Hon. P. Ramsey: As Minister of Education it's a real pleasure to welcome to these chambers some visitors from the United States. We're joined in the gallery by some 31 students in grades 7 to 10 from New Frontiers Secondary School in Silverdale, Washington. They're here to look at some com

[ Page 7985 ]

parative government and local history issues. I welcome them to the chamber and ask all members to join me in making them welcome to British Columbia.

J. van Dongen: Could the minister tell this House what the approximate cost was of the environmental review of the salmon aquaculture industry?

Hon. D. Streifel: Welcome to our friends from Silverdale, Washington. I happen to live next door to Silverdale, British Columbia. We got some of your mail one time.

The Ministry of Ag, Fish and Food contribution to the environmental office assessment on aquaculture was $180,000.

J. van Dongen: Does the minister know what the total cost of the study was? I realize it's not his jurisdiction, but I wonder if he could tell us that.

Hon. D. Streifel: No.

J. van Dongen: Is the government currently engaged in consultations with stakeholders in terms of reviewing the report at all? Have there been any outside consultations?

Hon. D. Streifel: The question was: are we currently involved? No, it's done.

J. van Dongen: The report makes reference to an aquaculture industry advisory committee, minister. Is that committee still operating? If so, is it being consulted on this report?

Hon. D. Streifel: As a matter of fact, that aspect of aquaculture in the review was actually superseded by the review we did and the stakeholder consultation. As I believe or understand, it is one of the 49 recommendations. We have stated publicly that we will be accepting all 49 recommendations of the environmental assessment office's review of aquaculture -- a very extensive review. That will become part of the future relationship of aquaculture and the British Columbia public.

J. van Dongen: So if the minister is saying that the government is accepting the 49 recommendations, does that mean it intends to lift the moratorium on new tenures this coming year?

Hon. D. Streifel: It's future policy.

J. van Dongen: Hon. Chair, I assume that I'm in order to question the minister on the evaluation of the report, which will involve Ministry of Fisheries staff time.

I wonder if the minister could tell us what involvement the Ministry of Fisheries has with respect to finfish aquaculture tenures. I think we'll probably end up in the same discussion we had here with respect to the Minister of Environment. Nevertheless, there is a very serious issue with respect to salmon farms, and that is that there are a lot of tenure licences coming up for renewal. I would expect that the ministry staff are involved in that issue. Can the minister tell us what is being done at the present time with respect to all of those renewals that are coming up? They're a great concern to the salmon farmers.

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, there is an issue and concern around tenuring. It's still under the office of the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks.

J. van Dongen: That doesn't give me a very complete answer. This is the Ministry of Fisheries; these are salmon farms. I would expect that the minister would have more involvement than what was indicated by his answer.

I'm going to ask him about a specific salmon farm whose lease did expire. It's the Pacific National Group's farm, which was moved to a temporary site. What is the ministry doing with respect to that operation, in trying to find a permanent home for that particular farm?

Hon. D. Streifel: The member seems to keep wishing a broader jurisdiction onto this ministry. The member may note that if wishes were fishes, we wouldn't have a crisis on the coast this year. I would caution the member that a tenure review or a tenure resiting or a tenure application or anything to do with tenure is with the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. Whether or not I have involvement beyond the description that I've already given -- working cooperatively with the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks to resolve some of these issues . . . . That's my involvement. I don't have authoritative jurisdiction.

But I will say that if an agreed replacement site cannot be identified, B.C. Fisheries will accept applications by the company to meet production requirements through its existing farm sites under the new regulatory management regime expected in the coming announcements. There we move into future policy again. In an attempt to answer the member's questions . . . . Hon. Chair, you'll be calling me out of order if I don't stay within the bounds of my estimates, stay away from future policy and stay the heck out of somebody else's ministry.

[3:15]

J. van Dongen: I'm surprised at the minister's answer, and I'm surprised because the ministry and the minister do not fail to comment, make representation, lobby and advocate on issues that are federal jurisdiction. I'm not trying to pin the minister down to a final decision or a responsibility for another ministry's responsibility, but it seems to me that the purpose of this ministry is to represent the interests and concerns and British Columbia's interest in the fishing sector. Finfish farming is part of that sector. What I'm asking the minister is: what is his ministry telling the Ministry of Environment?

His ministry says a lot of things to the federal government. That's what we're talking about. What are we working for within this ministry? What do we consider important for the growth of this industry? What do we think are appropriate policies? I hope that the Ministry of Fisheries has that in its mandate and that that is what a lot of its staff is devoted to.

I want to ask the minister: in terms of the tenure issues, are there discussions taking place with the Ministry of Environment to try to achieve a more timely process to deal with the expiry of a number of fish farm leases? Is there going to be some attempt made by this ministry in its representations to the Minister of Environment, which I understand has the authority to make the decisions? I accept that. But are there going to be representations made by this ministry, in the course of carrying out its duties in the next 12 months, that will involve some responsibility on the part of the Ministry of

[ Page 7986 ]

Environment for timeliness in making decisions that very, very seriously impact existing fish farms, for starters, and then new ones after that?

The Chair: Perhaps the member could pursue another line of questioning.

J. van Dongen: Could the minister comment on his view on the debate which surrounds salmon aquaculture in terms of the potential impacts on the wild fishery and in terms of the possibility for maintaining an environmentally sound operation of fish farms versus the wild salmon runs?

Hon. D. Streifel: That was well looked at under the environmental assessment office's review. I've already stated that we're accepting the 49 recommendations a result of that review, and I refer the member to that document for answers to his questions on interrelations between farmed and wild fish.

J. van Dongen: When the minister says that he is accepting all 49 recommendations, is he saying that all of those will be implemented as recommended in the report?

Hon. D. Streifel: That's future policy.

J. van Dongen: Has the Ministry of Fisheries engaged -- or will they in the next 12 months -- in a review of existing tenures so that you know when these tenures will expire? Has that work been done?

Hon. D. Streifel: The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks does tenure. I am not getting to my feet to discuss tenure again. We have been canvassing it since before lunch; we're into it now. The member is trying to slip it in the back door. Get within the bounds of my ministry, hon. member. Get within the lines of the estimates of this ministry, or we're not going anywhere today.

The Chair: The Chair would like to offer advice to the member that he take the minister's word on this matter and perhaps pursue another line of questioning.

J. van Dongen: I want to turn now to the issue of the aboriginal fisheries strategy. This is another fairly controversial issue, which I note was addressed in the Copes report. It can be considered an equity issue. It can be described as an allocation issue, but I think it's fair to say that a lot of commercial fishermen in this province are very concerned about that federal policy. I am wondering if the minister could record for this House why the provincial government has never challenged that policy by the federal government.

[G. Robertson in the chair.]

Hon. D. Streifel: We're right back to someone else's jurisdiction. I would recommend very strongly that if the Liberal caucus, the Leader of the Opposition or this member -- part of that Liberal caucus -- doesn't like what the federal Liberal minister is doing, they should communicate with the issues under that minister's jurisdiction. This is not the jurisdiction of this ministry. There is no line item in my estimates for the aboriginal fisheries strategy. The question is out of order. End it. Get into the ministry, or we won't get through it.

J. van Dongen: So the minister is saying that the Ministry of Fisheries, his ministry, has no interest in that issue. Is that what the minister is saying: that they have no interest and no involvement in that issue?

Hon. D. Streifel: There's a tremendous difference between interest and input. It is a policy of the federal government; it is their policy. If the member doesn't like it, contact David Anderson.

J. van Dongen: Does the ministry have any concerns that the AFS policy of the government -- the aboriginal fisheries strategy -- will have an impact or create a threat to certain stocks of salmon species? Steelhead, for example -- does the ministry have any concerns about that?

Hon. D. Streifel: I am going to try this and only this. It is a federal policy. It is a policy of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the federal Fisheries minister. Our input to that minister and that ministry has been consistent for a number of years -- whether we've been Ag, Fish and Food or the Ministry of Fisheries. I will continue to hold the federal government accountable to the principles of conservation, consultation, compensation and certainty. That's the end of our involvement in this. I recommend the member move on to another topic, or we'll get nowhere today.

The Chair: Would the member be seated for a moment, please. I'd like to suggest that the estimates of the ministry are now under consideration. Possibly some of these matters are under federal jurisdiction and the line of questioning should be directed more towards issues that are under the minister's purview.

J. van Dongen: I fail to see the difficulty that the minister has. I look at the estimates book, where there is a description of vote 43, ministry operations. Under (b), it says "Fisheries Policy, Strategic Planning and Liaison." That's pretty broad, and it includes a lot of the things we're talking about. Then it talks about "Fisheries Programs and Operations." We have staff in this ministry working on these issues. We have a report done by Parzival Copes, which I understand was paid for in 1998-99 dollars by the Ministry of Fisheries. The report talks about aboriginal fishing rights.

I don't see what the minister's problem is; I really have some difficulty here. I don't claim to be an expert on what is technically within the scope of estimates and what is not. But I have attended enough estimates in the last three years to know that these kinds of issues are discussed. There has been a tremendous amount of involvement by ministry staff on issues that involve the federal government and other ministries. Just about everything this ministry does involves other agencies. I don't understand the minister's difficulty in talking about these issues.

I'm going to ask the minister: is the ministry monitoring the impact of the aboriginal fisheries strategy on fish stocks?

Hon. D. Streifel: It's irrelevant to the debate in this House whether the member thinks I should have jurisdiction or not. It's expedient and necessary to the process of examining the estimates. The member referred to the estimates book. If the member will find a line item in that book that says federal aboriginal fisheries strategy, I'd be pleased to debate it. It's not the jurisdiction of this ministry; it's irrelevant what the member wishes.

J. van Dongen: Well, this issue is of concern to a lot of commercial fishermen. If I may quote the Copes report, it

[ Page 7987 ]

says: " . . . in some non-native fisheries circles there still is unremitting opposition to the special fishing provisions made for aboriginal groups under the aboriginal fisheries strategy." So there's a high level of opposition and concern. The minister himself knows that we've had situations on the Fraser River where native commercial fishermen went out under this program and non-native fishermen sat on the shore. That really can only be considered a very unhealthy situation. We've had court challenges to that policy, where a Provincial Court judge found the policy to be invalid -- to be illegal.

The minister persists in saying that it's not an issue of concern to his ministry. I just fail to understand that. I'm going to ask the minister to comment . . . .

The Chair: Excuse me, member. May I interject for a moment please, when you sit down?

The Chair has already indicated to the member the rules of relevance within the House. The member is straying well off what was originally suggested, and I suggest that you bring your comments back into line with questions specifically to the ministry under consideration.

J. van Dongen: Well, I apologize if I misunderstood your earlier direction.

Let me ask the minister this: under vote 43, which is part of this Ministry of Fisheries policy, what is planned in the coming fiscal year in terms of Fisheries policy? What activities will the staff of the ministry be engaged in under that heading, "Fisheries Policy, Strategic Planning and Liaison"?

[3:30]

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm really tempted to recommend that the member go back to one of the first or second questions he asked me in the examination of these estimates. It was this identical question, and we did give him the answer at the time, but I'll run through it again.

It's the development of a strategic plan or a mandate: priorities, the mission statement, performance measures, full enforcement and involvement of the Canada-British Columbia agreement on fisheries, community development and diversification. As we go through it, that's what our priorities are for this year. If I were to be asked for the number one priority for this year, it's the Canada-British Columbia agreement.

J. van Dongen: The blue book talks about the development and coordination of federal-provincial policy initiatives relating to the management of the fishery resource and habitat. And then it talks about consultation with first nations and stakeholders. Would the minister not agree that the aboriginal fisheries strategy, a federal initiative, falls within the ambit of the Canada-B.C. agreement? Can the minister confirm that ministry staff do spend time writing briefing notes for the aboriginal fisheries strategy?

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

Leave granted.

B. Penner: Thank you, hon. Chair, and thank you, members. It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House a grade 5 history and government class from Greendale Elementary School. There are about 27 students and, I believe, ten parents, in addition to the teacher, Ms. Minato, who are present in the gallery, looking down upon us and watching the work that we are doing here. I can report to the members that I was just grilled outside the Legislature with such difficult questions as: "What is the value of the copper in the 33 domes on top of the Legislature?

What is the approximate cost or value of the gold that makes up the statue of Capt. George Vancouver that sits atop the Legislature? What is the value of the electricity that is used to illuminate the building at night?" These are all difficult questions which I'll attempt to answer on behalf of the Legislature, hon. members. Would the House please make these very fine students welcome.

J. van Dongen: I also want to refer the minister to Fisheries programs and operations. This subvote provides for planning, management, protection, conservation and regulation of freshwater, marine and anadromous fisheries under the Wildlife Act, the Fisheries Act, the Canada-B.C. agreement that he talked about and the management of the Pacific salmon fisheries issues. But secondly, it includes the technical review of applications for tenure and licences for the licensing and enforcement of regulations as required under the Fisheries Act and the Fish Inspection Act.

Now the minister . . . . I just have great difficulty. I'm going to wind up my questions, as the minister would prefer to see. That's fine. I'm not going to pursue a line of questioning the minister does not want to respond to. But I reiterate my view that there's a lot of work that needs to be done in terms of the mandate of this ministry and what it's intended to do and what its role is -- a clearer definition -- within this government.

I really don't see a lot of point in having a freestanding Ministry of Fisheries within this government if the minister and the ministry are not going to address the range of issues that impact the whole of the fishing sector. I think that the minister, by his response today, has indicated a very, very narrow area of interest in terms of this ministry.

If the ministry and the minister cannot talk from a policy perspective about what is important, what the priorities are, what the goals are for each of these subsectors within the ministry, then I fear for the future of the ministry. I don't know what the purpose is, but I thought that the intent of government was to bring together within this ministry certainly all of the resources or a major part of the resources of government -- particularly knowledgable staff -- that are focused on the policy development, the industry development and the regulation of the whole fishing sector.

I have to say candidly that I'm disappointed at the lack of discussion on issues that impact all of the sectors. I will continue to make an effort to engage in dialogue on these issues, but I have to say I'm very, very disappointed in the lack of response by the minister.

Vote 42 approved.

Vote 43: ministry operations, $19,533,000 -- approved.

Hon. D. Streifel: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

G. Robertson: Hon. Speaker, the committee reports resolution under Fisheries and asks leave to sit again.

The Speaker: When shall the committee sit again?

[ Page 7988 ]

Hon. D. Streifel: Next sitting, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Hon. member, is there to be another set of estimates to be discussed?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm not House Leader; I don't know. I'm sorry, I don't have that in front of me.

The Speaker: I'm going to suggest that the motion might be that the committee might continue to meet now.

Hon. D. Streifel: I thought we were going into legislation.

The Speaker: Sorry. I accept your position and the motion that you've made.

The committee reported resolutions.

The Speaker: I have to ask the House to . . . .

V. Anderson: Point of order.

The Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Langara on a point of order.

V. Anderson: Hon. Speaker, I don't think we can act. There is not a quorum in the House.

The Speaker: Thank you for pointing that out. We can do a quorum call.

The bells were ordered to be rung.

The Speaker: There has been a quorum call. A quorum now being present in the House, I will call on the Government House Leader for the next order of business.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I call second reading of Bill 20.

STATUTE REVISION CORRECTION AND

MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS ACT, 1998

(second reading)

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is the Statute Revision Correction and Miscellaneous Amendments Act, 1998. This bill provides the means for making required corrections to statutes arising from the 1996 revision of the statutes of British Columbia. Inevitably, the process of revising all the statutes of British Columbia has resulted in certain errors that must be corrected by means of legislation. The need for this legislation was anticipated and is part of the general plan of the 1996 revision of the statutes.

[3:45]

The provisions of this bill take two forms: first, the validation and continuation of corrections were previously made on a temporary basis by regulations under the Statute Revision Act and must be validated before the end of the current session or the corrected statutes will revert to the incorrect versions and second, corrections made by ordinary amendment with retroactive effect to the date of the coming into force of the 1996 revision. Several of the amendments make corrections to the supplements to the revised statutes that list the unproclaimed provisions to a given statute.

Some of the unproclaimed revisions listed in the supplement are now obsolete. These amendments have been collected into this single bill for the sake of legislative convenience. This bill follows up the government's commitment to producing the Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1996, and continues the goal of making the general public statutes of British Columbia more accessible to users. That concludes my remarks, and I move second reading.

The Speaker: Seeing that there's been no debate, I think we will just move to the motion on second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 20, Statute Revision Correction and Miscellaneous Amendments Act, 1998, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call Committee on Bill 14.

WORKERS COMPENSATION

(OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

The House in committee on Bill 14; G. Robertson in the chair.

section 1.

Hon. D. Lovick: Before we begin, I think we ought to establish what are usually referred to as the ground rules for debate. We've had some discussions with the official opposition, and I understand that those have been productive and worthwhile discussions and technical briefings. The first point I want to establish is that the first 15 sections of this bill are in fact consequential amendments to the Workers Compensation Act, and they come at this part of the bill only because that is the recommendation of legislative counsel.

They are, however, consequential to all of the other things we're about to pass in the main part of the bill. Accordingly, what I propose -- and I believe we suggested this to the opposition; I don't think there's a problem -- is that we simply stand down those first 15 sections and then come back to them and deal with them after we have gone through the greater part of the bill, if that's acceptable, Mr. Chair.

C. Hansen: I was not aware of this proposal, and I certainly have some concerns about the significance of this bill. It is a piece of legislation that will have far-reaching effects. I think it will affect a lot of workplaces in ways that . . . . Daily I'm learning of some new consequences of this piece of legislation. I know that the point was made by others on the government side that this is a discussion that has been going on for six years and that it's time that we got on with this legislation.

In fact, the discussion on the regulations has been going on for six years, but the regulations that were introduced and that came into effect on April 15 were done after significant consultation and after those regulations had been in the public domain with an opportunity to examine them for a considerable amount of time.

As a result, we have before us a piece of legislation that is far-reaching and that nobody had a chance to review prior to about two and a half weeks ago or so, I guess, when this legislation was first tabled in this House. As a result, I am anxious that we do our due diligence on this legislation and

[ Page 7989 ]

ask a lot of questions on behalf of those who may be affected by it. My plan is to deal with these first sections. There are some questions which I appreciate will relate to later sections, but my expectation today is that we will deal with the first 15 sections and possibly get into the first part of the new

part 3. Perhaps we'll be able to start to address the issue of

definitions today, but I don't anticipate that we're going to be getting past that point today. That was my expectation and my understanding as to how we would be approaching this legislation.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I think there's some misunderstanding. If we have not explained adequately on our part, I apologize most sincerely. We're not for a moment suggesting that we don't discuss the

definitions section. Clearly that's what

section 15,

section 106 is. The point I'm making is that sections 1 to 15 of the bill that we have before us are consequential amendments. They don't exist, in fact, until we get through the other parts of the bill. We'd be dwelling simply on the hypothetical. Those things have life if and only if -- when and only when -- we have dealt with the bill, starting at

section 15,

section 106, "Definitions."

I want to clarify that we're not for a moment retreating from our commitment to have a full and wide-ranging debate on the

definitions. It's just that those first parts are in front of this bill only because legislative counsel advises us we must do it that way. We will certainly have an opportunity to consider anything that might be raised there, but the principal issue of the bill is to be found commencing in

section 106. I understood that that matter was raised at the technical briefing. Again, I apologize if there was some confusion or some error on our

part in terms of not explaining that adequately. I hope that explains matters and that, therefore, we can go directly to

section 15,

section 106.

[4:00]

C. Hansen: I certainly accept the minister's comment that there was a misunderstanding. But we had not been informed of this, and it was our plan to proceed with these sections, starting with

section 1. As I say, there is material coming forward to us on, I think, a daily basis in terms of issues that we want to raise on behalf of British Columbians who will be affected by this bill. As a result, I'm not sure that I would have been agreeable -- not that we have a say in these things . . . . I certainly would have protested, I think, the calling of this bill for committee stage today if I felt that we were going to deal with more than just sections 1 to 14 on the first day, because I'm reluctant to go on to a substantive debate on sections after

section 15,

section 106 of the new part, without some of the inputs that we are expecting over the next 72 hours or so.

I think the point is that as legislation comes into this chamber . . . . We have some legislation that is obviously housekeeping. I think we had the example of Bill 20, which was dealt with prior to this. Certainly, because of the nature of that piece of legislation, we recognized that it's not of great consequence and we could deal with it quickly, particularly in the second reading stage.

This is a piece of legislation that has enormous consequences. To say that we're going to start pushing sections of this bill through after so little opportunity for the general public to review the provisions of it gives me some consternation. I think that's the reason why . . . .

Part 3, the new sections that are going to be entrenched into the legislation, is going to be in a form that we're going to have to live with for some time. That's why I'm anxious that we deal with them in an orderly fashion, based on the inputs we've got. If we do proceed to

section 106 of the new part, there may be a lot of issues that we could canvass in that one section, and perhaps we could deal with a lot of the issues that may affect other subsequent sections that will be coming up. I would be prepared to do that, but there may be some latitude necessary on the part of the Chair to deal with some of those broader ranges under the discussion on

section 15,

section 106, if the minister is agreeable to that.

Hon. D. Lovick: Let me try again. I fear that I've lost my ability to articulate or something. Consequential amendment, by definition, is something that results from, is the consequence of, doing something else. The something else in this case is the bill, starting at

section 15,

section 106. There is nothing to debate in sections 1 through 15 of this, because we haven't passed any legislation. It's a purely technical matter, and we're here as a result of legislative counsel's advice to us that we have no choice but to proceed in this matter. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps . . . . I hoped I wouldn't have to do this, but perhaps the only way to solve this is to simply raise it as a point of order. I'm sure the Chair would make it very clear that . . . .

A consequential amendment, to be sure, is normally at the end of legislation, but in this case, because of legal advice, we're told that it must come before. But the principle still obtains that you can't discuss a consequential amendment until you've done something to produce the consequence. I'm sorry -- I don't think I can explain it more clearly than that, and I hope I have explained it adequately. Dare I say that I think we're having a debate at the moment for no good purpose.

Mr. Chair, perhaps you could give us clarification if we require it.

L. Reid: Hon. Chair, not to take away from your rendering your judgment here, it would seem to me that this minister states that in fact an agreement has been reached as to how we will proceed with this bill. That is not the case. That was not a discussion that was raised with either the critic or with me, as someone who is keenly interested in the issues of workers compensation. I would simply ask the minister why he would be opposed to proceeding as the bill is laid out. That would seem to be the most prudent exercise. Indeed, no agreement has been reached.

Why would he be opposed to proceeding as the bill is laid out? The original point that the minister attempted to make was that an agreement had indeed been reached. In the absence of any such agreement, we would simply choose to proceed.

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't know whether the Opposition House Leader has heard what's happened thus far, but I think he has some experience with these matters and could clarify it for his colleagues. To be very brief, Mr. Chairman, legislative counsel advises that for reasons that are very much arcane and esoteric -- as only legislative counsel can present them -- the consequential amendments to this bill must come before the substantive sections of the bill. I don't pretend to understand why that's the case; I am simply told that that is the case.

What I have recommended to my colleagues across the way -- and I thought we had indeed explained it to them in the technical briefing; I am advised that the matter was raised at a technical briefing -- is that we would simply stand down the consequential amendments until we deal with the bill and create the issues that the consequential amendments speak to. It's a purely technical matter; it has nothing whatsoever to do with the substance. All of the issues to be debated are still to be debated. The only question is: at what point -- all right? That's the position.

Again, I would ask the other side to perhaps consult with the Opposition House Leader, who will, I hope, clarify it.

[ Page 7990 ]

The Chair: The committee will recess for a few minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:07 p.m. to 4:09 p.m.

[G. Robertson in the chair.]

G. Farrell-Collins: It appears that there is an understanding of the minister that wasn't an understanding of the opposition members. The minister may have thought that that was conveyed to the members at a technical briefing. Apparently, according to them, it was not, or they weren't clear on that. However, they're willing to stand down those sections and proceed with the "Definitions" and "Purposes" sections until we arrive at the other ones later. It's always better if we get these things sorted out before we come into the House.

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the Opposition House Leader for his intervention. Again, my apologies if there was some misunderstanding. I am advised that there was a technical briefing and that this matter had been raised. But apparently it didn't get communicated, so I'm sorry that didn't happen.

What we're doing, of course, in the first

section . . . .

The Chair: Hon. minister, just one second, please. They've told us they've agreed to stand down sections 1 to 14.

section 15.

Hon. D. Lovick:

Section 15 begins the new part, I believe. It's "Division 1 --

Interpretation and Purposes." We are now on

section 106, "Definitions." We are well and truly launched.

Let me, if I might, Mr. Chairman, just talk very briefly about the division, simply to give everybody some clarification. What we have here is simply a setting-out of the general purpose of the legislation.

I'm sorry. Rather than doing that, why don't we go directly to

section 106, "Definitions," rather than going beyond it into the purposes section, given that I think that

definitions are something that members opposite are especially concerned with? I think most of the

definitions read fairly clearly, but let me offer just a couple of brief clarifications that may speed up or otherwise facilitate the process.

First of all, "appeal tribunal" is defined to mean the appeal division of the Workers Compensation Board. Understandably, there can be some ambiguity there.

Second, the definition of "employer" as presented here is consistent with the definition that is used for compensation purposes in

part 1. But it has been expanded to include others who have been deemed to be employers, in accordance with

part 1 or the regulations. The owner and the master of a fishing vessel have also been added.

The next definition I would just draw your attention to is "work related." With respect to occupational health and safety, which is what

part 3 is about, "work related" is defined as "arising from or in connection with work activities." While that is not explicitly defined in

part 1, the phrase used for compensation purposes is: "arising out of and in the course of employment." That particular definition is too limiting for occupational health and safety purposes. Thus we have a definition presented here.

The last definition I would simply present now with a view to clarifying matters is the definition of "worker." This is also consistent with the definition we use in

part 1 for compensation purposes, but it has been expanded to include those deemed to be workers under

part 1 or the regulations. I recognize that's rather convoluted and complicated; I apologize to everybody -- including me -- for that fact. But when you're amending legislation and you're marrying together a couple of different parts, I'm afraid there's no other way around it but to have that rather convoluted definition. So I hope that's some help to members opposite.

C. Hansen: I was just wondering if the minister is going to accept his apology to himself on that.

What we'll do is deal specifically with

definitions under

section 106 and perhaps not necessarily start in alphabetic order but jump around somewhat, if you don't mind. I'd like to start with the definition of "union" that we have here. If you go back to the . . . . Actually, one of the consequential amendments, as we discussed earlier in

section 5, was the deletion of sections 70 to 72 of the existing Workers Compensation Act.

Section 72(5) of the existing act gives us a definition of "union"; it is fairly specific. In this

section -- and this is the existing wording of the Workers Compensation Act -- it says:

"In this

section 'union' means,

(

a) where the workers in the place of employment being inspected are all, or substantially all, one bargaining unit certified under the Labour Relations Code, the union certified as the bargaining agent for that bargaining unit; or

(

b) where the workers in the place of employment are not substantially all in one bargaining unit, or where there is no union certified for that bargaining unit, the union selected by the officer of the board, having regard to the union that appears to the officer to have the greatest number of members at the place of employment being inspected, and the union that appears to the officer to have members with the greatest exposure to hazard."

[4:15]

With that in itself, I can see where there are obviously difficulties that board officers must have in determining . . . . It's a very subjective evaluation by the board officers that is being asked for here. Nevertheless, I think that whole definition in the existing act is built around unions that are certified under the Labour Relations Code of British Columbia.

Now, under the consequential amendment, we have to delete that existing definition and replace it with the new definition that is proposed for the new

part 3. It defines union simply as meaning "an organization of workers formed for purposes that include the regulation of relations between workers and employers." I would like to ask the minister to explain: why the shift? Why the change from unions being those that are certified under the Labour Relations Code to what I feel is a very vague, very broad definition of the word union?

Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, the Workers Compensation Act from which the member quotes is very old. The language, as he correctly identifies, is rather convoluted and hard to decipher. The purpose of the change here is pre-eminently to simplify, to make it understandable. The wording for the definition that we are using in this legislation comes from the Human Rights Code. We simply felt that it is certainly satisfactory to our purposes and a great deal more simple. There's nothing more complicated than that to explain it.

C. Hansen: Certainly I can see where a broad definition like this may work in the Human Rights Act, although I don't pretend to be an expert on that act, needless to say. But in this particular bill, in

part 3 of this Workers Compensation Act, the

[ Page 7991 ]

definition of the word union has some very profound implications, in terms of obligations on the part of employers and in terms of workplaces where there are unions active. I think that's quite different from the implications that it would have in the Human Rights Code.

I would like to ask the minister to describe for us what the implications are for an organization that might be defined as a union under this definition but that would not be certified as a union under the Labour Relations Code.

Hon. D. Lovick: My sense of things, frankly, is that there will be no implications. This is the Workers Compensation Act dealing with occupational health and safety and using a definition, as I said, with a view to simplify and make more clear. It doesn't have anything to do with certification or jurisdiction or anything of that sort, which is what the Labour Relations Code

definitions are all about. So it would seem to me there is no necessary connection. That's why, in fact, frequently you'll discover in legislation that we have

definitions that apply in one piece of legislation that aren't necessarily equivalent or equal in other pieces of legislation. That's why most bills that I've ever seen always start with a

definitions section.

C. Hansen: Certainly I understand the need for a

definitions section, because it's what drives the

interpretation of the act throughout. That's why I think the

definitions

section is probably the most important

section of any piece of legislation that comes before this chamber.

Let me give the minister an example of an organization that meets this definition. I would like his reaction to it. He may feel that this is a somewhat frivolous example, but it's not, because it meets this definition. This is an association of workers in a workplace who basically come together to plan a Christmas party, and they put together rules in terms of, let's say, drinking and driving. What we have is a body, an organization that comes together to establish regulations. Part of what they do is to establish regulations involving the relationship between workers and employees.

That's an organization that clearly meets this definition of a union. That's why I feel quite strongly that this is a definition that is just not going to serve our purposes in this piece of legislation.

Hon. D. Lovick: I would suggest to the member that a better illustration would be to take a particular

section of the bill that talks about a union and how a structure might work, and find out if it works there. I think he'll discover that it works perfectly fine.

It would seem to me that the group he described, if indeed he meant employers rather than employees in his last statement -- which I think he did . . . . I don't think it's problematic if the group that had that purpose want to call themselves a union based on that definition, as far as compensation and occupational health and safety are concerned. As I say, this isn't talking about certification; this isn't about, you know, your right to represent as opposed to another group claiming the same right.

This is within a workplace -- people who, as the definition says, effectively are an organization formed for purposes that include the regulation of relations between workers and employees -- employers, sorry; I made the same mistake.

C. Hansen: I can see that we both may be making those kinds of slips during this discussion. I take the minister's challenge; I just grabbed one reference at random. In

section 15,

section 128, we're talking about the selection of workers' representatives to sit on joint committees. Subsection 128(1)(

c) says: " . . . if some of the workers are represented by one or more unions and some are not represented by a union, the worker representatives are to be selected in accordance with paragraphs (

a) and (

b) in equitable proportion to their relative numbers and relative risks to health and safety." Now, this is an obligation that this legislation is putting on employers to make sure that the terms of this are fulfilled. Then we wind up . . . . The more clarity, the better we are in terms of making sure that this legislation works for those who are meant to be served by it. Here we have this vague, broad definition of a union, which could result in some very subjective decisions as to what does or does not constitute a union and therefore puts some very subjective criteria on the obligations of employers or others who have responsibilities under this legislation.

I would like to ask the minister why this definition of a union would not be driven by unions as they are certified under the Labour Relations Code, which is what I think most people in the labour relations community in British Columbia would see as a logical driver for the definition of what constitutes a union in this province.

Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, with all due deference, I don't see the problem. Even in the example, I don't see the problem. To answer this specific question, however, I believe there are various organizations that call themselves unions today that don't come under the Labour Relations Code. The issue is the reality of the workplace, and workplaces are certified or they are not certified. And if they aren't certified, or if there's a certification covering some workers and another certification covering others, then the problem is solved for us, essentially, because those people will be clearly defined.

Otherwise it's a matter of a group of people who simply choose, in a non-union environment, to say: "We will work together to set up a joint safety committee or something." Again, this is a very interesting discussion, but I don't see it as problematic -- or I don't see there being a problem with that particular definition. Rather, I think it's chosen because it works, it's simple and it's straightforward. It's broad, but I don't think it's vague; I think it's just broad.

C. Hansen: I guess I don't understand why it has to be so broad. Clearly we've got provisions throughout this legislation that provide for the responsibilities of an employer in situations where there is not a union. So to say that we would come back to a definition of union that is driven by the Labour Relations Code means that we have clarity for employers in terms of what their responsibilities are. If we wind up adopting this particular definition, there will be no clarity.

You know, it may take years of decisions by the board. It may take years of companies being assessed penalties, which are obviously substantive under this new legislation, before we wind up with some operating manual and

definitions in terms of

interpretation. I would like the minister to explain why we cannot fall back on the provisions that are in this legislation for non-unionized workplaces to provide a process to be followed by employers, rather than broadening this definition of union. As the minister just said, it's very broad; I think it's far too broad. I would like the minister to justify why we should adopt such a broad definition of this word.

Hon. D. Lovick: I once saw a first nations play -- this is actually germane, believe me; this answers the question -- and the character in the play answers the question by: "What is the difference between folks like me -- European ancestry and all that -- and aboriginal people?" The definition given, essentially, was: "Well, you guys" -- guys like me -- "are

[ Page 7992 ]

always asking why. What we aboriginal people are always asking is why not." That's the answer to the question, I think: why not? What's the problem?

Again, with all due deference, I don't see a problem. If the member wants some comfort that there is legislative precedent, he might like to know that this is precisely the language used in the occupational health and safety legislation in the Yukon. I suspect we could probably find something comparable in other jurisdictions across the country -- and without problems, no reported problems.

C. Hansen: I have great difficulty with the lack of objectivity in the definition. Clearly I believe this is an area that is going to cause considerable problems for us. One of the things that I fall back on is asking the minister, if he's not prepared to amend this, to at least give some parameters, on the record in Hansard , as to what kinds of organizations that might fall under this definition.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the parameters are in the language. The parameters are: " . . . an organization of workers formed for purposes that include the regulation of relations between workers and employers." Those are parameters. That is the contextual fence, if you like, drawn around the definition. I don't think there is a problem here, as I say.

If the member wants to tell me that he thinks what the legislation should say is that unions are defined as having certification under the British Columbia Labour Code . . . . If he wants to suggest that, I suppose that's okay. My thinking is that it is probably better to broaden that so those that still call themselves unions but aren't under the Labour Code can nevertheless be captured and can make claim to be the representatives in their particular workplaces. Beyond that, as I say, I don't see problems here.

I can tell the member, just as I quoted the Yukon a moment ago, that I understand that there are other jurisdictions across Canada that go the other route: they do use the Labour Code and the definition of a union within that. Certified, essentially, is their definition. Some jurisdictions do; some don't. We've chosen one way, and I don't see a problem with that choice.

[4:30]

C. Hansen: Well, maybe we've made some progress in the minister's comments just now, because what he said was that he didn't have a problem with organizations that call themselves unions and that may not be certified under the Labour Relations Code being included in this. That's at least some defining of what this may mean. If I remember what the minister just said, it was: "organizations that call themselves unions." That's at least some limitation on this.

I would ask the minister: if you have a bona fide employee association that is outside of a certification . . . ? I'm assuming that would be the kind of body that would rightfully be included. Does the minister anticipate that through regulation there may be some definition given to this section? How do you give a definition to a definition? But

interpretation, at least, as to what an organization of workers under this wording consists of . . . . Would the minister consider giving

interpretation to this through regulation to the extent that if there is an organization that is not certified under the Labour Relations Board and that wishes to be considered a union for this purpose, that organization should give notice to the employer in a certain format? Is this a way that we can take some of the subjectivity out of this particular clause?

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the member began his question by making a valid point -- namely, that there are employee associations that don't call themselves unions but, for the purposes of this act, would indeed be the body within the workplace that would take on the responsibilities as elucidated and outlined in the act. I think that's as close an answer as I can give to his question.

In other words, on the one hand, we have those people that are not considered by others to be a union but do consider themselves to be, and others don't consider themselves to be a union but are considered to be by others -- for example, the faculty association from whence I came, the Malaspina College Faculty Association -- and probably Capilano, too, where my colleague across the way is from. In every sense, we behaved, we acted and we performed the functions of a trade union, but the great majority of our members were horrified at being considered as part of such a body. And some still are, perhaps.

C. Hansen: My objective in belabouring this particular point is to give some certainty to those who are responsible for administering this act and fulfilling its obligations. There are certain privileges given to unions in this particular act. There are rights of consultation, for example. There are different procedures to be followed in workplaces where there is a union, versus workplaces where there is not a union.

What is lacking in this definition is certainty, and clearly . . . . That's what

definitions in legislation are all about: to give certainty. This does the exact opposite: it detracts from the certainty of what we need. So I would feel some comfort if the minister would at least be prepared to agree that there is a process needed whereby an organization that considers itself to be a union must be able to serve notice to the employer, so that the employer has to treat them in that regard. In the same respect as other provisions in this act, the employer would then have the ability to appeal perhaps to the WCB, to the board, for an

interpretation as to whether or not this is a bona fide organization that fulfils the requirements that may be necessary to give it those special privileges under this act. Would the minister consider giving that kind of direction, following the passage of this particular legislation?

Hon. D. Lovick: I apologize, I missed the last part of your question leading up to the question itself. Would you sketch that out again? I want to make sure that I do it justice.

C. Hansen: I'm asking the minister if he would consider giving a direction to those who will draft the regulations under this section, under this legislation -- whether it's the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or whether it's the WCB -- because that's also an issue that will come up here . . . . Would the minister would be prepared to give direction, to give clarity, to what would constitute an organization of workers formed for a purpose that includes the regulation of relations between workers and employers? If the minister would be prepared to give direction that that kind of interpretative advice be put into at least the

interpretation manual, which will obviously come out at some stage, it would then at least give some certainty where I think it is lacking today.

Hon. D. Lovick: That's what I thought the member said. Let me answer the question succinctly by saying that what I am prepared to do is take the member's question and discuss it with legislative counsel. I think what we're involved in here is something that doesn't have much to do with what I perceive to be the substance of the bill. But in legal terms, the

[ Page 7993 ]

member may be on to something important. What I want to advise him, however, is that what I will do, in raising that matter with legislative counsel, is run it through the filter of

section 224 of the bill, which talks about cabinet regulations, or the OIC route. It effectively says that the L-G-in-C is authorized to make regulations on specific issues, as follows: " . . . defining words or expressions used but not defined in this Part."

My sense, frankly, is that what legislative counsel will say is that the contextual definition provided in the definition -- namely, that this is about the Workers Compensation Act, and it's about workplace and worker health and safety and that the language is clear . . . . They will say that there is, in fact, no requirement or no need to give further definition. However, accepting the sincerity of the member's concerns, I would be more than happy to raise that with legislative counsel and will so advise.

C. Hansen: I appreciate that from the minister. When we get into those sections that deal with the word "union" as it is defined here, it is certainly something that we will perhaps come back to, if there is an opportunity to not proceed past this, so that at least we can revisit it after legislative counsel has had a chance to review that issue.

I would like to go on to the definition of worker. In particular, I know that my colleague from West Vancouver-Capilano also has some comments here. I will start, by raising the issue of subsection (

b) and just reading the definition. " 'Worker' means (

a) a worker as defined in

section 1" -- which is

part 1 of the WCB act and is a fairly extensive definition -- "and ( b)" -- and this is, in effect, the new part that has been added -- "a person who is deemed to be a worker under

Part 1 or the regulations under that Part, or to whom that Part applies as if the person were a worker." My read of that is that where it says "or the regulations," it in fact gives the board the power to expand the definition of worker. I would just like the minister to comment on that.

Hon. D. Lovick: My apologies for the delay. As you can tell, we're getting into rather technical stuff here.

I'm advised that we aren't really broadening the definition. Rather, what we're doing is simply trying to capture those individuals who might fall through the cracks in terms of being an operator as well as a worker and who will be referred to in other pieces of legislation as an operator/owner, say, and therefore not considered a worker by the normal definition. That's what the intention is. It's simply to make sure that anybody working in a workplace effectively can be protected by the provisions of occupational health and safety legislation. That's the thrust of it.

J. Dalton: It's probably appropriate that I leap in at this time for two reasons. One, I will follow up on some of my colleagues' questions about the word "worker," but I also want to put on the record -- and I don't need the minister's response to this -- two points about "union" in the discussion that preceded our examination of "worker." Firstly, I was actually a member of the Langara Faculty Association, which is a union just like the Malaspina College Faculty Association. It's recognized under the Labour Relations Code as such, so I think we can all understand that definition.

The minister is quite right that there are obviously some of my colleagues and some of his who would not necessarily consider themselves to be union people, but it was a union we were all members of. In fact, I was the vice-president of that union and negotiated on behalf of that union for a while. So there you are. I have some indirect NDP ties, and my colleagues opposite are pleased to hear that.

Secondly, if I recall, the minister, in response to one question from my colleague from Vancouver-Langara, said that he felt that the definition of union had built a fence around the word. I don't know. It's a very small fence. I think there's a rather large field or pasture beyond that fence. I think we may discover that the definition of union, which is very open-ended, really hasn't fenced anything in. Or if it has, there are a lot of horses and cows that have escaped from that fence or may potentially do so.

Let's return to "worker" for a moment, if I may. It's quite right of my colleague, who first referred to the definition of worker in

section 1 of

part 1 . . . . If I could just read it into the record, essentially it's the people who work in a traditional employment relationship -- that's one aspect of the definition in

part 1 -- and also people who are not necessarily engaged in a traditional employment relationship but are specifically included in the compulsory scope of

part 1 of the act. That's, of course, the purpose of that part: to catch workers and make sure that they are all covered by workers compensation.

Now, however, we see that for the purpose of

part 3 -- the new part that this amending bill is adding to the Workers Compensation Act -- we seem to be casting the net further. I just want the minister to clarify this. Would I be correct in assuming that the definition of worker in this new

part 3, which expands upon the other definition, is intended to catch more employees -- or workers, if you wish -- beyond the other definition we find in

part 1?

Hon. D. Lovick: I just want to remind members what subsection (

a) under the definition of worker means. All right? I think worrying about whether we are indeed defining carefully enough . . . . That concern will probably disappear when I advise members that if you look under the definition of worker in the Workers Compensation Act, you see about 40 lines all serving as a predicate to the opening line " 'worker' means," and then we have a whole number of categories. I don't know if it's what anybody would call exclusive, but it certainly seems to be. I would refer members to that.

Perhaps I could get a copy to show just what is captured and why, in fact, with our definition -- once we have said that -- we don't need to worry too much more about how clearly the matter is indeed defined.

[4:45]

J. Dalton: Well, if I can just follow up on this new definition of worker, would I be correct in assuming that a worker who is identified in the

part 1 definition may not necessarily be defined as a worker in this new

part 3 definition? Do we have workers for one purpose and not for others?

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer to the question is that if somebody is a worker under

part 1, that same individual is, of necessity, a worker under

part 3.

J. Dalton: Then perhaps, as a further point of clarification . . . . The concluding phrase of this new definition says: " . . . but does not include a person exempted from the application of this Part by order of the board." Is the minister saying, then, that if you're caught by the

section 1 definition, you are a worker for all purposes, but that under

part 3, a worker could be exempted by board order? Is that a correct

interpretation?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

[ Page 7994 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, that could happen, but there are some very specific illustrations of it. For example, it will refer to somebody like a professional athlete, who falls outside this definition simply because, in normal parlance, I guess, nobody thinks that this individual needs to be captured.

J. Dalton: Perhaps while I have the floor I could ask some questions about the definition of "order" in this new

part 3. As we see, " 'order' means an order under this Part or the regulations." If I'm permitted, hon. Chair, to use as illustrations two sections that we're going to be dealing with later . . . . Could the minister look at

section 125 in this new part? You'll see a phrase right at the end that says: " . . . is required by order." It doesn't specify who may be making that order. The other

section I'd refer the minister and the committee to is

section 139, which we will be dealing with specifically later. There's a reference in there to "by order of the board." Is there a distinction in this new definition between orders of the board as opposed to OICs or other orders that may be made? If so, what do we do if there are conflicting orders, for example? Which order would take precedence?

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer is that only the board makes orders.

J. Dalton: I would take that to mean an order either through a board determination or a board regulation. Is that correct? Those would be the only orders that we would be concerned with in this new

part 3 of the act.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm not sure that I understand the question. The board makes orders and regulations. Is that what the member is saying? Is he acknowledging that or asking for clarification?

J. Dalton: Obviously the board does make orders -- or determinations, as I'll call them. Of course, the board also has the authority to set up a body of regulations. I take it that because of the definition of order we are now dealing with, those regulations could also then become orders in themselves. So we could have board-specific orders and board regulations that will become orders. They are all orders within the ambit of this definition.

Hon. D. Lovick: This is a wonderful education for all, hon. Chair. The example that has been given to me by staff is that in terms . . . . I think we need to differentiate between regulation and order. The board, by regulation, may say that a place of employment must have guardrails to protect workers. If the workplace does not comply with that regulation, then the board can impose an order to give effect to the regulation. That's the distinction. I hope that clarifies it.

L. Reid: Under "Definitions," in

section 106, " 'owner' includes (

a) a trustee, receiver, mortgagee in possession, tenant, lessee, licensee or occupier of any lands or premises . . . and (

b) a person who acts for or on behalf of an owner as an agent or delegate." Is "agent" in that context the legal definition of agent?

Hon. D. Lovick: My information is that the definition is the standard contextual one, rather than any kind of more particular legal definition that "agent" might have.

L. Reid: Again, in the "Definitions"

section is the "right to refuse unsafe work." My questions will be around the definition of unsafe work. Who determines, who regulates and, indeed, who enforces the determination on either side of the question?

Hon. D. Lovick: With all due deference, that matter is well and truly captured in that particular section. Frankly, I don't think the definition will make much difference beyond the commonsense definition. The "right to refuse unsafe work," as it says, means the right explicitly defined under

section 141. So I think it will be captured there.

L. Reid: I'm pleased to reference

section 141: "Subject to this section, a worker may refuse to carry out work if the worker has reasonable grounds for believing that the work is unsafe." My contention is . . . . I need to know who determines reasonable and unreasonable grounds, because I don't believe that's explicit.

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer is that we will grapple with that definitional problem when we deal with

section 141, and if there's something wrong with

section 141 -- and it doesn't give the member comfort -- that's when we can talk about making changes. But the definition, as I say, will depend entirely on what we choose to say about

section 141. Okay? In other words, we won't be able to answer the question by anything to do with the definition as presented here, because it simply refers us to a later

part in the bill. So we'll have that discussion then.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's remarks. However, I think that the definition of unsafe work is integral to the bill. Do I wish to wait until we get to

section 141? No. I truly believe that this issue should be resolved and that at least some sense of where the minister is headed with this should be put on the record. He will know, and I'm sure he will agree, that 141 doesn't answer the question I posed.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'll just point out again that with any definition that effectively says, "This term will be defined by looking at another

section of the bill," the only logical way to modify or have a discussion on that particular piece, it seems to me, is to look at the section. When we get to it, we can. I would also make the point to the member opposite -- who I know takes this job very seriously, and I commend her for that -- that it's not just

section 141, because that definition gets broadened and clarified in all of division 5, when we see all the processes involved in terms of that

section regarding the right to refuse unsafe work. So I think, quite frankly, that the problem will be dealt with -- probably ad nauseam -- by the time we get to division 5 and

section 141 and others.

L. Reid: What I hear the minister saying is that my questions won't be answered with consideration to

section 141 -- and perhaps not at all, in that it's now broadly encased in this discussion. What I find problematic with this legislation and with other pieces are the terms "reasonable" and "unreasonable." Frankly, they lead to incredible vagueness, without knowing who is in fact responsible for those determinations.

We will agree, I'm sure, hon. minister, that what one individual finds reasonable, another may find vastly unreasonable. There are no parameters for the discussion. So even though I appreciate that the minister disagrees, I think the consideration of it at this juncture is prudent. The minister, I know, has now read

section 141, and the answer is not found

[ Page 7995 ]

there. The answer is not found in the larger consideration, frankly. The definition

section is where the answer should be put on the record by the minister, and I would simply ask him to do so.

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm smiling, hon. Chair, because I think the member tried to slip something by me in terms of saying what we'd agree and not agree on. I do not think

section 141 is as problematic as the member suggests.

Look, there is a large corpus of jurisprudence and common law and everything else, and there's also something called the

Interpretation Act, which deals with admittedly value-charged adjectives like "reasonable" and so forth. But it would seem to me, in the course of our discussion and in looking through all the pieces of

section 141 and other chunks of division 5, that we are certainly going to come to a very clear understanding of at least what is and is not on the table -- albeit we may disagree. I'm saying that given that we are now on the

definitions section, the definition simply says that we will define this value-charged, difficult concept when we grapple with the concept. It's impossible, carrying on with the member's comments, to produce a nice, short, easy definition that will obtain throughout all time about "reasonable" and so forth. Rather, we're only going to get it in terms of the context.

S. Orcherton: I've got a question, as well, around

definitions here, but mine pertains to the definition of "employer." I'm a little concerned. It appears that there may be a general exemption rule coming into play here. In

section 106 it says: " . . . but does not include a person exempted from the application of this Part by order of the board." I wonder whether the Workers Compensation Board should in fact have that kind of authority to relieve an employer of his or her health and safety obligations. I'm concerned about where we're going around that, and I wonder if the minister could clarify.

Hon. D. Lovick: I take it that the member is referring to the part following

section 15, subsection 106(c), which says: " . . . but does not include a person exempted from the application of this Part by order of the board." Okay.

First of all, this is the mirror image of what we discussed earlier about "worker." It's the same basic construct. Let me make clear that there is no intention whatsoever of providing a general exemption of employers from their obligations respecting occupational health and safety. Let me state that as categorically and clearly as I can.

The definition of "employer" in

section 106, the member might be comforted to know, is consistent with the definition in

part 1 of the Workers Compensation Act. I'm advised that

section 2(1) of the Workers Compensation Act states that this part applies to all employers and all workers in B.C., except workers and employers who have been exempted by order of the board. If an employer or worker is exempted from

part 1, then that may extend to

part 3.

We talked about workers earlier, and I've just been handed the list about the following general exemptions which have been made with respect to employers and to workers. Members will recall that I referred earlier to the professional athlete. Let me sketch out some of the others. These are the general exemptions that have been made with respect to employers and/or workers.

I'll just put this onto the record -- I think that would be the easiest way: casual grass mowers, babysitters, repairers and other service people, and the homeowner/occupier who hires them; professional sport competitors and athletes; both spouses involved in an unincorporated business, where one or both own the business -- including both common-law and same-sex spouses; and non-resident employers and workers temporarily working in B.C., provided they are covered in another jurisdiction that provides compensation coverage.

[5:00]

Some workers and employers, I should note, are also excluded from coverage as a matter of constitutional law, as well as others, as they have no attachment to B.C. industry -- for example: consulates and trade delegations from foreign countries; air crews of foreign airlines; and experts or subcontractors from other jurisdictions who are in B.C. on a temporary basis.

That's what has been established, and I can add -- again from my note: "The board has established a formal application and review process for all requests for exemption from coverage. The board's policy states that the governors -- now the panel -- may allow for general exemption orders in accordance with specific principles." Again, for the record, because it applies to questions asked earlier as well as to this one -- i.e., to both workers and employers -- let me outline those principles:

"[1.] Since

section 2(1) provides for universal coverage, exemptions are only for exceptional industries or occupations whose circumstances do not fit the purpose and intent of the act.

"[2.] Exemption orders will only be made for industrial or occupational groups, not to individual persons or businesses unless the person or business constitutes the entire industry or occupation.

"[3.] Exemptions are not automatic.

"[4.] Wishes of employers and workers, size of operation, coverage through private disability plans or degree of risk of injury are not, in and of themselves, sufficient to result in a general exemption order."

Those are the principles that govern them, and I hope that answers both sets of questions.

C. Hansen: I do want to pursue this issue of the definition of worker and of employer, as the other member mentioned, in this context.

I just want to be clear about the list that the minister has just read out. My reading of the definition of both employer and worker, under

part 1 of the existing act, is that it does not provide for exemptions. There are no exemptions to employers or to workers under

part 1. What the minister was referring to with the list of occupational groups, etc., that he just read out is that these are existing exemptions to the regulations that are now in place on occupational health and safety. Am I interpreting that correctly?

Hon. D. Lovick: Those exemptions are in

part 1, and they are extended to

part 3, "Occupational Health and Safety."

C. Hansen: The question to the minister is: what provisions are there in

part 1 for those kinds of exemptions from the definition of worker? I don't see that in the definition of worker under

part 1 as it now exists.

Hon. D. Lovick: Let me simply quote, then, from the Workers Compensation Act,

part 1. The heading is "Compensation to Workers and Dependents: Division 1 -- Scope of this Part: Application." And I quote: " 2(1) This part applies to all employers, as employers, and all workers in British Columbia except employers or workers exempted by order of the board." That, of course, is what I was quoting earlier -- the order.

[ Page 7996 ]

C. Hansen: Just to clarify, what we have under this new definition of "worker" for

part 3 is . . . . In (a), we're adopting the definition of worker as defined in

section 1, and that includes the various exemptions that may be ordered by regulation of the board. In addition to that, we are adding (b), which gives the board the power to regulate inclusions or exclusions beyond what would be in the case of

part 1. So we could have a situation where the board could recognize a worker or an employer under

part 1 and exempt them under

part 3, or vice versa. Am I clear in that

interpretation?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is no, but not as to whether you're clear. Rather, the answer is no to what you said. What you just said is not the case.

C. Hansen: I don't want to belabour this, but I do want to understand it. I think this becomes very important to us later, in particular when we start getting into numbers of workers. I'll just elaborate slightly on why this definition is so important. When we get into structuring our safety committees, for example, and we're talking about 20 or more workers in a workplace, we'll require safety committees. I think this definition is going to very important to our

interpretation of those later sections, so I'm belabouring it for that reason. I believe it is very important. We can then have workers . . . . There is going to be . . . . Of all of the individuals who are defined as workers under

part 1, some of them will be exempted under

part 3 but not vice versa. Is that a fair

interpretation?

Hon. D. Lovick: I desperately want to respond with certainty, and therefore I'm going to ask you to repeat that to make sure. Before I say no, which I think I want to say, I want you to say it again -- just about the exemption.

C. Hansen: I guess I'll go back to my previous question, where I asked the minister if it were possible that workers could be exempted under

part 1 but not under

part 3, or they could be exempted under

part 3 but not under

part 1. The minister indicated that I was not correct in that

interpretation. Maybe what I should do is ask him to explain why I am not correct in that

interpretation.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member's absolutely correct, but he's incorrect. The second point to make is that if you are a worker under

part 1, you are also of necessity a worker under

part 3. That's the short, clear -- and definitive, I hope -- answer.

C. Hansen: Now I think we're making some progress on this. Then that begs the question: why, in this definition we have been presented with, has the minister included (b)? Instead of redefining worker for the sake of

part 3 by including (b), why not include (

b) in the original definition under

section 1 and it would then apply to the entire act?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is that that would be more than a consequential amendment, and we aren't doing a complete rewrite of the Workers Compensation Act at this time.

If I might, I also want to go back to a point that the member made earlier about this definition of worker, and I just want to clarify it for the record. Remember that when we talk about workers and worker committees, there's another qualifier in there, and that is "workers regularly employed." That may give some comfort. I appreciate that lo, after these many minutes, I now am understanding what this definitional question is all about and the reason for it. I appreciate knowing that.

C. Hansen: The

section on the structuring of committees is important, certainly, but the definition of worker is used throughout here, and it is obviously going to have consequences depending on how we define this. Certainly the minister is right. I am very much aware that that particular

section does talk about being regularly employed. That in itself . . . . You know, we don't have a definition for "employed." We don't have a definition for "regularly" set out in here, either, but I appreciate that we'll save that for when we get to those particular clauses. I will be looking for some explanation as to what "regularly employed" means.

In terms of the definition of worker -- just as we're dealing with it here -- which adopts the definition of worker out of

section 1 . . . . But I notice that in

section 1, it includes individuals who are in a workplace "for the purpose of undergoing training or probationary work." Now, I'm going back to the original

section 1 definition of worker -- okay? So "workers" as defined, which we're incorporating into

section 3, includes those who are undergoing training or probationary work.

My concern is that there may be situations in

section 3 where that definition becomes quite broad compared to what may have been quite acceptable under

section 1. I guess that it does concern me when the minister tells me that there is not an opportunity to exempt a worker for the purposes of this definition under

part 3. Could the minister comment on that?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer to the question is, I guess, essentially a rhetorical question in itself. Shouldn't people, albeit they may be trainees while they are in that workplace, be protected by occupation health and safety regulations and legislation? I think that's the short answer to the question.

C. Hansen: I certainly wouldn't want to imply that I feel they should be excluded in terms of protection for occupational health and safety, but I think that when we're looking at the sections of this new part,

part 3, that are more about process than they are about safety, then you wind up pulling these people into those

definitions. That's where I will have some concern as we get into the discussion on those particular sections, but I won't belabour the point at this stage.

I would like to move on to the definition of workplace that is presented to us. Certainly "workplace" is something new that's being brought into the act. It's not in

section 1 as a definition, but I assume it's actually defined in the regulations, which I must confess I have not gone to check in this context. What I'm concerned about is the number of requirements that we are imposing on employers to post notices in the workplace, and it's considerable throughout this legislation that is before us.

I would just like the minister to comment on the definition of workplace that includes a vessel, a vehicle or mobile equipment used by a worker in work. The posting of notices is going to become virtually impractical and in fact, I would suggest, probably a hazard in itself if fully imposed, given this definition. Perhaps the minister could comment on that.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think we're a little beyond the definition at this point. I know the question is absolutely authentic and sincere, and I think I can answer very quickly by simply referring the member to that particular section. One example of where we talk about posting -- in 154, for example . . . .

C. Hansen: One of many.

Hon. D. Lovick: Exactly, one of many. The member will discover that there are all kinds of caveats and clarifications.

[ Page 7997 ]

We talk about one or more conspicuous areas the worker is likely to come in contact with, and if it's reasonable to do so. Those caveats are built into those sections of the bill. I think that should be sufficient to allay any fears about whether a workplace, given that definition, might in fact be problematic.

[5:15]

C. Hansen: I want to turn to the definition of regulation, which I think is somewhat fundamental to some of the initiatives that led up to the drafting of this legislation. Certainly the royal commission had recommended that the power of regulation be vested with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council only, and not with the board. In my comments during second reading of this bill, I made a point that the union movement in British Columbia had asked the minister for several initiatives. One of them was to not fulfil that recommendation of the royal commission.

In the minister's closing comments, he pointed out that I was wrong on that, and I think he took great delight in emphasizing that. What he said I was wrong on was not in fact what I had said. He went on to state that the employer community had also asked that this recommendation of the Royal Commission on Worke