2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 2000

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 18

[ Page 16873 ]

The House met at 2:10 p.m.

Prayers.

L. Reid: We have two representatives in the gallery today for the Circle of Hope Coalition Society: Mr. Jim Leyden and Mr. Bill Blair. I would ask this House to please make them very welcome.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I am sorry to inform the House today that King Wong passed away this morning of cancer. King Wong was a community leader in Vancouver who was a leader of the Chinese business association, actively led the Chinatown revitalization project, was a man who contributed enormously to his community -- the Chinese community in British Columbia -- founded the Chinese Entrepreneurs Association of British Columbia and was the citizen who continually reached out to all others to bring them together. I can recall one event that King Wong was the leading light on.

It was one that the Premier and I first met at, when we had a major celebration in Chinatown. I know that the Premier will join me, and I hope the House will, in sending his family our condolences, because it's a real loss to all of us and to the community at large.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I join the Leader of the Opposition in asking you, on our collective behalf, to send a letter to King Wong's family. I have known King Wong for some time. I in fact didn't know that he was not well; this comes to me as a complete shock. He has been an asset to the greater Vancouver community in more ways than one, and I just want to say how lucky we have been to have had a citizen like him serving the people of British Columbia. He was a great businessman with a great deal of community spirit in his heart, and we will all miss him. I wish his family well.

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier and Leader of the Official Opposition. I will certainly do that on behalf of the assembly.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today are two really tremendous people who work and live in the greater Victoria area. Indeed, they work for the city of Victoria. They spend a tremendous amount of time representing the interests of the people who work for the city and make the streets safe and the parks nice for us. They are the president of Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 388, Ms. Susan Jansen, and the president of Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 50, Mr. John Burrows. I'd ask the House to make these tremendous people very, very welcome.

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I just had a check in the gallery today and am delighted to see three people from my constituency office: Sharoo Modha, Doug Ottenbreit and our new social work practicum student for the summer, Leslie Griffin. Would the House please make all three of them welcome.

C. Hansen: There are several people in the gallery today representing continuing-care facilities on Vancouver Island. I will introduce a few, and I know some of my colleagues will introduce others: first of all, Mr. Mike Holland, a lawyer from Courtenay who has donated thousands of hours to the cause of the Glacier View Lodge; Mr. Ken Whiteman of the Alberni-Clayoquot Continuing Care Society; Gerry Konig, also from that society in Port Alberni; and Mr. Marty Tapp, who is also representing the Glacier View Lodge.

[1415]

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm delighted to welcome to the House and ask all my colleagues to help me welcome to the House the newest member of my office team. Jennifer Barclay has joined my staff recently, and she brings an excellent combination of training and skills, mostly from her experience in the private sector. I have no doubt she'll need them in the weeks to come. She's certainly an asset to our team, and I ask everybody to welcome her to the Legislature today.

I. Chong: I'm delighted today, as well, to welcome Joy Spencer-Berry. She's the executive director of the Queen Alexandra Foundation here in the Victoria area. She's here to observe question period and, as well, to observe very important legislation being introduced today.

Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, today we have two guests with us who are well known to people on both sides of this House. Ms. Cherie Dealey is here along with her friend Georgette Poirier, and they're accompanied by a member of my office staff, Maureen Grant. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Wilson: Today is one of those infrequent occasions when I actually get to introduce someone from my riding. Today I have two good friends here from Quesnel: Mayor Steve Wallace and his good wife Joan. I ask that the House make them welcome.

D. Zirnhelt: There's a delegation on the precincts and here in the gallery representing a group who want a consolidated campus for higher education in Quesnel. They are Karen Andrews; Nate Bello; John Bowman, the Quesnel campus manager; Bill Cave, the chair of the North Cariboo Community Skills Centre; Dennis Macknak; Steve Wallace, who was just introduced, the mayor of Quesnel; and Terry Weninger, president of the College of New Caledonia. They're here in a very strong delegation representing the people in the Cariboo in one of the outcomes of the economic summit that we held, and they're pursuing it very vigorously. Please make them welcome.

J. Reid: I'd like to introduce two representatives from Arrowsmith Lodge in Parksville, who are here in Victoria because of their concern over expropriation provisions in the Health Authorities Act. Please join me in welcoming Dr. Douglas Begg and Mr. Hector Pitcher.

D. Streifel: It's a pleasure for me to introduce to the Legislature this afternoon Mr. Gordon Taylor. Mr. Gordon Taylor is here on behalf of the Mission Foundation, working towards amendments to the Foundation's act. I understand that Mr. Taylor is also a friend of the member for Richmond East. I'm not sure if she's aware he's in the precincts, but he wouldn't mind a cup of coffee later, I'll betcha. So would the chambers please welcome Mr. Taylor.

B. Penner: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House Councillor Bernie Cross from the city of Chilliwack;

[ Page 16874 ]

George Mohammed, owner of Cattermole Timber; and Ted Holtby, general manager of Cattermole Timber. All three gentlemen are committed to the forest industry and are working hard to make that a viable industry in the Fraser Valley. We had a productive meeting today at lunch with the member for Shuswap. I ask that the House please make them welcome.

G. Campbell: I just wanted to take a moment this afternoon to thank the four interns who worked for the opposition caucus over the last few weeks. These are really exceptional young people who come and serve us, as I know the members of the government understand as well.

Jennifer Ericksen has served with us, and this fall she'll be going back to get her master's in political science from UBC in the area of education policy. Marc Coward is going to leave British Columbia for Oxford University in the fall, and he's going to take a master's of philosophy in politics, so I'm sure we'll all want to hear his reports when he comes back. Simrita Johal has spent her time working with us, and she's going back to the University of Victoria to pursue her master's degree in political science.

And Gerry Muir, who's been working with us for the last number of weeks, is going back to work with the Ministry of Employment and Investment, where he spent six weeks earlier in the year.

I'd just like to thank our interns on behalf of all of our caucus for the time, the effort, the energy and the expertise they brought to the fore. Thank you very much.

[1420]

Hon. C. Evans: Canada is a really big country, and my friend Rosa Johnson lives on both ends of it: in Newfoundland in the school year, where she just graduated from junior high school, and in Victoria in the summertime. So will everybody welcome Rosa back to B.C. and Victoria.

J. Weisgerber: In the gallery today is my wife Judy, my daughter Pam and my grandson Joshua. Now, Joshua was introduced about a month ago by my friend from Peace River North, but this is his first in-person visit to the Legislature. I'd ask everybody to make them welcome.

The Speaker: Members, I'm pleased to introduce a guest on the floor of the House, Mr. Ian Horne, QC, a long-serving and distinguished Clerk of this Assembly. And by pleasant coincidence, Joan McMillan, former secretary to the Clerk of the House, is visiting in the members' gallery.

Introduction of Bills

COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSETS

PROTECTION ACT

C. Hansen presented a bill intituled the Community Health Assets Protection Act.

C. Hansen: I move that a bill intituled the Community Health Assets Protection Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

C. Hansen: For the last two and a half years, volunteers and not-for-profit organizations in this province have been under attack. The attack comes from the 1997 amendments to the Health Authorities Act, which gives the Minister of Health the authority to seize their assets and to fire volunteer boards.

In 1997 the then minister told me unequivocally in this House that there would be no expropriation without compensation, yet only three months later the Glacier View Lodge in Courtenay found that the minister had gone back on his word. In October of that year the government began the process of expropriating the assets of the society. These were assets, including land and buildings, that had been developed as a result of the tireless efforts of community volunteers. This does not just impact the Glacier View Lodge; it threatens charity-run health care facilities throughout British Columbia.

Hon. Madam Justice Mary Southin came down with a ruling from the B.C. court in April of this year. To quote a couple of references in that decision, she refers to this provision in the legislation as being a snake that "may have been scotched, but it has not been killed." She also goes on to say: "The Legislature is sitting and an election is not far off. Thus the supporters of the appellants now have an opportunity to persuade the ministry to introduce a bill to repeal the compulsory amalgamation amendments of 1997."

Hon. Speaker, this legislation still exists, and that is not good enough. Why would any community-based organization want to build new housing for seniors or special needs in British Columbia while the threat of expropriation hangs over their head? The only way to restore the rights of community-minded volunteers is to remove the expropriation powers. The legislation that I am introducing today does exactly that.

Bill M209 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MISSION FOUNDATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

D. Streifel presented a bill intituled Mission Foundation Amendment Act, 2000.

D. Streifel: By leave, I move that a private bill intituled Mission Foundation Amendment Act, 2000, be introduced without notice and now read a first time.

Leave granted.

D. Streifel: The purpose of this act is to provide amendments to the Mission Foundation Act, primarily to have the results and the proceeds, the returns, from the charitable donations used within the catchment basin of school district 75.

With that, I move that the bill be referred forthwith to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

The Speaker: The motion on introduction should be dealt with first, member.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: On the main motion.

[ Page 16875 ]

Bill Pr401 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

[1425]

WESTMOUNT CAREER MANAGEMENT LTD.

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2000

P. Calendino presented a bill intituled Westmount Career Management Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2000.

P. Calendino: By leave, I move that a private bill intituled Westmount Career Management Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2000, be introduced without notice and now read a first time.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

P. Calendino: This bill allows the company Westmount Career Management to be reinstated in the registrar of companies from which it was struck more than ten years ago. There is no provision in the legislation to have the company reregistered without this motion. The company also cannot continue business any longer, because it does not exist legally, even though the sole shareholder of the company has carried on for the last ten years without the knowledge that it had been struck off the register. This motion will allow the company to resume business and pay taxes, as it should.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred forthwith to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr403 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Oral Questions

WCB REPORT ON SAFETY STANDARDS

IN VICTORIA AREA HOSPITALS

I. Chong: According to a Workers Compensation Board inspection report, a major Victoria employer "is not meeting the minimum requirements for first aid," because there are no designated first-aid attendants and immediate access to first aid is not available. In fact, the WCB has condemned this employer for having unsafe worksites. So my question to the minister responsible for WCB is: what advice does she have for employees who are working in facilities that WCB says don't meet minimum requirements?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I expect that the second question is more important than the first on this one. [Laughter.] Let me just take this question on notice.

The Speaker: The question is taken on notice.

The hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

C. Hansen: Well, the WCB says that this particular employer that does not meet minimum first-aid requirements because there were no designated attendants with level 2 first- aid certificates . . . . Now, this is obviously quite serious, and I'm surprised that the minister wouldn't at least stand up to defend the policy of the agency for which she is responsible.

But I'll tell you who the employer is. It's the capital health region, and the worksites not meeting the minimum requirements for first aid are the Victoria General Hospital and Royal Jubilee Hospital. Will the minister responsible for the WCB tell us: on what possible grounds would the WCB say that the first-aid services are inadequate at Victoria's two major hospitals?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We're in estimates right now on the WCB, hon. Speaker. Again, I am actually going to answer this question, so don't be fearful of that.

First of all, the WCB is an independent agency that sets its own rules and regulations. They're very, very important rules and regulations. They also set their own assessments for employers, and yes -- you know what? -- it's true that the hospitals of this province and health care institutions have had their assessments increased because of their poor health and safety record on behalf of their employers. As a result of that, the costs have increased to the hospitals.

It is time for hospitals and it is time for the hospital administrators and administrations to get on to complying with WCB and, more importantly, to bring in proper occupational health and safety, so that the nurses that we do have can stay on the job.

[1430]

The Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena has a supplemental question.

C. Hansen: We understand that the capital health region has had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire and train security guards who can give first aid at these hospitals. I don't know what the Minister of Health thinks, but I can think of a few things that the capital health region could spend that money on -- let's say, for example, the burn unit, new medical equipment, long term care beds or maybe even the pediatric intensive care unit and perhaps even some of the lifting equipment that would actually have an impact on worker safety and injury rates in British Columbia.

Will the minister responsible admit that this is a case where the WCB is stretching its red tape and regulation beyond anything that is common sense?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think that's a very appropriate question to put to the WCB in estimates today. Ask the independent agency that question directly.

The Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Quilchena has a further supplemental question.

C. Hansen: It's time that the minister responsible for WCB take responsibility. The actions of that agency for which that minister is responsible is costing this health authority hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it is being duplicated around British Columbia in other hospitals.

Will the minister responsible for WCB tell us how much she thinks it is costing the WCB to hire more first-aid trained security guards instead of putting those resources into equipment that will actually reduce workplace injuries?

[ Page 16876 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I engaged in this discussion with the Liberal opposition yesterday about the WCB. Let's be clear about WCB. Not one tax dollar goes to the WCB. It's employer premiums that go to the WCB. It's an independent board . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . . where the rules and regulations are set by worker representatives and employer representatives. What part of the WCB would this Liberal opposition like this government to interfere with? Let's have them answer that question.

R. Neufeld: Well, the first thing we'd do is straighten out the mess at WCB, so employers can get down to delivering the services that they should be able to in British Columbia.

My question is for the Minister of Health. Royal Jubilee and Victoria General Hospitals have been told they are in violation of WCB safety rules, because when a worker is injured on the job there, they are sent to the emergency room. The WCB says that emergency rooms do not -- this is hard to believe, but I quote -- meet the "minimum requirements for first aid." Emergency rooms do not meet the minimum requirement for first aid. Will the Health minister tell us why WCB doesn't consider Victoria's emergency rooms to meet first-aid requirements?

An Hon. Member: Are you working with Ottawa on this one? [Laughter.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: At least we can work with Ottawa, unlike the comments we've heard from them. They never will work with Ottawa. We recognize that if we want health care in this system that works, we will work with health providers in British Columbia. We will work with other provinces and with Ottawa to ensure that we have a national health care system.

Hon. Speaker, we are concerned about the rate of injury and accident that takes place inside our hospitals to health care workers. That's why we're working with the WCB to identify key areas where changes can be made that result in improvement to the health and safety of workers in hospitals and institutions in this province. That's why we have an $11 million occupational health and safety fund which can deal with things such as lifting devices -- elevating devices -- so that workers are in fact working safely and so we can reduce injuries and reduce claims to the WCB.

[1435]

The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River North has a supplemental question.

R. Neufeld: Well, Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting for the minister to stand and tell us how he can work with the federal government. We've seen a massive bunch of mess-ups when this government tries to work with the federal government on anything.

The question to the minister, who didn't answer it at all, was . . . . WCB says that our emergency rooms do not meet the requirements for first aid. That is an unbelievable statement by WCB. Maybe the minister should start working with WCB in the province of British Columbia instead of bragging about the federal government.

The report goes on to state -- and it's unbelievable -- that just because you're a nurse or a doctor, it doesn't mean that you can perform first aid. This is in the report. In fact, the WCB says that when a hospital wants to use the expertise of a physician or a nurse as a first-aid attendant, the employer "must make a written request to the manager responsible for first aid to issue a level 2 certificate" -- unbelievable. A level 2 certificate can be obtained through St. John Ambulance in one week for $485.

Will the Health minister tell us how a person with a one-week certificate outweighs a doctor or a nurse in our emergency rooms?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member asked a number of questions, and I'll answer them. The member asked a number of questions, and I'll answer them. First, in terms of how you work with Ottawa, you put together a plan that identifies where the key pressures are in the system. You sit down, and you put it forward to them -- which we have done -- and you negotiate with them.

Second, in terms of what's taking place inside the hospitals and institutions around safe working practices, we work with the health authorities to work with the WCB to look at how we can make things work better to reduce occupational health and safety injury rates. That is in fact what's taking place, and I've been encouraged by the results we're having to date in terms of dealing with that.

The third thing: we have prevention programs and funds set up in the province to ensure that we have safe working practices inside hospitals. I come back to what I said a moment ago around the $11 million occupational health and safety fund for things such as lifting devices, so that we can ensure that we can reduce the rate of injury to nurses and health care workers working in hospitals and reduce the number of claims. We can have a safer working environment.

The Speaker: The member for Peace River North has a further supplemental question.

R. Neufeld: Well, I further ask the minister to attempt to work with the WCB on this ridiculous issue, to allow at least nurses and doctors to work in the emergency rooms on emergency patients.

But I wonder if the minister could tell us, when he talks about $11 million, how many other hospitals, besides the two mentioned, across the province of British Columbia and how many other health authorities are faced with the same kind of ridiculous stuff from WCB that is costing millions of dollars to the system, when that should go to people on the front line, as the member for Vancouver-Quilchena said.

Hon. M. Farnworth: By training workers in the correct techniques and the correct ways in carrying out the duties of their job, you ensure a reduction in the rate of injuries. That is our first priority in terms of health and safety: ensuring that people are trained properly.

[ Page 16877 ]

You know, hon. Speaker, we have the occupational health and safety program in place -- $11 million -- that's designed to address the issues that are being raised in hospitals around health and safety -- ensuring lifting devices and those sorts of things. And you know what, hon. Speaker? How did they vote on that? How did they vote on improving workplace safety? They voted against it. They stand here decrying efforts to improve health and safety, and what happens? When it came up in this House to vote, they voted against it.

GLACIER VIEW LODGE

AND EXPROPRIATION LEGISLATION

J. Reid: On April 5 of this year the B.C. Court of Appeal addressed the NDP's attempts to expropriate Glacier View Lodge. The court said that the expropriation legislation is a snake that "may have been scotched, but it has not been killed."

[1440]

In January this year the Premier said that he would like to explore options for long term care that include charities and not-for-profit facilities. Will the minister responsible for volunteers tell us why any charitable organization would ever want to work with the government, when the threats of expropriation and the threats to volunteers are still on the books?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, I think there are a couple of points that are worth making. First off, in terms of the court case, the court sided with the government. It's important to remember that. The court sided with the government on the issue that was at stake.

The second point that's important to remember is that there is no expropriation taking place nor has there been any expropriation taking place. In fact, the government worked to try and come up with an agreement that both parties could live with.

J. Reid: It's true that the Health minister told us three times on April 5 that Glacier View would not be expropriated. However, the legislation that allows this government to seize the assets of charitable organizations is still on the books. Will the minister put this issue to rest once and for all and just repeal the legislation today?

Hon. M. Farnworth: You know, we have said there was no expropriation, and there was no expropriation taking place.

You know what, hon. Speaker? The hon. member asked why anyone would want to engage and work with this government to build new social housing, new facilities with the volunteer sector. I'll tell you, hon. Speaker. It's because this side of the House is committed to building social housing, unlike that side of the House, whose Housing critic says that we shouldn't build social housing and that everyone should get rent supplements. This side of the House would do something; they wouldn't.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Petitions

Hon. C. Evans: I have the rather dubious honour of presenting a petition against myself. Hon. Speaker, you'll remember that the member for Rossland-Trail got up and quite rudely attacked me in question period, demanding a free fishing day in British Columbia. And I had to say that I guess I'd go along with him if he could get any support.

Well, I'm stunned to advise, hon. Speaker, that this is a pile of support from MLAs all over British Columbia, although I don't think it's quite circulated the House. So I'm going to have to give up and, because he made me do it, will declare the B.C. Day weekend Family Fishing Days in British Columbia. Everybody go fishing. Take your kids and your grandkids. It'll be free, and hopefully it will last forever. I lose, and you win, member for Rossland-Trail.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. I recognize the hon. Minister of Education.

Tabling Documents

Hon. P. Priddy: I am pleased to table the annual report of the Ministry of Education for 1998-99.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply. In Committee A, we will continue debating the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families. And in this chamber, we shall continue debating the estimates of the Ministry of Labour.

[1445]

The House in Committee of Supply B; T. Stevenson in the chair.

The committee met at 2:47 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 38: ministry operations, $29,752,000 (continued).

K. Krueger: When we broke off last night, we were talking about the WCB's failed smoking ban, implemented for the first quarter of this year at considerable expense to the WCB and the economy.

Even though everybody in this House is certainly supportive of protecting workers from secondhand smoke or environmental tobacco smoke, people generally express consternation about the really slipshod approach that was used -- the lack of sufficient consultation, the arbitrariness of the WCB's approach, the WCB's apparent disinterest in exploring solutions that would have been more acceptable to British Columbians throughout and the stupid implementation date of January 1. Most of the province is in a deep-freeze, even if it is almost spring in Victoria. That exacerbated the problem.

There was the aspect that one hand of government didn't know what the other hand was doing, in that the liquor distribution branch had advised hospitality venues that they could put in a smoking room. After many of them had

[ Page 16878 ]

incurred that expense, they were advised by the WCB that they wouldn't be able to serve alcohol in those rooms since liquor inspectors couldn't go in.

And, of course, there was the major question of whether WCB would ever pay such claims to most people anyway, as we discussed yesterday, because WCB has a history of denying claims if it has any sort of pretext from a person's past. So all things considered, it was a really fumbled exercise, and I think the minister would agree with me on that.

Now, having been ordered by the court to do so, and having been thoroughly embarrassed by its own ineptitude, the WCB has gone out and done a second round of hearings. But one of the concerns is that it is only in four venues around the province, only in four communities, only eight hours each. I understand that people were having difficulty getting on the roster. It's certainly very difficult for anybody from the Peace River to come to one of those four hearing sites. I'd like the minister's view on why the WCB didn't have more locations for these hearings and whether or not she agrees that they should.

[1450]

Hon. J. MacPhail: In this case I monitored very carefully to make sure that the process ordered by the court was followed by the WCB. In fact, I asked the WCB to ensure that they go beyond what the court required in terms of consultation. I think it's safe to say that the WCB did deliver this time. After the initial declaration of four hearing sites, the WCB did expand the time available for people to come and present. They received hundreds, if not thousands, of written submissions.

On the point about hearings not being held in Dawson Creek, advocates on both sides of the issue travelled from Dawson Creek to the hearings in Prince George. I know that every single person who wanted to be heard was heard at the hearings. In fact, there was even unfilled room to be heard available.

The consultation is complete. This time the WCB consulted on a regulation that was different from the regulation that was struck down by the courts. Certainly, if there was a disconnect between the Attorney General liquor licensing and control and the regulation, that was resolved in the newly formed regulation that was put out for consultation.

K. Krueger: What I was hearing from the public was that they felt the small number of sites was another indication that the WCB really didn't want to hear their input. People were told that they should make written submissions if it wasn't convenient to go to one of those. The response was: "Well, obviously they just want to be able to chuck those the way they did all of our input to the royal commission, with no action seen there."

I think it would have been beneficial for everybody concerned, and certainly for the credibility of the exercise, to offer more venues. People don't believe that their written submissions carry the same weight with the government or the WCB that their verbal communication would at a hearing.

I want to read something to the minister that was said by Mr. Scott McCloy, who frequently acts as a spokesperson for WCB and certainly did throughout the time of the smoking ban in the first quarter of the year. This is from a CTV interview of March 13, 2000, which of course is a very short time before the smoking ban actually ended. What Scott McCloy said in that interview was: "This is an industry that's going through nicotine withdrawal. Some people are doing very well. Some people are adjusting, and they're doing not so well. And some people aren't adjusting well at all.

The reality is that as time goes on, people will adjust just fine." I felt that was really arrogant and totally unnecessarily high-handed -- to put things in those terms when people were raising really legitimate grievances about not having been consulted properly and so on. Ultimately, of course, the court agreed with those.

I wonder if someone like Mr. McCloy faces any consequences for being so glib about an issue that British Columbians are upset about. Would the minister confirm whether the WCB had any sort of disciplinary response to those comments?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm informed that the comments were well within the bounds of suggesting the outcomes of what had happened in other jurisdictions in this matter. But I might note that the member is quite free to take up those comments, his concerns, directly with the CEO, Ralph McGinn. It would be unusual for an MLA to recommend discipline, but feel free to do that.

K. Krueger: Well, I'm concerned, of course, about small business -- the people who work for small business and British Columbians in general -- believing that the government respects them and that the Workers Compensation Board respects them. The hospitality industry was badly hurt by the way this smoking ban was handled.

[1455]

Scott McCloy cynically and sarcastically talks about them having nicotine withdrawal. What they had was customer withdrawal. Their customers just didn't show up in a huge part of this province. I believe this government is going to face a major judgment as a result of the class action underway. There's going to be another significant cost to WCB and ergo to the taxpayers.

The minister indicated in question period that she doesn't consider businesses taxpayers, as I understood it, because business has to pay assessments. She says it's not taxpayers. Well, of course businesses are taxpayers. Thank goodness that we have them. The hospitality industry employs over 100,000 people in 12,000 locations. Many of them were severely impacted. It was cash withdrawal; it was funding withdrawal. It was people withdrawal, customer withdrawal -- not nicotine withdrawal -- that they were suffering with.

I think Mr. McCloy's attitude perhaps reflects the attitude of many more people who make decisions at WCB. If they don't think his attitude and his words were a problem . . . . They're a problem. I want to serve them notice of that: that's a problem as far as I'm concerned.

I'd like to know the number of extra staff used in the failed implementation of the smoking ban and what the administrative cost to the WCB was during that whole implementation of the failed smoking ban.

Hon. J. MacPhail: All of the personnel resources were within the current complement of employees at the board. But let me just . . . . Maybe we can cut this short, because, you know, you . . . . The member for Kamloops-North Thompson

[ Page 16879 ]

has a view on this failed WCB regulation. It's true that it was controversial; there's no question that it was controversial. But the fact of the matter is that the WCB was addressing a very controversial health issue. There are strongly held views on both sides of the issue. So I think we should just try to move on.

The member is free to write letters to the WCB if he wishes to express his concerns about a particular employee. But I happen to know that on this particular matter around the WCB, the correspondence that I received is far more overwhelmingly in favour of the health care stand that was taken in the course of the regulation.

The WCB learned its lesson this round, though, and has been accommodating the hospitality industry's concerns. The regulation put forward certainly meets those concerns. The issue of concern between liquor licensing and WCB regulations has been worked through as well. The public consultation has been completed, and I think it's time for us to just await the public consultation and then the final outcome by the WCB.

K. Krueger: We will move on. We always hope that everyone who is spending taxpayers' money learns by their mistakes. Hopefully, lessons have been learned -- that the WCB must at least follow its own rules when it does things. As the minister and I discussed yesterday, there is pretty well universal dissatisfaction around the province with the way the WCB conducts itself and with its apparent lack of accountability.

The minister said that the enforcement, which was tremendous . . . . There was a lot poured, in terms of resources, into the enforcement of that smoking ban. The minister said that the enforcement was all done within the existing staff complement. So very obviously those people were drawn away from other priorities to work on this botched, failed smoking ban. I'm going to come back to some other priorities that I think the board should be working on and ask why this, which clearly hadn't been prepared properly, snatched those resources, those people, away from those other priorities. We'll deal with that shortly.

[1500]

But a matter was raised in question period which needs to be followed up now. That involved the ludicrous, ridiculous, Monty Pythonesque approach that WCB takes in enforcing its myriad of regulations. People are convinced that WCB will never feel it has written enough regulations or imposed enough regulations on the businesses of British Columbia. We had a particularly bizarre and -- I know the minister's a commonsense person, so I believe that she will agree -- particularly ridiculous example raised in question period. I'm going to ask the Health critic for the official opposition to follow up that matter with the minister.

C. Hansen: Hon. Chair, I want to read from the inspection report that we referred to during question period today, and it's talking about the Victoria General Hospital. It says: "Employees at this worksite currently use the emergency room to acquire first-aid services. This situation is not meeting minimum requirements for first aid." I'm wondering if the minister, now that she has the assistance of WCB officials at her side, might be able to explain to us why the WCB does not think that our emergency wards meet first-aid requirements in British Columbia.

Hon. J. MacPhail: You know, I must say that for the life of me, I can't understand the Liberal opposition pursuing this question when you've taken such a strong stand against improper use of health resources. For the life of me, I cannot understand that somehow, because a worker receives an injury -- whose workplace is a hospital -- he or she should have automatic access to our emergency rooms as first line of treatment -- that our emergency rooms should be first-aid rooms. So if my colleague from Rossland-Trail cuts his finger here, he should head down to the emergency room.

He should get down to the emergency room right away, and that's what we should be using our emergency rooms for. That is simply ridiculous. You better be prepared -- the Liberal opposition better be prepared -- to increase the health care budget unbelievably.

First-aid treatment is the first line of treatment for an injured worker. It's a matter of making sure that health care workers with minor injuries have access to first-aid treatment -- proper, trained first-aid treatment -- which may not mean it needs to be given in an emergency room. That makes sense; that makes perfect sense. Then, if the first-aid attendant, like a first-aid attendant anywhere else in any other workplace, determines that that person needs to go to emergency, the person goes to emergency. What is so ridiculous about that?

The hospitals also have access to having their emergency room defined with proper equipment as a first-aid facility if they so choose. If they so choose to train nurses and doctors in first aid, which is a special training . . . . If they decide that and then declare those people as first-aid attendants, so be it. But if they choose, in another way, to deliver their first-aid treatment based on efficient use of resources, so be it.

Now, the fact of the matter is that some of these hospitals didn't do either. I think that it's totally appropriate for a worker's safety for them to do that, and that was what the WCB was saying to the hospitals. In 1999 that was the order. I have all of the information here right in front of me. In 1999 the order was that they weren't providing proper first-aid treatment, and the WCB gave them several options for how to proceed on that.

So you know, it's unbelievable how the Liberal opposition will just set aside any common practices that apply to workers across the board for health and safety to score cheap political shots. But you know what? It's not going to work in this case.

C. Hansen: Well, hon. Chair, these are anything but cheap. We just talked about $300,000 worth of expenditures over a year and a half for one health authority alone. That's not cheap.

[1505]

But does the minister know how many individuals, how many employees in these hospitals have actually availed themselves of the first-aid attendants -- the security guards who have been trained as first-aid attendants? Does the minister know? The answer is none. It's been a year and a half since this was imposed on Victoria General Hospital. It was put in place because they were threatened. They were not given the third option, as the minister just set out. They were told that they had to comply, and it cost the health care budget in Victoria $300,000 over that period of time alone.

I would like to ask the minister, since she seems so quick to defend this policy: is this happening in every single acute care hospital in British Columbia?

[ Page 16880 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: The law is applied for all employers, including health care institutions. So let me just say one more time: if the Liberal opposition's position is that because your place of employment is a hospital, you don't have the right to properly trained, qualified industrial first-aid attendants, then put it on the record. Put it on the record that you say those workers are less entitled to the law than other workers, just because they work at a hospital. Put it on the record that you want health care dollars from an emergency room -- the incredibly expensive emergency room costs -- to be used for first-aid treatment, because you want to deny workers first-aid treatment.

C. Hansen: The ones who make this decision are those that are responsible for the administration of the hospital. The decision as to whether or not that injured worker can be more cost-effectively treated in their own emergency ward, as opposed to setting up a separate first-aid station and training security guards to be first-aid attendants . . . . Hon. Chair, they have told us that they think it's a colossal waste of taxpayers' dollars. And if that's happening in every single hospital around British Columbia, it defies common sense and is a waste of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money.

Hon. J. MacPhail: You're on the record now.

C. Hansen: I am on the record as saying that this policy that has been imposed on the two Victoria hospitals and on other hospitals that we are aware of in this province is a waste of taxpayers' dollars. I am on record as saying that I have full confidence in the staff in the emergency rooms of hospitals in British Columbia. I have full confidence in the doctors, and I have full confidence in the emergency room nurses.

I know for a fact that if this minister were in a hospital, she would much prefer to be seen by an emergency room doctor than by the first-aid attendant if she were in need of health care. I will leave it at just saying that I beg the minister to exercise some common sense. I beg the minister to instruct the WCB to review this policy, to sit down with health care administrators and health care workers in British Columbia and to come up with a program that actually allows us to put health care dollars where they're needed. Perhaps one of those areas of need is some of the lifting equipment, so we can cut down workplace injuries.

K. Krueger: It's really that type of ridiculous approach that is demonstrated all around the province. It's as if this giant organization attempts to eliminate common sense not only from within its own ranks and organization but even within the businesses that are obliged to work with it.

I mentioned earlier that given the fact that the minister said the existing resources of the WCB had been drawn away to handle the failed smoking ban in the first quarter of this year, I'd like to know why some other initiatives weren't given some of those resources and why the smoking ban, which clearly hadn't been adequately prepared for, took priority.

[E. Conroy in the chair.]

For example, I wrote the previous minister a long time ago about an issue surrounding self-elevating work platforms -- changed WCB regulations which my sources say led directly to the death on the job of a man named John Alfred Cook. Specifically, these regulations had been changed to allow for smaller wheels on these platforms, and when the smaller wheels hit a pothole, the platform can tip over. That's what happened to Mr. Cook. The minister wrote me back on February 2 and assured me the board would look into it.

The board wrote me on February 10 with a long letter about the convoluted process that they were going to need to go through before they even decided whether this regulation was a priority for change. Perhaps the WCB could explain to the people who loved John Alfred Cook and to workers everywhere, why the smoking ban deserved precious resources that apparently haven't been there to work on this issue and what the status is presently of the self-elevating work platform problem.

[1510]

Hon. J. MacPhail: This isn't going to be a situation like: "If only you hadn't done the fast ferries, you could have done X, Y and Z." So we can stop right there. The WCB, I'm informed, did about 150 inspections on the . . . . It only had about 150 referred to them as of February 29 on the smoking ban, and 27 letters were written. So we don't have to do that apples and oranges comparison. The member can legitimately make the case about what's happening to a particular regulation, and the WCB will take it on notice and get back to him.

K. Krueger: I didn't follow all of what the minister was trying to say there, except that clearly the WCB isn't ready to answer the question on self-elevating work platforms, even though we exchanged correspondence on that matter in February.

Here's another matter that surely they're working on, and that is the safety of taxi drivers in British Columbia. Taxi drivers are being victimized by their clients. They're being assaulted, stabbed, murdered by their fares. The Attorney General is joking as I raise this issue, and the minister is laughing. That's ridiculous. This is a serious, serious problem. The WCB spent a million dollars on taxi drivers' claims arising out of violence last year alone. We already covered the ground yesterday that the WCB has never paid for a substantial claim relating to secondhand smoke.

Yet the WCB chose to pour those resources -- and subject this province to the turmoil of the first three months of this year -- on the smoking ban. What has the WCB done to protect taxi drivers, where clearly the WCB does have a financial stake and a substantial claims record? We are all frightened for taxi drivers and the way they've been victimized over recent years and particularly in recent months. What is the WCB doing to protect taxi drivers?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The WCB is working rigorously with the industry itself and with ICBC on this very important issue, and they're moving forward towards solutions.

K. Krueger: Why, then, was the taxi driver issue -- where demonstrably there have been injuries and deaths, and there has been a cost to the WCB -- and the self-elevating work platform issue, again, where there has been at least one death that I know of and a substantial cost to the WCB . . . ? Why were those not treated as higher priorities than the smoking ban?

[1515]

Hon. J. MacPhail: My point earlier to the member was that he's comparing apples and oranges. I know he's doing it

[ Page 16881 ]

to make a political point. No resources were withdrawn from other files to work on the smoking ban. That was the point I was making earlier. There were 115 inspections and 27 letters written. That did not withdraw resources from other important matters. So I'm suggesting that the member make his case -- it's a very important case -- without assuming that the results on his particular point were harmed by the implementation of the smoking ban. That was the point I was making earlier.

On the issue of the resources, I happen to know -- because I'm responsible for ICBC -- that ICBC and the industry, working in conjunction with the WCB, take worker safety in the taxicab very seriously. There are very complex issues that are being faced in terms of service, it being a service industry -- that some solutions are more complex than others.

K. Krueger: It was the minister who said, several answers back, that the resources used with regard to the smoking ban were drawn from the existing complement. Hopefully, the WCB doesn't have a staff complement that just sits around. Obviously, if they weren't assigned to that, they would have been doing something else. So it can't be true that they didn't have their time diverted from some other priority. We won't go round and round about that. And far from wanting to score political points, I want to see people protected from faulty self-elevating work platforms and from criminals who get into their taxicabs.

For that matter, I'd like to see workers in government liquor distribution branches protected from what happens with the government's bottle-crushing machines. That's another crazy move. In October '98 the liquor distribution branch began using these glass-breaking machines to crush empty bottles returned by customers. I don't know why they can't do it outside; they're doing it inside, in the stores. The things are really noisy, and apparently they're making people sick, and employees have been complaining. Consultants have been brought in to do tests.

I asked the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, who's responsible for the liquor distribution branch, how he can account for this. The WCB said over and over during the smoking ban period: "There is no safe level of environmental tobacco smoke inhalation." I believe them. I also think there is no safe level of carbon monoxide inhalation, but we all get a little when we fill up our tanks at the service station, I expect. There's no safe level. Probably you could use the same terminology for a lot of different substances that we're exposed to in the environment -- no safe level. But we survive it.

But apparently -- and it makes sense to me -- there are issues around whether there is powdered glass in the air as a result of these machines being used. I said to the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, "Is there any safe level of powdered glass inhalation?" assuming that that was a rhetorical question. Obviously he was going to say, "No, there isn't," and my point was going to be: "Well, obviously this has at least as high a priority as the smoking ban, then." But he wouldn't say that. He wouldn't actually say to me that there was no safe level. I've written the president of B.C.

Government and Service Employees Union about that, because it's so preposterous. I'm sure this minister will agree that there is no safe level of powdered glass inhalation.

But it isn't even just powdered glass; these things are causing fungus and mould spores to fly around in the air. Apparently the Corona bottles from Mexico, which people stuff slices of lime into when they drink from the bottles, give rise to some of these tiny microbes in the air, and they're released when the glass is smashed. Employees have discomfort and irritation, itchy eyes, runny nose, headaches. All of this just seems so predictable and so ridiculous.

Why is it that this same government has allowed the LDB, or obliged them, I guess it was . . . ? Because it was the government's political program to move this recycling effort into the gear that it was in that caused the LDB to make, to me, a crazy decision like this. Why are the WCB and the government not acting to protect the workers in LDB stores from this obvious health hazard?

The WCB has been receiving claims once again from these workers -- 12 already in the year 2000, 32 in 1999 and six in '98, even though this only started in October '98. Some are respiratory-related, which of course is the only type of claim that the WCB has ever paid thus far with regard to ETS or secondhand smoke -- respiratory ailments. So here we have a government program that is giving rise to the same type of claims that the WCB has been paying, it says, for secondhand smoke inhalation. What is the WCB doing to stop this hazard and the fact that LDB workers are being exposed to it?

[1520]

Hon. J. MacPhail: It is interesting to note that the member is arguing, on the one hand, that WCB's orders at hospitals are inappropriate, silly and stupid, but when they go to make an inspection at a site and determine that there isn't a significant health hazard, that is wrong too. There is quite a bit of irony that we're seeing here today in terms of the Liberal opposition's view about the WCB. I think that what it is, is that they don't agree with the WCB's mandate to protect the health and safety of workers in a way that makes it cost-efficient and effective for the employer. They don't like that balance.

The WCB did the inspection at the site and was satisfied that the machines and the dust didn't pose a significant health hazard to the workers. They did test both the levels of airborne dust particles and noise levels, and determined that the levels were within all acceptable standards. I am informed now that the LDB employees and management are working to resolve this issue. They have a joint labour-worker-management health and safety committee and are addressing that issue through that committee.

K. Krueger: I think the minister said early in that little diatribe that this is not a significant health hazard. The WCB's paying these claims. It has accepted them; it's paying them. If one employee is sick as a result of these machines, to me, that's a government-imposed illness, on the basis that it's a direct consequence of a government decision to put these machines inside instead of outside. Why couldn't they be out in the parking lot at the back of the building, with a chain-link fence around them? It's preposterous.

And to relate that to our chagrin over this government forcing health authorities to blow money setting up a first-aid program so that doctors and nurses can be treated by a first-aid worker instead of by each other -- that is clearly ridiculous. I'm astonished that the minister doesn't think it's ridiculous, because I do think she has a lot more common sense than most of the people on that side of the House. It just doesn't make sense to compare these two issues at all.

[ Page 16882 ]

This is a health hazard. The government had better be paying attention to it. The WCB is paying claims as a result. Workers are sick and hurt as a result, and it's unacceptable. We want to give the government notice of that: it's unacceptable. We'll continue to pursue it.

There was a tragic accident this month, actually on May 27, in Kamloops. A tree blew over, struck a golf cart and killed a wonderful lady who was golfing with her family that day. That was a tragic story and a freakish occurrence, that tree coming down at the moment that it did.

There has been some really bizarre behaviour by WCB people following that. Rivershore golf course has been subjected to an individual with the WCB -- who, I'm told, comes from Vernon -- leaking material to the media, rushing around giving orders to the golf course and denying that he has given those orders. Then WCB apparently has expanded this operation throughout the province and is now obliging golf courses everywhere to incur all sorts of extra expense examining trees and employing arborists and so on. Would the minister update us on what in the world WCB's thinking is this time?

[1525]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I have read about this in the newspaper, and it was a very tragic accident. The point of the WCB's involvement is that while the tragic accident was not work-related, the site is a workplace for other people. WCB has suggested to the employer that it is incumbent upon the WCB to make sure that the workplace is safe, because it is a workplace for other people.

Tragedy? Yes, a terrible tragedy in a public place at which people work, and this wasn't a particular . . . . The woman wasn't a . . . . She was there as a golfer. I've just been given a copy of the letter, and it's pretty straightforward in the explanation of why the involvement of the WCB and the fact that it's important that everybody have a safe workplace.

K. Krueger: Well, once again, everybody wants safe workplaces. But there's a limit to how far Big Brother can extend his tentacles and how much damage he can justify doing to the economy. British Columbia is full of trees. There are worksites everywhere in British Columbia with trees all around them; everybody knows that. Business can't afford the WCB going wild with new programs when a really unusual occurrence befalls someone, even though a tragedy resulted. Once again, this illustrates an attitude at WCB, an approach that it thinks is legitimate, with which it does tremendous damage to the economy in B.C.

I want to switch to the issue of experience-based rating. The minister doesn't need to go into a lot of detail about what the program's all about; it's been well explained to us by WCB. We know that WCB says that 57 percent of the employers in British Columbia have had a reduction in assessments as a result, and we believe them, and that 43 percent have had an increase. WCB has confirmed to me that some of those businesses with the 43 percent are not businesses whose claims record justifies an increase. But they've been reclassified as part of the process into a group which is paying higher assessments, as a result of, perhaps, that group's loss experience.

The WCB equates this, at least, as an analogy to ICBC's claim-rated scale, which I think has been a good program. Most people in British Columbia who use ICBC and pay premiums probably agree that it's fair that the people who run up the claims should pay a higher premium.

Well, that being said, it isn't fair that because of a reclassification and a new way of looking at businesses, people who've been lumped in with others suddenly have to pay substantially higher rates, even though they themselves haven't had claims experience with WCB. I hope the minister would agree with that.

The WCB is reporting a substantial surplus for the last year, and if there is some cost to making this change to this new system . . . . And by the way, the system makes sense to me and to the opposition. The system, overall, makes sense. But we don't think it's right, and we don't think the government would want to impose extra costs on individual businesses with good records because of a change in the system.

So I would ask the minister whether she agrees with that, and if so, if there's a cost to implementing this new program. Couldn't the costs have drawn down something from the surplus rather than being foisted on businesses that we believe ought to be protected because of their sound claims record?

[1530]

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is no question that the experience-rated assessment plan is one that does differentiate us from Alberta. I know we spent a lot of time talking about the Alberta system yesterday.

Alberta does cross-subsidize; there's no question about that. They cross-subsidize so that an employer who is in a lower experience category will pay for those in the higher experience categories. When that was put to the employer representatives at the WCB, they rejected that, because it would unfairly penalize the lower-risk categories for the high-risk sectors.

But the member's point about the jolt that this may have caused for some who go into a high-risk category . . . . There was and is a transition program in place so that no employer or firm will see a rate increase of more than $2 per year. The transition has smoothed out the increases. The employer representatives at the panel, anyway, fully support that.

As far as paying for these increases, I'm not quite sure what the member means in terms of paying for it out of the surplus. I'm not sure.

K. Krueger: I know the minister is briefed on the fly in these estimates. She said that it's $2 per year. What it actually is, the cap, is $2 per $100 of payroll per year. It's a very substantial amount, especially if you had a business that wasn't paying much of an assessment in the past and doesn't deserve to pay a higher assessment, because they have a good claims record -- or no-claims record. I'll give you an example in a moment. It's just another imposition by government, from the businesses' point of view, because of a change in its policy.

When I referred to the surplus. The WCB reports a 13 percent surplus on its allocation of income. I received this document April 25, 2000 -- 13 percent. So what I'm saying is that there's always a cost to making a massive change like this. Of that 43 percent of employers that have had an increase in assessments as a result of the change, a bunch of them deserved it. They've had bad claims records. There's been

[ Page 16883 ]

cross-subsidization from others. It's being cut off; that's good. If they're employers with a lousy safety record or a high claims record, they deserve that increase. But there are others who don't have any claims record at all, and they've just been reclassified. Suddenly they're having to pay way more because of the reclassification.

So I'm suggesting that if there's an interim period where there's a cost to the WCB of having given that reduction to the other 57 percent of businesses and feeling it needs to make it up somewhere, it would make a lot more sense and be much more appropriate to take that portion of the cost, which doesn't relate to employers with bad records, out of the WCB's 13 percent surplus than out of the hides of these poor employers.

Now, I'll give you an example. This example is Blackwell Dairy, which is in my constituency. It's a family-owned dairy in Kamloops -- wonderful people. Mr. Blackwell senior, who I've met and toured the farm with, shingled his barn twice over a 70-year period. He was a boy when he was up there shingling it the first time, and he shingled it again 70 years later -- an amazingly spry individual. It's a matter of pride to Kamloops that we have a local dairy, and it does really well.

It also does really well by its employees. It has a tremendous safety record. I believe that the WCB's total expenditure at Blackwell Dairy over the year prior to this assessment change was in the neighbourhood of $200. So it was quite a shock to Blackwell Dairy to find that they were losing out as a result of the change to experience-based rating. His -- Blackwell's -- experience rate for that firm is 98.23 percent better than the experience rate for the group he now finds himself in. In other words, he hardly has one, and the group does.

[1535]

So one would think he would at least qualify for the full 50 percent discount which is supposed to come with a good record. But it's somehow being phased in. His interim premium notice shows only a 10 percent discount. It's a lot of numbers, but the bottom line is that his assessment, his cost to meet his obligation to pay the WCB for coverage for his employees, has risen $6,000 per year -- $6,000 right out of his bottom line -- in an industry which is tremendously competitive, where we've seen a ton of our jobs exported to Alberta because apparently businesses, and dairies in particular, find it less expensive to do business in Alberta.

I do not want Blackwell Dairy to close. Local people don't want it to close. But we don't think it's right that Blackwell Dairy has a $6,000 additional assessment to pay as a result of a policy change. That's the only reason as far as Blackwell Dairy, because they didn't do anything to justify this increase in assessments.

So I'm suggesting that the WCB should cap the assessments of businesses like that at whatever they were prior to this change and not adjust them upward because of the reclassification. If the WCB needs to find the money somewhere, then rather than taking it from these employers who ought not to have to pay it, it should take it out of that unallocated surplus.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, I'm informed that part of that is done. But I'll certainly pass your suggestion on to the WCB and have the panel consider it.

K. Krueger: There are many other businesses and many other industries that feel aggrieved by this policy. It's not as many as I thought there might be, and to me, that bore out what the WCB told me when I asked them about this when they launched the program: that 57 percent are benefiting. Out of the 43 percent, a bunch deserved their assessment increase.

But certainly the member for Okanagan-Penticton has raised some concerns on behalf of his constituents, including a concern with regard to RV manufacturers -- again, an industry we really want to encourage in B.C. I've had concern expressed by cattlemen -- the Sullivan Valley Stock Association from Heffley Creek; the construction industry; the shellfish industry; the sport fishing industry. I've also had concerns from experts who try to work with WCB on matters like this, such as Angus Qualley Howard Consultants Ltd., people who used to be employees of WCB.

They're saying WCB is being really arbitrary, not even being willing to give them the details of what their justification is, what claims were paid and what the reasons are that they are increasing people's assessments and holding them responsible for the claims that they're paying.

Again, fundamentally, it seems to me and to the opposition that this idea makes sense. It made sense to implement it; it makes sense to do it. But I think a huge organization like WCB needs to be sensitive and careful when it makes a major change and not be arbitrary with anybody. I've written to the WCB about some of these cases, and I get responses from Paul Krismer. They look pretty much all the same; they're as if you pressed a button on a robot and for that button he spewed out the same paper. That's what employers get; that is what I get.

We want individuals who deserve individual attention because of their good records to get that individual attention. We don't want to see them paying inflated assessments because of a policy change. I appreciate what the minister said, and I hope that she will monitor that with the WCB to make sure that due consideration is given those businesses.

I understand that health regions have a different deal on experience-based rating, and I want the minister to tell us what's going on there. The minister has said that health care in B.C. has a serious problem with worker health and safety. Totally aside from this whole, to me, ridiculous question of whether you have to have first-aid attendants in hospitals where they've got doctors and nurses everywhere . . . . Totally aside from that, the fact is that health care workers are hurt at alarming rates on the job in B.C.

Nurses have been reporting that they are one of the highest-injury professions in British Columbia. We've talked frequently in this House about why that is. One factor is that we have an aging workforce in nursing -- average age 47 right now. Another factor is that they've got worn-out equipment or no equipment at all. They don't have proper lifting devices, and they end up lifting heavy patients. Their bodies don't stand up to the work. They get hurt. They end up on WCB.

[1540]

What I'm told -- and the minister will have better numbers than me, and I'd like those numbers -- is that the experience-based rating assessment formula was going to add about $35 million to the WCB assessments for health regions around the province. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. It's in that range.

[ Page 16884 ]

K. Krueger: What I'm also told is that the government has told the health regions, the health authorities that this government appointed, not to pay it. They don't have the money for it in their budget. We all know they're strapped for money. So they've been told they don't have to pay that increased assessment. Is that true?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Exactly the opposite. They've been told to pay it.

K. Krueger: I take the minister's word for that. She's saying, then, that health regions have to pay the new assessed rates like any other business in B.C. She's nodding. Is that the case for every arm of government, every ministry? Are they going to be treated exactly the same way as private sector employers by the experience-based rating approach?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The government is treated exactly the same way as the private sector. But there is one . . . . Government is part of the deposit class, where they pay the costs incurred directly.

K. Krueger: Is that an option for private sector employers of any kind in British Columbia?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

K. Krueger: Well, obviously there's a very different standard for Blackwell Dairy, which would only be paying $200 a year in WCB assessments, than for government. Once again, that looks unjust to businesses and to private sector people throughout B.C.

Another thing that looks unjust to business in B.C. is what the WCB refers to as its claims avoidance program. I wonder if the WCB, through the minister, would explain this to the House. Businesses receive warnings from WCB that . . . . Claims avoidance is a term that WCB uses to describe businesses that it thinks are trying to keep employees from reporting claims or making claims. Mining operations and various employers throughout B.C. who have innocuous programs such as rewarding good safety records by providing employees with a company jacket -- a leather jacket or a TV set; these are common things . . . .

Most people assume they are good things -- to have programs where there are incentives for employees to be safety-minded. Companies like that are being warned that they may be found to have practised claims avoidance by providing those incentives, and there'll be penalties. Has that actually happened to any companies in B.C. -- a penalty?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The only penalties that have occurred on claims avoidance have been in other jurisdictions in Canada, not in British Columbia. This is a program that exists across Canada. I'd be happy to deal with specifics around the charges that the member makes and respond to those.

K. Krueger: There are large operations, large mining operations, that are raising this as a serious concern. Many employers are expressing unease because of what they've been hearing from the WCB. I will ask the individuals who are writing us if they would like their case presented directly to the minister. I understand that no company in British Columbia has actually been found to be trying to avoid claimants reporting claims by providing these kinds of incentives. Doesn't the minister agree we would want to encourage safety programs like that through employers in B.C.?

[1545]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I think occupational health and safety is one of the most important aspects of anybody's workplace, if not the most important aspect. So any program that encourages safe practices is valuable -- just the same way that a workplace be absolutely free of any intimidation when a worker is injured or when a worker wishes to report an unsafe work practice. Beyond that I'm not going to engage in speculation about programs that I have no knowledge of.

K. Krueger: I think the minister is obviously in agreement with me, then, that as long as there is no such coercion of employees, no intimidation from reporting claims, as the companies are obliged by law to encourage, no company in B.C. should or will be punished for having a safety incentive program where they give away items or give benefits in exchange for a good safety record. Is that an accurate statement?

Hon. J. MacPhail: My comments stand.

K. Krueger: The minister doesn't always want to put things as directly as I would like, to reassure the employers of B.C. That's what we're striving for there.

The WCB had an internal report recently entitled "Quality of Adjudication." According to the report, it found that 25 percent of the files reviewed were rated as having a quality of work that required improvement. The report said that the claims were more likely to be overturned on appeal if they were e-files or electronic claims. I wonder if the minister could verify those findings and tell the House what the WCB has done about these quality adjudication problems.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, this is the first program of quality assurance that has been done in a number of years. And yes, the most recent files that were e-files show that the system may not have enough room, enough fields, available to have enough information in order to properly process the files. So those problems have been corrected. It's probably good that the WCB is actually testing its own system.

K. Krueger: It's certainly good if the WCB tests its own system and reviews for quality. One of the things that has been consistently reported to me is that the WCB used to have a pretty comprehensive internal review system done on a random basis, where a series of reviews occurred so that the WCB was monitoring the quality of its claims files in an ongoing way.

I'm also told that during the term of this government -- and people perceive that it's a result of the influence of the B.C. Federation of Labour, with its suspicion of management when management conducts management processes like routine random reviews -- that those review systems were done away with internally. The quality of claims-handling, therefore, isn't subject to the scrutiny it used to be, and quality has diminished. It looked to me like this finding of 25 percent requiring improvement might substantiate that.

Is it true that there are substantially fewer internal management reviews for quality at WCB than there were prior to this government's election at the beginning of the nineties?

[ Page 16885 ]

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm informed that the quality assurance program of the 1980s was disbanded at the end of that decade in order to put those people on the front line when the pressures were on the Compensation Board to deal with an increase in files. Now the quality assurance program has been reinstated.

[1550]

K. Krueger: Would the minister then give us a thumbnail sketch of what the quality assurance program entails? What's the frequency of review?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll get you those details and send them to you. I'm just the conduit here. Why don't I just send them to you in writing?

K. Krueger: I'd like the minister to be more than a conduit. I tried to make that point yesterday. The minister has the power to decide who's going to be in charge of the WCB. And of course, they have the power to change the behaviour, the attitudes and the performance of WCB.

The minister made brief comments on the royal commission recommendations and result yesterday. Of course, the royal commission published its final report in 1999. It had some key findings, including that the WCB has lacked direction from its board of governors and that it has failed to administer fair and equitable benefits for injured workers -- often those most in need of assistance. And it found that the injured workers could be trapped within the system for more than 1,000 days in the appeal process. All of these things are still the case; they are still a concern.

We have a panel of administrators which was supposed to be a temporary arrangement when it was appointed, and the years have gone by. There have been five years, I believe, since this approach was adopted. The minister has the capacity to change and to have a duly appointed board of governors. For the benefit of the people of this province who are waiting for something to flow from that final report of the royal commission, can the minister tell us what recommendations are actively being worked on? She indicated that the government was contemplating doing something with those recommendations within the next 18 months.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. I reported on the government's response to the WCB, the royal commission, so I won't go over that. The specific question is: how many of the 222 recommendations are proceeding without legislation? It's about a third of them. The board is working on those right now.

K. Krueger: Has this government asked for recommendations from the WCB on any of the royal commission's recommendations that would require legislative change? Has the government requested the WCB's own expert opinion on whether legislation should proceed?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

K. Krueger: Has the government received those recommendations, and could the official opposition be given a copy of them, please?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The minute the information comes in written form -- the discussions are through meetings now -- I'll attempt to provide them to the opposition.

K. Krueger: I thank the minister for that.

Just before we totally move on from the issue of quality assurance and quality handling, could the minister tell me how many employees at WCB have been charged with fraud over the last nine years, during the nineties?

[1555]

Hon. J. MacPhail: WCB staff at present are aware of one. I assume that employment-related is what you're asking for.

K. Krueger: I'm aware of a case involving an ex-employee named Karen Mason, who pleaded guilty to defrauding the WCB from '91 to '96 of an amount of at least $395,000. Is that the case the minister's referring to? If not, would she identify the one she's referring to?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, that's the one.

K. Krueger: Would the minister tell the House what programs and policies the WCB currently has in place to look for and prevent fraud by employees and claimants?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's an internal audit system. There's an auditing system of the computer systems, and the investigation branch of the WCB is responsible for detecting fraud throughout the system and covers potential for employer-related fraud, as well.

K. Krueger: Moving to another issue, the firefighters in British Columbia have felt very offended about the change with regard to their status with regard to a presumption involving heart illness, cardiovascular problems. They've requested that the opposition look into this. I've had a briefing on it. I understand it, but I'd like a brief comment on the record from the minister for the firefighters explaining why, from their point of view, they've lost this protection and coverage.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The panel of administrators is charged with keeping the regulations current. The panel of administrators made a decision to remove heart disease for firefighters from

schedule B, which is a

schedule where there is no proof required of the link between the occupation and the illness. Again it's an area where, because the government is not responsible for and is not the decision-making body on these matters . . . . The

schedule was looked at, and the WCB made a decision to remove heart disease for firefighters from

schedule B. I made sure, in my capacity as minister responsible for the act, that proper process was followed and that both sides . . . . All people who had an opinion on this matter were heard.

[T. Nebbeling in the chair.]

K. Krueger: There is still a plethora of issues around WCB that I'd love to deal with in this House. Of course we can't spend weeks on WCB, so I'm going to thank the people who've been advising the minister through this process. I'm going to urge the minister to take more of a hands-on

[ Page 16886 ]

approach with regard specifically to WCB governance. I appreciate that she has explained that she was seared by her early efforts to do so -- and, apparently, once bitten, twice shy.

But it seems obvious to the official opposition that major change needs to happen at WCB. That needs to be led from the top. If the people who are currently leading are delivering the kind of results that the minister and I have discussed, which we're equally unhappy with -- and she has said that she agrees with every word I've spoken on that matter -- it's incumbent on the minister to change the personnel at the top, if they aren't going to change their direction, their approaches and thereby their results.

We're going to move on now to the B.C. Ferries estimates. I know that my colleague for Richmond Centre is champing at the bit. If the minister needs some time to change personnel, we'll gladly wait.

The House recessed from 4 p.m. to 4:08 p.m.

[T. Nebbeling in the chair.]

D. Symons: Just a very few opening comments, because I have a lot of material I'd like to cover in the next ten or so hours, and we'll get on to it quickly. I think I can say to the minister and to everyone in the Legislature here that we on both sides of the House are concerned about the Ferry Corporation. We want the Ferry Corporation to work and be a benefit to the people of British Columbia. Certainly the Ferry Corporation, over the last few years, has gone through some difficult times.

We'll be exploring some of those and exploring, I think, during these estimates the opportunity to look at what is coming down the tube: the direction the Ferry Corporation is going to go in order to address the very serious issues that face it, particularly on the financial side and also in it's ability to provide the service to the people of British Columbia who depend upon these ferries as their means of communication, their means of moving about -- their highways, in a sense.

So we have to sort of make sure that whatever we do here, from either side of the House, we work only in the best interests of providing that service to the people who need it.

I would like to begin by looking . . . . I have in front of me a document of approximately a year ago called "The Approval of the 1999-2000 Operating Budget." It would be very nice if I'd had that document for the year 2000-01. I note this particular document . . . . It says that approval of that operating budget is dated July 14, 1999, and it seems that it's -- what? -- three months into their operating year before they seem to have had this approval document here. But I will ask some questions relating to this. And I would ask if, as soon as the 2000-01 document is available, I may have a copy of that.

It does help a little bit beyond the other document that has come out recently, and that's the performance plan. I'll make that request: as soon as that approval document comes out for the operating budget, I'd appreciate a copy.

[1610]

I notice in this particular plan that it says that the corporation's maximum allowable increase in debt for the year '99-2000 is set at $135 million. I guess we want to know: did this debt include the completion for fast ferries 2 and 3? Now, 2 was last year, but 3 is still going on. So for the last fiscal year, when they talked about the increase in net debt, did that include the remaining work to be done on the two cats that, at that time, were not completed?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It included the completion of vessels 2 and 3.

D. Symons: I note that it says: "The following debt management parameters provide the basis of the debt service budget." I'm curious whether the Ferry Corporation has a debt management plan as such, because parameters and what not for a given year are not really a debt management plan for the long term. We've seen the Ferry Corporation go deeply into debt over the last three years. We've seen the government give it a bailout of almost $1.1 billion in order to reduce their debt-servicing charges to a level where the Ferry Corporation has a chance of surviving.

It threw them, basically, a life preserver, saying, "Here's a life preserver for you, of $1.1 billion. Now deal with your problems there," since we've taken that huge cost of debt servicing off of their shoulders. But do you have a debt management plan, so that (1) we can deal with the remaining debt of the Ferry Corporation, and (2) we will never get into that position again?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

D. Symons: This will go quickly if we get answers like that. Thank you.

The repairs and maintenance expenditure has increased by 35 percent over the two years '97-98 and '99-2000. Is this primarily a result of the introduction of fast ferries into service? Is that why your in the repairs and maintenance budget has gone up? And I gather that this year it's increased as well.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In

part it's because of the fast ferries, but also a part of it is because when we announced that the five-year capital plan and the renewal of the fleet was going to be based on refurbishment and maintenance of the current vessel stock, more money was allocated for repair and maintenance.

D. Symons: I would gather that this isn't part of the $800,000 capital plan that was introduced in 1995 just prior to the last election. This isn't a carryover of that; this is just what you're currently working on, the year-by-year needs of the corporation. This year you have budgeted $31 million for the maintenance and repairs to the fleet. I'm wondering if the minister could supply me with the costs of repairs and maintenance for each of the two Pacificats that have been in operation or are in service on route 2 for the first four months of this year.

I know you will not have those figures here, but I'll just make that request. Then if you could give me the repairs and maintenance and maybe break it down by the Explorer and the Discovery -- let's make it for those two ferries for the first four months of this particular calendar year, since you'll have those figures, I'm sure.

The operating and expense contingency in this particular budget document I'm referring to increased this year to $2.3 million from $1 million last year. What were the perceived needs for this increase in the contingency budget?

[1615]

Hon. J. MacPhail: A different budgeting process was used this year, a much tighter zero-based budget. There was not a contingency by vessel. The contingency was amassed in one figure.

[ Page 16887 ]

D. Symons: So it would seem, then, that the contingency plans in past years might have been wanting and this has been corrected, if you've got it as a much larger figure.

One issue that the Ferry Corporation is facing is the fact of the increase in fuel costs. We've seen fuel costs certainly go considerably higher than a while back. So even from the time that this year's budget was prepared, have you had to make some adjustments with that, or would your contingencies cover that particular possibility? Fuel costs still seem to be increasing.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, this year's budget does contemplate increased fuel costs; however, those pressures continue to rise. They are a concern.

D. Symons: Yes, for this year I believe you budgeted -- for the amount of fuel you need -- for 34 cents per litre for diesel fuel. Can you give me the current price for diesel fuel on the market?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Today it's 37 cents.

D. Symons: I guess that gets back to the problem of when to have difficulties and make savings elsewhere or dig into contingencies or whatever in order to meet the costs of the fuel.

In the 1998-99 annual report . . . . I do not yet have the '99-2000 annual report, so I would make a request for that also. If you can make that a note for something else that, when the annual report for the last fiscal year is out, I'd like a copy of. The operating expense, anyway, in the last year's annual report was a 24 percent increase over four years, '95 to '99. I'm wondering why those operating expenses should have increased by 24 percent in a four-year period. If you can give me what the operating expense to put aside for this fiscal year will be, I'd like that, please.

And what better . . . .

The Chair: Member, if you could wait until you are recognized . . . . You keep talking without being recognized.

D. Symons: Yes, thank you. I don't think you had unrecognized me; that's why I kept . . . . I was the last speaker, if I remember correctly. That may cause confusion for Hansard, I realize.

I didn't put a word in that maybe is important to the question. I'm looking for the operating expense per passenger. When I made those comments, I didn't mention per passenger. The reason I raise that is because I think it's one of the measurement things you have in something I'm going to ask later on. So the operating expense per passenger has gone up by 24 percent over that five- or four-year period. What is the operating expense per passenger for the last fiscal year, and what are you expecting for it for this fiscal year?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We'll get that for you.

D. Symons: I note also in last year's annual report that we have a 5 percent drop in the percentage of operating expenses recovered. I'm curious why we've had a drop of five percentage points in the operating expenses recovered.

[1620]

Hon. J. MacPhail: We didn't increase fares.

D. Symons: A good answer.

A third point I have here is the return on assets. I'm reading, by the way, from the '98-99 annual report. There is a five-year trend table on page 26, if you have that particular document. I ask your forgiveness for not having xeroxed off a copy and maybe put it before you. If you have that there, that makes it handier, so we can be looking at the same sort of thing.

I'm now looking down the page on the return on assets. The return on assets has gone from negative 5.2 in '95 to negative 13 percent in '98. I'm wondering what steps are being taken to reduce the operating cost so that we will be able to turn around this return on assets.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Many of these indicators are what led to the government's decision to put the corporation on sound financial footing. During the period of last fiscal year, the corporation did reduce their administration costs by $5 million. However, that wasn't enough, so the financial plan, which is part of the performance plan for this year that the member has, puts the corporation in a situation where they have a dedicated stream of revenue, and they have to get their operating costs matching that.

D. Symons: Thank you. If you could just cast your eyes over to page 27, that's directly opposite the table we're looking at. In the middle of the page it says: "The corporation is committed to its contract with CFI to complete the construction of the two remaining vessels for the purpose of its revenue-generating services across the Strait of Georgia." Do remember that this is the annual report for the year '98-99. And by the time this report was put together and published, the consequences, I guess, of what was taking place at the fast ferry program -- the excessive expense of it and all the rest -- were quite well known.

I'm curious, since the extent of that cost overrun at the fast ferry program had become publicly known by the time this report was put together . . . . The corporation has spent more on completing fast ferry 3 than its likely market value. What I'm saying is that you spent more from that point on till now -- that's not counting what was spent before that -- than you're likely to receive in selling the ferry. Did it make any sense, then, to continue work on fast ferry 3 at that point?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We don't need to belabour the point about the fast ferries. We're selling them. We agree that they need to be sold because of their excessive operating cost. But I just note that this report was tabled about six weeks after the first ferry had been in service.

D. Symons: The report might have been tabled then. I think you'll find out that the first fast ferry had been used and facts were known about it. We were having, by that time, an investigation by Hugh Gordon on the financial consequences; we'd had an investigation by McMullen on the performance of it; and we had the auditor general looking at the fast ferry programs. So we had quite a number of things looking at it. The problems were there.

My question still stands. You have spent more money since those problems were known on working on fast ferry No. 3 than you will be able to receive in revenue from selling

[ Page 16888 ]

fast ferry No. 3. You might have spent, let's say for a moment, $60 million prior to the time I'm referring to and now another $30 million since that time when all these problems were known. That $30 million isn't recoverable. It is thrown away, because you're going to get less than that when you sell the ferry. So you've spent more money on fast ferry 3 since the problems of ferry 1 and 2 were known than you're going to be able to recover on the sale of fast ferry 3. That seems to be money thrown away.

The work you've put in since the problems were known is simply going to disappear, because you cannot recover that money in the sale of it, let alone all the money you spent beforehand on fast ferry 3.

[1625]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, if the member is suggesting that we shouldn't have completed building fast ferry 3, that wasn't an option. And fast ferry 3 is not being used in operation.

D. Symons: Yes, I realize that. If, at the tail end of something, you can sell it for $25 million, let's say -- which sounds like it may be the case on the market today . . . . I'm just wondering why you might have spent $40 million to get it to the stage where you can sell it for $25 million. It doesn't seem to be economically viable.

Anyway, a year and a half ago now, the treasury group of B.C. Ferry Corporation came out with a series of five-year fiscal projections for B.C. Ferry Corporation. It projected the high-speed-ferry reservation revenues to increase fourfold, from $3 million to $12 million, and tariff revenue increases also to jump substantially. Now we don't have to worry about the fast ferry reservations, because that's not going to occur. But are the projections of revenue increases still relevant today?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No.

D. Symons: This was that "Where were we in '98?" sort of document that had that in it. Of course, that was before all the difficulties of the fast ferry program were understood. But if that's the case and these figures generated by the treasury group are no longer relevant -- and I suspect they are not -- then surely the corporation has done some fresh projections. In the spirit, then, of transparency and openness that this government's now involved in, would the minister share the most recent fiscal projections with us?

Hon J. MacPhail: Well, the performance plan has the budget in it that gives the fiscal performance, and . . . .

Interjection.

Hon J. MacPhail: He's asking for a complete five-year projection.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. We also tabled that with the opposition during the debate around the debt recision -- the five-year performance estimates. We can get you another copy if you want.

D. Symons: I'm not sure whether they had the financials in here. This one that came out in, I believe, November of '98 had the various costs of administration, use of crews, productivity, tariff increases and service efficiencies. Then those sorts of figures, put together by the treasury group, were projected through '98, '99 through to 2003-04 -- that fiscal year. I wonder if the minister might tell me whether that's been done now and also maybe inform me as to who constitutes the treasury group of B.C. Ferries.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The decision by the Minister of Finance in the 2000-01 budget to dedicate to basically redo the financials of the corporation to assume the debt onto the government's books and to dedicate a source of revenue to the corporation has permitted them to plan for this year. And they're working on their five-year plan based on those new sources of revenue. The treasury group that you referred to has disbanded.

[1630]

D. Symons: I'm going by the figures here. Maybe that's a good move too. I'm wondering also . . . . Going by this particular document, there's a

section here headed "Use of crews," and there is "Productivity and work practices." The interesting thing is that all the other headings in here have numbers attached to them for each of those four years, but for those particular headings under productivity and work practices, it's simply labelled, where the dollar figures would be: "to be determined." So I'm wondering, then -- you know, it's been more than a year; in fact, it's two years now, since this document came out -- if you have managed to determine what was to be determined. Have the use of crews, productivity and work practices been settled so that you can put a dollar figure to them, which wasn't able to be done back in '98?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. Those costs are known. We do know those costs, and those costs contributed to a decision to sell.

D. Symons: That would be the projections, as well, for the years. And I'm assuming, then, that you would be as willing to share those with us as the people were in '98, when they put this document out.

Moving on to the five-year capital plan that was put out on November 3 of '99 -- just a few questions there. Again, I'm pleased to give you a heads-up on where I am and am heading. The recent detailed survey of the corporation's ships and terminals found many assets to be in better condition than expected. Just by sort of asking that question, I'm curious then . . . . I find it really incredible that B.C. Ferries only recently discovered the actual condition of its assets. Has it not been past practice to routinely assess the condition of your vessels?

Is this not necessary for you when you're determining the maintenance and refit programs? Would you not have a proper survey of your ships done in order to be able to determine exactly what you're going to need next year and the year after in the way of maintenance and eventually a refit of the vessel?

Hon. J. MacPhail: In fact, the survey that was done to reach the conclusion of refurbishing the current stock was different. The survey was done ten years ahead,

whereas previously they've been done one year ahead.

D. Symons: I think I remember -- to refresh the minister's memory -- that back in 1994 and '95 when the govern-

[ Page 16889 ]

ment was trumpeting its wonderful decision to build fast ferries and reinvigorate the fleet with new vessels, they claimed that it was an absolute necessity to do it, because the vessels were in such poor shape. It seems that now you've discovered that the vessels aren't in such poor shape.

So you're saying either that now we've done the job we should do on a proper survey of the ship, and then we didn't, or that you did a proper survey of the ship then to determine that this was the case, and now you're misleading us by saying: "Well, they're okay, and we can stretch it out further." One or the other of those comments -- in '94-95 or the one that's now said that the ships are okay -- is wrong.

[1635]

Hon. J. MacPhail: A lot of these premises by which the corporation did the reviews of their stock were the industry standards. But the corporation, with new management in 1999, decided to go beyond that and do the ten-year intensive review. Where there are industry standards where a vessel is supposed to have a life of 40 years, to then suggest that the vessel may, upon intensive review, have a life that's 10 percent longer isn't like a giant leap of faith, but it is very valuable to the corporation.

D. Symons: I'm wondering if the minister might tell us how much money was paid to Kvaerner Masa Marine, because I believe they're the firm that did your survey of the ships for you for their review of the fleet.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yeah, we'll get that.

D. Symons: And, also, can you say whether there were other consultants or organizations hired to work on this review, or was Kvaerner the main firm for doing it?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Peter Mehta, who is a ship surveyor.

D. Symons: I note that the Queen of Sidney is recommended for retirement later in this particular year. Will B.C. Ferries be keeping this vessel as a backup, particularly for the summer season -- not this summer but the following summer? I note in the performance plan that the Queen of Sidney is to retire in the fall of this year, but its replacement vessel, which is the Queen of Burnaby will be brought into service in the spring of 2001. I'm curious -- there's an interval period between the fall of this year and the spring of 2001 -- what vessel will be in service on that route during that interim period.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Sidney will be sold, and it's the Burnaby that will replace the Sidney in the spring. The Burnaby is being used as backup now but will go in for refurbishment and then, in the spring, be put into service from Powell River to Comox.

D. Symons: In the plan, you have the Sidney being sold in the fall of this year; you have the Burnaby going into service in the spring of next year. I asked what vessel would be replacing . . . ? When you sell the Sidney , but the Burnaby isn't going into service, you must have some vessel servicing the route in that time.

Hon. J. MacPhail: The Tsawwassen .

D. Symons: The Queen of the North and the Queen of Prince Rupert have, I think, some problems. Those ships are elderly. The Queen of Prince Rupert was, in the original ten-year capital plan, the first ship to be replaced, and the fast ferries displaced it. I gather it's being kept on now and will be in service for a while longer.

What's it going to cost, though, to upgrade those vessels to current marine standards? Will they be able to meet the coming ISO 9001 standards?

Hon. J. MacPhail: They are at current marine standards.

D. Symons: I believe Queen of the North is a single-hulled vessel, not double-hulled. The process of the single-hulled vessels is, I believe . . . . The ISO standards say that you don't have those watertight doors in the lower compartments open when that vessel is in operation. Yet that's routinely done to allow passengers to get down to their vehicles or to get to the lower staterooms in the vessel.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It meets all the standards now.

D. Symons: Just one further question: will it meet the standards two years from now? The standards are changing this year.

[1640]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.

D. Symons: Prior to the push for fast ferries . . . . I said a moment ago that the Queen of Prince Rupert was at the top of the replacement list. A news release back then -- I believe it was 1995, if my memory serves me correctly -- announced the tendering of design for work on a $40 million vessel to replace the Queen of Prince Rupert. Was that design work done, and at what cost? And why has the priority of this particular project been changed?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Is that question from 1996?

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Okay, then we'll have to get you the answer. We're prepared for estimates of 2000-2001, but we will get you the answer.

D. Symons: The question was . . . . So they'll know what information to get, there was a news release back then about the fact they were going to build a replacement vessel for the Queen of Prince Rupert . In this news release, the design work supposedly was being commissioned at that time. I want to know how much money was spent on the design of a vessel that never materialized. If you could find that, I would appreciate it.

I've got here a news release from May 8 of this year, which may help you again to see where I'm coming from -- "B.C. Ferries Outlines Its New Capital Plan." In that capital plan they identified undertaking projects for $117 million for the first year of the plan. This also involves the reacquisition of the Queen of Burnaby . The Queen of Burnaby was sold by B.C. Ferries to Victoria Line for $3.5 million a number of years

[ Page 16890 ]

back. The Victoria Line did about a $3 million upgrade on the Queen of Burnaby in refit to use for the Seattle run. B.C. Ferries now has bought the ferry back for, I believe, $2.8 million.

I'm curious as to what you might consider the book value and the market value of that particular vessel. There was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $12 million spent on operating the Queen of Burnaby when it was with Victoria Line. I believe Marguerite III was its name. B.C. Ferry sold it for $3.5 million and bought it back for $2.8 million -- that sounds like a good deal. If you could do that with vehicles and cars, that would be great. And in the process, you've also got a $4 million upgrade. B.C. Ferries seem to have done very well in that.

What would the value of this particular vessel be on the open market?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's hard to tell, because the vessel would require modification to fit docks. The advantage to the Ferry Corporation was that the ship fit the docks.

D. Symons: It sounds something like the concerns you may have in finding buyers for a couple of fast cats as well. They're made specifically for our docks.

They also talk in this plan of a new 110-car ferry to be built over two years. I guess that's to spread the costs over two years. For which route is it planned? Will it be Century-class style, like the Skeena Queen ? And when is it going to tender?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It will be Century-class, and it will be used either on the southern Gulf Islands route or the Bowen Island route.

[1645]

D. Symons: For 110, it seems to be just a slight expansion or lengthening of the current vessel. There were some problems, and I will get into them later, with the Skeena Queen , so we'll determine whether this vessel will suffer those same problems. I assume not.

There was also $1.6 million in the capital plan for this year for the Horseshoe Bay maintenance building. I notice that a few years ago when they were doing that, the maintenance building was going to be $2.8 million in a different location -- in the '99 announcement. Has the building been downsized? Will it be able to perform the same function that it had when it was going to be a $2.8 million building rather than a $1.6 million building? It's changed its location. Has it also changed the functions that will be performed there?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's basically the same building.

D. Symons: Now, that's a great financial saving, when it goes from $2.8 million down to $1.6 million. So if I'm going to build a home, I'm going to get those people to come and do the contracting for me. It will be interesting to see if that happens.

Now, I do know that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi will want to ask a number of questions related to Horseshoe Bay. That will be coming up later, so I won't go any further on that particular topic.

The next thing I want to look at is a document called "British Columbia Ferry Corporation, Long-Term Debt Analysis as at March 31, 2000." So if we can take a look at that particular document . . . . I'm assuming you have it, since I got it from B.C. Ferries.

Hon. J. MacPhail: What's the date on it?

D. Symons: It just says: "as at March . . . . " Oh, down at the bottom corner . . . . It was faxed through to me on May 13 this year. I don't know if you've got good eyesight, but it looks like that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Just tell me what it reads at the top.

D. Symons: I read the title a moment ago: "Long-Term Debt Analysis." It's a single page.

Interjection.

D. Symons: Looking under "Major Capital Additions" in this, I find the Queen of Chilliwack listed. I'm curious, because there's a $21.5 million cost. I'm wondering if that was the cost of a refit to the vessel that was done prior to its preparation to go on to the mid-coast service? Because, as far as I understand, we didn't purchase . . . . It talks about a major capital additions. I don't think we purchased the Queen of Chilliwack . We owned it and have owned it for a number of years. So I'm curious why $21.5 million would be here under "Major Capital Additions -- At 'In-Service' Date."

Hon. J. MacPhail: That includes the purchase and refit.

D. Symons: You might tell us who we purchased the ferry from.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We'll get that for you.

D. Symons: It's my understanding that we've owned that vessel for quite a number of years. That's why I'm asking that question. I'm curious when it's here as a purchase price. That's why I'm asking who we purchased it from.

How about doing the Queen of New Westminster ? We have a $51.9 million debt there. I'm curious as to how that particular figure appears here under "Major Capital Additions."

Hon. J. MacPhail: The design was changed, and the boat was re-engineered so that the speed was high enough for it to be assigned to the Tsawwassen-Duke Point run.

[1650]

D. Symons: The Queen of New Westminster was built in Victoria in 1964. It's had modifications made since that particular date, where the vessel has been stretched and a deck has been added in there. When did this work take place, then, on the Queen of New Westminster ?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, you're correct. Is there some . . . ? This is the document that was put together to explain the ships behind the $1.1 billion of debt recision. That's your understanding of it -- right?

D. Symons: Yes. I'm still curious, though, where, listing down here, you can come up with a debt owing on the Queen

[ Page 16891 ]

of New Westminster -- a ship that has been owned by B.C. Ferries for a large number of years -- of $51 million. I'm just trying to determine where that $51 million that you're saying you're basically writing off . . . where that $51 million appears, and why we had a debt at this stage of the game of $51 million on that ferry.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This debt has been accumulated since 1988. The $51.9 million is to do the refit, the re-engineering and the changing of the design that occurred in the mid-nineties to the Queen of New Westminster .

D. Symons: I'm wondering if the minister might give me a book value for the Queen of New Westminster. Has the minister any idea of what its market value may be? That might be the answer to the other one, where you say it may not have a good one because of the configurations needed at the docking.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, we don't know the market value. The corporation isn't intending to sell these, so that exercise hasn't been done. We'll get you the book value.

D. Symons: I'm assuming you have a book value on each ferry, because certainly you made a book value of the fast cats by reducing it from one figure to another. So I assume that you have book values, for the purposes of bookkeeping, for all the ferries. If you would do it for both the Queen of Chilliwack and the Queen of New Westminster , I'd appreciate that.

The last one comes through the fact that you did sell a ferry recently; I believe you put it up for market, anyway. That's the Queen of Victoria . I'm wondering if you might be able to give me an idea of what you got for the Queen of Victoria . It was built at roughly the same time as the Queen of New Westminster . What did you manage to sell that ship for?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We're still in negotiations with the potential customer.

D. Symons: Noting that you put it up for sale in December and this is six months later, then the sale of ships goes slowly.

I'm looking now at the 2000-01 performance plan, and on page 3 it states: "B.C. Ferries, in conjunction with government, has completed a planning and financial analysis which formed the basis of the sustainable financial strategy." I'm wondering if we could have a copy of this sustainable financial strategy that B.C. Ferries has put together.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We've given the member opposite the synopsis of that. That was the five-year forecast after the announcement was made of the debt recision, the 1 1/4 cents a litre, and there's all the work behind that. But that is the

summary of it.

[1655]

D. Symons: I'm glad to hear there's more behind it, because I couldn't take that to the bank and expect to use it for collateral on any loan I might want to make.

I'm wondering, then, if we can go to page 10 of this performance plan. Under "Route 2," towards the bottom of page 10, it says: "The fast ferries will remain in operation between Nanaimo and Horseshoe Bay on a supplementary and rotational basis in order to prove their reliability . . . . " Now, I understand the idea of the rotational, because you seem to have the plan now where there's one week on, one week off.

And awhile back the minister told us: "Well, the week off was needed because they were doing maintenance on them." Fortunately, the other ferries don't take a week off every second week to do maintenance, but the cats do. But I'm not sure what the word "supplementary . . . . " Taking a C-class off, we've got a fast cat in its place. It's taking the place of; it's not supplementary in that case -- is it?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Point taken.

D. Symons: Next is page 12. It says: "While extraordinary maintenance is not normally part of a capital plan, it is reported as an adjunct to the capital plan because it is an important element in the 'repair-replace decision' regarding capital assets." And further down: "Extraordinary maintenance over and a $14 million scheduled for year 1." So I'm gathering, then, that this $14 million is in addition to the $117 million that was set aside for the capital plan for this particular fiscal year. Is that correct?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, and it's part of the operating budget.

D. Symons: A problem that seems to have come up quite frequently with the ferries in the last couple of years has been the problem of sewage. We seem to have had difficulty with the sewage on a number of vessels at various times. The Queen of Oak Bay has been described by somebody as a biological hazard. The sewage has spilled over into the bilge, and I understand that B.C. Ferries is not paying for that biological waste sludge to be disinfected before it's disposed of. It seems that the Queen of Surrey did have similar problems, and these are sister ships.

With the Queen of Surrey , the waste was disinfected before disposal. So I'm wondering why they're not doing it for the Queen of Oak Bay. And has this disposal received the approval of the Environment ministry?

Hon. J. MacPhail: All vessels comply with Ministry of Environment regulations.

D. Symons: My question was regarding a firm that's been hired to take the material away. The Ferry Corporation paid the amount that was necessary to have the Queen of Surrey disinfected before it was disposed of. They're not doing that for the Queen of Oak Bay . I'm curious as to why on one vessel the same sort of sludge, I'll call it, was required to be disinfected and not for the other vessel. I don't think I heard an answer to that.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, we'll make sure we get an answer for you.

D. Symons: When the job was done on the sewage tank in the Queen of Surrey , one tank was cleaned, and the absorbent material or media replaced, while the other tank was basically untouched. Yet there are still problems with that other tank. Why wasn't the complete job done for the Queen of Surrey ?

[1700]

[ Page 16892 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: We'll take it on notice.

D. Symons: The Swartz Bay to Vancouver harbour route has been suggested as a possibility for a fast ferry service. This was in your five-year capital plan on page 27. There was talk of putting in a fast ferry service there. I'm curious: is this a proposal? The vessel that was being considered, mentioned on that page, is a catamaran. Is the vessel you're looking at similar to the vessel that was used by the private sector eight years ago?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We're not actively looking at any passenger-only vessels at this time. It will be considered as part of a five-year capital plan.

D. Symons: Maybe I should read, because the minister isn't particularly familiar with this. It's part of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation five-year capital plan document. On page 27 it has: "In January 1999, B.C. Ferries identified an ideal secondhand vessel for the service." They're talking about a fast ferry service. "The three-year-old Australian-built Japanese vessel had the desired speed and capacity and was being offered at an attractive price of $3.75 million (U.S.). After accounting for an import duty, modifications and delivery costs" -- sounds like you're looking seriously into this -- "it was estimated the vessel could be in service for about $7.5 million (Canadian)."

They talk here about trying to . . . . That's my next question, I guess. Have you put an option on this vessel or something to hold it? Because if you've identified a vessel -- it says they've identified a vessel -- it sounds like that's the vessel you'd like to have. Is the minister still holding to the fact that that's just something that's being considered?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Oh, dear. The member was leaked a draft, unfortunately. So the final plan doesn't include that, and the new management of the corporation isn't considering that.

D. Symons: Very drafty, obviously.

It also says in here, and this is something that I was amazed at . . . . It's interesting -- the mindset then of the Ferry Corporation -- because if this is a draft, certainly they were thinking in that direction at the time they put together a draft.

It says, earlier in this particular thing -- again in regard to putting in a passenger-only service between Swartz Bay and downtown Vancouver: "Although the competition has not materialized, the threat is still a real one, especially when the traffic turns around and continues on long-term growth trends." I'm curious why you consider competition a threat. It seems that part of the reason for looking at putting in this particular service is because there's a threat that somebody else might do it. That smacks very much of an attitude that B.C.

Ferries must have: "We've got a monopoly, and we're not going to let anybody else get into our monopoly in ferry service between the Island and the mainland."

Hon. J. MacPhail: The member has been leaked a draft unfortunately. He shouldn't rely on drafts, because drafts are discussion documents by which people make decisions. The CEO of the corporation took the same offence that the member articulates and had it deleted.

D. Symons: I would have to commend, if that's the case, the CEO for doing that. He might be one of the few people in B.C. Ferries that seems to not have the attitude that they've got a monopoly that must be protected at all costs. Let's hope that's the case.

Anyway, "B.C. Ferries Wants $400 Million" is the heading in a March 17 Vancouver Sun

article for a capital plan. I'm curious. If the corporation starts on a new five-year plan . . . . I remember that a while ago we had a ten-year $800 million capital plan. This is half the time and half the price, so on a per-year basis it's the same. So they've got this $400 million capital spending plan.

[1705]

I asked earlier about a debt management plan. Well, I'm curious exactly how you're going to handle the debt that you're going to put on at the same yea