1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th 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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 1995

Afternoon Sitting (Part 2)

Volume 21, Number 10

[ Page 15923 ]

The House resumed at 6:34 p.m.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 49, Royal Roads University Act. I also call Committee of Supply in

Section A for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment -- which could present a challenge, at the moment.

ROYAL ROADS UNIVERSITY ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 49; M. Farnworth in the chair.

section 3 (continued).

G. Wilson: When I was on my feet just before the break, I was talking to the minister regarding the designation of Royal Roads University as a corporation and what that meant with respect to the university as an agent of the Crown. There was an explanation at that point that because it's federal land, the university effectively would have the right with respect to its proposed leasing of the land to act on behalf of the Crown.

I notice that if it is a corporation, it says under

section 3(5): "The Company Act and the Society Act do not apply to the university, but the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by rder, direct that the Company Act or the Society Act, or any provision of either" -- and this is the point that I have some concern about -- "applies to the university." My question to the minister is: what is meant by "any provision of either," and how does that tie in with the fact that it's a corporation? I'd be happy to go through that whole scenario again, if the minister needs me to do that.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't want to stand here and ask people to repeat the question -- and I apologize for being just a few minutes late -- but perhaps the member might put the question to me again.

G. Wilson: It's kind of too bad, because the Minister of Employment and Investment might have given me a much different answer, and it would have been nice to sort of compare the two answers. But there we are.

My question is fairly simple.

Section 3(1) establishes it as a corporation. I now understand the relationship with respect to the lease and the fact that you've got federal land; that makes some sense. But under

section 3(5) it talks about the Company Act and the Society Act not applying, even though the employees of the Royal Roads University Society, under

section 3(6), continue on as employees of the university -- I have a question regarding that -- unless the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council orders or directs that the Company Act or the Society Act or any provision of either, applies to the university. My question is: if Royal Roads University is established as a corporation, what is the purpose of

section 3(5)? I would have thought that it would have acted as any agency of the Crown, much in the same way that the University Act would apply to the four universities that already exist.

Hon. D. Miller: The

section really just gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the right to direct that the Company Act and the Society Act, or the provisions of those acts, can apply to the university if required. Neither of these acts applies to the university, but if necessary, certain provisions may be required in the future. It simply gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the opportunity to do that.

G. Wilson: I don't want to belabour the point, but because it acts as a corporation, if the Company Act would be made to apply by order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.... Is it anticipated that, in fact, Royal Roads, through its research activities, may directly engage in research for the purposes of marketing, for the purposes of acting in the capacity of a company or for working with other established operations as a joint venture or whatever? Is that what's seen with this?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, that could indeed be the case. There could, for example, be companies spun off. That's not untypical. The University of British Columbia, for example, does the same thing. It simply gives us the opportunity to use those acts if required by the institution.

G. Wilson: My last question on this section. Given the minister's earlier comments with respect to no tenure -- that the faculty will not be tenured -- I note with interest that it says that the employees of the Royal Roads University Society, coming into force with this act, continue as employees of the university. Does "employees" exclude faculty, or does that include those that are already faculty?

Hon. D. Miller: No, the society is the vehicle that we're currently using now to carry on the work. For example, we have people in place, and we are organizing activities to present classes in the fall. There needs to be an authority to do that, and currently we have a registered society. This will simply allow the work of that society and the employees of that society to be transferred to the university.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

Hon. D. Miller: I move the amendment to

section 5 as follows. I gather the amendment is in the possession of the Clerk. I'll just read it out:

[SECTION 5, in the proposed paragraph (

e) by deleting "a person" and substituting "an employee who is not a professor".] The explanation is that the amendment clarifies that the person elected to the board by employees who are not professors is an employee who is not a professor. This is the intent. Without the amendment, the

section could be interpreted to mean that the employees who are not professors could elect anyone to the board.

On the amendment.

A. Warnke: Actually, it was that

section that I was just including in my remarks, as well. I would like to support the amendment.

Amendment approved.

section 5 as amended.

[ Page 15924 ]

L. Fox: Just very briefly, I make reference to

section 5(c). I would have hoped that we could have found a different process for putting lay people onto this board. It seems to me -- and I've argued this before in the Legislature -- that what we have happening on all of these boards is that the government in power nominates or puts forth individuals and appoints them to these boards, and when we have a new regime come in, those ones are all let go, and we have another group appointed to the board. We saw it in 1992, and I'm sure we'll see it again whenever the next election comes forward.

I think lay individuals are of real value on these boards, but I'd like to see us consider a process -- and it may not be as indicative in this case -- where perhaps respective municipal leaders could suggest names for appointees, rather than.... I know the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would still have to appoint them, but I would like to see us get away from that particular scenario and into something that has more longevity and more consistency, so we don't see those situations where individuals are released from duty, so to speak, by a successive government.

Hon. D. Miller: I guess I beg to differ in some respects. I think that if you look at the composition of boards appointed by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, across the spectrum of appointments that I'm responsible for, at the colleges and universities, you'll find that in fact there has not been that wholesale throwing-out, if you like, of that previous....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: 1982?

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I'll venture to say that if you do a cross-reference -- I've never taken the time to do this -- and see what the politics are of people who are appointed to those boards, and the makeup of the boards, you'll find, first of all, many people who were on those boards prior to our party becoming government. Secondly, you'll find many people who have been appointed to the boards -- and I know, I've made those appointments; or I have recommended them to cabinet, at least -- who don't have as their first qualification that they're a member of my party.

In fact, it's important to understand that when you're looking at the composition, particularly in colleges or universities, the board should be representative. In a college, you obviously want the geographic representation and a diversity of skills, and that has been the way that we have handled those appointments. I would recommend that that continue.

[6:45]

In the political realm, people are free to make political allegations, as they do, and I know that there have been allegations about the appointments of friends and insiders, for example, but when you look at the number of appointments and the process that we have, you'll see that the reverse is true. It's representative of the community as a whole, and there is a variety of skills, for example. Clearly, in all of the cases we want to have someone with financial expertise, and we try to do that on college and university boards.

On this one particularly, there will be a real need to ensure that the people who are appointed by government reflect the need of this institution to be based on that partnership I talked about. By necessity, there will have to be people from the business community, the labour community and other communities who can contribute to the operation of this institution. I think even our initial appointments.... For example, the chair of the board, Mr. Gordon, is someone with a very outstanding reputation in private business. Those are the kinds of people we're looking for.

L. Fox: I recognize in the minister's words that I'm going to lose the debate; however, I just want to put on record that indeed it did happen. I saw evidence of it in the CNC board, and I called a previous minister to task around the firing -- for the lack of a better word -- of an individual who had been recommended by the council of Vanderhoof to sit on the CNC board. The previous minister fired him, along with a number of others, upon taking over the ministry. So, in fact, what I'm presenting happens in reality, and it's unfortunate.

I'm not suggesting by any means that any of these board members are not valuable assistance for the respective university or college. All I'm stating is that it would be nice to see a process whereby municipal leaders or school boards were involved in selecting a community person to serve who respects and understands the needs of that community and that institution, so it's not such a political process. Perhaps we wouldn't see those kinds of things done that happened in 1992.

A. Warnke: Just a bit of a follow-up on this, as well. Up to six persons may be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and then in subsection (f), it's "up to 2 persons, who are not employees of the university, appointed by the board." I guess there is a suggestion that...here we're pretty top-heavy anyway. Up to six members out of a potential board of ten are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and they, in turn, are in a position to have the balance of power and to appoint two more. I'm just wondering if the minister could give a brief rationale as to whether the relationship of the persons associated with subparagraphs (

c) and (

f) has been discussed, to anticipate the criticism that the board might be top-heavy with people outside the university.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't think it would be top-heavy. Going back to the makeup of the board, the whole rationale for the institution is to have that partnership that I talked about. I think it's important for the board to have the ability to appoint up to two persons with particular expertise that they might require or think would round out their board.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

A. Warnke: Again, this may be fairly straightforward, but subsection (2) says that five members of the board constitutes a quorum. That's easy enough to understand, but I guess "...for the transaction of business" is the cute one here. This may be very normal, but I suppose it has raised a possible speculation that you may have five members of a possible 12

[ Page 15925 ]

conducting the transaction of business on behalf of the university. I'm just wondering if the minister would comment on how the percentage or the figure was arrived at, and whether there was another option considered, such as seven, which would constitute the majority.

Hon. D. Miller:

Section 9 is identical to

section 26 of the University Act, the difference being that under the University Act the size of the board is larger. The quorum is larger in the University Act. So there's a real consistency, with the understanding that the sizes of the boards are different in terms of the quorum.

A. Warnke: Also, I'm just wondering, in terms of the five members of the board constituting a quorum, whether it was contemplated to include either the president or a key member of the board such as the treasurer, or anything like that.

Hon. D. Miller: It's not required. Again, the consistency is there with the University Act.

Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

G. Wilson: There are several questions around the president, because

section 12(2)(

a) through (

h) and

section 12(3)(

a) through (

c) provide enormous power to the president. I understand that there's a consistency here with respect to the chief executive officer and what the chief executive officer has, and that it's recognized that.... Just to give you an example, in

section 12(2)(

c) it says: "...within priorities established by the board, to set curriculum content for courses of study, instruction and educational programs...." It is assumed that there is a broader curriculum process, and that the president effectively is only acting in a capacity as a CEO and isn't actually empowered to do all the things they're there to do.

I find it interesting that it talks about all of the powers that the president has. I notice that in the first subsection there is no general parameter within which the act would specify who this successful individual should be, in terms of the kind of person who would be empowered to do that. I wonder if there was any consideration given to that. Mostly, in the universities, for example, the presidents are people who have some expertise at least in education. But more importantly, given that there is nothing that spells it out and given the kind of detail described in

section 12(2) and 12(3), I wonder if the minister might tell us what kind of provisions there are going to be to provide direction, guidance and some assistance to this president in making these rather sweeping decisions.

Hon. D. Miller: The current University Act provides the board with the ability to hire the president. In fact, the member may have noted that the University of Northern B.C. has recently announced the hiring of a new president to replace Geoff Weller. It is a power of the board, and a duty, to engage an individual. Throughout the section, you'll note not only that there is the ability but that the president has power of consultation with the academic council, and throughout that

section there are references to consultation. In fact, under 12(3) and (4), the president may delegate a power under subsection (2) to the academic council, so I'm not necessarily concerned.

We obviously had to bring forth legislation that was different than the University Act, to try to parallel in some way the functions that take place under that act, and I think there is consistency. For example,

section 12(1) is identical to

section 56(1) of the University Act, so there is that consistency. But there has to be the ability to recognize that it is somewhat different, and that the bicameral governing structure, the board and senate and the senate's influence on the academic side in this institution is not in the same form, but rather is within the.... It is different, but we think the relationship between the president and the academic council mirrors some of those provisions in the University Act.

G. Wilson: I guess we'll talk a bit about that when we get to

section 15, which describes what this academic council is going to be. There is always some concern, however, when looking at.... I speak as somebody who comes from a perhaps biased point of view. I have been a faculty member at an institution for a long time, and I've been somebody who has been actively involved in faculty associations. Those associations seek to have as much input as possible.

Now, I recognize that there isn't the same kind of tenured faculty envisaged here, and I think that's an important distinction to make. This is unlike the universities or some colleges, where there are people who have long years of service, and therefore established procedures, particularly with respect to curriculum development. But we might also talk about things in terms of academic qualifications, admission to students, conditions for examinations -- all of those kinds of things on which the academic council is presumably going to be providing advice to the president.

It's always a concern if there isn't something that stipulates that the president must consult. If the minister is essentially saying that he's comfortable that it's only discretionary in consultation with the academic council, I'd be prepared to pick up that

section for debate under

section 15, the academic council. But I would like to hear from the minister that he is not going to have serious top-down administration of what could be an exciting new facility, only to be frustrated by a chief executive officer who simply doesn't see it that way.

Hon. D. Miller: Of course, the member should bear in mind that the board obviously has a strong influence over who they hire as president. Presumably, if they're not satisfied with how that president is functioning, they have the ability to deal with that.

But again, just for the member's ease in going through the section, I'll cite the references in my notes that are parallel to the University Act to hopefully give him some comfort. I've already indicated

section 12(1) is identical to 56(1) of the University Act.

Section 12(2) provides a list of the academic matters on which the president must consult with the academic council. It is the president who makes the decisions, and as I indicated, generally these matters are within the powers of the senate under the University Act.

Moving on,

section 12(3) is similar to sections 56(2)(

a) and 56(2)(

d) of the University Act. Again,

section 12(5) is identical to

section 60(

c) of the University Act.

Section 12(6) references sections 57 to 59 of the University Act. So all the way through, there really was an attempt to, if you like, mirror provisions contained in the University Act -- which has been in place for some time -- but tailor them to the specific needs of this institution. I think we've done that under this section.

[7:00]

A. Warnke: Under subsection (3)(a), I just wanted to explore one thing with the minister. It says that "the president

[ Page 15926 ]

has the power (

a) to recommend appointments, promotions and removal of professors." What this invites is, in such an attempt to remove a professor.... I would like to know just exactly what the appeal process that follows from there might be, and in that context, what might be the president's role in that kind of an appeal.

Hon. D. Miller: The president recommends.... If you look at (3)(a), for example -- "to recommend appointments" and so on -- the recommendation is to the board. The board has final responsibility for actions in that regard. I don't know the answer. If there is a complaint, presumably people have redress through the courts or whatever.

A. Warnke: The various universities have different appeal processes, but it may well be that under the board, the board, in turn, might formally -- pro forma -- instruct the dean or whoever, and then the dean goes ahead and sets up the panel that hears the appeal or whatever.

The Chair: Shall...? The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Chair. You'd best not ask that question; I might not like the answer.

I want to clarify something I thought I heard the minister read out with respect to the.... I'm not sure if it was subsection 12(4) that he was reading from, but I thought I heard him say that the president "must" delegate a power under subsection (2). But it says "may." So if there was a "must" delegation there for the power.... I don't see anywhere in this

section that there is a provision that the president "must" do anything. Am I wrong?

Hon. D. Miller: I think I indicated... If you read the wording in 12(3), "the president has the power" to make recommendations. In other words, not the power to appoint but to make recommendations to the board.

G. Wilson: Well, thank you. I really don't want to belabour this point, because it might be just a moot point. But as we review Hansard, I think that when reading out the parallel commentary in the University Act, there was a reference to the "president must consult." I don't think that exists in this act.

Hon. D. Miller: Again, the wording isn't "must consult," but if you read

section 12(2), it says: "Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the president has power, in consultation with the academic council...." That is, he must consult.

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

G. Wilson: I didn't want to belabour the debate on

section 12, because it was a moot point, but I don't necessarily agree with the minister's

interpretation of "must consult" by a long stretch, certainly. However, since he said so in Hansard, we'll take that as gospel and send it out to all prospective candidates for president.

Having said that, the academic council, I think, is going to be a very important body in the university. I just want to talk about

section 15(2): "Subject to subsection (4)" -- which we've already canvassed and know about -- "the academic council consists of persons elected in a manner specified by the registrar to represent professors, students and other employees of the university." We go back to look at that and we see that there is a composition of the convocation with respect to how that would be. But it doesn't really stipulate how that procedure is going to take place.

I wonder if the minister might enlighten us as to how this academic council is going to provide that kind of broad base of representation. This is going to be a critically important council, in order to have this university do what it's intended to do.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not quite sure of the question. In terms of how it would take place, the manner or process is specified by the registrar, really, after consultation. Was that the question?

G. Wilson: Well, that is the.... Yes, that's exactly the question. The question is under 15(1). They talk all about this in terms of subsection (4), composition of convocation, which is fairly straightforward; I don't think there's an issue there. But then it goes on to say that subject to that, "...the registrar, after consulting representative groups of professors, students" and so on, "must establish the size and composition of the academic council and the length of term" of the members.

Then it goes on to say: "Subject to subsection (4)" -- which is the convocation -- "the academic council consists of persons elected in a manner specified by the registrar to represent professors..." and so on.

My question is: does the minister have some idea of how this consultation and elective process is likely to take place? This council is going to be critically important. For example, prospective professors are obviously going to have some concern with respect to how this institution is going to function, given that there are no tenured positions. Having a long labour history, the minister knows that people who enter into academic work are not immune from wanting some kind of security of employment, especially if they're going to enter into research projects or into instructional programs at an institution such as this.

Hon. D. Miller: That may be. The

section is pretty straightforward. The registrar will develop processes in consultation, as it is under the College and Institute Act. In legislation like this, I don't think that we need to.... Maybe I'm not getting the member's question straight. We've conferred upon the registrar certain obligations, if you like, one of which is to develop processes to ensure that persons are elected in a manner specified by the registrar to represent professors, students and other employees of the university. It's a matter of setting up a process.

Typically, we wouldn't lay out in absolute detail every single process in the legislation; not that we are lax, but there's simply not a requirement for it. We simply have to accept that in certain situations -- for example, in an institution like this or under the College and Institute Act -- when people are appointed to positions of responsibility, it is laid out in the legislation that they will carry out those duties in a responsible way. I think that's generally how things move along.

G. Wilson: I do want things to move along, but I take exception when the minister says that this is consistent with

[ Page 15927 ]

the College and Institute Act. It clearly isn't. We're talking about unionized faculty and staff in those areas, and there are very clear procedures with respect to legislation that this very minister brought into this House, establishing what I called, I think, an unfavourably received, middle-management level of authority. And it was clearly spelled out how those academic councils were going to work.

Obviously this is a new institution; we're trying to get it up and running. I can see that you want to convey powers to the registrar. I don't have a particular problem with that, but is it envisaged that these councils are going to be at the discretion and whim of the registrar? Or is there anticipation that these councils are going to take on a much broader and more representative nature? If it was something that was going to happen in the first year, that might be something we could accept. But if the size, composition and so on is going to be largely at the discretion of the registrar through this act, I think people might take some exception. That's all I'm saying.

Hon. D. Miller: I think I have responded to the question. We're also mixing up two issues. One is a process whereby people are elected from various constituent groups as laid out in the act, and that's simply a process issue. The other is: what's the function of the council? I think that's spelled out fairly clearly.

Sections 15 to 19 inclusive approved.

Hon. D. Miller: I would move the following amendment, and I think the Clerks have a copy:

[SECTION 19.1, by adding the following section:

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

19.1

Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.B.C. 1992, c. 61, is amended in the definition of "educational body" by adding the following paragraph:

(b.1) Royal Roads University.]

It's pretty self-evident. It's simply adding the institution under the act.

Section 19.1 approved.

section 20.

G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister could just explain what the consequence may be of that. This is clearly not going to implicate those who may be carrying forward degrees, because I understand that there are a number of students that will not actually complete by the termination date, and therefore will be carrying forward degrees. Will they be able to have provision for completion? We're not going to be cutting people off who are carrying forward degree programs. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Miller: Those leaving or those who have left are presumably going on. They have either completed or are going on to other institutions. If they're going on to another institution and completing a degree, then the degree will be granted in the name of the institution they go to. This

section really repeals the Royal Roads Military College Degrees Act, which provides that the Royal Roads Military College, which was established pursuant to the National Defence Act, could grant degrees in its own right. Again, it's pretty self-evident that that institution ceases to exist. The new institution that we're talking about here takes over.

Sections 20 to 23 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Miller: I thank the members for the debate. I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 49, Royal Roads University Act, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. D. Miller: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 49, Royal Roads University Act, read a third time and passed.

Interjection.

The Speaker: A point of order on the procedure?

L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, with all due respect, we didn't have the vote on the third reading.

The Speaker: Hon. members, there was an understanding that we would proceed as reported, but the question needs to be put now.

Shall the bill be read a third time now? All those in favour, please say aye.

[7:15]

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Speaker: Those opposed say nay. Carried.

Just for the record, we did it over again.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I call committee on Bill 40.

HEALTH AUTHORITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

The House in committee on Bill 40; M. Farnworth in the chair.

section 1.

L. Reid: I welcome the minister's colleagues to the chamber this evening. I would simply ask for clarification in terms of

section 1 on the definition of a public body to include a

[ Page 15928 ]

government corporation or a designated corporation. It refers to

section 17, which we will come to, but I do think it's important to seek clarification at the first opportunity, which is under

section 1. Could the minister kindly comment?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm just making doubly sure that my understanding is accurate. The list of public bodies in

section 1 of the Health Authorities Act captures all organizations that deliver health services that might fall under the auspices of a regional health board or community health council. By adding "government corporation," we capture some bodies that were inadvertently left out of prior legislation. An example that staff have provided me is Riverview. Clearly the functions of Riverview are something that we might wish to place under the control of a regional health board.

L. Reid: I would simply ask the minister to hark back to the debate during the estimates process, where I was seeking clarification regarding health corporations. It was the minister's sentiment at the time that we were not looking to see a vast new array of health care corporations being created. I posed the question a number of times to the minister, because I had serious concerns about a proliferation of new entities that would have the ability to do things well beyond the original mandate that was explained to the public regarding the creation of health councils and regional health boards.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me try again. The definition of a public body in

section 1 of the Health Authorities Act of 1993 refers to a variety of institutions and bodies that govern health facilities currently, such as health districts, regional hospital boards, regional hospital districts, a hospital, mental health facilities and others. By adding a government corporation or a corporation designated under

section 17, it captures other existing organizations within this definition of a public body. Public bodies are those whose functions may be transferred to community health councils or regional health boards.

This does not contemplate adding any new corporations. What it does is make sure that all existing health care providers and organizations are captured under the definition of "public body."

L. Reid: Perhaps this is just one of the many areas where this minister and I will disagree this evening. It seems to me that capturing organizations, capturing agencies, is a separate issue from expanding the definition to allow for the creation of a corporation. It seems to me that we have had this discussion around the terminology. Certainly the minister's comments have not responded to the necessity for the creation of health corporations. Could the minister could kindly comment?

Hon. P. Ramsey: A third try here; no new corporations are being created. Existing corporations, government corporations or other corporations that deliver health services are being captured by the definition of "public body." That enables the transfer of the health services that they operate to a community health council or regional board under the Health Authorities Act. I repeat: no new corporations are being created by amending the definition of "public body."

L. Reid: Then perhaps the minister would be so kind as to list the existing corporations, so that we have a point of reference for his statement that no new corporations will be created.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Earlier I gave the member an example of one such corporation that was not captured by the definition of "public body"; that was Riverview. There are others. I'll be glad to see that the member gets a list of other corporations, government or otherwise, that deliver health services.

L. Reid: I will accept the minister's offer to provide that list, because without it, the minister's comments are somewhat meaningless. If we do not know what exists as a health care corporation today, we cannot ever determine if, indeed, the list is being expanded.

In terms of the second part of

section 1 -- " 'service providers committee' means a health care service providers advisory committee established under the regulations" -- I would certainly ask the minister to comment. I do believe that this is probably the only useful aspect of this particular bill and that the minister is more than aware that the Liberal opposition never understood the thinking which excluded professional health care providers from any health care decision-making that was undertaken in this province. In fact, it appears that the minister has seen the error of his ways and has come back to the table with this inclusion.

If that is the case, I will commend the minister on that, but I would simply ask him to comment.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I shall eagerly await the commendation.

The health care service providers' committee will be formed by health care providers in a council region or a health board region. It will include all those who are engaged in the delivery of health services: administrators in the system, physicians and other independent practitioners, as well as direct employees -- nurses, paraprofessionals and health care workers. The ministry is currently engaged in consultation with community health councils and regional health boards about the structure of these committees.

The principles are clear. The committee will have a seat and voice at councils and boards that have health care service providers' committees. The membership on these committees will be selected by the health care providers themselves, not appointed by the board, and they will have a clear responsibility to advise the board or council, on matters of interest to the board or council or matters simply of interest to the health care service providers' committee.

L. Reid: I would simply ask the minister what transpired to allow him to come full circle in his thinking. Why was all the acrimony allowed to unfold over the original discussion when they were excluded, if it was this minister's intention to bring them back to the table? Certainly I think the minister has a lot to be accountable for around this particular decision, because it didn't do anything for the patients in the province, and it certainly didn't do anything for the level of morale around health care decision-making.

It seems to me that there must have been some event or activity that allowed the minister to come full circle or to do an absolute turnabout in terms of ensuring that there is reasonable representation now. Would the minister comment on what that particular activity might have been?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It looks like I'll wait awhile for commendation.

We have always said that we were going to strike advisory committees to boards and councils and that we want

[ Page 15929 ]

to have advisory committees. The member can look this up in the guidelines for development of community health councils and regional health boards over the last year and a half. Medical advisory committees representing the views of physicians in the operation of health facilities are important, obviously. Indeed, they are part of certification under the Hospital Act, so they must be provided to community councils and regional health boards. We've said that union-management committees, which offer advice to councils and boards, should also be struck and that health care providers should have their voice heard.

I would submit that the real difference that we've made here -- and it wasn't done without a great deal of thought -- was to provide this committee of service providers with a voice and a vote. Obviously the requirement is that the person sitting on a council representing the service providers' committee would be subject to conflict-of-interest guidelines and would absent himself or herself on matters that might constitute a conflict.

L. Reid: It appears that the minister and I still disagree on this particular aspect. It still concerns me that this minister would attempt to justify the fact that health care professionals are being excluded from full membership. It seems to me that the weight of their experience and their knowledge could certainly come up against a conflict-of-interest allegation and win out. There may be cases where they need to stand back from the table for particular discussions, but it doesn't mean they cannot be part of the overall decision-making.

It still concerns me that we are having membership on councils and regional boards that excludes health care providers, which is a separate issue from the minister's remarks on advisory committees -- an absolute separate issue. It still concerns me that the decision has been taken to exclude that professional level of expertise, and the minister can make no bones about the fact that they have been excluded. This amendment act does not bring them into the decision-making yet.

Again, when we think of being taxpayers in the province and having a health care budget of approximately $6.5 billion, we are still not allowing the people with the most expertise to be part of those decisions, other than in an advisory capacity. That is not a defensible position from the perspective of the official opposition. If we're going to spend that amount of taxpayers' money, there needs to be some commitment on behalf of this government to ensure that the people making those decisions are the most qualified.

It seems to me that this is another rendition of continuing to exclude individuals from the discussion. Again, I appreciate the minister's remarks on the advisory capacity. We don't differ on that; we differ on full membership on a council or a board, and that is where I believe those individuals need to have representation. Would the minister comment?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is a matter that's somewhat apart from this proposed amendment. I think it may be a very frosty day before I get commendation on introducing an amendment which this member would be prepared to applaud. This amendment recognizes the valuable voice of service providers and provides a means for their voice to be heard in deliberations of councils and boards. The general principle of democratic decision-making is that those who benefit financially from tax dollars don't get to make the decisions on spending them. That's true on school boards, that's true on municipal councils, and it's going to be true on community health councils and regional health boards.

[7:30]

L. Reid: We need to talk about the calibre of decision-making and to perhaps bring it in line with what happens on schools boards in this province. There are teachers and administrators who sit on school boards. My riding is a very fine example of that, with all due respect to the minister's level of knowledge. In terms of whether they can perform that task without being in conflict, yes, they can. The examples are clear and evident today.

So for the minister to somehow submit that anyone who is a health care professional is going to be subject to bias, and not able to divorce themselves from the issues and events from which they may directly benefit, is wrong and completely unfair. It seems to me that if we are entrusting these people with our lives, we can entrust them with some decision-making around how those dollars are spent. It seems to me that that closes the loop in a much more coherent fashion than this minister defending the fact that we can't have them that close to this level of decision-making.

I frankly want those people involved in decision-making. I want very much to have health care professionals render decisions based on some level of expertise in terms of being involved in the delivery of that service. It seems to me they have the most at stake in understanding whether the allocations for particular activities within hospitals or communities are a legitimate expenditure -- whether a reasonable sum of dollars has been allocated. The other discussion rampant throughout this bill is that of continuing to isolate and fragment people away from the decision-making.

We don't support this bill, as this minister well knows. We didn't support it in principle, and the discussion -- the clarification I'm seeking from this minister -- doesn't allow us to reach a different conclusion. This minister is still standing today to suggest that these people should not be part of the process in any aspect other than advisory. That is not in the best interests of British Columbians. Frankly, I submit to this minister that it's not in the best interests of health care. I ask the minister to comment.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We do have a clear philosophical disagreement. The member opposite seems to believe that clinical skill equals management skill, governance and policy skill, or the ability to represent community. We fundamentally disagree on that. We believe that the spending of tax dollars and the allocation of them must fundamentally be made by those who do not benefit financially from them. They must also clearly do that decision-making with the best professional advice they can get.

We've established a service providers' committee, among other advisory committees, to make sure that the governors of our health system have the best possible advice. Other than that, the member and I will have to agree to disagree.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

[ Page 15930 ]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 33

Dosanjh

Marzari

Pement

Zirnhelt

O'Neill

Garden

Perry

Hagen

Kasper

Hammell

Giesbrecht

Miller

Smallwood

Gabelmann

Clark

MacPhail

Ramsey

Barlee

Lovick

Evans

Conroy

Doyle

Lord

Streifel

Simpson

Sawicki

Jackson

Krog

Brewin

Copping

Schreck

Lali

Boone

NAYS -- 18

Dalton

Warnke

Reid

Farrell-Collins

Gingell

Stephens

Hanson

Wilson

Chisholm

Neufeld

Fox

de Jong

van Dongen

K. Jones

Symons

Anderson

Jarvis

Tanner

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

Bill 40, Health Authorities Amendment Act, 1995, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Speaker, just before I call business, I can't help but inform the House of a pressing and urgent matter -- the election in Saskatchewan: 45 NDP elected, seven Liberals and two Conservatives, and 57 percent of the vote for the NDP. Let's go!

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we could have order.

Hon. G. Clark: All members are off to see the Premier tonight to tell him to go for it.

I call committee on Bill 37.

VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT

The House in committee on Bill 37; D. Lovick in the chair.

section 1.

J. Dalton: Under the definition of "victim," in paragraph (b), can the Attorney General advise what an example of "significant emotional trauma" might be? I'm a bit troubled by the adjective "significant," because I think the court might have trouble with such terms.

[7:45]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's a judgment call, and I'll leave it to the member to make his judgment. It seems to me that it's something you can't define. It depends on the circumstances, the degree of pain and trauma, the degree of emotion -- a whole bunch of things like that.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

M. de Jong: As I understand the section, the Attorney General is making provision for victims to avail themselves of legal aid representation. I think I'll start there. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes.

May I take this opportunity, now that I'm organized, to introduce the two people who are with me, so members of the House know that this Susanne Dahlin and this is Judy Klima.

M. de Jong: The Attorney General has in the past articulated forcefully his concerns relating to the increasing cost of the legal aid system. What comfort can the Attorney General offer us that the resources are there for what could ultimately become a significant part of the legal aid service?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Legal Services Society has already budgeted for this kind of provision. It's my understanding that they had put $50,000 aside in their current budget and in the year before, and the anticipation is that we're looking at numbers in the range of $100,000.

M. de Jong: I presume that those are best guesses, and that a year from now we will look back and determine how accurate they are. My gut reaction is that in perhaps as many as 50 percent of the cases where the accused is availing himself or herself of legal aid representation, we may see application being made by victims who will require assistance. Can the Attorney General indicate if there is a tariff in place, or what the remuneration would be and how that is going to be calculated? Will it depend on the nature of the crime? What will it be tied to -- how badly a victim has been hurt or how much work has been done on the victim's behalf?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't think there's a

schedule or a particular agreement reached with the bar in respect of how that might be arranged. Given the limited nature of this representation, it's not going to happen in the overwhelming number of cases that have to do with privacy and disclosure. Because of that, it is mostly in sexual assault cases, so it's a limited application. It is my understanding that there were discussions between the ministry and the LSS about whether a protocol was required to assist them, and they said that this was not going to be a major cost item.

M. de Jong: I think the Attorney General raises a good point, and I want to clarify it. Is it the Attorney General's understanding that if there is a tariff or a schedule, it will be set by the LSS, taking into account their global budget and the other demands? Or will it be something set by the ministry in regulation form?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: They're independent; they make their own decisions, including that kind of decision.

K. Jones: In the same vein, if a victim who is being served by, I presume, a legal aid lawyer finds that that legal aid lawyer doesn't appear to be moving along on their particular

[ Page 15931 ]

case, is there some way that the victim may apply to find out just how much is being charged to legal aid by that lawyer in order to find out whether they're getting any active service from that lawyer?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That has nothing to do with this legislation; that has to do, in the final analysis, with the act that provides legal aid -- whatever it's called -- and the arrangements that are made between legal aid and its lawyers. I can't answer on behalf of legal aid. They are independent; they have nothing to do with this section.

I would say that if a client being represented by a lawyer who was being remunerated by legal aid -- whether by way of tariff or a staff lawyer -- was unhappy or curious, they could ask questions of the Legal Services Society. It has nothing to do with the ministry; it's a completely and statutorily independent board.

K. Jones: If one of these victims who's asking for this aid is unable to feel satisfied that their case is being proceeded with properly, are they able to change their lawyer under this legal aid process without being prevented from having legal aid?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Let's just back up a little bit here. First of all, this is a question of advice to victims. Victims may not be -- and often aren't -- happy with the way in which the court process unfolds. We have delays that we don't want; there are other issues that occur. Adjournments occur on occasion, and there are decisions during that process that victims may not be happy with. The victim is, in a sense, still a bystander to the trial and is not....

Let me put it another way. What this legislation is designed to do is ensure that the victim is provided with information and advice. This

section deals particularly with issues around privacy, sexual assault and disclosure, and not with the pace or the conduct of the trial by the prosecutor or the defence. It's to do with ensuring that the victim's rights to privacy are protected. Their lawyer may be provided by Legal Services -- or may not be, if they're not financially eligible. It doesn't do anything more than ensure that those rights are protected. That lawyer doesn't have a responsibility or a role in conducting the trial or the pace of the trial.

K. Jones: If the victim were having some difficulty in obtaining disclosure of information and they felt that the legal aid lawyer assigned to them was not doing a suitable job, is it appropriate for them to ask for another lawyer? Would they be able to do that without any complicating factors, such as being cut off from legal aid, as has been done in other cases?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Answering it backwards, first of all, they wouldn't be cut off if they're eligible. Secondly, if they feel that they're not being represented appropriately or effectively, they have the right to go the Legal Services Society and make that complaint. The Legal Services Society does have the opportunity or the option of providing alternative counsel.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

J. Dalton: This section, of course, deals with victim impact statements. I guess my first question will be, given that these are often introduced into court today: is this

section saying that Crown counsel has more influence in the presenting of -- and hopefully the court listening to them -- these victim impact statements? Really, I guess, I'm asking: how is this changing the current circumstances dealing with such statements?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is to make sure there is consistency across the province in respect of the format of victim impact statements, to be sure that everybody is enabled to approach the court in terms of a victim impact statement in the same way, wherever they are in the province. We have victim impact statements now, obviously, but there isn't a consistency, a pattern and a common approach. Both the victim services division of the ministry and the criminal justice branch are in the process of developing a form that will standardize this arrangement. That's what this accomplishes.

J. Dalton: I have one other question; then perhaps my colleagues have some. Will the court be obligated in any way to hear these victim statements? Quite often I hear reports where they may be introduced, but they don't seem to be paid any heed. What assurance is there, even with this format and consistency, that the statements actually will get before the judge, who in all cases should hear these things?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, the impact statement would only be presented or admitted if it was admissible. Second, the ultimate decision would be up to the judge. This doesn't in and of itself require the court to hear a victim impact statement. That decision, in the final analysis, is made by the court.

M. de Jong: I wonder if I can ask the Attorney General: is there any contemplation here about moving beyond victim impact statements to a regular presentation of viva voce evidence? Is that something in the government's or the Attorney General's mind, in presenting this

section as part of the act?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's a question that occurs, but it's not a question that is being pursued at this time.

M. de Jong: I only raise it. It's one of those concepts that, on the face of it, one is inclined to support as giving an opportunity to a victim to say to the court, the person or the trier of fact who's going to deliver sentence: "This is how this crime has impacted on my life." I think that was the logic behind developing the victim impact statement as a written document that can be presented.

I just draw to the Attorney General's attention, and I'm sure others have done this, that though we want to give an opportunity to victims to play a more meaningful role in the sentencing process, there is some concern that perhaps a trier of fact or a sentencer.... It's not the most appropriate time for the victim to be on the stand delivering an impassioned plea about what has happened to them. There is a downside to that as well.

I don't envy the Attorney General for having to make that balance. Perhaps I'm influenced overly by not being able to divorce myself from my previous job and being on that side of the fence. But it's a concern that exists at the bar, the judiciary and the bench as well, as to how they confront that scenario.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, the impact statement is at sentencing rather than at trial. The member conveys the

[ Page 15932 ]

concern of the defence bar, and these are issues that we have not.... Like so much of what we do, it is one step at a time.

[8:00]

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

J. Dalton: In

section 6(1)(c), I'm concerned about "the reasons why a decision was made respecting charges." Given the delicacy of privacy -- and of course the prosecution doesn't want to tip its hand -- could the Attorney suggest what the likelihood is that reasons will, on a commonplace basis, be provided on charges that may or may not go forward?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the charges are not proceeded with, then a full explanation is provided. If the charges are proceeded with, then judgment is taken as to what can be conveyed without jeopardizing the trial.

M. de Jong: Can I just ask the Attorney General how, at a very practical level, this is going to be administered? Will it be the responsibility of Crown counsel in the various offices? Will court clerks be providing this information? Where are victims going get this information from?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If he's asking about 6(1)(c)....

Interjection.

The Chair: Excuse me, hon. member, I'm having difficulty keeping up with the tennis match.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Just leave the microphones on.

Let me just back up then. In terms of 6(1)(c), it would be the Crown, because it's a question of charges. In other cases, it could be the police-based victim services worker, or it could be the Crown-based victim services worker. It depends on what the particular information is. But I want to emphasize that if it's to do with the charges, I think that's a matter for the Crown to convey directly.

M. de Jong: I offer this more by way of suggestion. Most victims' contact with judicial officers will generally be Crown counsel. They will be notified of court dates by Crown counsel and subpoenaed by Crown counsel. Except for determining the status of police investigations, it strikes me that most of this other information might logically -- except for parole information -- flow out of the Crown counsel.

My expectation would be that procedures would be developed so that victims could be advised by private counsel as to where they can go, or even that some of this information, I would think, would go as a matter of course. I know the act says that it is by application. I think the Attorney General's intention here is that much of this information would flow automatically.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm just trying to think of a short and simple way of saying this. In the early going, the matters that have to do with the police and whatever would be automatically provided to the victim by a victim services worker. As you move further into the system, through charges and through the corrections side of it, it will be on request. But let me just back up again to the beginning and say that protocols with respect to all of this are now being developed.

Let me just add one thing that I wasn't aware of: if a victim makes a request at the beginning of the process that he or she be advised throughout the course of events, right through to the corrections end of it, then that one request at the beginning serves as a request that has to be followed by the system.

M. de Jong: Referencing subsection (2), it occurred to me that it doesn't include a provision for where a victim might suffer financial prejudice. I notice that in

section 1, the definition of "victim" includes someone who has suffered economic loss. I wondered when I read

section 6(2) whether an argument might be made by a victim that they should be provided with information, copies of orders, permits and conditions that are relevant to the victim's financial health.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I need the member to help me with this. We're talking about provisions under the Young Offenders Act, so we're talking about criminal events. If I hear the member, it sounds more like civil or family matters that he is referring to. So the financial impact under the Young Offenders Act.... Maybe the member could help me.

M. de Jong: I read this to mean that subject to the provisions of the Young Offenders Act.... So there are some limiting features in the Young Offenders Act that might preclude the release of copies of orders and permits. For example, a victim, under this legislation could be.... It's any provincial offence; we're not restricted to criminal activity here.

I can't think of an appropriate example, but I can certainly see where an argument would be made by a victim on the basis that they have suffered financial loss as a result of a corporation's activity, perhaps, that constitutes an offence, and therefore they are a victim and might have an interest in obtaining information, orders or copies of material that relates purely to financial matters.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know the answer, but I want to clarify the question. If the member, for example, is talking about.... The way the bill is designed, it deals with victims of criminal offences that have more to do with violence, sexual assault and those kinds of issues. What the member is asking, I think -- let me get this clear -- is: if someone is a victim of a commercial fraud, let's say, can they then, because of the limitation about safety, get copies of orders and permits? That's the question?

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Now that I understand the question, I'll find out the answer.

I think the answer is that it's as it reads. It's safety, and it's not financial security or financial difficulty.

M. de Jong: The Attorney General has correctly identified my issue, as I clumsily tried to define it. In fact, I think he has hit it head-on, and as he put it, I can see circumstances where a victim in that sense would want that information and would be very much a victim within the meaning of this act. Does the Attorney General see any wisdom in extending the provisions of that section?

[ Page 15933 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Not tonight, hon. member.

K. Jones: Attorney General, can this

section be set aside by a judge responding to a petition of the defence to not disclose either the names of the defendant or certain information about the case?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: On its own motion, the court can always restrict publication and restrict information, but those issues are there for counsel to argue on respective sides. I think the basic answer to the member's question is yes.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

M. de Jong: I'm referencing paragraph (g), and in asking the question I'm aware of the provisions of

section 11. I just want some assurance from the Attorney General that he's confident we are not creating an expectation that might be followed up through some sort of action. The Attorney General is dealing with limited resources. Under paragraph (g), are we setting in motion the possibility of actions being brought for the Attorney General to start pouring concrete that he can't afford to pour at the moment?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the member is asking specifically about paragraph (g), I need to be sure about that.

M. de Jong: Yes, paragraph (g).

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The court services branch of the ministry is already working toward meeting these goals. We have seen these as important goals, even before defining them. Does it create expectations or demands that the system can't meet, financially or otherwise? I think the reason that this is titled the goals

section is that this is where we want to get. Some of these issues are going to take a long time.

I think I mentioned earlier in second reading the issue of design of courtrooms -- that obviously we're not going to tear them all down and rebuild them in the short term. But with respect to physical disabilities, there are still courthouses in British Columbia that are not wheelchair-accessible, I believe. We're working on it, but there are still some that are not. Those of us representing rural ridings understand that.

Interpreters. I don't know whether it's universal now, but that's certainly something we.... You can't have an equal opportunity in the system if you don't have the appropriate

interpretation.

Culturally sensitive services. We work at it. I think we've still got some distance to go on that, throughout the system.

M. de Jong: The purpose of my question was simply to seek assurance that by virtue of the inclusion of

section 11 -- which states that nothing in the act creates a cause of action -- we're not going to see lawsuits by special interest groups to the Attorney General about why there is a courtroom that doesn't have special access.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is trained in the law and he knows the answer to that -- there will be no cause of action.

K. Jones: What is meant by culturally sensitive services? Could you give us examples of that?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Different ethnic and cultural groups have different histories and different understandings of the law. It's as simple as, for example, the difference between France and here, where you have a different kind of law in place in terms of guilty and innocent. As I understand, at the end of a trial, a conclusion can be that you're innocent. That doesn't happen in North America. Those are those kinds of issues.

[8:15]

For native people, the concept of guilt and innocence is not one that has historically been part of how they've spent thousands of years dealing with each other. People from other parts of the world come from different traditions; you have to be sensitive to those. You have to try to make special efforts to ensure that our peculiar system.... We don't think it's peculiar -- we white guys -- but lots of other people do, and we have to make every effort to find ways of ensuring that people can be comfortable with it and can understand it.

The most important thing is that at the end of the day, they feel satisfied that what happened to them, directly or indirectly in that system, was a result that they can live with, and they can sleep at night as a result.

K. Jones: What kinds of services would be provided to do what you're talking about? I'm kind of unclear on the form of services that you would be providing.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The system already has, for example, native courtworkers who play a role in respect of this kind of objective. The same kinds of services are provided in communities, for example, with a high Indo-Canadian population; there are services that are particularly addressed to people of that culture. We're not going to be able to do it for every single soul in British Columbia as effectively as each person might want, but we can certainly figure out where the priorities are and which communities require particular services.

I think everybody saw in the paper the other day that somewhere around 30 or 35 percent -- I've forgotten the number now -- of kids going to school in Vancouver speak Chinese as their first language. Obviously, in the court systems in Vancouver you have to pay some attention to those issues. The ministry has been doing that; it was doing it before we were the government. It has accelerated recently, and we're now establishing it as a legislated goal to continue those initiatives.

K. Jones: Since it describes this as being only available for minorities, what is classified as a minority in that category? Would a person who is from a low-income, white Anglo-Saxon background or a person who has maybe a grade 3 education and is a white Anglo-Saxon also be classified in that category of ethnocultural minority?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's less an ethnocultural issue than an issue that relates to a need on the part of the people delivering the service to deliver it in a way that the information is heard. It's the outcome that's important. It's an attempt to begin to put more pressure on the system to make sure that everybody is equal and everybody has the same set of rights in front of the courts. If they're disabled or handicapped by

[ Page 15934 ]

one factor or another, the system needs to take that into account and address it. We make specific reference to language and to culturally sensitive services. That doesn't mean that the system doesn't also ensure the provision of information in a way that someone with a grade 3 education can understand it. Obviously we have to do that; that's just part of the way of doing business.

K. Jones: If that's the case, if that's the intent of it, why don't we just say that? Why do we get into culturally sensitive...? Why don't we just say that we would provide sensitive services for those persons who need them and eliminate what appears to be a discriminatory clause in here, which is restricted only to aboriginals and ethnocultural minorities. It is thereby saying that anybody else who doesn't fall into those categories isn't going to be provided with those services.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is designed to deal with people who come from different cultures, different ethnic groups who perhaps have a different justice system and who require some additional assistance, and our people require some additional training to help them bring people to an understanding of our system. Those of us who grew up in this country -- poor, rich, whatever -- have grown up with it. People who come to the country, or people who were here before we got here and imposed our system, require some special attention.

And more importantly than focusing on the victim, for me anyway, the import is to say to the people who work in the system: "You better pay some attention to this; you better understand that these are issues." You just have to read the Sarich report out of the Cariboo-Chilcotin to see the gaps that exist between cultures -- between races, if you want to use that term, or between ethnic groups, which isn't the appropriate term in that case. I would have thought that it's just self-evident.

K. Jones: I'm sure the minister feels that it's self-evident, but I have people coming into my constituency office who would not fit into this category but who are not able to understand the legal processes. They are victims and are trying to deal with the bureaucracy, the court system and the various claims systems. They would not be given any guidance because this is restricted to a certain class of people.

I think that it would be a great improvement to this bill if it were identified that a sensitive provision of services would be given to all people, regardless of their ethnic, racial or economic background, so that they would all be treated equally and would all have the same opportunity to be availed of these services provided for victims.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes, and the member can find the answer in paragraph (a).

J. Sawicki: I, too, want to pick up on paragraph (g), but before I do, I just want to make a couple of general comments that pertain to the entire section. I represent Metrotown, and unfortunately, of course, it is a rapidly growing area, with the SkyTrain, etc. The concern about safety and crime is a high priority for my constituents. I just want to congratulate the Attorney General for bringing in one of the most comprehensive and extensive victim assistance and compensation bills in Canada. We have in Burnaby, of course, a very active victim assistance program through the RCMP, and I personally have been down to talk with them many times. So I know that the issues and goals set out in

section 8 really do meet the issues that they've been talking to me about for the last number of years.

My specific comments on paragraph (a), developing victim services and promoting equal access.... If I could make a special plea to the Attorney General, as far as the budget will allow: I know that our victim assistance program in Burnaby does need extra resources to be able to expand its work and give the support to victims of crime in our community. So I'll use this opportunity to put in that extra plug.

My question to the Attorney General is: in providing victim assistance services that are culturally sensitive, does he have any plans at this point to perhaps utilize the non-profit agencies -- that now do have core funding, of course, I'm very pleased to say -- to provide workshops and language banks, etc.? Is this the kind of tool that the Attorney General is planning to use to make sure that we could meet these goals?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The basic answer is yes, but in different ways in different communities, depending on the groups that exist and on the needs and the like. Public Legal Education did a survey recently to look at new patterns, new needs as a result of immigration issues and settlement patterns, too. That will result in focusing on how we deliver the kinds of services that the member talks about. I'm a great believer in using community groups and organizations that already exist in the community that do a wide variety of educational programs with their own ethnic or cultural group. Adding to that some component of victim services is, I think, an appropriate thing to do, but those....

Again, it depends on local circumstances, on how it gets organized, on what the demands are, on what the needs are and on the role that a group would want to play in the community. It's all coordinated through victim services. We don't have a cookie cutter; I think that's the most important thing. That's something that I stress throughout the ministry: there are no cookie-cutter solutions to any community issues or community problems. They all demand and require separate community responses, and we try to make our system work to fit that.

R. Neufeld: I have a number of questions. First off, I want to qualify that the interpreters you speak of in paragraph (g)(ii), and the culturally sensitive services.... And I'm not disputing the fact that that should be there. Let me make that clear to start with.

But what I want to refer the minister to -- and he answered briefly -- is paragraph (g)(i), which is: "...courtrooms and prosecutors' offices that are designed to be used by persons with physical disabilities." The minister is quite aware that we have a travelling court through a good part of rural B.C., specifically in my constituency and also in that of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, which I'm

speak-

[ Page 15935 ]

ing of because it's serviced out of the Fort Nelson-Fort St. John area. How do we go about...? Does that put us in a position where government is going to have to fund a lot of expenditures to be able to provide those services? I'm just hoping that it doesn't back us into a corner. Although I understand and appreciate that those services should be made available to those people, it's very difficult in some of the areas in the north that you're talking about. Court is not consistently held in the same building all the time; it moves around. It may put us into a bit of a corner. I just wonder how the Attorney General's ministry is going to deal with that.

[8:30]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The first part of the answer is that wherever court is held, interpreters are provided if required. You couldn't conduct a trial if that didn't occur, so that is the case. We obviously try to minimize costs in that respect, and a way of doing that is to use local groups that may be available and that may have people who can provide that kind of

interpretation. You're not going to bring somebody along on this travelling court who works full-time for the ministry and speaks a particular language but may only be required for two hours out of a six-day trek. That's not what we're talking about here.

This is still a goal for victims. That's important to remember. For the accused and for witnesses in the trial,

interpretation is provided, and it's done in the most cost-effective way. We use local resources when that's possible. A goal here is to try to ensure that victims are also provided with that kind of resource, and the way we try to accomplish that is by using local resources, if they exist. They are more obvious in the lower mainland than they are in the member's riding and in my riding, but some of these resources do exist.

R. Neufeld: Actually, I almost put both questions into one. Maybe the Attorney would answer the question about getting into a corner by making all courtrooms and prosecutors' offices, wherever court happens to be held in the travelling court, accessible for people with physical disabilities. I appreciate that it should be done. If it's a goal and an intent, that's fine, as long it doesn't back us into a corner where all of a sudden we have to do these things. I'm sure that's going to take place in time.

The second part of my question is about (g)(ii) and (iii). I want to be clear that I'm not saying that it shouldn't be, but there probably should be a responsibility or maybe something in the legislation that says "upon request" for a special interpreter, or something of that nature, so the system knows ahead of time that it has to supply that person.

I'll just give an example that happened just recently at a pulpwood hearing in Fort Nelson. It was within the last year and a half. It was a public hearing. Nobody was aware.... I was part of the hearing, and the member from Penticton was chairing it. We had everyone there. It was a set-up meeting that had been advertised long ahead of time. Some native people came and were quite upset because there were some elders that could speak nothing but Cree. There were no interpreters -- none. That particular gentleman brought that forward -- to everyone's surprise, to be perfectly frank.

I thought: should you be expected to go to all of those hearings anticipating what language is going to be spoken?

In that case, maybe the gentleman who brought the issue forward that no one was there to interpret to those other people in the Cree language should have had some responsibility to say: "We would like some interpreters there, or we would like someone there who is culturally sensitive to our needs." It just puts a little more of the responsibility on that person to make sure that when the time comes, those services are provided in a timely and efficient manner.

If the member's question is: can somebody suddenly show up at the last minute and demand it, and the whole thing falls apart until it happens...? Logically this is going to occur earlier, not at the last minute. The concern the member has, I would have too. You can't expect to not have anyone be aware that there's an

interpretation requirement, then when the trial begins suddenly say: "Wait a minute now, I need an interpreter." That's just not going to happen under this system.

R. Neufeld: I accept the Attorney General's explanation, and I know what he is saying. But I can tell you that on the issue I brought forward of the pulpwood hearing in Fort Nelson, the whole hearing knew that Treaty 8 was going to make a presentation. It was written a long time ahead. They knew that the Fort Nelson Indian band and the Prophet River Indian band were going to make representations; that was known months ahead of time. What I'm saying is that it still caught someone short. I don't think it was a surprise as much as an oversight, in a way.

I can understand what the Attorney General is saying about a court -- that prior to going into court everyone will know that someone doesn't speak the language. That could possibly be; it was just a thought I had that possibly some responsibility should be on the victim to make sure that they may need that help.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The victim services worker will very quickly determine whether or not they can communicate with this person. If they can't because of a language difficulty, they'll address that long before the trial. It's different than the public hearing that the member talks about.

K. Jones: I'd like to correct the impression given by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon as to my previous questions on paragraph (g). Where practicable, as stated in the first sentence of

section 8, I fully support access for persons with disabilities to interpreters, and services to aboriginal persons and members of ethnocultural minorities. What I was asking for was inclusiveness, so that not only those persons will be provided services, but any persons, no matter what their circumstances, who require special services would be provided those special services. I don't think that message was clear.

Section 8 approved.

[ Page 15936 ]

section 9.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to

section 9 that's in the possession of the Clerk, and I trust that members have been provided with a copy. There are amendments -- (a), (

b) and (c) -- and I think I'll just wait until members have an opportunity to look at what's being circulated.

[SECTION 9,

(

a) in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting "the place" and substituting "the time and place",

(

b) in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting "section 14 (7)" and substituting "section 14" and by deleting "the place" and substituting "the time and place", and

(

c) in the proposed subsection (6) by deleting "Sections 72 (6.2)" and substituting "Despite

section 11 of this Act, sections 72 (6) to (6.1)".]

The subsections of

section 9 that are being amended are (1), (2) and (6). I think we should take our time. This is something that just came up today, and members have not had an opportunity.... I assure members that these are technical and do not change anything about the bill.

The notes I have.... I'll just read them. The amendment ensures that the government can enforce the victim fine surcharge if payment is in default. The amendments are also intended to address potential difficulties created by Bill 25, which is the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1995, and which allows government to impose interest on outstanding fines. Obviously, if there's interest, then how is that dealt with in terms of the surcharge?

As I said earlier, my notes conclude by saying that the amendments are minor and do not change the intent of the sections. It's just to make sure that they are legally intact. While ordinarily one would consider them as a package, if the Chair decides to do these separately, that makes sense too.

The Chair: Given the minister's explanation that these are technical and that we all now have them, I'm wondering if we could deal with them as a group, en bloc. Is that a problem?

Interjection.

The Chair: In that case, I'll simply pose the question. Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

section 9 as amended.

J. Dalton: A question about the surcharge: does the ministry have some projected figures as to what revenue is expected to be generated from this levy?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Our projected revenue is in the $3 million range. We don't have hard figures at this time, but that's what we project.

M. de Jong: With respect to subsection (3), can the Attorney General indicate...? Are there constitutional impediments to applying the surtax to young offenders' legislation? Or was it just a conscious decision to exempt those individuals?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This was an attempt to be consistent with the federal legislation in respect of surcharges. Fines under the Young Offenders Act are exempt under the federal legislation. We wanted to be consistent with that.

M. de Jong: At the risk of getting the same answer I got on an earlier question, did the Attorney General see any merit -- at a perhaps reduced scale -- in rendering young offenders subject to a similar provision, notwithstanding that the federal legislation doesn't do so?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I haven't really put my mind much to that question, frankly. Collection becomes an issue for the most part with young offenders. So it is fair to say that it's simple for us to follow the federal lead on this, given that we probably wouldn't get very much money out of it in any event.

J. Weisgerber: I'm interested in the process, the application. If one appears before a magistrate and is fined, does the magistrate fine and acknowledge that indeed there will be a surcharge applied? Perhaps I could find out that to begin with.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I hope this answers the member's questions. Let me just pick a hypothetical.... The court will say the fine is $1,000. When the person who's guilty gets the notice, they will have to pay $1,100 or whatever the amount turns out to be, because the court services branch procedure will add the surcharge to it.

J. Weisgerber: I'm not often in the courts, but it seems to me that I recall fines being levied and costs announced in conjunction with a fine, so this will be different. The fine may be levied -- the $1,000, for example -- plus costs, and then a surcharge would come at a later date.

[8:45]

I'm curious to know.... I've got a couple of questions, so I'll kind of work my way through them. The federal experience has been that there hasn't been any change in the sentencing pattern by judges. I'm thinking, for example, of where the judge sees someone standing in front of them, decides on a penalty.... Do they kind of decide that, hey, we're going to hit this -- you know: "It's going to be a thousand-dollar fine, but he's going to have to pay a $90 surcharge, so we'll fine him $900 plus costs"? I wonder if the federal government or anyone has done any study to know whether, indeed, that experience has occurred in the courts.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The problem with trying to answer that question is that under the federal system, the judge has to make a conscious decision; it's not an automatic procedure federally. Ours is an automatic procedure, so we don't have that kind of evidence. In the final analysis, the judge is going to impose the fine that he or she decides is appropriate, and if they do a conscious reduction of 10 percent, I would be surprised.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Ten or 20 percent -- whatever the number happens to be, because that hasn't been determined. But if they do a conscious reduction of, say, that amount, then

[ Page 15937 ]

they are defeating, I think, a purpose that I would be surprised they'd want to defeat, which is to assist victims in the whole court process. We'll see.

J. Weisgerber: Could the minister confirm whether these surcharges will apply to fines across the board, with the exception of those for young offenders? If someone is charged with a non-criminal offence -- for example, a violation under the Environmental Assessment Act; someone appearing charged under the Forest Practices Code; someone charged with a violation of the Motor Vehicle Act, a weigh scale infraction.... Would all of these be subject, even though they are arguably not criminal offences? All fines, with the exception of those for young offenders, apply?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Those decisions will be made subsequent to the passage of the bill, in respect of whether or not all provincial statutory offences are included. They could be. Motor vehicle infractions, the environment act, hunting regulations, or whatever -- all of those issues could be included. But those decisions have not yet been made.

J. Weisgerber: I assume the minister has given this some thought, but I'm not sure why, for example, someone who has committed an infraction under the Forest Practices Code -- or a trucker who finds himself in the misfortune of having overloaded an axle -- rather than the rest of us in society should be asked to pony up not only for the offence they have committed but also for the surcharge added to that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I won't swear that was the first question I asked with respect to this legislation, but it was certainly one of the more important questions I asked. I don't have a clear answer in my own mind yet about what the policy should be. In simple terms, you want people who commit violent crimes to pay for the impact of violent crimes. The member's question is a very legitimate question: why should somebody who is in breach of the Forest Practices Code, let's say, and let's say there is a million-dollar fine...? Why should they pay additional money to help victims in the rest of the court system -- victims of criminal offences?

It's an excellent question, one that I haven't concluded in my own mind what the answer should be, and one that -- because I haven't done that -- I haven't taken to cabinet recommendations. The staff who advise me say that this is a difficult question, one that has to be resolved. One of the things that I hope happens as a result of the hoped-for passage of this bill in the Legislature is that there will be some public discussion around these issues. I very much want to be guided by that.

But I guess the other side of it is that if you are in violation of the law, rather than just having the $10,000 fine for a breach of the riparian zones or whatever go into general revenue so it can be spent willy-nilly by the Minister of Finance, if we could have a chunk of that coming into providing service for victims, then I'd be pretty happy. So if I can -- as this act does -- take some control out of the Minister of Finance and put it into our ministry and provide a very direct service for victims, maybe that's a good thing to do.

It might tie into the earlier question that the member had about what judges might do with respect to the fine. So who knows where we're going to go with this.

J. Weisgerber: As the minister was going thorough his explanation, I thought we were almost getting around to arguing for kind of a checkoff on fines. But this is an important question. I think members on all sides of the House would like to support the legislation but may find it uncomfortable, when faced with this particular problem, to have it said: "Gosh, Mr. Member, you supported that legislation in the House.

You either should have known or had an obligation to know before you went ahead with the legislation whether or not these were going to apply." I think that the question raised is an important one, and on a personal note, I think there should be some very clear parameters. There should be some very clear limitations on the areas where these surcharges may apply. I would be very much opposed to fines for non-criminal activities being subject to the surcharge.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I take the member's point. We all worry about the consequences of our actions in here when we go home to our constituencies. This isn't to prejudice the outcome, because I don't know what the outcome is going to be, but let me just tell members what other provinces do. Since 1989, in Saskatchewan it's all provincial offences. In Manitoba, since 1987 it's all provincial offences except parking -- and no parking in Saskatchewan either. Most of them don't have parking.

In Ontario, it's all provincial offences, including all ticketable offences, since 1995; in New Brunswick, all provincial fines, including tickets, since 1991; in Nova Scotia, all provincial offences except parking, since 1989; in Prince Edward Island, all provincial offences; in the Yukon, all territorial offences; in the Northwest Territories, all provincial fines except bylaw; and Alberta, Quebec and Newfoundland have no surcharge. So that's the national survey. Whether that leads the member to think where this is going and has a consequence on how he votes on this section, that's for the member.

M. de Jong: I thank the Leader of the Third Party for raising the point, in that I had made an assumption based on my reading of the act that may now prove to be incorrect. I wonder if the Attorney General can indicate.... When I read the act I took the definition of "offence" as being a contravention that harmed a victim. When I read that referencing who a victim was, and then, in dealing with this

section -- deemed the "Victim surcharge levy" -- I assumed that this would be restricted to those offences where a victim could be identified pursuant to the

definitions that existed in the act. If that's not the case -- and the Attorney General seems to be indicating that

section 9 may have a much wider application than I first assumed -- then I'd like to hear about that now, as well.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That is why we have 7,000 lawyers in British Columbia: to make arguments of this kind. If the member reads subsection 9(1): "If a fine is imposed on a person under a prescribed enactment of British Columbia...." I think that could include the issues that the member for Peace River South and I have been talking about.

K. Jones: In

section 9(3), with regard to whether the surcharge would not be imposed upon a fine imposed under the Young Offenders Act.... This would be rather disconcerting to those persons like Chuck Cadman, who lost a son as a result of the actions of a young offender and would feel that it would be only appropriate that that young offender, now an adult, pay something towards the costs of victim support or the victim program. If not that, what about the case of having the parent of the young offender be responsible for that

sur-

[ Page 15938 ]

charge? Surely there has to be some connection for these cases of violent crime, whether they're committed by a young offender or not, to make some of this contribution towards the cost.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm sure Chuck Cadman would be more offended by the guilty party in the death of his son being assessed a fine rather than a jail sentence. I don't believe that in a case of that kind, where we have horrendous crimes which end up with long jail sentences, the member would prefer that a fine be imposed instead. I know the member wouldn't want that. There's no fine in that case; therefore this doesn't come into play.

If the member is suggesting something else -- that we should move to a system which not only includes a jail sentence but a payment toward victim services programs -- we haven't got that far in our system yet. Should we? It's a good matter for discussion. At this point it's simply a surcharge on fines that are charged; it is not an assessment for reparation against people who are sentenced without fine. I happen to personally believe that the system should move much more toward reparation, whether individual -- in some cases that's appropriate -- or collective, as the member is suggesting now.

But the justice system is a little bit like a big battleship: it's slow to turn; we're taking this one step at a time.

K. Jones: I'm glad to hear the minister say that he's leaning towards this kind of thinking -- reparation along with the sentence. I didn't suggest any possibility that there would be no sentence, and a fine instead of that; that would be the most unacceptable proposal that we could ever consider. Certainly along with their sentencing there should be a means of reparation to support this kind of funding that's necessary. Either the person who has committed the crime or the parent of that person should be held liable for that. Therefore there should be a vehicle established to provide for that.

I'd like to ask the minister if photo radar fines, when they're brought in, would also be part of the surcharge source for this funding.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member makes his point. We're simply talking here about fine surcharges. Should we enact all the legislation that everybody can think of all at once so we have nothing to do for the next ten years in this Legislature? No, we're going to do it step by step and do it right and do it carefully. In the very unlikely event that the member's party were ever to be government, I'm sure he wouldn't want us to have done everything, so that there was nothing left for him to do.

K. Jones: Thank you to the minister for making the suggestion for the possibilities of the future. I'm sure that's future business he's talking about. I'm surprised that he even brought it up, but we'd be happy to test the process.

[9:00]

J. Dalton: I believe I heard the Attorney, in a response to a question from the member for Peace River South, say that by regulation, or something to that effect, certain offences will be caught by this surcharge and some will not. It would be my reading of subsection (1) that all enactments of British Columbia would be caught, other than.... I think he's talking about parking fines and things. I would suggest -- for example, the question that my colleague just raised -- that speeding offences and, I suppose, bicycle helmet offences would be caught as well, would they not?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member would be correct if the word "prescribed" weren't in the section; if it said "under an enactment of British Columbia," then the member would be correct. But what we've said is a "prescribed enactment," and that will come by way of regulation.

Section 9 approved on division.

section 10.

J. Dalton: Anyone who donates to the Crown is entitled to a tax receipt. Would someone who makes a donation to this surcharge account under sub-subsection (3)(

c) be entitled to a tax receipt?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know. That's a good question, one that has not occurred to me. But it might be an interesting question for us to take up with the federal tax department, and I thank the member for his suggestion.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

M. de Jong: If I could just ask the Attorney General, it is obviously a purposeful decision to exclude the special prosecutor's function from the possibility of review under the Ombudsman Act. Could the Attorney General just provide me with the reasoning that went into that?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is asking why a special prosecutor is exempt from the ombudsman's attention. It's for the same reason that the entire activities of the criminal justice branch, in respect to prosecutions, are exempt. The special prosecutor is simply an independent person performing the same function as a prosecutor who works within the branch. It's not appropriate for the ombudsman to review charging decisions and the like.

Sections 13 to 20 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

Bill 37, Victims of Crime Act, reported complete with amendment.

Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.

[ Page 15939 ]

Leave granted.

Bill 37, Victims of Crime Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 38.

CRIMINAL INJURY COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

The House in committee on Bill 38; D. Lovick in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

J. Dalton: I have a question on

section 4, and I think the question that I would have raised later under

section 13 may perhaps be answered at the same time. So we'll see; this could be a two-for-one special.

I'm looking under

section 4(b), which is the amendment to

section 5(3)(

a) in the actual act that we're amending. Let me give an actual case as an illustration; we'll see how the compensation factor kicks in. All members will recall that over two years ago -- I guess it was on March 18, 1993 -- when the doors of this building were broken in, one of the employees, Gary Miller, was quite badly injured -- his hip was broken. Happily, he's back at work. I talked with Mr. Miller the other day, and he raised an interesting point. Given the cutoff date in

section 13 of June 1, 1995, is it correct -- this is his understanding -- that he would not be entitled to pain and suffering compensation, because he is collecting workers' compensation? Would he not be entitled to the pain and suffering compensation that this act is bringing in?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Gary would not be eligible now; but if what happened to him and to us on that day happened after June 1 of this year, he would be.

K. Jones: Could the minister tell us why pain and suffering is provided for in this particular case, yet under a Workers' Compensation Board case, which is being administered by the same process, persons are not able to get compensation for pain and suffering?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're not here debating the Workers' Compensation Act, but the principle of that act does not include pain and suffering. It includes lost wages, therapy and whatever is required to bring the worker back to a position where he or she is able to go back to work, but pain and suffering is not a feature of the Workers' Compensation Act. If the member thinks it should be, he should probably write a letter to the Minister of Labour.

J. Weisgerber: I must confess that I'm nervous about the extension of coverage for pain and suffering for mental and emotional trauma. I'm not for a moment suggesting that those situations don't exist, but I've grown up watching U.S.-style justice and the effects of claims for pain and suffering, inflated automobile settlements and those kinds of things, which have become very much a part of that situation.

I'm wondering: can the minister tell me what kinds of constraints the government intends? The act certainly doesn't give us much sense of how that quite significant new feature is going to be administered. It's one thing to extend injury compensation from a dependent to one's immediate family; that's very much consistent with the changes in this act. I would like to have some pretty clear sense of how the minister sees the Crown administering this.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I need the member's help in this. The

section simply extends to individuals who are criminally assaulted -- if I can put it that way -- at work the same right they would have if it happened at home or on the weekend or on the street. There are not a lot of people who are victims of crime at work; it's not a common occurrence.

The limitations are the same as they are for every other person who's eligible. The total amount available is set out in

section 13 of the act. It can't exceed $50,000, and that's all found: that's pain and suffering, an award, rehabilitation and any other cost. The average pain and suffering amount is between $2,600 and $2,700.

J. Weisgerber: Just for my clarification, the compensation for pain and suffering, mental trauma, etc., is in place now for victims of crime, and this extends it, as the minister indicates. Indeed, the average award, the average compensation, under the existing act, is running in the $2,600 to $2,700 range. Perhaps to save me from going to

section 13, is the limit of $50,000 set out in

section 13 now in place for persons other than those injured at work by a criminal activity?

[9:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes, that limitation does exist. All this

section does -- this section, anyway, because there are other changes later -- is to extend that option to people who have been criminally injured at work.

Sections 4 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

J. Dalton: Of course, I got the one question, about June 1, answered earlier. The other aspect of this -- and I think that there was some comment in second reading.... Perhaps we can have it on the record: why was the date January 1, 1991, picked? Also, why do we have two different dates in here -- January 1, 1991, and June 1, 1995 -- for when this act was first introduced?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, the June date is for a program that did not exist, had not existed and had never been interpreted to be existent prior to now, with this change. The January 1, 1991, date was picked because prior to then, the adjudication process responded positively to people who had made applications and who were immediate family members of victims who were murdered. In and around 1991 the adjudication board paid more attention to the act and realized that, in fact, the act did not allow for family members of murder victims to be covered.

That became clear to me in my term as AG. I made public comments, the member may remember, in respect to a neighbouring constituent of the member in North Vancouver, when Dr. Flather's children and family were not considered to be victims by the legislation as it stood. That was just bizarre. So I determined then that we needed to amend the legislation.

[ Page 15940 ]

We then had to work out: did we just do it from then on and say "tough luck" to those people who'd been treated this way over the last four years? Even though I'm not a great fan of retroactive legislation, there are occasions when it's appropriate. I felt it was appropriate in this case to go back to the time when the adjudication board began to exclude people who were in that situation. That's why the January 1 date was picked. We were sure to go through to.... In fact, we talked to the people who could have been affected, and while things are never perfect, this was seen to be the most appropriate date.

Section 13 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 38, Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 1995, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's my understanding that I'm calling second reading of Bill 33, which is the Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1995. The minister, I hope, is noticing that I'm on my feet saying this.

The Speaker: We can take a moment until the minister has had an opportunity to arrive.

FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

(second reading)

Hon. E. Cull: Bill 33 proposes amendments to the Motor Fuel Tax Act, the Social Service Tax Act and the Tobacco Tax Act. These amendments are designed to clarify existing tax applications, to strengthen existing tax enforcement measures and to protect the existing tax base. Three of the amendments contained in this bill counteract the potentially significant negative revenue impacts resulting from court decisions over the last year.

First, the Social Service Tax Act is amended to clarify that tax applies to containers such as beer bottles, pop bottles and pallets that are returned and reused. By longstanding tax application, manufacturers and sellers have been required to pay tax on their purchase of such containers, because the container can be used several times to deliver a product to different customers. However, this tax application was successfully challenged through the court because the statute does not contain an explicit provision imposing the tax. The proposed amendment counteracts this court decision and thereby protects over $2 million in annual tax revenue.

Second, the bill amends the Motor Fuel Tax Act to provide explicit provisions imposing a tax liability where lower-taxed coloured fuel is used for unauthorized purposes. The tax rate on coloured fuel is 3 cents per litre, while the tax rate on clear fuel is 11 cents per litre. Coloured fuel may only be used for specific purposes, such as the operation of industrial machines off-highway or family farm trucks. Where coloured fuel is used for unauthorized purposes, an assessment is made for the difference between the lower and higher fuel tax rates.

The province has received an adverse court decision which undermines its ability to make such assessments and to enforce the limitations on uses of coloured fuel. This decision places at risk over $6 million in past and future fuel tax revenues. Bill 33 addresses this problem by establishing an explicit provision to impose a tax liability where coloured fuel is used for unauthorized purposes.

Third, the Tobacco Tax Act is amended to clarify that only dealers who hold a permit under the act are authorized as agents for the minister to collect and remit the tax. This amendment counteracts the court decision that severely hampers the province's ability to collect the outstanding tax liabilities, where purchases are made from non-registered sellers who do not collect and remit the tax due to the province. The potential impact of this court decision is a serious escalation of illicit tobacco sales with resultant revenue losses in the tens of millions of dollars.

These amendments to the Motor Fuel Tax Act and the Tobacco Tax Act not only protect provincial revenue, they also promote equity and fairness by ensuring that persons who contravene the provisions of the statutes are not provided with a competitive advantage over those persons who comply with the legislation. For this reason, as well as the potentially significant revenue impact, these amendments are being made retroactive to April 1, 1989, within the six-year statutory refund and assessment limitation periods.

This bill also proposes amendments to both the Motor Fuel Tax Act and the Tobacco Tax Act to provide legislative support for the existing fuel and tobacco tax precollection schemes. The precollection scheme has been adopted administratively by all provinces for efficiency and convenience; however, because there are no specific legislative provisions supporting this scheme, it has been the subject of court challenges. An adverse court decision could jeopardize fuel and tobacco tax revenues in excess of $1 billion annually.

Bill 33 addresses this issue by establishing a system of security payments. Under this system wholesalers pay the Crown a security equal to the tax due on the taxable retail sale of fuel or tobacco that they import or acquire for resale in the province. Wholesalers are reimbursed for the security by charging a security to the retailers to whom they sell their products. The retailers reimburse themselves for the security from the tax collected on the subsequent retail sale of the fuel or tobacco. This security system avoids the expense of establishing and maintaining separate registration and collection systems for the thousands of tobacco and fuel retailers operating in the province.

Bill 33 also proposes amendments to the Social Service Tax Act to consolidate and clarify the application of the tax to telecommunication services. The existing legislation imposes the tax by simply defining telecommunication services to be tangible personal property. With the rapid, far-reaching technological advances in the telecommunications industry over the past several years, this is no longer an adequate basis for

[ Page 15941 ]

the imposition of the tax. As a result, tax applications have had to rest primarily on administrative policy and

interpretation. This has resulted in uncertainty in the industry and leaves the province vulnerable to court challenges.

The proposed amendments do not create a new tax burden; they simply provide explicit provisions for the imposition of the tax consistent with the existing tax application. The amendments, again, promote equity and fairness by bringing certainty to the application of the tax and by ensuring that taxpayers know when they have incurred a tax liability. By strengthening the legislative basis for imposing the tax, the amendments also protect this source of provincial revenue, which is estimated at up to $100 million annually.

Bill 33 also amends the Social Service Tax Act to remove an inequity in the timing for payment of tax on purchases and leases. The existing provisions require that the tax due on a purchase be paid at the time of purchase, even if credit is extended; however, the tax on lease payments is only due at the time the lease payment is made. This creates an inequity, because lessees are provided with a greater amount of time in which to pay the tax. The proposed amendment corrects this inequity by requiring that the tax due on leases be paid at the same time the lease payment is due.

[9:30]

Bill 33 also amends the Tobacco Tax Act by establishing a number of provisions in support of recent operational and legislative initiatives aimed at combatting tobacco smuggling and at protecting the integrity of the tobacco-marking program. Illicit sales of untaxed tobacco are serious threats to tobacco tax revenues and the integrity of the taxation system. Provincial tax revenue losses from tobacco smuggling are estimated to be at least $50 million annually. Without strong enforcement mechanisms, revenue losses could escalate to as high as $140 million. Four amendments are proposed in this bill to enhance the province's ability to combat illicit sales of tobacco.

First, a provision is established to prohibit counterfeiting of the unique British Columbia tobacco mark. Contravention of this provision is made subject to a fine of up to $50,000 or imprisonment for up to two years, or to both a fine and imprisonment.

Second, the bill establishes provisions to permit seizures of illicit tobacco by ministry officials where the quantities to be seized do not justify the diversion of police resources. Under existing legislation, only police are authorized to seize improperly marked tobacco. However, it is often impractical to divert scarce police resources to seize small amounts of tobacco. As a result, when ministry officials find improperly marked tobacco, they are enabled to take any action to ensure that the tobacco is not sold on the black market. Seizures of small quantities of tobacco by ministry officials reduce the demand on police resources and ensure the integrity of the tobacco-marking system.

Third, the bill establishes provisions to allow for forfeiture of tobacco by a person not entitled to be in possession of it. This applies to unmarked tobacco, counterfeit marked tobacco, tobacco bearing the mark of another jurisdiction or tobacco held for resale by a person who does not hold a retail dealer's authorization under the tobacco act. Forfeiture is necessary because in some cases a conviction under the act may not be successful, due to some legal technicalities.

As a result, tobacco that was illegally held by an individual must be returned to that individual, who can then sell the tobacco on the black market. This amendment reduces the profit incentive from dealing in black-market tobacco.

Fourth, an amendment is proposed which prohibits British Columbia wholesalers from selling B.C.-marked tobacco to a dealer outside the province, unless that dealer holds a valid B.C. dealer's permit. Without this prohibition, British Columbia-marked tobacco can be sold to a wholesaler in another jurisdiction at that jurisdiction's lower tax rate, and then smuggled back into the province and sold at a lower rate than legitimate tobacco. There is no way of identifying such tobacco, because it bears a legitimate British Columbia mark.

Finally, Bill 33 proposes two housekeeping amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act. First, the act is amended to clarify that the existing provision allowing peace officers to conduct a search for unlawfully held tobacco without a warrant applies only where it would be impractical to obtain a warrant. Second, the definition of tobacco is amended to clarify that tobacco subject to the tax under the act includes raw leaf tobacco.

Hon. Speaker, I now move second reading of Bill 33.

F. Gingell: I appreciate that this is an important bill. The amounts of money that the minister has listed as being at risk would surely jeopardize our credit rating if we didn't move, and I can appreciate that the minister believes this is important.

Every year we go through a whole series of amendments because, it seems to me, when this legislation is originally drafted, they never really get it quite right, and we have to come back year after year and amend it. I accept my responsibility in doing my part to help this government fix these things up. They don't have a balanced budget; they just pretend they do. But if we don't do this it will be even worse than we expected. It's clearly a bill for debate in third reading, and I look forward to that discussion.

R. Neufeld: I will speak briefly to Bill 33, the Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1995. As the critic for Finance for the Liberal Party stated, this is a bill that deals with many sections of different acts that will take, I think, a tremendous amount of time in third reading to go through.

The minister talked about the hundreds of millions of dollars that are at stake here, so I agree that it's obviously an important act. But I noticed that some of the changes, specifically in the Motor Fuel Tax Act, will be predated to April 1, 1989. It's amazing. I guess that in the collection process the government is trying to go through now, they've found that they were able to go back that far and pick up some money. It will be interesting to see the explanations for some of that and whether we have been illegally charging people in the past for some things.

I look forward to third reading, to go

section by

section through Bill 33 and get explanations on each and every one of the items.

G. Wilson: Whenever one gets a bill such as Bill 33, the Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1995, and talks about amending a process in a number of bills

[ Page 15942 ]

for the streamlining of tax collection, and when one rises in second reading to talk about it in principle, there is a great temptation to get into a rather long and detailed discourse on the whole process of taxation generally, and what the government is doing. I'm going to resist that temptation tonight, partly because of the lateness of the hour, but also because I would prefer to concentrate my comments on one particular

section of this bill to do with the amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act with respect to the tax collected on tobacco and the attempt to try to eliminate or reduce the black-market sales.

I'm not going to get into too long a discourse on this tonight, but I think it's important for members of the Alliance to put on the record that it's somewhat ironic that we spend a lot of time in this House debating a bill brought in by the Minister of Health with respect to the restriction in provision of tobacco sales and how bad it is for our health, and how important it is that we try to limit, if not reduce, tobacco sales.

Then we have Bill 33 which talks about the importance to the ongoing operation of government of the revenue we collect from the taxation of the sale of tobacco and how we should make every effort we can to tighten the loopholes, where they exist, to make sure that government doesn't lose that most critical and important revenue. I can't help but to very briefly comment on the great irony of the discourse that goes on in this chamber.

On the one hand, we have admonition from the Minister of Health, saying that we ought to be doing everything we can to get rid of tobacco sales, and on the other hand, we're saying government depends on the revenue we get from the retail sales.

I think it bears suggesting that that kind of contradiction hasn't escaped the notice of the general public. When we deal with this bill in principle, I think we have to ask ourselves what government ought to be doing to try to get itself off the dependency on tobacco retail tax income, and we ought to be looking at what we can do to curb the sale of that product, period, in British Columbia.

I don't want to stray too far, but there was a great deal of discussion around whether or not we should be encouraging gaming, and proceeds from gaming, in order to look after the legitimate needs of Social Services and to have those proceeds go forward to look after charities, various other social organizations that depend on those charities, and those who, for reasons beyond their own control, cannot look after themselves.

I find it absolutely ironic that we look toward the ongoing provision of income from tobacco taxation in order to provide revenue to government, and that the revenue largely goes to general revenue, which may then be funnelled off, in fact, to fuel the ongoing costs of health care -- much of which is driven by the sale of this product in the first place. One could make the same argument for government-run liquor stores, where people are spending a lot of time trying to tell us that we shouldn't consume alcohol; by the same token, it's a principal source of revenue for government.

That's a contradiction that all of us, as legislators, ought to deal with and tackle, because I don't think that we can have much credibility in the eyes of the public when we look at taxation reform -- and it's something that is going to be a major plank in the platforms of all political parties, I would guess, that contest the next election. If we're talking about the reduction of taxation and demand on taxation, this Bill 33 becomes a relevant issue.

Our dependency on those incomes -- the income from tobacco tax and alcohol tax -- becomes a relevant issue because of the social cost of those products, in terms of what it costs us in ongoing service with respect to the abuse of alcohol, which creates not only health problems but also a myriad of social problems within the family, and in ongoing health costs of the abuse of tobacco. We heard a very long and eloquent discourse from the Minister of Health about youth and the addiction of youth.

That has to be seen in light of what the government is putting in place today; it is tightening the net to secure its revenue.

There is one other issue with respect to this that I think needs, and bears, comment, and it has to do with black-market tobacco and the actual amount of tobacco that can be held at any one time and transported into British Columbia, and with the