1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 1

[ Page 11347 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. B. Barlee: I would like members of the House to greet a school class from Okanagan Falls, which is often considered the centre of the Okanagan -- or at least was at one time. They are here to look at how the Legislature works. Welcome to the nice city of Victoria.

The Speaker: Before we proceed, hon. members, the Chair would like to make a brief statement on a matter I think you will find of interest.

As you know, some changes have been in progress with respect to expediting our work and improving on expenditures, etc. As members may have noticed at the start of this session, the publications of the House, including bills, Orders of the Day, Votes and Proceedings and Hansard, were changed in size. I am pleased to advise that the simple change to a standard paper size has resulted in a dramatic decrease in the amount of printed material without changing the content. It was achieved through cooperation with the House, the Queen's Printer and legislative counsel.

A further change as to the content is being made beginning today. On Tuesday and Thursday when the House sits twice, the afternoon printing of the order paper will no longer contain notices of motion and written questions to avoid unnecessary duplication. Instead, notices of motion and written questions will be incorporated by reference to the morning order paper. This initiative will reduce today's afternoon order paper by 15 pages and our printing requirements by approximately 21,000 pages a week, with corresponding cost benefits.

I would like to thank all members of the House for their cooperation in implementing this major improvement.

Ministerial Statement

APPEAL PROCESS FOR MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION DECISIONS

Hon. A. Edwards: I rise to make a ministerial statement. I rise to respond to questions that were raised yesterday, both inside and outside this assembly, respecting a decision that I made on an appeal of a Motor Carrier Commission decision. As a member of a committee to hear appeals pursuant to

section 52 of the Motor Carrier Act, I have heard a total of 34 appeals. I have allowed 16 appeals and denied 18. In the two-day period of February 16 and 17, 1994, I heard seven appeals under

section 52, one of which was application No. 1365-91, Kimber Cabs Ltd. I would like to inform the assembly of the information I had before me in respect of the appeal of Motor Carrier Commission order

2-93.

Later today I will seek leave of the House to table the following documents: volumes 1 and 2 of the hearing brief of October 20, 1992, which were submitted by Kimber Cabs Ltd. to the Motor Carrier Commission; order 2-93 of the Motor Carrier Commission by Chairman Donald Johannessen, who heard the original application on January 5, 1993; notice of appeal by Kimber Cabs Ltd. by way of a letter to the Attorney General dated January 27, 1993; the appellant's hearing brief and a

summary thereof submitted by Kimber Cabs Ltd. on February 16, 1993; and a hearing brief filed by Richmond Cabs dated February 16, 1993.

In attendance at the hearing were representatives of Kimber Cabs and a member of the B.C. Paraplegic Association who appeared in support of the appellant. Also attending were counsel and

co-counsel for the appellants, a representative of Richmond Cabs and that intervener's counsel. At the hearing I received legal advice from counsel to the cabinet committee from the Ministry of Attorney General. To my recollection, that hearing took approximately two hours. It was electronically recorded by M. McEachern and Associates Ltd. and subsequently transcribed. I have that transcription available for the House as well, hon. Speaker.

I provided the standard instructions on the proceedings to the appellant applicants and the objectors. I was there to hear submissions from a person or persons who believed themselves to be aggrieved by refusal to grant the licence under the act. I was there to hear submissions that might show that the commission had, in its decision, misinterpreted the act or misunderstood or not given proper consideration to the facts before it. The appellant applicant's case was put forward, then that of the objectors, and, according to practice, the appellant applicants were given a brief opportunity to respond.

I considered representations that the commission had not recognized the need for additional taxi service to the disabled citizens of Richmond and for competition in the provision of those services. I noted exhibits including letters from 175 individuals, 474 signatures on two petitions, a letter from the City of Richmond, and 86 private firms and seven community organizations -- all in support of improved and additional taxi service for the disabled. I concluded that it was in the public interest to approve the expansion of taxi services to the disabled residents of Richmond.

It's a decision that I support, and it is a decision that supports increased services to the disabled. I stand by that decision.

[2:15]

In reaching my decision on the appeal, I read the materials submitted and heard what was alleged by the parties who were present at the hearing. I carefully weighed all the information which was properly before me, and on that basis I decided that the appeal should be allowed and that the decision of the Motor Carrier Commission made on January 5 should be reversed. If any of the parties who objected to the original application or appeared at the appeal consider, on their review of the transcript or for any other reason, that I did not properly exercise my jurisdiction, they can seek to have the decision reviewed by the B.C. Supreme Court under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

G. Farrell-Collins: The facts stated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources have quite clearly been available. In fact, the opposition made them available to the media yesterday. All I can say is that the people this government appointed to hear appeals at the Motor Carrier Commission were quite clear and unequivocal in their decision. Those members of that Motor Carrier Commission, which is chaired by the campaign manager of the member for Saanich South, stated in their decision:

"There is no compelling evidence presented to the commission to indicate that there is a need for additional taxi licences in the city of Richmond. While the commission recognizes that the applicant is purporting to offer a fleet of wheelchair-accessible taxis, it is the commission's view that this is not economically possible, and that in very short order the applicant would be asking the commission for an amendment to its operating authority in order to operate taxis which are not wheelchair-accessible. This application should have been framed in the terms of a 'normal' taxicab operation providing some vehicles for the disabled.

"There are too many taxicabs operating in the Richmond area, and adding more taxis to the area in these economic times could lead to bankruptcies of the existing companies.

[ Page 11348 ]

"While the commission recognizes that Richmond Cabs is the only cab company in Richmond, and the commission does not view monopolies as the preferred way, it cannot see any advantage at this time to bring another company in, and is of the opinion that Richmond Cabs has not abused its monopoly position but has gone out and purchased and is operating wheelchair-accessible vehicles, and in the opinion of the commission, these vehicles are superior to those which are being operated by Kimber.

"The commission recognizes the desire of Mr. Kimber to have a taxi company of the nature of Kimber, but considering the testimony of Wayne French of Ottawa" -- which I would advise other members of this House to review -- "this is not a problem which can be solved by one taxi company. It is a problem which must be dealt with by the Motor Carrier Commission, the B.C. Transit Commission and the taxi industry as a whole."

It goes on to state that the evidence Kimber had as to the reliability of Richmond Cabs was not helpful to the commission. I think that the logic behind the decisions of the Motor Carrier Commission, which deals with these everyday, day in and day out, should be allowed to stand. This minister has gone out of her way to find other reasons -- in the last 24 hours, I might add -- to justify her decision.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

J. Weisgerber: I was disappointed that the minister decided not to provide members of the opposition with a copy of her statement before coming to the House. A practice has developed in this Legislature over the last while to present copies of ministerial statements.

Also, it was pretty obvious yesterday that the minister didn't have the faintest idea why she had made the decision. When asked, she said something to the effect that: "Gosh, I can't remember much about it, except that Mr. Gill is a friend of Mr. Clark's." I guess that was the one thing that stuck in her mind. We now have a government in damage control. As long as all members recognize that, then I expect this material will be considered in that vein.

Oral Questions

APPEAL PROCESS FOR MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION DECISIONS

M. de Jong: Yesterday the Premier categorically stated that cabinet-level appeals are independent and not reviewed by cabinet. The transcript of the appeal proceedings referred to by the Minister of Energy states that she said at that appeal: "Once I have reached my decision, I will send it to cabinet for consideration." The statements contradict one another entirely. Would the Minister of Energy tell the people of British Columbia who was telling the truth about cabinet's involvement in the MCC appeal process -- her or the Premier?

The Speaker: Before I recognize the minister, I should state that when the member poses a question which suggests that someone may not be telling the truth, it's very close to suggesting that someone is making an improper statement. If the member was requesting the proper

interpretation of the facts, that would certainly be in order.

Hon. A. Edwards: What in fact happened was that I read a standard statement, which we regularly do read, that has been prepared by the Attorney General. That statement says that when I reach a decision it is not a binding decision until it is approved by cabinet. That is correct. It says it's not binding until cabinet approves it in an order-in-council. That is certainly true, because the decision of the member of cabinet who does the appeals goes through the order-in-council process. And that's exactly what happens. Nevertheless, there is no review by cabinet of that decision.

The Speaker: The hon. member has a supplemental?

M. de Jong: I take it, from the response, that the minister does not deny she told the litigants in the process that her decision would be sent to cabinet for consideration. That's what it says. The Motor Carrier Commission spent three days hearing evidence and submissions from live witnesses before deciding to deny the Kimber application. The minister in her statement indicates that she heard submissions for two hours only, and on the basis of those two hours of submissions decided to overturn the decision. She's offered no justification.

What valid justification can the minister offer for overturning the Motor Carrier Commission's decision on this matter and awarding this licence in favour of her NDP friend?

Hon. A. Edwards: I did hear the appeal. I did hear the appellants and the objectors who came to the appeal. I am the only one who heard that appeal. I am not willing to accept the assumption underlying the question, which is that at any time two hours won't beat three days. That's all you're saying to me. I was at the appeal, I heard the submissions, I properly considered them, and I came to a decision by which I will stand.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

M. de Jong: Implicit in the minister's response is a suggestion that she was in a better position to render a decision on this than the commission that heard three days of evidence from live witnesses. The commission said in their decision that this was a sham application designed to acquire some advantage over competitors. The minister says she was in a better position to determine that issue than the commission. What valid justification can she offer to the people of British Columbia so they know that NDP friends aren't getting preferential treatment at the cabinet level?

Hon. A. Edwards: The appeal process is there to give the appellants the opportunity to appeal. They can appeal; they can say they do not like that decision and then make a case....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Members who pose questions should allow the minister to respond.

Hon. A. Edwards: The appellants have the opportunity to make their case based on the limited purview that someone who hears an appeal has. The people who responded to that appeal had the opportunity to make their case. In this case, it was my decision....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. A. Edwards: It was my decision....

[ Page 11349 ]

M. de Jong: Based on what?

The Speaker: Order, please. Will the minister please take her seat. Hon. members, it is clearly out of order for members to speak from their seats. Members know this, and if they are not satisfied with responses to questions, that is their prerogative; but they do not have the right under our standing orders to interject from their seats when a minister is attempting to respond. I would appreciate your courtesy with regard to this. Would the hon. minister please conclude her statement.

Hon. A. Edwards: As I said, what I heard at the two-hour hearing where I was hearing an appeal -- not the whole case; I heard the appeal.... I'm sure that you, as a lawyer, are aware of some of the procedures that happen. The appeal procedure is a different procedure. I heard representations from the City of Richmond and various representations from the disabled. My decision was a decision that supports access to cabs for the disabled in Richmond, and it increases competition in Richmond. That is the essence of what the decision does, and that was my decision.

G. Farrell-Collins: What this side of the House is trying to determine and what that minister has failed to say yet is why she decided against the clear, logical decisions put out in the recommendations of the Motor Carrier Commission.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

G. Farrell-Collins: On average, the time between an appeal and the decision coming forward is about two to four weeks. Indeed, in her decision -- in the transcript -- the minister said she would take four weeks to make this decision. In fact, it took over three months before this decision came forward. Can the minister tell us why it took three times the normal and standard length of time in these hearings? Why did this case take three months?

Hon. A. Edwards: I did my

part in the process. I sat at the hearing. I reached a decision based on the facts and other representations made at the hearing. Having made my decision, I had no control over the process it went back into.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: We have talked to the order-in-council people. We've been informed that the transcript of this cabinet decision or appeal was ordered on March 1, two weeks after the hearing, and that it's unusual for the order-in-council to have to request such transcripts. Can the minister tell us if she requested that this transcript be made?

Hon. A. Edwards: I did my

part in the process. I sit as the cabinet member who does the appeal. When I make my decision, I assume that the normal process will proceed. And it went into the normal process.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: I find it very interesting that this minister isn't the one who ordered the transcript. Perhaps the Premier can inform us who in the government of British Columbia -- aside from the single person, according to him, who can make that decision -- would need to order that transcript. Who else in his government would have a need to order a transcript they would have nothing to do with?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I don't have that information handy today, but I can certainly get the House that information.

BCTF ROLE IN SURREY ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL ISSUE

L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the Minister of Education. Last week the Surrey School Board voted to give parents a real choice in their public school system with the back-to-basics alternative school. But now the Surrey Teachers' Association is attempting to intimidate teachers who may want to work there. Does the minister agree that all school boards have the legal right to pursue this option, and if so, what steps has he taken to guarantee that no teacher applying for work in that new school will be subject to disciplinary action by the BCTF?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Matters of education in the Surrey School District are, first and foremost, the responsibility of that school board. As long as the proposed school meets all of the tests under the School Act, as long as it teaches the provincial curriculum and any other courses approved by the province, and as long as it is in all other respects a proper public institution, I trust that the school board in Surrey will make the right decisions.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

L. Fox: It's our belief that alternative schools should be introduced on a voluntary basis in response to parents' demands for a greater choice in the public school system. Is the minister prepared to tell the BCTF to cool its jets and stop threatening teachers who want to work in this Surrey school, or is he saying that the BCTF is within its mandate to use coercion to prevent alternative schools within the school system?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The member opposite should practise reading his questions once or twice before entering the House; it might make matters go more smoothly.

The relationship between teachers and the Surrey School Board is a matter to be resolved between those parties in that jurisdiction.

The Speaker: The final supplemental, hon. member.

L. Fox: Taxpayers who feel that the current system is not meeting their demands for their children and who cannot afford to send their children to the private system are looking for a statement from the minister. Will the minister stand up in this House today and make the statement that he supports public control of our school system through elected trustees, or is he going to turn that control over to the BCTF?

[2:30]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I am a proponent of publicly funded and publicly administered education in British Columbia.

APPEAL PROCESS FOR MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION DECISIONS

W. Hurd: In second reading of the Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act, the Attorney General stated: "...decisions that are made by commissions or by administrative

decision-

[ Page 11350 ]

makers are made with due process. Within cabinet there is no due process; it is a political decision behind closed doors." Given the comments of the Attorney General in the House, how could he put his signature to cabinet order 698, being a political decision made behind closed doors on the issue of Kimber Cabs and the appeal from the Motor Carrier Commission?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: My comments in the House during debate on the amendments which were designed to eliminate cabinet appeals were based on the history of political decisions in this province. This cabinet has been meticulous and scrupulous in avoiding any of that kind of history.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Let me say it again. This cabinet has been meticulous and scrupulous in ensuring that that kind of political interference or lack of process did not continue. In fact, proper processes under the law as it exists have been followed.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: This is clearly the Knight Street Pub case on wheels.

Mr. Speaker, the provisions....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

W. Hurd: The provisions abolishing cabinet appeals from decisions of the Motor Carrier Commission passed this House but have never been proclaimed. Can the Attorney General explain to this House what the inordinate delay has been, and whether this government recognizes the fact that there is a perception out there that it's simply waiting until all its party friends are rewarded?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That is an outrageous assertion and is completely wrong. When I had the responsibility for the Motor Carrier Act, I introduced amendments, which were passed by this Legislature, that set up an appeal process. The minister responsible for the Motor Carrier Act is now the Minister of Transportation and Highways. When she assumed responsibility for that portfolio last September, she decided that she wanted to introduce a different appeal process -- non-cabinet, but different from the one this House had adopted. The minister, who is not here today, will be able to answer questions about that issue in this Legislature in due course, this month.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.

Point of Privilege

G. Wilson: I rise on a motion of privilege on matters of importance to the people of this province and to the constituents of my riding.

We are being denied our privileges by virtue of the fact that the government, contrary to the stated intention of the House Leader, is holding two critical debates concurrently. This situation is contrary to the statement to the House of the Government House Leader on April 6, 1994: "Estimates which are deemed to be...important to the opposition for scrutiny will be held in this chamber, if they so desire. We certainly have no intention of changing that."

To date, the government has introduced a series of controversial bills for debate that members of the Alliance are compelled to canvass at the same time that Finance estimates are proceeding in Committee A. Notwithstanding the fact that the official opposition and other opposition parties do not deem the Finance estimates to be important enough to be read in this House, which is the first time in the history of this province that that is so, the estimates of the people of this province....

In light of the fact that the Finance minister is also responsible for the implementation of the Korbin commission, which is relevant to the bills that are under debate and represents a complete restructuring of the public service, we deem it important to have access to that debate.

When I raised a similar point of privilege previously, the matter was raised in principle, and the Speaker ruled that if a specific circumstance led to the appearance of a member's rights being breached, the Speaker would reconsider the circumstances surrounding Committees A and B. In light of that fact, the Alliance members are the only members who stood in opposition to Bills 22 and 23.

I ask that the Speaker find that the concurrent debates breach the privilege of this member, as I cannot be in this chamber to effectively debate Bills 22 and 23 in committee stage and at the same time have an opportunity to debate the most important set of estimates, that of the Minister of Finance. I would ask that the Speaker determine if a prima facie breach of privilege exists and therefore entertain a motion that the Finance estimates be moved to Committee B and not be held concurrent with the debate on legislation before the members in order to preserve the privileges of this member and to protect the interests of the public.

Hon. G. Clark: I'd like to briefly respond to the leader of the fifth party in the House. I endeavour as House Leader, obviously, to accommodate all members of all political parties. The member has not raised with me this matter with respect to a bill standing in the name of the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour and the Ministry of Finance estimates. It hadn't occurred to many members of the House that there was an obvious overlap. If the members from time to time do have an overlap, we try to accommodate.

Although it's more difficult with more parties and more members, and in June with night sittings, we try to accommodate so that people feel they can participate in all debates. Before a privilege motion be found, I would encourage the member to canvass with the Government House Leader, and we'll try to accommodate his wishes as best we can.

F. Gingell: I believe that it is important that the needs of all members be taken into account in our scheduling. I understand and appreciate the concerns of the member for Powell

River-Sunshine Coast.

Just to set the record straight, I would like to state that the Finance ministry estimates were held in this chamber in the first year, and in the second year were in fact held in Committee A. I find Committee A most acceptable, because we tend to deal with some technical matters. Deputy ministers are allowed to respond, which is appropriate in many of these rather complex matters.

I do support the position of the member and would hope that we can find some sensible solution to this dilemma.

[ Page 11351 ]

The Speaker: I thank all members for their submissions. The Chair will undertake to review the matter and report back as soon as possible.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I say this with great trepidation. I call Committee of Supply A, the Ministry of Finance estimates. In the main House, I call committee on Bill 22.

COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

The House in committee on Bill 22; D. Lovick in the chair.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 39.

SKILLS, TRAINING AND LABOUR STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

The House in committee on Bill 39; D. Lovick in the chair.

Sections 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

L. Hanson: It appears that the

section would repeal a $15 fine and put in place a $2,000 fine or imprisonment for up to six months for someone who practises hairdressing without a licence. I haven't heard of any huge scandals or problems in the province with this causing great harm to our society, our justice system, or anything else. Maybe the minister can give us some idea why what appears to be a substantial change to the act is necessary.

Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the member's concern, but let me assure you that we are not changing the rules, and we have not determined that those who practise hairdressing without the appropriate licence have committed some heinous crime. All we are doing is removing the $15 fine, which has not been adjusted since the 1930s. Rather than prescribing the penalties in the act, we are simply making the penalties reference the Offence Act, and that's the range. It is quite normal to have quite a degree of latitude with respect to what might be an appropriate fine under the Offence Act, even though the upper limit....

I think one can look at other situations around the province where there are requirements for licences and offences that are subject to the Offence Act, but it doesn't automatically.... No one should assume that practising hairdressing without a licence has become a capital offence.

L. Hanson: I'm not going to belabour this point. I understand the minister's concern for conformity, but by the same token this almost seems a bit ridiculous. I'd like to get some indication of how many times the $15 fine might have been applied.

Hon. D. Miller: The issue of the appropriate penalty would be determined by the courts. I think there's some legitimate debate here, whether or not one would want to continue. As a previous member of government, the member knows that the difficulty with prescribing the fine in legislation is that any adjustments -- and there should be reasonable adjustments from time to time -- require amendments that have to be debated in this House; in other words, they require legislation versus the system that simply lists infractions but leaves the job of determining an appropriate penalty under the Offence Act to the courts.

It is common practice in most legislation, and I would hope that the member would agree that having

an act that has not been looked at with respect to these fines since the thirties.... It doesn't make a lot of sense for us to take 50 or 60 years to update these on a regular basis. There's nothing nefarious here. I don't know how often the thing was used. Quite frankly, I would suggest that with such a low fine, it was probably never pursued. Why would you want to spend the time and effort to pursue someone who committed an infraction under the act for $15? It would cost you more than you would recover through the fine. This is very practical, and as I say, it's not nefarious in the least.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

L. Reid: I'm referring to the Pension Benefits Standards Act. For clarification, perhaps we can have some sense of the costs that will result from the changes indicated under

section 11(8)(b). Any change to a benefit obviously has an attendant cost. Could the minister perhaps reflect on that?

Hon. D. Miller: There really is no cost issue. Let me take a stab at it. I apologize; I'm doing this without having the appropriate staff here, but I think I'm reasonably conversant with the issue. In second reading, I think I explained the issue that had arisen as a result of the Khol case. In other words, where the Pension Benefits Standards Act and the public pension.... What's the correct name of the act? Where those applied, it was clear, in our view, that the Pension Benefits Standards Act applied to public sector pension plans.

The Pension Benefits Standards Act says that where the spouse.... Let me give you the history of the Khol case and then come back to the explanation. In the Khol case, the deceased had previously been married. About 20 or 30 years previous, the spouse had disappeared and could not be found. The individual who held the pension died, and the surviving dependents then applied to be the beneficiaries of the pension plan.

The courts, in our view -- and I don't know if I'm in error here; I'll apologize in advance -- incorrectly determined that they could not allow the survivors to collect the pension because the deceased person had been married, even though the whereabouts of the spouse wasn't known. The survivors were denied benefits under the plan.

Clearly, that is not our intention under the Pension Benefits Standards Act. To correct that problem, we are making an amendment to make it very clear that the Pension Benefits Standards Act applies to public plans, so that in the case I've described, the survivors would not have encountered the difficulty they had in receiving the benefit that is rightly theirs from the deceased member's pension plan. That's the fundamental issue at stake with respect to the amendment. There's no cost, as such, to the public. In my

[ Page 11352 ]

view, it's simply correcting a deficiency that could potentially deprive survivors -- in very narrow cases, nonetheless some -- of benefits they would otherwise be entitled to.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments, and I appreciate his flexibility in going forward without appropriate staff in place. Certainly I trust that he has given us the correct information, and I accept that.

Sections 11 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

L. Reid:

Section 14 repeals

section 57 of the Pension Benefits Standards Act and replaces it with the requirement that the employer pay the costs of winding up a pension plan if the employer remains in operation after the plan winds up. Could you give me some background on that?

Hon. D. Miller: I can't cite an actual case, but I'll give you the theory. As most members are aware, there has been a significant change in the Pension Benefits Standards Act -- for the better. Quite frankly, we've come into the twentieth century with respect to regulating pension plans. The fundamental issue is that we want members of pension plans to have the security of knowing that those plans will be funded, so that in the event that an employer goes out of business, they would still collect their entitlement to that particular plan.

We had a recent case involving the Westar plan, which I think is still subject to some final completion. Nonetheless, for illustrative purposes, in that particular case the company wound up its operations. I won't go into the history of that and BCRIC and all the rest of it. Suffice it to say, they wound up their operations with a fund that could not continue to pay, either to the existing retirees or to those who would retire in the future, the benefit level that had been negotiated, because there simply wasn't enough money in the plan.

That is why the Pension Benefits Standards Act has brought in a new regime that requires, over a reasonable period of time, all pension plans to pass what is called a solvency test. Very roughly speaking, the solvency test is: if everything stopped today, could all those people who are already in retirement and those who have benefits coming at various stages over the next number of years collect what they are due from the plan?

[3:00]

What we're saying here is that where a plan winds up, but the employer -- for whatever reason; and I'd like to give you a real instance, but I just can't think of one at the moment -- still remains in business, we think it's unfair for the costs of winding up the plan, which often involves the courts and lawyers and all that, to be borne by the plan members. Instead, they should be borne by that employer who continues to operate in business. That, I think, is a very fair and reasonable approach rather than saddling those individuals, who will suffer -- as in the case, for example, of Westar.

For people already on pension to have a 24 percent cut, I think it was, is pretty heavy. We think the costs of winding up should be more properly carried by the employer if that employer continues in business.

L. Reid: From the minister's comments, am I to understand that winding up simply means securing the appropriate dollars, to have them in place for when person X is eligible to collect them?

[F. Garden in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: No, the windup is a culminating event that normally would be, for example, a court order or an agreement through a bankruptcy firm, or whatever the term is -- specialists who come in to wind up the affairs of companies that have gone under. So there are clearly additional costs; legal costs are involved. There is a moment in time when an order or direction is issued that would determine what the benefits might be for those who are already retired and for those who may retire in the future. It's not an thing that keeps going on for years; it really is to do the work to wind things down.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's patience on this question, because this is certainly not my field of expertise in any way, shape or form. I simply want to have the minister confirm that if "Person X" were to retire at 40, and the pension plan was to be wound up based on the employer paying the costs of that, that person would indeed still have a secure pension 15 years down the road, or whenever it happens to be. Is that what I am to understand from the minister's comments?

Hon. D. Miller: With the arrival of my assistant deputy minister, I received some new information that doesn't retract a lot of what I've said, but it does indicate that this

section deals with those instances where there has been a voluntary windup -- in other words, where, presumably under agreement, there has been a windup of an existing plan but that employer continues in business, it simply obliges the employer, not the plan members, to bear the cost associated with winding the plan up.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comment. Once "Plan A" is wound up, as an example, the person still has some eligibility and some security around receiving a pension at a later date. This is simply the technical financial management of the plan.

Hon. D. Miller: That is correct.

L. Hanson: I found the minister's answer regarding this

section interesting. If a pension plan is terminated and the sponsoring employer continues or intends to continue in operation, the expenses incurred to wind up the plan must be paid by the employer. On the surface, with a quick analysis, it would seem to make some sense; but I suspect that under some circumstances.... I don't know which ones would cause this circumstance, but let me give you another circumstance. What if the pension plan is wound up at the request of the employees? If the employer were prepared to continue with their contribution to the pension plan, why would they be required to fund the termination?

Hon. D. Miller: I can't really foresee where that might take place. I'm not saying it wouldn't. Presumably, that would be by agreement. In other words, there would be an agreement between the employer and the employees with respect to costs associated with windup.

Section 57(1), says:

"Subject to subsection (2), if a pension plan is terminated and the plan does not provide for payment of the expenses incurred to wind up the plan, the superintendent may, in writing, permit to be paid out of the plan, in priority to benefits, those expenses of winding up that the superintendent considers reasonable in the circumstances."

That would be covered by that section.

L. Hanson: Subsection (2) seems to say that in any case where a pension plan is terminated, the employer -- if he

[ Page 11353 ]

continues in business -- has to pay the windup costs. I recognize that, in subsection (1), "if a pension plan is terminated and the plan does not provide for payment of the expenses incurred to wind up the plan" -- I suspect that may be the original formation of the plan they're talking about, or the bylaws of the plan or whatever you might call them -- the rules of the plan could say that, in some circumstances, if the plan is terminated it can be paid out of the plan. The second subsection seems to say if there isn't anything there and the employer continues in business, he has no choice. That's the end of the game and it must happen.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm now surrounded by good advice from people who are much more informed on pension plans than myself, and that's as it should be.

Really, a couple of scenarios could take place. If the plan does not provide for payment -- in other words, if there has been no agreement on who would pay for the expenses of windup -- then the superintendent may permit the windup costs to be paid out of the plan. But if a pension plan is terminated and the sponsoring employer continues in business, then we think it's right and proper that that employer have the expense of winding up the plan. I don't think there's a contradiction at all in that respect.

One presumes that in the former case they're mostly involuntary -- maybe it's the Westar example, under 57(1). I'm trying to construct a theoretical situation. I assume if Westar had stayed in business.... It wasn't voluntary, but I don't have any real examples to illustrate that point where an employer stays in business but wants to wind up a plan for whatever reasons -- moving into another business or something else. I think it's quite reasonable.

On an involuntary basis -- and I suggest that is really the bulk of what we're talking about -- there is an opportunity for the expenses to be covered by the money in the plan. But where an employer continues in business, that employer has the obligation of the windup costs.

L. Hanson: I don't want to belabour the point, but I suppose we don't want to get back to Bill 22 too fast. In any case, it appears to me that the way this is written it does provide some bias in one direction. But I respect where that might come from philosophically. In any case, I'll accept that explanation.

V. Anderson: Talking about the winding up of plans, I would like to ask the minister: is there any protection here for companies that go bankrupt? I know companies in other provinces are required to hold their pension plan in a trust account outside the company. If they go bankrupt, those funds aren't taken by other people, so there's nothing left for the pensioners. Is there any provision for those plans to be held outside the company in a trust account, so they and therefore the pensioners are protected against the bankruptcy?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that pension plans are a trust fund and employees are protected. The difficulty arises with the issue I cited in the Westar case, where the company wound up, albeit on an involuntary basis, and the pension fund did not contain sufficient money to continue the benefits as per the agreement.

V. Anderson: To follow up on that, if I understand the direction of the discussion, is it the minister's intention that the solvency of those funds would be maintained, so that they would be protected? And is that protection unique to this province? Will they be maintained up to the amount of that protection, whether inside or outside the company?

Hon. D. Miller: That is the case.

L. Reid: Probably two questions back, we were chatting about the costs of winding up a pension plan, and you were making a case that it should be borne by the employer. In that pensions are created in this province on a cost-shared basis, is there any indication as to why it would not be possible in some circumstances to share the cost of winding up a pension plan between the employee and the employer?

Hon. D. Miller: The act is clear. It says that if there has not been a provision to wind up a plan, the costs are taken from the fund and the employees pay for it. There's an old labour theory that money contributed to pensions is unpaid wages. I'm not going to promulgate that at this point, but....

L. Reid: You're wiser?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I may be wise, maybe not. Nonetheless, it is a benefit. It clearly is money that is not received in the direct form of wages. And there is an infinite variety of pension plans -- some that require employee contributions, some that don't. I don't think that because employees may be required in some instances to be contributors to a pension plan, it automatically follows that they would have the obligation to pay part of the windup costs on the shutdown of a pension plan. I don't think it follows at all. In fact, I would argue very strongly that that not be the case.

In practicality, most of the time that we're talking about plans winding up, we're talking about businesses that are shutting down. I say again that the employees include those who already are retired. How would you like to be on pension after working 30 years in the forest industry -- not a great pension -- and have something like this happen? They'll say: "Well, sorry, the result of this is that we're going to cut your pension by 24 percent." It's not very attractive, is it? You don't have an opportunity to make that up anywhere. I don't necessarily see that we need to impose any greater obligation on the beneficiaries of the plan.

L. Reid: Hon. minister, not to belabour the point, I was simply asking if the option existed, not that it should be all one way or all the other way. Will your

interpretation of this legislation allow that an option may indeed be practicable at some point? Without asking the minister to make hypothetical considerations, can he see, as it stands, whether an option would be possible?

Hon. D. Miller: I believe that is the case.

Sections 14 to 16 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Miller: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

[3:15]

[ Page 11354 ]

Bill 39, Skills Training and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 1994, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Miller: I call committee on Bill 13.

WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

The House in committee on Bill 13; F. Garden in the chair.

section 1.

A. Warnke: I just want to get a quick clarification. Sections 1(

c) through (

g) make reference to medical.... Let's take

section 1(c), for example: "...by striking out 'medical aid' wherever it appears and substituting 'health care'." Just by way of a very quick clarification, by making that adjustment, health care would include medical aid, would it not?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I think health care is simply a broader term.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the minister can give us an explanation as to why this request is made by the Workers' Compensation Board. There has to be a reason for it, I assume. Can you just let us know what that reasoning is?

Hon. D. Miller: I apologize. I've made a significant adjustment to my schedule, having come prepared to do Bills 22 and 23 in sequence. I have not consulted with staff, nor do I have staff on standby with respect to these. I'll go from my best memory, which is a little dated at this point.

Currently, as I understand it, the regulations are made by government. This simply gives the board the flexibility to make regulations respecting the matters listed in (a), (

b) and (c). I think that's only right and proper, given the changes that are taking place and the need to give the board the ability to make changes, rather than have those come back through government. So it's conferring the power on the board.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the minister could enlighten me. There are obviously a number of things that the board makes regulations on and a number of things that the government makes regulations on. I understand that the minister is at a bit of a disadvantage. Does he have any idea, though, of the reasoning for this decision and these issues coming to the board? Is there an administrative reason or just a general policy reason for that?

Hon. D. Miller: The member is right. All members are aware of the significant change made a few short years ago to administer the WCB system through an appointed board of governors drawn from the labour community, the employer community and public interest governors. These requests for change, of course, have come from the board of governors. It's my view that they in fact have the expertise.

We could continue to go through the process where the board would have to come to government and say: "You make the regulatory changes." But in matters that affect rights, benefits and entitlements to workers, it seems to me to be fit and proper -- given that we've got that governing structure -- that the board have the flexibility to make regulations dealing with the issues that are listed.

G. Farrell-Collins: There has been talk out there among the various interested parties in the Workers' Compensation Board that a great deal of policy being set by the Workers' Compensation Board seems to be coming from the appeals commission, and that policy is being made that way rather than a policy decision being made, implemented and then the appeals commissioner adjudicating on that. I've certainly heard a number of comments in that regard. I'm wondering if this request came from the appeals commissioner through to the board, or is it a general administrative change to try to make things clearer or simpler.

What's the rationale for this very specific request? It's not a whole series of regulations that they'd like to be responsible for; it's one in particular. Perhaps it was an oversight some time in the past and just needs to be rectified. I don't know that, and I'm just trying to determine from the minister the intent of bringing forth this one. What was the impetus for this decision and request coming forward? Does he have any background on that, particularly with regard to the appeals commissioner?

Hon. D. Miller: Before I respond, I would ask the indulgence of the Chair to have the ability to propose an amendment. I had intended to have a proposed amendment to the bill. Clearly, I did not anticipate that we would be debating in committee at this stage.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't want to stand it down, because there may be some issues.... I'm not sure where we might go next, given that we've adjusted this

schedule significantly for the benefit of other members.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: All I'm asking is for the Chair to say that I will be proposing an amendment and reserving the right to come back to the particular

section -- if that's agreeable to other members of the House.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: No, maybe not on this section. I'm not exactly certain of the

section at this point.

The Chair: Okay, it seems that we have a consensus on this particular action requested by the minister.

Hon. D. Miller: Just in response to the question, I don't think it's true that the appeal board sets policy or that matters of appeal set policy. Certainly they determine issues of precedence over time, but ultimately the system is run by a board of governors. I think that people who have the interests of the system at heart and are cognizant of the pressures that exist on the Workers' Compensation Board....

There are cost issues and emerging issues that, I think, are quite challenging for the board -- such as stress and questions about what should rightfully be considered, not necessarily injuries but more under the heading of occupational diseases. There are some very significant challenges for that group of individuals, and I compliment them on trying to deal with those in a good way.

[ Page 11355 ]

The policy is made by the board. Clearly, as with any operation that is a creature of government, from time to time the government will reserve the right to make the changes that it feels are in the public interest. I don't think members would quarrel with that premise at all.

The Chair: Members, we'll go through the sections and deal with them in the normal manner, and we'll vote later. You raise the questions, and then we'll go through the voting procedures at the appropriate time. At this point we're still asking questions on

section 3, I presume.

Interjections.

The Chair: Could we have order for the questioner, please. Go ahead, member.

A. Warnke: I just want to raise this with the minister. At second reading there was some discussion as to how this

section will affect those who have been disabled as a result of hearing loss. Rather than asking one question after another, I want to point out to the minister -- just to make this definitive, I suppose -- that subsection (

b) reads "the percentages of disability." Technically speaking, it's very general -- disability to what? -- when it's interjected between (

a) and (c), which refer to "hearing loss." I'm assuming that (

b) could read "the percentages of this disability," if it refers specifically to hearing loss. I'm not sure about that. The minister might want to respond to it. Do "the percentages of disability" refer to hearing loss exclusively or to disability in general?

Hon. D. Miller: The issue is (b). I think your question was whether (

b) refers to disabilities in general or is specific to hearing. The answer is it's specific to hearing.

The Chair: Before I recognize the member once more, we can now get back to the regular procedure. We have the amendments lined up in the order that they shall appear. So we'll deal with each

section now and finish the questions and put the question to the House. The member continues.

A. Warnke: Thank you, hon. Chair. It's good to see normalcy return.

I thank the minister for that clarification. It's a very minor one. Nonetheless, I would also like to hear from the minister about the impact this particular

section will have on those who make claims on the basis of hearing loss. There's the whole question of what is defined as a range of hearing loss. If the minister recalls, there was some discussion on this side that hearing loss may actually vary according to age. As a matter of fact, it does for one age group of the working population, and that may include some people who have retired or who can no longer work. There's a large blip in the population. There must be some data on that somewhere.

Of course, it raises the matter that outside of that bulge in the population that suffers from hearing loss, there are succeeding generations which may have worn ear protection and all the rest of it. The fact is that we want some sort of definition as to what constitutes the range of hearing loss. Mind you, I would accept it if the minister wants to propose that while this needs some further clarification, we could just pass regulations on it. That would be an acceptable answer, as far as I'm concerned.

[3:30]

I just want to have some sense of the impact of proposing

section 3. What sort of impact will it have on those who suffer from hearing loss? Who would it likely include now that it did not include before? Then there's another point -- while I'm on it, I'll get it all out of my system. There was a point raised by the member for Surrey-Cloverdale as to the specific impact of tinnitus as suffered in the workplace. I'm wondering if the minister might comment on those.

Hon. D. Miller: I didn't respond to that last night. I was a bit intrigued about what I perceived to be a small dichotomy in position. On the one hand, arguing about.... I believe that same member used hyperbole in describing the position of the costs at the board. In fact, as I recall, the specific word he used in question period last week was that costs are "skyrocketing." I was a bit intrigued by his plea that we expand the system and accept more people with hearing loss.

In discussion last night with one of my staff we concluded that it would probably add about 17 to 20 percent to the cost structure of the WCB if we followed that member's advice -- that very member who appeared to be chastising the government over skyrocketing costs.

To answer the question with respect to the issue, there is no difference between the system now and what is proposed, except that the board has the regulation. They are in the best position to deal with changes in technology, measurability and the rest of it. All of us, I presume, suffer some hearing loss. I notice that myself occasionally -- not just when I'm trying to listen to members of the opposition or the Chair. A formula and test are applied that are designed to separate normal hearing loss from loss that might be attributable to working in a very loud industrial workplace. So there is a formula and there are tables that we use.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

L. Hanson:

Section 5 deals with the ability of the board to enter into agreements with other authorities for the administration of claims that may have originated in other provinces. It seems to me that because British Columbia is such a wonderful place to live, our in-migration is much larger than our out-migration. While

section 2(

b) provides for payment -- which I would imagine deals with the authority, because of a reciprocal agreement, to pay in the correct jurisdiction costs that might be incurred in another jurisdiction; and I suppose that you could interpret it to say that it would allow administrative costs -- it would seem to me that it would be well to point out that that should be recoverable or may be recoverable by that interjurisdictional agreement.

That's why I proposed the motion I filed with the Clerk, and I would make that motion at this time. It would simply add words in

section 2(

b) so that it says: "...provide for payment to the appropriate authority of Canada or a province for compensation, rehabilitation costs, administration costs and/or health care costs paid by it." So it would be permissive, but not demanding.

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Miller: With respect, I'm going to oppose it, and I will try and offer an explanation that might be acceptable to the member.

Generally, administrative costs are captured in every system, and are difficult to isolate. I don't know that this would be practical or workable. We do have arrangements with the other systems to recapture those kinds of costs. I don't think that adding the words "administrative costs" is

[ Page 11356 ]

going to assist the board. It may be there and simply not.... As words, it's not going to have any real meaning or impact. With all due respect, I think I appreciate the member's concern. There has been concern about administrative costs, although I must say that despite the concern.... I note that some auditors' reports were undertaken that described some concern of the two large national auditing firms that looked at the WCB. One noted the increase in administrative costs between 1987 and 1991 -- not with alarm, but nonetheless noting that in that period there had been an increase in administrative costs.

Members may be pleased to know that the board has budgeted zero for increase in administrative costs in 1994-95, and that our administrative costs.... You could use a number of statistical approaches to determine how your organization is functioning. Administrative costs in our system are relative to a number of different factors: the total assessments taken in a year, the number of applications for claims and the number of individuals served. When we measure our administrative costs in relation to those separate functions we find that our administrative costs are down.

They may be up in terms of total dollars, but measured against what the system is delivering, our administrative costs are down. Those are statistics; I am not manufacturing them, and I don't propose to get into an extensive debate here; it may be more appropriate for estimates debate. Nonetheless, those statistical measurements are available, and I'll be pleased to deal with that more fully in estimates.

In this case the

section allows the board to enter into an agreement to make an arrangement with Canada, a province or the appropriate authority to provide for compensation.

Section 8.1(1)(

b) provides for "administrative co-operation and assistance between jurisdictions in all matters...." That again covers the issue of administrative costs. I think the issue is well covered in the wording that exists in the proposed amendment.

L. Hanson: I appreciate the minister's enthusiasm about the administrative process within the WCB, but that is far from what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the ability of the WCB to enter into reciprocal agreements with other agencies in Canada to cover administrative costs. I recognize that there are some unwritten agreements in place that have a surcharge on the actual cost of rehabilitation and the cost of compensation that covers administrative charges.

But as the minister himself has presented an amendment, surely this amendment could be accepted on the basis that it just makes good common sense and points out to the board that it may be part of the agreement. I think it would make good sense to the board and the other agencies. I know the minister is reluctant to agree to amendments, but this would just seem to make good sense.

Hon. D. Miller: The member is correct; I do have a reluctance. If it were my view that the amendment contributed to the

section -- and I say this with all due respect -- I don't think I would have that reluctance. I'm not saying that instinctively or simply because it's the government's piece of legislation. I don't operate on that basis. It's not an issue that I have had an opportunity to canvass. I'm advised that it's not necessary. I would be happy to ask the board to explore the issue, and if there were reasonable grounds -- if there were issues that were not being dealt with through the interjurisdictional agreements that the board enters into -- I'd be quite prepared to seek change in the future.

I don't think that is the case, and I don't wish at all to turn the amendment down simply because it was proposed by the opposition. But I'm not convinced that the amendment is required. On that basis, it's clearly prudent of me to say that I would prefer that we not proceed with the member's amendment. I'm not loath to discuss the topic subsequently in more depth in meetings with the board or in whichever fashion the member might choose.

L. Hanson: Just one final comment. I suspect during estimates that we will probably get into some in-depth discussion of administrative processes at the WCB, but that really doesn't have anything to do with the amendment. I suggest to the minister that a whole bunch of things in this act are not necessary if push comes to shove. The fact is that a lot of things in there show that the government would approve of the WCB entering into these sorts of things. That's fair and a good reason to include this

section within the act, but I'm not going to unduly delay the proceedings of committee stage simply because of that. I think it's poor judgment if it isn't accepted, that's all.

Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate what the member has said. I am going to stick to the position that I've enunciated, but I am prepared to explore that further and will specifically ask for more advice with respect to what the member is talking about -- I'd be happy to.

The member made quite a statement. As the former minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Board, he has indicated that all kinds of things in the act are unnecessary. I haven't been here as long as he was in his past life, but he may indeed....

L. Hanson: I was talking about Bill 13.

Hon. D. Miller: Oh, I thought you were talking about the Workers Compensation Act. I'm sorry.

I regretfully decline the amendment, hon. Chair.

L. Reid: I'm speaking to the amendment. The minister rose and, as the Blues will attest, said it was not possible to isolate the administrative costs. Then he proceeded to go through and isolate the administrative costs as per his recollection of the two audits that have been performed on the WCB. If it is indeed possible, it certainly flaws his argument that he could not support this amendment.

I know it is possible to isolate the administrative costs of the WCB, and I would trust -- based on this new revelation from the minister -- that he could support this amendment because, as the member has said, it makes good sense. It does not detract from what this minister hopes to do and, in fact, supports his earlier contention. When something comes around full circle and puts you in a positive light, it seems to me that it makes good sense to accept that.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't think I really said that. Let me try to give a broader explanation.

L. Reid: The Blues will show it.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, the Blues will show that I said what I said. I'm not retracting one word of that. But let me try to explain more fully, perhaps, what I did say. I talked about the issue of administrative cost and the question of how one measures the efficiency of an organization. Clearly, I said that administrative cost is an issue that's been raised.

We can look at the total administrative costs of the entire organization. And we can measure those costs against

[ Page 11357 ]

delivery. What are the outputs? What do we expect out of the organization? Is the administrative cost of delivering a specific output, whether it's -- and I cited some statistics last night -- the number of first aid courses put on, the field visits inspectors carry out...? There are a number of functions or outputs of any organization. It's always prudent that we measure our total administrative costs against those kinds of outputs.

What I said with respect to the difficulty in determining administrative cost was on the basis of individuals. If the member is suggesting.... We would certainly drive

administrative costs up dramatically if I had to set up, or ask the board to set up, a branch within the organization to try to isolate in every case, with every injury claim or application, the administrative cost incurred with every application. Clearly we'd have to have taken leave of our senses if we wanted to pursue that. It doesn't make any sense. You need to measure outputs on a broader basis.

I don't think I said anything contradictory at all. I hope the member understands the explanation I'm trying to give now. It's quite a rational one that I think any manager would support, regardless of whether you're talking about a public body or, indeed, a private one.

[3:45]

Not to pick on any member, but I notice there's a member on the opposite side who has a store, a retail outlet. Is it prudent, hon. member, that you specifically isolate the administrative cost of every function carried on in that outlet? I don't think so. But you know what your total administrative costs are. And you can deduce, based on a number of factors that might be appropriate for a retail outlet, how many items of whatever it is you sold and what your overhead cost was. You can isolate your overheads, your fixed costs, your rents, your taxes, your salaries, etc.

So really I don't think I've said anything contradictory at all. As I say, I think any manager I've ever talked to, whether in the private or public sector, would agree with what I'm saying now.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have two points. First of all, in support of the amendment, the minister should be aware that when you don't measure something you'll never get there. If you don't set it up -- this is something you need to measure -- and you don't actually do the measuring in management, you won't ever achieve it, because there's no reason to achieve it.

In many cases I think that's what has happened, throughout not just the Workers' Compensation Board but many large organizations -- certainly large private sector corporations and even public sector organizations; the management structures and the measurement and management accounting tools aren't there. Indeed, a report -- several reports, actually -- on B.C. Transit said that the management accounting figures aren't there. You can't control costs.

You can't try to make a corporation or organization more efficient, because no management accounting principles are in place that allow managers to make decisions with that information. That's a choice the minister can choose to make: to say this is not a significant amount of money and the money invested in trying to achieve that by assigning administrative costs to the various sectors, or even the various numbers within that group of injured workers who come from elsewhere, is not something that makes fiscal sense. He can make that claim. That's fine.

He has to live by it, because of the numbers that he is going to have to look at. That's one aspect.

The other aspect is that the minister should be aware that while there are some informal processes in place to assign administrative costs -- from what I understood him and the member for Okanagan-Vernon, the former minister, to say -- when there's interprovincial allocation of resources in an informal way, administrative costs are taken into account as part of the process. By leaving it out of this section, the minister may be deliberately, in fact, prohibiting.... He may end up saying to those administrators: "Gee, we can't allow for it because the minister didn't say it.

He specifically mentioned compensation, rehabilitation and health care costs, but he makes no reference whatsoever to administration costs. Therefore we're not allowed to do that, because the act does not allow us to do it."

I think there's some wisdom in the member's amendment. There's certainly no downside. All it does is instil in the act the authority to account for those costs in an interprovincial agreement -- much like he has for the compensation, rehabilitation and health care costs. I think it would be wise. The minister may choose not to do it, but I think it makes the legislation stronger and the system better. I don't see any real downside in putting the amendment in. I don't see what the risk is in doing that.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't agree with the member. I think the trick in operating an efficient organization is your ability to measure your output. Quite often, and quite frankly, the challenge is determining just what the output is. What do you expect out of any given system? I think when you're talking about administrative efficiency, it needs a little more careful insight or look than.... I think I'm essentially correct. Using the WCB language, your cost per individual that you serve goes down, then one can conclude that it may be a statistical measure of efficiency.

I would also say that the wording being proposed may in fact be a handicap for British Columbia. I'll read it with the inclusion of the proposed amendment. First,

section 8.1(1) says: "The board may enter into an agreement or make an arrangement with Canada, a province...." Then

section 8.1(2) says: "An agreement or arrangement...may" -- and it has two sections there -- "(

a) waive or modify a residence or exposure requirement...or (

b) provide for payment to" -- not from, to -- "the appropriate authority of Canada or a province for compensation, rehabilitation costs, administration costs, or health care costs paid by it."

It seems to me that the intent of this wording is to impose an obligation on British Columbia that may not be reciprocal for Canada or those other jurisdictions that are mentioned in the act. On that point alone, it would seem to me -- and I know the members are concerned about costs -- that perhaps an abundance of caution might lead them to the conclusion that it might be rather foolish to include that in our act, when we have no guarantee that it would be contained in acts across the country. In fact, other provinces might point to our act and say: "Ante up; we want our administrative costs." Does that argument have some ring that might convince the members to abandon the amendment?

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. minister. Then perhaps the minister, using his own argument, would agree that by putting this act in place, we are doing the same thing with health care and rehabilitation costs that he just said in relation to administrative costs. If the minister is going to make the argument that including administrative costs in here obliges B.C. to pay, with no provision for other jurisdictions, in their acts, to pay B.C., then the act and that

section are fundamentally flawed. Using the minister's logic, there is no provision to allow those other jurisdictions to pay

[ Page 11358 ]

funds to British Columbia for rehabilitation costs or health care costs. So either there's an error in the minister's logic or there's an error in the bill.

Hon. D. Miller: Perhaps we got off to a bad start in terms of not having the staff available when we initially started this debate, trying to play catch-up.

As I understand it, previous agreements with other jurisdictions have only dealt with silicosis. This

section is intended to allow a broadening of the agreements across the country. I will read from one such agreement. This is entitled "Interjurisdictional Agreement on Workers' Compensation," and it's an agreement that has been accepted by all of the provinces.

Article 7.5 says:

"Where the statutory authority in the jurisdiction in which a claim is made prohibits or does not authorize the board to pay the full cost of the claim for the nature and degree of disability resulting from the occupational exposure, the boards in each of the jurisdictions in which the worker had such exposure employment shall reach an accord under which the beneficiary will be compensated fully in one of the following ways....

"...each board shall open a file and provide direct to the beneficiary benefits proportionate to the extent of exposure in its jurisdiction and according to the statutory authority or policy in its jurisdiction, and shall also pay a share of any health care or rehabilitation costs which shall be initially paid by the board in the jurisdiction of residence, based on the statutory authority or policy of that jurisdiction."

These are broad agreements between the systems that essentially allow workers who may have been injured in one province and move into another jurisdiction.... It allows flexibility between the boards across this country to make the kinds of arrangements that don't saddle British Columbia in this case. The member talked about British Columbia's position as one where there's been an in-migration.

It seems to me that we are belabouring the point. The

section is broad enough to allow the board to enter into the kinds of agreements that are good for British Columbia and that allow us to recapture payment for workers who may now reside in British Columbia but received an injury and established a claim in other provinces. It's as simple as that.

We are starting to repeat ourselves on this proposed amendment. I repeat, with all due respect, that I don't think it's prudent for me to entertain it.

The Chair: Taking into consideration the point about repetition, the Chair now recognizes the member for

Okanagan-Vernon.

L. Hanson: With regard to your remarks about repetition, I suspect that all members of the House fall into that trap from time to time. But when statements are made by the minister in response to questions -- I think the member's right -- it's only fair to be able to respond to those statements.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

The minister made a number of comments to the effect that it was a question of efficiency. I'm not sure how he related that.... Maybe it was that British Columbia is very efficient and the other provinces are not, and therefore any reciprocal agreement that included administrative costs might come out to our detriment.

The minister says it's difficult to measure the administrative costs of a claim. I wouldn't argue that, and I don't think anybody would. But I point out to the minister that the

section is simply permissive. It's not mandatory: it doesn't say "shall" enter into an agreement, simply that they may. If the workers' compensation boards in various jurisdictions see a great difficulty in entering into an agreement that includes these as they are amended because it's permissive, they probably won't enter into it. I'm just saying that it's good to point out in the legislation that enables them to enter into these agreements that they could consider all of the costs when they enter into them.

I won't add anything else.

Amendment negatived on division.

[4:00]

Hon. A. Edwards tabled documents referred to earlier in the day.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm just slowing it up a bit. I know the minister has an amendment outstanding on this section, so I'll yield to the minister.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Chair, do you want a motion to move the amendment standing in my name?

The Chair: The amendment as circulated is moved, then.

On the amendment.

G. Farrell-Collins: I assumed the minister was going to make some comments to justify the amendment, and I'd be glad to hear those.

Hon. D. Miller: The

section goes to the issue we talked about, which is the ability to file a claim for an occupational disease within three years of the link between the disease and the workplace being discovered. I think the wording simply clarifies the basis upon which that claim can be made.

G. Farrell-Collins: Very enlightening. I guess I'll have to ask for a bit more clarification. There obviously seems to be a shift in the intent of that section. Originally, it said when the employee became aware of the link. Now the amendment says when the board recognizes the link, which is substantially more restrictive -- which is fine. I was wondering if the minister can give us the rationale for that change.

Hon. D. Miller: The wording came from the governors. I guess the shift in emphasis is essentially giving the board the power to make a determination as to when the worker.... It's the board making the determination with respect to the link, rather than when the worker became aware of the link between the disease and the workplace. It really puts the determination with the board.

G. Farrell-Collins: I guess there is no reason. I was wondering what the justification or the reasoning is. I know what it does. I was wondering what the reasoning for the change was. Was it to try to clean it up, to make it tighter? What was the rationale for the change from having the onus on the employee, or their dependent in the event of death, to become aware of the link between the workplace and the disease, to the new system provided by this amendment, under which the link between the disease and the workplace

[ Page 11359 ]

is made by the board? There's a difference there, which the minister has enunciated. I'm just wondering: why the change? Obviously, in the first draft, the intent was to leave that up to the worker or their dependent to decide. In the second case, it's the board that decides.

Hon. D. Miller: The advice from the governors is that the change would give more certainty to the worker and would reduce the amount of time that might be involved in establishing a claim under this section.

G. Farrell-Collins: The

section as it presently stands in the bill,

section 3.2(

b) and (c), refers to the worker and the worker's dependent in the event of death. I assume that the dependent isn't included in the amendment, because the section, as it states in the bill, is with regard to the knowledge of the link coming forward. I assume, however, that under the new section, the dependents would still be entitled to those benefits if they filed a claim within that three-year period.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, the intention is clear that the dependent, in the case of a worker who is deceased, can make that claim.

A. Warnke: I want to explore with the minister one aspect that was also raised in second reading. Before the amendment that the minister has proposed was put forward here, the original bill did read: "...the application is filed within 3 years after the worker, or the worker's dependant if the worker has died, became aware of the available medical or scientific evidence...." As a matter of fact, some of us on this side were saying that maybe three years is a quibble that we could have.

Now, with the proposed amendment before us, it makes it very clear that instead it reads: "...3 years after the date sufficient medical or scientific evidence as determined by the board became available to the board."

I want to explore with the minister here how that is defined. Is that in terms of some explicit statement made by the board, or whatever? Maybe that could be clarified.

Hon. D. Miller: The board will have to make policy decisions with respect to that.

It's very difficult to stand up -- and I don't have a situation.... The one that's been given most often to me by workers is the situation that developed in the Alcan smelter, where there clearly was a direct link established with respect to some of the bladder cancers. At the time, that wasn't known. As we improve our ability to monitor, measure and determine that these links can be made.... I assume that silicosis at one point was not connected to working in mines.

Nonetheless, the board really has the final word with respect to establishing some set of criteria -- some test, if you like -- that needs to be passed with respect to accepting that link.

A. Warnke: Thanks to the minister for that. But then I suppose there is some concern here that, without some sort of precise date in mind as to when the board might put that forward, in fact.... It's very unclear. It may somewhat raise the suspicion that the board could put forward the suggestion: "Okay, under these conditions, this is when a date will be determined." We hope that would occur.

The problem is that there is still enough ambiguity here that it suggests the question: is three years sufficient? I guess I'm quibbling a bit here, too, as to whether three years could be extended beyond that somehow. As we are in a very complicated industrial setting and environment these days, sometimes three years is not sufficient. Perhaps some other criterion or some sort of extension of the three years could be applied. I don't know. I just would like to seek that out with the minister.

Hon. D. Miller: Just to clarify this subsection, either the individual claimant or his or her survivor has three years to file a claim after the point at which the link has been established. Clearly, I don't think we'd want to maintain an open-ended-forever kind of system. Three years is a reasonable period of time. It doesn't go to the amount of time that might be required for that link to be established; it could be ten years. But once it has been, then people have an opportunity -- and I think three years is reasonable -- to go back and make those claims.

G. Farrell-Collins: Obviously, when this type of amendment is put in, there comes a moral obligation -- on the part of the Workers' Compensation Board, anyway -- to go to some lengths to advise people when that decision has been made. Would physicians who deal with these people on an ongoing basis be receiving notice of a change in WCB policy that a new occupational disease or a new link with the workplace has been recognized? Then the physicians -- the GPs and specialists out there -- who see somebody coming to them with a specific illness or occupational disease can say: "Hey, I just got this notice.

We think this has been caused by the workplace." The doctor may well know that ahead of time, but he or she now would be aware that the Workers' Compensation Board is recognizing the link and offering compensation for that. Really, that's the line of communication that takes place between the physician and the injured worker. Is there going to be some undertaking on the part of the Workers' Compensation Board to make physicians, GPs and specialists aware when decisions are made with regard to the link between an occupational disease and the workplace?

Hon. D. Miller: There are processes in place now, through standing committees, to do that.

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

Section 9 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Miller: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 13, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 1994, reported complete with amendment.

[4:15]

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

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

Leave granted.

[ Page 11360 ]

Bill 13, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 1994, read a third time and passed.

D. Lovick: Before we call committee, I wonder whether I might have leave to make a brief introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf, I'd like to extend a welcome to a group of students from the state of Washington who are visiting us today. I'm sorry to report that I don't have the details with me, except to say that they're with Ms. Teague, and I believe the school is Fernwood School in Bothell, Washington. Is that correct? In any event, we have a group of students from Washington. I hope my colleagues in the House will help me make them welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: I call committee on Bill 22.

COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 22; D. Lovick in the chair.

section 3,

section 8.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I advise the committee that I will be proposing an amendment, perhaps when we complete this section, relative to the issue raised by the member from Kelowna with respect to the use of the word "principal." So I advise the members that I will be doing that subsequently.

G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister might discuss the question -- and I recognize the language is very similar to the existing act -- of the minister's powers with respect to the objectives of a provincial institute. This reads: "...perform other functions designated by the minister under

section 2(2)." Yet if you look at

section 2(2) in the act, it says the minister may designate "technical, vocational, artistic and other post secondary education or training for which instruction shall be given at a Provincial institute...." The question is: given that we are now moving to a new classification system, is the objective of this to move provincial institutes more directly into apprenticeship-type programs? And can the minister tell us whether those apprenticeship-type programs are linked to employers' obligations for training, in the context of new government policies and legislation that promote the development of these kinds of apprenticeship and skills training programs?

Hon. D. Miller: There is really no change from the existing act.

C. Tanner: When the minister stood up just a few minutes ago, he mentioned an amendment. I wasn't sure whether the amendment is coming in on what I'm calling

section 8 or in the succeeding section.

Interjection.

The Chair: Does that clarify, member? Okay.

Section 3,

section 8 approved.

section 3,

section 9.

C. Tanner: I sat here patiently all morning waiting for this

section to come up, because in my view this is the nub of the changes in this bill. To date, we have had community colleges, and it seems to me we're now getting colleges that are going to be orchestrated by their boards. The boards are of a far different composition than they were up to now. That has some concern for me, and the minister said this morning a number of times that he wanted to hear our concerns. My concern is primarily with this

section and from here on. The changes made in

section 9 and succeeding sections, particularly

section 11, are very far-reaching and, in my view, an enormous change in the way boards are going to be run and community colleges are going to be organized. What adds to my concern is one that has been expressed by the community college in a constituency adjacent to mine. What adds to that concern is the recent example in Montreal at Concordia University of a report which says that universities don't as a policy -- and that particular one is a policy across the province -- look after themselves very well. They don't administer themselves well, because by the very nature of the people who are involved in universities, they don't get training in administration. That gives me some concern too.

In this particular case we are making a radical change to the board. There are eight voting members, as I understand it, four of whom are going to be members of the faculty, the staff or the student body. Of the eight voting members, with the president and the chair of the education council not voting, you have a position where the staff has equal weight on the board with those members appointed to protect the community's interest. To start with, would the minister tell us how he came to the decision to split the board fifty-fifty between those people employed or taught at the school and those people who are representing what, in my view, is the community's interest?

Hon. D. Miller: It's not split fifty-fifty.

C. Tanner: As I read

section 9, it says that a board is composed of eight or more persons appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Then it says that two of those will be students, one will be a member of the faculty and one will be a person who is in staff support -- that's four.

Hon. D. Miller: If there is some confusion, the persons listed below (

a) are in addition to the eight.

C. Tanner: If that's the case, that does away with one of my reservations. On the other hand, I still wonder about a board composed of people who have an interest which is different than the community's -- it's their own. While I know there are other instances where this happens, and since I understand that the minister has met with an association of community college presidents and board members who expressed this view to him, would the minister be good enough to give us his

interpretation of how the board is going to work when people are incorporated into decisions which affect themselves?

Hon. D. Miller: One should at least give credit to.... We don't name individuals in the legislation; we describe the places those people come from. All of us should assume that those people are vitally interested in education and in their communities. Certainly that was what I was hearing from the leader of the third, fourth or fifth party this morning. We wouldn't want to prejudice our opinion or anyone's opinion

[ Page 11361 ]

of those individuals, whether they be the students on that campus or the person from the support staff. I think that quite often they all have the same interests -- as we find in this chamber. We sometimes don't see it, but we probably have a lot of the same interests too.

In dealing with issues earlier today, I indicated that the board has an obligation to pass bylaws dealing with issues where a conflict may arise, as university boards do now. University boards have student and faculty representatives. The faculty are not represented by the same organization as the college faculty; they're tenured. Nonetheless, they are faculty, and through their association they negotiate with the university administration for salaries and those types of things.

Where there is a conflict, those members would have to absent themselves from decisions that have a direct bearing on their particular circumstance, as one of your members absented himself last night, I believe -- although unnecessarily, I think -- from a debate on community colleges simply because he is probably on a leave of absence or is a teacher or whatever in a community college. I think that's quite foolish.

What it says is.... I don't see the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast absenting himself, and neither do I think he should. He's got something to contribute; he comes out of the system. I think the member from Richmond should take

part in the debate as well. I don't think you can perceive it as a conflict. Where there's a direct interest for an individual.... Where you're voting, for example, on whether or not to offer a particular salary package to support staff, then clearly in the case where a support staff person is a member of the board, that person absents himself. That's very clear. There will be bylaws brought down by the institution that will clearly spell those things out.

C. Tanner: Could the minister tell us whether he did in fact meet with an association of community college boards? Could he tell us what opinions and advice they offered, and what reservations they had concerning this section?

Hon. D. Miller: We have met on many occasions. I attended a delightful lunch out in Surrey shortly after I was sworn in as minister. The association is called the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia. I had several meetings with them and some very fruitful discussions. As a result of those and of the advice we've received from the Advanced Education Council, individual board members, board chairs, presidents and faculty, we put together this legislation.

C. Tanner: If the Advanced Education Council is the same group that I'm thinking of, the advice I have had from some members of that group is that in their discussions with the minister, they asked him to refrain from putting anybody on the committee who was a member of the faculty, the staff or the student body. I think the suggestion they made was that they should be on an advisory committee. They had no problem with that, but they didn't want them on the board committee. Isn't that in fact the case? It is, certainly, with the presidents' group.

Hon. D. Miller: No, I think the member is in error. I'm not going to suggest that everything is always sweetness and light, and in fact I indicated quite clearly this morning that there are a variety of opinions on the makeup of the board. In fact, let me say that with respect to the board, I think there was probably no disagreement about the addition of the staff or faculty. If there's an area of disagreement that the member might wish to canvass, it's with regard to the education councils, which is in a subsequent

section of the bill.

[4:30]

C. Tanner: Community colleges were set up specifically for the community. They've been reasonably successful in filling a need that has existed between high schools and universities; they've filled the need very well. But surely the emphasis was on community, and if you take away the ability of the community to control them at the board level, you are changing the structure of the community college. I know you had that discussion this morning with another member, but it was from a different point of view, not the point of view that I'm coming from.

I'm saying that I don't think that there should be staff on those boards, and I'm not even convinced that there should be students. But if there should be students, there should be some conditions imposed on those people being elected. Because, if you look at them, three of those four people on that board -- one of them with no vote -- will probably change every year. Consequently, you're going to get a succession of fairly green participants in those decisions. I don't think that's necessarily a healthy thing.

Hon. D. Miller: I must say that I am somewhat surprised. Is the member also in favour of removing faculty and student representation from university boards, where they have been for many years?

C. Tanner: It's for you to propose and for me to oppose. It's not my decision what's happening on university boards; that's the status quo. I'm asking the minister why he would make a change in community colleges when, in my view, it's in opposition to what they were set up for in the first place.

Hon. D. Miller: It's not in opposition. Two-thirds of the members are community representatives. They serve their communities well. The boards accept the changes being proposed. In fact, some do it by practice right now. There really is no contention, hon. member. With all due respect, two-thirds of the board, as I indicated previously, are appointments of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- people from the faculty who presumably....

C. Serwa: Look after self-interest.

Hon. D. Miller: When that member for Okanagan West gets up, we can predict what he's going to talk about. Right now I'm addressing the interests of the member for Saanich North and the Islands.

As I said earlier, I think we should give some credit and assume that students who attend an institution actually have an interest in the institution, and that faculty and support staff who work in an institution actually have an interest. They probably live in those communities. I don't think that the member is on the right track. Perhaps we might have a more appropriate debate on the education council.

C. Tanner: The minister has been too involved and is too old a hand at the negotiating game not to know that it would be a real advantage to him if he sat on the decision-making body that was going to give him his salary. When he was involved in the business of negotiating with his company, he didn't sit on both sides of the fence. He knows very well that's the case.

In this case I'm not just talking about salaries. I'm talking about hiring practices; I'm talking about working conditions; I'm talking about the circumstances of the community

[ Page 11362 ]

college in general. The employees who are beneficiaries of those discussions can sit in on them and have an ability to influence the decisions. From my point of view, that is not a safe way to proceed in our society today.

The minister is saying categorically that I don't trust faculty and students. That has nothing to do with my feelings about faculty, students or staff. That is not a condition which is current in today's society, with the major exception of the universities. That has been the way it is in some universities for some time. It still isn't a reason to do that to the junior colleges. That's why I'm saying to the minister that this is a very big change which is not supported, in my understanding, by a goodly number of people within those institutions.

Hon. D. Miller: I do beg to differ. I don't think the member accurately portrays the feeling. I've indicated that in some of the institutions they have already had a longstanding practice of having faculty, staff and students attend the board. It's a

long-established principle in our universities that faculty and student representation is on the board.

I think the member is out of step with the changes that have taken place in our society. If anything, there is an attempt to be more inclusive with respect to

decision-making, and I agree with that. That is true whether we talk about broad issues of land use and the attempt through the CORE process to bring often disparate elements together.... Clearly, the trend is toward inclusion, not exclusion, and I certainly think that's the right trend. I would hate to try to turn the clock back to one where we tended to separate people.

I think it's somewhat offensive to suggest that a staff member, faculty member or support-staff member does not have the objectivity or the best interests of the institution at heart when it comes to decisions a board might make with respect to course offerings or anything else. I think they would be offended by that characterization. I'm sure the member didn't mean to suggest that, but I just think that you've got to give people a little more credit, hon. member, than you appear to want to do in your remarks here.

C. Tanner: That's great stuff, Mr. Minister -- stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say half the things you said, and I have as much respect for students, faculty and staff as you do.

All I'm saying is that they've got a conflict of interest in this circumstance, and it's going to be apparent. A lot of the decisions made in those facilities are going to affect them, their pocketbooks and their livelihoods. If the minister was consistent, it seems to me he should also be appointing a member from the Ministry of Education to sit on this board. You're letting it hang out there, and you want staff, faculty and students on it. Why not put the province's interest in it too, in order to be consistent, and appoint somebody from the Ministry of Education?

Hon. D. Miller: If I did that, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast would take strong exception and accuse me of enforcing the heavy hand of the state, and no doubt the member from the Okanagan would see it as a communist plot.

C. Tanner: You've got to wonder who's writing the legislation around here. Is it the ideologues over there, or the odds and sods of members on this side? Come on, Mr. Minister, don't try to slough it off with an explanation like that. Why haven't you appointed somebody from the Ministry of Education or your ministry to the board?

Hon. D. Miller: It's not in the current act. All we're doing is adding the additions contained in the amendments.

G. Wilson: I find it interesting that the discussion has now come around to this question of perceived conflict. My guess is -- and I think if the minister was to be really honest -- he doesn't really....

Hon. D. Miller: Point of order, hon. Chair. Even if the member doesn't think so, I think the rules of the House prescribe that he must assume that I am always honest -- and in fact I am.

The Chair: Point noted, and I'm sure the member would accept that and proceed accordingly.

G. Wilson: I certainly don't mean to impugn the reputation of this minister in any way, although I do find it interesting how sensitive he becomes when I start to talk about Bill 78, which was introduced and passed last year -- the Public Sector Employers Act, which allows for the establishment of employers' associations.

The Chair: The Chair too is sensitive, given that we are on Bill 22. I would just draw your attention to that, hon. member.

G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Chair, but that's the reason it isn't going to matter if faculty sit on these boards. These boards aren't going to be negotiating collective agreements for the colleges as they do right now, because they're going to set up an employers' council just like they have done in the move to provincewide bargaining for teachers. My guess is that this employers' council is going to negotiate a provincewide collective agreement. I think that they are going to move toward CIEA being the bargaining agent for the faculty and that they will come up with something for the staff.

That's my guess as to how that's going to work, and that's why it doesn't matter. I don't think there's a question of conflict of interest; my guess is that that's the way we are headed.

The question is: why do we have more than five appointed? The current act says you have five members appointed by the government. Now the government is going to add three more. This was the government that put education caps on administrative expenditures in K to 12, but it is increasing the number of board members appointed by government -- and that's as a minimum. In the current act it's five or more; in this one it's eight or more. Why are we appointing more government people on the board when we're supposed to be reducing administrative costs?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't have the list in front of me, but some of the institutions have quite large boards. In fact, I have been paring them down so that we will have the ratio prescribed in the act.

G. Wilson: With respect to

section 6, the existing act says that the board "shall consist of 5 or more members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council." This act says that the board is composed of "8 or more persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council." Whatever the "more" has become, the fact is that the minimum prescribed in the act is less under the existing legislation than under the

[ Page 11363 ]

proposed legislation. My question is: why would you increase the minimums if we're trying to keep the administrative costs down?

Hon. D. Miller: It has to do with math.

G. Wilson: I'd be delighted to see if it has to do with math or if it has to do with arithmetic, which might be two entirely different things here. Nevertheless, if one person is from the faculty of that institution, two are students and one is a support-staff person -- which is presumably to add some parity to the discussions of the board -- given that they are each going to be voting members, we have to ask ourselves whether those boards are going to be engaging in discussions on matters, which the member from Saanich was just alluding to, that put members in a conflict of interest.

As the president of a faculty association, I sat on a board. I stopped going to it after about nine months because there was no purpose in being there. The reason was that anything of any substance was dealt with in what they called an in camera session, where the faculty were booted out -- and rightly so, because we would have been in a conflict of interest.

[4:45]

What has changed in this structure here? We've got a larger minimum; we've got faculty, staff and students included; we've got a president; we've got a new chair of an education council; and we've got mandates by legislation that the board has to consult with a new middle-level advisory council. Now that there is a mandated purpose for this board, is the faculty who are going to be attending the board on a regular basis going to receive the same remuneration as members who are appointed by government? Will there be any remuneration provided for faculty members who sit on this board?

Hon. D. Miller: There's no remuneration, hon. Chair.

G. Wilson: Is it intended that faculty or staff members who are appointed to the college board will receive, as is customary in many colleges, workload reduction in anticipation of the work they are going to be doing on these prescribed administrative boards?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't anticipate that to be the case. There may be occasions when the board will meet during hours when the faculty member -- if it is a faculty member; it's not necessarily -- may be required for other duties, in which case I'm sure some arrangement will be made. There's no remuneration, nor is there an intent that the workload would be reduced.

G. Wilson: We're going to have a bigger board. It is now going to be defined in the legislation by what the prescribed minimums are -- which is a much larger board. One of the people is going to be the chair of this education council. Yet the president and chair of the council don't have voting rights on this board, as it's constituted. If this board is established to provide some level of equity, even though the appointed members are still in the majority, can the minister tell us why he would preclude the president or chair of the education council from being voting members of the board?

Hon. D. Miller: We may get into a useful discussion on the education council, but we don't necessarily think that they should add a vote to the issue. The education council is set up for a particular purpose, which is to deal with the issues, and we'll get into that during that discussion. The president is an employee of the board in the broadest sense and typically does not vote.

G. Wilson: That brings us to exactly the point we were trying to get to. Both the staff and faculty members sitting on that board are employees of the board. They are given voting weight. Why not the president? Why would you exclude the administrator? If we don't want to get into it now, we can discuss it under

section 11.2, which deals primarily with voting rights. It seems to me that the composition of the board in terms of voting versus non-voting is important. You say that you don't give the president the vote because he is an employee of the board; so are the faculty and staff.

Hon. D. Miller: It's amazing the number of board members I've run into who have suggested that the president controls everything without the vote. Nonetheless, it's not a deviation from the current practice.

G. Wilson: It is a substantial deviation. The minimum is increased from five to eight. You've now added a voting faculty, a voting staff and two students who have votes. All of that is a deviation from the current practice. You provide a president the opportunity to sit on the board. That president is the same person required, later on in this act, to attend this new

middle-management advisory talk-shop, and you've forced the chair of that talk-shop to sit on this board. But you haven't given the weight to those two individuals' vote. The question is: why would you make those distinctions? Why would you discriminate against those two positions on the board? What is the functional reason for increasing the size of the board, making it more unwieldy and more difficult to get full attendance?

Having been around for a long time, I know that it is often difficult to get full attendance at board meetings, because people who are appointed have full-time occupations elsewhere. Many of them have to come from distant areas, because in some instances the college regions are very large. Why would you make the board more complex and less efficient by this structure and, in so doing, remove the vote of the president, who presumably is the chief administrative officer of the college? I would think that person, above all, would want to have a vote, if you want to have the college itself better directing the board, rather than the board directing the college.

Hon. D. Miller: The member has not listened to my last answer. My last answer was in direct response to a question that he posed, and I indicated that there had been no change. The presidents currently do not have the vote; under this arrangement, they don't have the vote either, so there's been no change.

Secondly, dealing with the issue of expanding the board, the current act provides for five or more. I've indicated that there's a range of numbers around this province. In some cases, there were 17 people on the board. Now we've reduced it. We've obviously increased the minimum with respect to the ratio between community members and those other members listed under this section, so that we maintain a ratio of at least two-thirds to one-third, to deal with the issues that have been raised by yourself and other members of this House about community representation.

There's a sound rationale for constructing it in that fashion, and it's not creating an unwieldy bureaucracy. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, we're going around in circles listening to that member repeat himself over and over and over again.

[ Page 11364 ]

G. Wilson: The repetition becomes less necessary if answers are given in the first instance. The question is: if we're going to have more community input, why is it that this minister has broken what I understand was a direct promise to the public in the last election by not having this board elected by members of the community? Why wouldn't you have a community-elected board? Why a government-appointed board? If you're interested in having the community determine the direction of the college, which is supposedly their college, why would you not have an elected board?

Hon. D. Miller: The member's dealing in hypotheses that have nothing to do with the legislation.

C. Tanner: Just to go back and elaborate on some of the questions being asked by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast....

Interjection.

C. Tanner: No, thank you.

As I understand it, there are a minimum of 14 members on this board, two of whom have no vote. Can any one of the 14 be elected chair of the board?

Hon. D. Miller: The voting members, hon. Chair.

L. Reid: I will certainly apologize in advance if this has been canvassed in my absence. The minister speaks of community representation. I would ask the minister to walk us through the appointment process for a single member.

Section 9(1)(

a) says, I understand, "8 or more persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council." Would you, as minister, receive the recommendations to initiate the process? Or does it go to cabinet or for individual college submissions?

Hon. D. Miller: We use very sound judgment.

L. Reid: The question, if I might simplify it for the minister, was the process. The person's name will be put forward somewhere as a possible recommendation. I am interested in the actual process. Do you receive the name as minister? Does the name go to the ministry? Does it go to the cabinet at large? Let's work through (

a) as an example. How are those eight names initiated into the process, and what is the process? Do you collect 30 names and, by elimination, reduce them to eight? How are you going to arrive at those eight appointed persons?

Hon. D. Miller: I use my best judgment.

L. Reid: I appreciate that the minister possesses some judgment around this issue. I simply want to know what the framework for decision-making will be. What guidelines will he use to exercise his best possible judgment?

Hon. D. Miller: We solicit names. We receive names; quite often people forward their names as an expression of interest. I have encouraged all of the board chairs -- the presidents, for example -- not just at colleges but also at universities, to offer suggestions about people who may be interested in serving. We try to reflect the communities that the institutions serve. In other words, it's important that there be geographic representation and representation of interested communities that might exist -- the business community, the labour community and others.

I don't want to suggest that any of the board members.... By and large, I think the voluntary board members across this province are doing a very good job of serving their communities and the institutions that serve their communities.

L. Reid: I understand the minister's comments on criteria, whether it be gender, geography or experience. My question specifically is: when you said "we receive," are you suggesting you as a minister receive; the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour receives; or the cabinet table receives? Who is the recipient of those recommendations for those eight appointees?

Hon. D. Miller: Look, the names eventually all come to me, no matter how they may have been obtained. It may be from members. If the members opposite have names they want to put forward, they should come to me and give me the names. At the end of the day, I make an informed decision, after talking to the institutions and others, about who I think.... The

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council makes appointments in a variety of circumstances. This is just one of them. Why we need to explore the precise nature of the communication I have with every individual who may want to talk about being on a board or getting a name.... Hon. Chair, what can I say? Why are we doing this? If the member has names she wants to give me, I'd be happy to take them, look at them and see if they do in fact meet my very high standards.

L. Reid: I think that against the minister's better judgment he may have inadvertently answered the question. If he is the recipient of those names, then indeed he is advising British Columbia as a whole that he will receive recommendations for those positions. That was the question. It didn't need to be beaten to death by the minister in four tries. It was a very straightforward question. I thank him for that answer.

C. Tanner: With your indulgence, hon. Chair, unfortunately I have to leave the debate. I know the minister's going to miss me, but I have to go in the next ten or 15 minutes. I'm asking for a response from the minister on a specific question which appears later on in the bill. There are no transitional clauses in this bill. Would the minister give this House the assurance that when he makes those appointments to the new boards in the future, he will keep some of the members of the old boards so we don't have a brand-new set of board members right across the province?

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Notwithstanding the rather cavalier response from the minister, it is indeed germane to this bill, because one of the charges I would make against this government with respect to these amendments to the College and Institute Act is that it is in fact centralizing authority and power, and diminishing or reducing the amount of academic freedom that currently exists in the colleges. One of the areas the minister could defend in this bill is in

section 3, subsection 9(1)(a), with respect to the appointment of board members. It is indeed germane to this bill that the government has decided that they will keep the power to make appointments to the boards in the hands of one minister rather than putting the decision-making into the community, so they could provide -- as we would hope they might do with other boards, as they do now with school boards; we would like to see hospital boards have that as

[ Page 11365 ]

well -- an opportunity to elect people from the community. They would like to direct the educational services to the students these colleges serve rather than have them dictated from the minister. Can the minister tell us why this government has chosen not to go to elected boards but to stay with appointed boards?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't wish to canvass the issue too broadly. One of the principal reasons is that there's been absolutely no demand from the institutions or board members themselves -- many of whom were not appointed by this administration but by the previous one -- to go to a system of election. It may be a point of debate.

I suggest it's not the point of debate here and now. It's a broader topic with respect to whether, in a variety of circumstances, these boards, hospital boards or other boards should be determined through a process of election or a process of appointment. The fact is that we have not chosen to proceed to an election system, but to maintain the system and the act as currently constituted. As such, I submit that it would be inappropriate to open up a broader debate, when in fact there's no change. Under this piece of legislation, we have simply added additional members to the board who represent other interests.

The Chair: Before I recognize any members, I just caution one and all of my colleagues that this a relatively straightforward section. It has been canvassed at some length now, and I am beginning to detect some repetition and tedium. I therefore ask members to focus very clearly on new information they are attempting to elicit in their questions. Otherwise, I suggest we should be moving on fairly quickly.

[5:00]

G. Wilson: Could you tell us why the Justice Institute of British Columbia has a different board composition than the colleges and institutes, simply so that can go on the record?

Hon. D. Miller: It's essentially a different operation, not like a community college or police academy. They purchase services and there's no faculty, so it's a completely different operation.

G. Wilson: I have just two more questions on this section. They have to do with the role elected faculty will play on a board. The reason I raise it now -- and I will raise it again when we talk about terms of office -- is that there seems to be a differential term of office for those who are elected students and faculty, in terms of a three-year term.

One could argue that in a two-year institution it's clear that a student would be elected to the board for one year, because it's a two-year institution -- although in reality many students are enrolled part-time and stay at an institution for a lot longer than that. But it would appear that by setting a three-year term you are eliminating the possibility for those faculty who may be under temporary status -- and that's a very significant proportion of the faculty in any association in any college -- to have an opportunity to serve on the board. If that is not the intention, could the minister say so?

If that is the case, is it possible that later on the minister might want to entertain the notion that the terms of office may be staggered? This would allow temporary faculty, who are a very large component of instructors and who are under collective agreements classified as temporary instructors, to have equal weight with those who may be employed full-time.

Hon. D. Miller: Certainly members who are temporary could be elected and then step down. And nothing precludes those who have been elected from continuing to run for election and serve subsequent terms on any board.

R. Chisholm: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

R. Chisholm: I'm making an introduction for the Speaker. Today we have with us Ms. J. Meyburg, 48 grade 7 students and 16 adults who are visiting the precincts to see how democracy works. Hopefully we're giving them a fine show. These are not all the members. We have another House operating at the same time, and other members are out doing business for the people