1993 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 23

[ Page 8263 ]

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

N. Lortie: I'm pleased to have two guests in the gallery today. My first guest is a young man, Graham Johnson. Graham is almost 11 years old and already a political junkie. He's interested in everything to do with politics, and that's why he's here today. My second guest, who is Graham's mother and probably the reason for his interest in politics, is Her Worship Mayor Beth Johnson of the municipality of Delta. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Reid: I have three guests in the gallery today. They are colleagues and dear friends from the Richmond School District. I ask the House to please make welcome Maureen McDermid, Toni Morrison and Charan Gill.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted today to introduce to the House a former councillor of the city of Vancouver, a former teacher of mine -- but don't hold that against him -- a professor at the UBC school of planning, an international consultant and a member of the board of directors of B.C. Transit, Dr. Setty Pendakur. I ask all members to make him welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: In the members' gallery today is Her Excellency Judith Trotter, the High Commissioner for New Zealand to Canada, accompanied by the New Zealand consul general, Mr. Irvine Paulin, who is based in Vancouver, and Mrs. Judith Paulin. I would ask the House to make these blokes welcome.

J. Pullinger: I'm very pleased to welcome a very special group of visitors. The city of Duncan has a sister town in Africa -- Meru, Kenya to be specific. With us today we have Mr. Andrew Gituma, mayor of that town; Mr. Mwai Githegi, the town clerk; and Mr. Peter Kabutu, the building inspector and works officer. With them in the gallery is Mr. Mike Coleman, mayor of Duncan, and Mr. Paul Douville, the city administrator. Would the House please help me make these very special people welcome.

D. Symons: I don't know if they are in the gallery behind me, but they are due in the precincts shortly. Mr. Robert Moore-Stewart is the lawyer for the Vancouver Island Peace Society in their legal challenge to the federal government on the environmental review of nuclear ships in harbours. Dr. Fred Knelman, whom I've known for a good number of years, is very involved with peace and environmental issues in British Columbia. Would the House please make them welcome.

H. Giesbrecht: It's one of those rare occasions when somebody from my constituency makes it down here. I am pleased to introduce Miss Debbie Smoley from Terrace. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. D. Marzari: I'd like to introduce to the House Mary Elizabeth Bayer and Lee Boyko of the Heritage Advisory Council, who are here today to witness first reading of the heritage bill.

D. Mitchell: It's not every day that a member of this assembly achieves a milestone like the one achieved by the member for Matsqui, who turned 70 years old yesterday. I wonder if, belatedly, the members would wish him a happy birthday.

Introduction of Bills

HEALTH PROFESSIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, 1993.

Hon. E. Cull: This is an omnibus bill that makes a number of identical or nearly identical amendments to the individual statutes which regulate health professions in British Columbia. The regulatory bodies for 19 health professions will be affected by the amendments. Among these are the College of Dental Surgeons, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Registered Nurses' Association, the College of Chiropractors and the College of Psychologists.

The bill adds five standard provisions to improve the accountability of the regulatory bodies and to improve their ability to deal with complaints regarding incompetent, impaired or unethical practitioners.

These five provisions will clarify the duty of a professional college to act in the public interest at all times, including: a requirement to establish a patient relations program to prevent professional misconduct of a sexual nature; a requirement for a minimum of one-third public representation on the board of each regulatory body; the requirement of an annual report to government from each body; the granting of new powers to assist boards to act on complaints from the public about the practice of health professionals; and giving the board the ability to suspend, prior to a hearing, a practitioner who may pose an immediate threat to patients.

The 15 statutes affected by this bill will be the subject of a more comprehensive review by the Health Professions Council starting in the fall of this year. However, the government considers these particular amendments so significant and essential that we have chosen to make them now. The amendments will enhance the ability of a professional college to regulate its members more effectively and to more clearly protect the public interest.

Bill 71 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 8264 ]

HERITAGE CONSERVATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. D. Marzari presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Heritage Conservation Statutes Amendment Act, 1993.

Hon. D. Marzari: I am pleased to introduce the Heritage Conservation Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, for first reading. The purpose of this bill is to provide a comprehensive set of legislative guidelines for the protection, conservation and stewardship of the province's heritage resources. This bill provides amendments to the existing Heritage Conservation Act, the Municipal Act, the Vancouver Charter and the Islands Trust Act.

These changes will bring heritage into the legislative mainstream of this province by integrating heritage conservation with local governments' general powers and authorities. The legislation gives local governments substantive regulatory tools to improve community heritage conservation. It gives owners and developers the opportunity to make investments based on informed choices, and it provides property owners with a fair and substantive process when their properties are affected by heritage designation. The bill puts new and tougher provisions into place to deter and punish wilful offences against B.C.'s heritage resources.

The legislation is the product of extensive consultation. Since 1987, when former MLA Kim Campbell launched the Project Pride Task Force, thousands of British Columbians have participated in developing this bill. To honour a throne speech commitment made by this government, we have initiated a precedent-setting level of consultation with B.C.'s first nations people. At an aboriginal heritage symposium at Cape Mudge and at other gatherings, we have heard first nations express great concern regarding stewardship of their heritage.

This legislation will initiate a formal, cooperative working relationship between government and first nations on aboriginal heritage resources. It will help B.C. communities by offering provisions to establish heritage registries and heritage conservation areas. These discretionary powers can be adopted by local governments as heritage is integrated into community planning.

In

summary....

The Speaker: I regret, hon. minister, that your time has expired.

Bill 70 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL DEBT

J. Dalton: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Once again British Columbia was embarrassed by our Premier when he failed to understand the table talk at a federal-provincial meeting the other day. The Prime Minister, the Premier of Saskatchewan and the Premier of New Brunswick, among others, understood the nature of the conversation. Even Bob Rae, who chose not to attend the dinner, understood the nature of the conversation.

My question to the Minister of Finance is: why didn't the minister encourage or advise the Premier to not get into complex discussions over an issue such as the deficit, which he clearly didn't understand, which led to British Columbia once again being a national joke?

Hon. G. Clark: British Columbia has been systematically discriminated against by the federal government for some time, particularly when it comes to the off-loading of federal deficit responsibilities onto the provinces. The cap on the Canada Assistance Plan alone is costing B.C. taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars more than it costs seven other provinces in Canada. The Premier put forcefully to her the kind of fair treatment and representation that we expect from a Prime Minister from B.C., and no more off-loading of federal responsibilities onto the backs of British Columbia taxpayers will be tolerated.

[2:15]

J. Dalton: The Minister of Finance can spare us the lectures on off-loading and the deficit. We understand those issues. Before the next federal-provincial meeting, will the minister advise the Premier that there's a difference between passing the salt and passing the buck?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to say that the Premier of British Columbia put squarely to the Prime Minister from British Columbia that we expect the federal government -- and her in particular -- to uphold its duty to make sure that B.C. is well represented for a change and that further off-loading will not be tolerated. We expect our fair share from this country, which historically we have not received, whether it's procurement policies or the off-loading of federal responsibilities.

The Premier of British Columbia put that forward very aggressively and straightforwardly to the Prime Minister, and we expect her to live up to the commitment she has made to British Columbians as the first B.C. Prime Minister in Canada.

The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Dalton: I'll let the Minister of Finance off the hook; my final is to the Minister of Labour. Will the Minister of Labour once again be acting as the official or otherwise interpreter for the Premier at the next conference?

Hon. M. Sihota: It seems to me that all British Columbians expect the Premier of the province to stand up and make demands with regard to B.C.'s problems to protect our fiscal integrity. I'm pleased to report that the Premier did so vigorously, and all British Columbians would expect the Prime Minister, who

[ Page 8265 ]

comes from British Columbia, to do the same on their behalf.

CLAYOQUOT SOUND

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Deputy Premier. It involves Burnaby-Kingsway MP Svend Robinson, who has been dubbed the White Swan by the Haida nation. The White Swan has flown the coop this morning in the Clayoquot Sound. I wonder if the Deputy Premier can assure us that if he reappears on a picket line, the White Swan will face the full weight of the law, and that no favouritism will be shown.

Hon. A. Hagen: The courts are responsible in this province for administering the law of the land. I am sure that they will do so without fear or favour.

W. Hurd: Perhaps I can address my supplemental to the Minister of Environment, who brought forth legislation in this House that calls for a $20,000 fine for people who trespass on Crown land. Can the minister assure the House that even though Mr. Robinson is an NDP MP, he will be eligible for the same $20,000 fine, should he reappear on the picket line in Clayoquot Sound?

Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member is referring to a bill that was passed in this House, dealing with illegal trespass, often by corporations. In the interests of protecting the environment, it behooves government to have appropriate maximum fines. It is mischievous on the part of the opposition to suggest that that is intended for some other purpose. I can assure the hon. member that there is absolutely no intent to use that

section of that act to deal with Clayoquot in any way whatsoever.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: The opposition also notes that Mr. Sid Parker, the MP for Kootenay East, has been on the grounds with a picket sign about the drawdown on Lake Koocanusa. Can the minister tell us whether he would be eligible for a $20,000 fine for demonstrating on the lawn of the Legislature?

Hon. J. Cashore: You would think that the hon. member, in hearing a reasonable and responsible answer and a commitment from the minister, would do the right thing and not perpetuate the myth that he has sought to perpetuate in a most inappropriate way.

TATSHENSHINI DECISION

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources. Can the minister advise the House if she is responsible for the provincewide ad campaign on the Tatshenshini decision? Was it her decision to blow $200,000 on this propaganda campaign boasting about the demise of mining in British Columbia under the NDP?

Hon. A. Edwards: The government was indeed responsible for the ads. The ads make very clear to the people of British Columbia that we have made a decision to preserve a precious, important, ecologically rare area that we feel should be preserved. We make no apology for that whatsoever; we believe it's an important area to be preserved. It was a preservation decision that we made, and yes, it was a government decision.

R. Neufeld: The ad proclaims: "...the government of British Columbia, representing all the people of our great province, presents the nation and the world with this gift -- Tatshenshini." [Applause.] You can clap after the next part. Does the Minister of Mines actually believe that her gift of billions of dollars of lost revenue truly represents people in the mining industry? Does she honestly believe that she has represented the 2,000-plus families whose potential jobs in the Tat were wiped out by her generosity?

Hon. A. Edwards: There are a number of things that we like to say following this decision, which shows leadership in the world. It shows leadership in looking to the areas that deserve to be preserved as a precious resource. I might say that the government's 800 number, between 7 a.m. on June 30 and 9:30 a.m. today, July 6, has received 5,007 telephone calls from people requesting the information package on the Tatshenshini area. It is an issue that has considerable support from the people of British Columbia.

I might also say that the mining industry of British Columbia continues to operate here, as we continue to support them to do. Gibraltar Mines has just announced a $500,000 feasibility study for an expansion at Gibraltar. We are very proud of that. We support the mining industry, and we expect it to continue to work in British Columbia.

R. Neufeld: I doubt that the 5,000 calls were all positive.

Isn't that minister the least bit bashful about touting the so-called Canada Day gift, when the only thing she's given B.C. miners is a kick in the teeth? Does she think that a special, limited-edition Tatshenshini commemorative poster is fair trade-off for unemployed miners who have been badly betrayed by this NDP government?

Hon. A. Edwards: We have worked with the mining industry, and continue to work with the mining industry, to ensure that they operate in British Columbia. They know that we are going to protect 12 percent of the area of British Columbia and that the areas that are going to be preserved have great value. The Tatshenshini is such an area, and we have preserved it. The mining industry is an important industry; we continue to work with it and do everything we can to have them make the kind of announcement that Gibraltar Mines has just made -- a $500,000 feasibility study for an expansion.

[ Page 8266 ]

D. Jarvis: A follow-up to the Minister of Mines. The mining industry is, in actual fact, packing their bags and leaving British Columbia because of this bad decision. I just briefly want to ask the minister: is she comfortable with the fact that she has become the Chilean mining industry's latest poster girl?

B.C. RAIL LABOUR DISPUTE

D. Symons: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The labour dispute at B.C. Rail is costing the railway millions of dollars -- approximately a quarter of a million dollars a day -- as well as causing harm to various shippers dependent upon rail transport. Can the minister guarantee that customers' products and passengers will get to their destinations?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: In any open system that allows collective bargaining, from time to time disputes will occur. If you prefer to live in a society where collective bargaining is not permitted, I would suggest that you look at a few parts of the world...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: ...where it isn't and see how well they do.

D. Symons: My supplemental is to the Minister of Economic Development, Small Trade and Business.

An Hon. Member: Small trade -- there you go.

D. Symons: Small Business.

An Hon. Member: You got it right!

D. Symons: I got it right by accident, but nevertheless....

This protracted dispute is posing a serious threat to the economy of the province, particularly in the interior. What steps is this ministry taking to protect threatened businesses and jobs from the economic hardships brought about by this government's inability to achieve labour peace within this province?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As the member knows, it's a matter that the Labour minister will deal with. It becomes a dispute resolution....

Just to remind you, trade is up for B.C., bankruptcies are down, business start-ups have increased, retail sales are up dramatically, housing starts are up, and the B.C. economy will survive this....

The Speaker: Order, please.

NEW CHAIR OF ICBC

L. Hanson: I listened with interest to the answer of the Minister of Highways on the negotiating process. Maybe if they don't like what happens, they could legislate some changes to it.

But seriously, another question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. On June 30 Miriam Olney was quietly appointed chair of ICBC. Can the minister advise the House what specific qualifications or NDP credentials Ms. Olney has for the job? Did her former position as director of pensions and benefits for the United Food and Commercial Workers make her especially qualified for this position? As the OIC didn't contain it, could he also inform the House what her salary might be?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The new chair of ICBC will be serving as a part-time chair. Her qualifications are good. She has been responsible for the management of a large pension fund, where she has acquitted herself well. I fully expect that she will acquit herself very well as a chair of ICBC.

Hon. L. Boone tabled the 1992-93 annual report of B.C. Systems Corporation.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I call committee on Bill 63.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 63; E. Barnes in the chair.

[2:30]

section 1.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps we could get an explanation from the minister for the changes in

section 1. These are: adding the definition of the president, as appointed under

section 84; some changes in the definition of the worker; and particularly the inclusion of the Municipal Act and other provisions -- the city of Vancouver, among others. I guess the final part, (c), is just a resulting amendment due to the changes in the act.

Hon. M. Sihota: I am waiting for staff to arrive. Let me point out that these are consequential amendments that are required as a result of the changes that are being made in other sections of the bill. The changes with respect to

section 2(1)(

f) will bring those areas that the hon. member just outlined within the parameters of the legislation.

G. Farrell-Collins: That is fine. If the minister doesn't have anything further to add to that, I guess we will come to the substantive portions of those amendments later -- the changes to municipalities, urban areas, improvement districts, etc.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

[ Page 8267 ]

G. Farrell-Collins:

Section 2 is one of the more profound sections. I have to admit that I have some fairly substantive concerns relating to this section. Again, it's not that it's not a laudable intent for governments to try and do these types of things. It's nice to give everybody the warm, fuzzy feeling that they are protected, and in many cases it is justified. However, I am not convinced that the government has done the number-crunching here, the financial impact assessment, that would indicate what the impact of these changes is going to be on businesses and corporations.

The Workers' Compensation Board has a deficit of about $100 million, and it's anticipated to go up to $280 million by the end of the year. That is no small sum; in fact, it's quite substantial. Given that the government is broadening the base of people who will be covered, to include virtually every employee and employer in the province, I would have thought they would have done a financial impact assessment on what those costs are going to be to the businesses that will be affected and how that is all going to relate. Perhaps the minister can give us a bit of an explanation for the rationale.

Hon. M. Sihota: I will make a number of points. First of all, with regard to the comments the hon. member made about the unfunded liability, it is very true that there is an unfunded liability at the Workers' Compensation Board. I am as concerned about that as the hon. member and the critic for the Social Credit Party. I don't recall this issue being canvassed during estimates -- in terms of the unfunded liability; I'm not talking about WCB coverage. I just want to reiterate points that I would have made then. The unfunded liability problem is of significant concern to me.

I took the liberty of meeting with the board in April to explain the government's concern with regard to the unfunded liability. I have no difficulty in sharing some of my thoughts in that regard. Other jurisdictions have had significant problems with regard to unfunded liability. I believe one of the reasons that other jurisdictions have had those kinds of problems is because they have not nipped them in the bud. In other words, when it has first started, they haven't dealt with it in a expeditious way. At its April meeting, I asked the board to develop a strategy to deal with the unfunded liability.

I know that request was well received, in particular from the employer community. I expect that at its next board meeting, which I believe is on July 17 or 19, I will have a strategy to deal with the unfunded liability. I want to assure the hon. member that the issue of the unfunded liability is as important as the issue of expansion of coverage, as we have provided for in this legislation. It's a very high priority in terms of us wanting to get on with dealing with some of the problems of the WCB.

We've done a lot, as the hon. member knows, both in terms of this legislation and in the initiatives brought forward in terms of workers' advisers and expansion of regulations to farmworkers and occupational violence. They were given a period of three or four months to come up with a strategy. They have been working on it, and I expect that strategy to be made available to me at that time.

Returning to some of the fiscal problems or the cost issues that the hon. member outlined, there is optional coverage. Over time, we have been in a position to develop optional coverage for some of the areas not covered under the current legislation but which would be contemplated to be covered in their entirety by this legislation. I would be happy to share that information with the hon. member regarding the cost of that optional coverage -- for example, the assessment rates in the medical area.

As indicated during second reading debate, those people who work in medical, legal and dental offices are not covered by WCB. We are endeavouring to get them covered through this change, which I think is welcomed by those people who work in the field.

For doctors' offices, for example, we would anticipate assessment rates of about $1.09 for every $100 worth of assessed payroll; in an architect's office we would anticipate something in the neighbourhood of about 18 cents for $100 worth of assessed payroll; and -- I'm trying to look at something that's on the other end of the spectrum -- guide service tours, hunting and fishing, would be looking at coverage in the neighbourhood of about $4.03 per $100 worth of assessed payroll.

Those are the rough ranges that one would be looking at in what is contemplated by this legislation and what we would anticipate costs to be.

Under the provisions of the workplace health and safety act, we already engage in regulation of premises not currently covered under WCB. That will be covered once this legislation passes, should it meet with the approval of this House. You have to realize that we are already incurring some costs through this system to regulate those worksites. It's not as if we would be looking at significant additional costs if we were to engage in examination of those sites.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't want to get into it, but as the minister brought it up, I would encourage him to review the questions that were asked of him during the estimates on workers' compensation. I'm sure he'll realize that in many cases -- in fact, in almost every single case -- he refused to answer questions as they related to the Workers' Compensation Board. So it wasn't due to the opposition not asking the questions; it was the fact that we hit a brick wall. I believe the media commented at the time that the minister was less than forthcoming in that area. I'm sure the member from Vernon will agree.

The minister gave an example of a couple of places that these calculations have already been done, particularly with dentist, doctor and architectural offices, and with hunters and guides. There are a wide range of others, and I intend to go through them in some detail, although not by list or by rote, to try to find some examples there and to find out what preparations have been made. Perhaps the minister can advise us as to what calculations have been done relating to domestic workers in the province, and what site inspection is going to take place to evaluate those work locations and to set an appropriate rate.

[ Page 8268 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: Just a couple of points. First of all, the rates that I just quoted, and the rates which I will be quoting as we go through this exercise, ought to be considered in this light: they are a reflection of what we currently would, and do, provide coverage for. What will often happen is that on a voluntary basis, a doctor's office -- using that same example -- will make an inquiry and will indeed be covered, but it is optional coverage; it is not mandatory. This legislation will change it to make it mandatory.

I quoted the figure of $1.09; remember that as we move to a mandatory scheme, the pool will expand, and in theory the rates should drop. I guess the same caveat will apply for all other areas that are referred to.

With domestic services, our current experience -- and this is what the rates have been predicated on -- indicates an assessment of about $3 per $100 of assessed payroll. But as I said earlier on, that's based on current experience with the small pool of coverage that we have at this point -- a pool that will expand.

Inspections will occur on a complaint basis.

G. Farrell-Collins: How does the minister anticipate that this complaint process will work, as it relates to domestics? Would the domestic go to the director of workers' compensation, an inspector or some person within the body, and lodge the complaint themselves? Is that the direction that the minister is planning to take?

Hon. M. Sihota: Complaints are directed to the occupational health and safety division within the Workers' Compensation Board. A complaint can come in directly from an individual, through an advocacy group or, quite frankly, on an anonymous basis. The determination is then made as to whether we should investigate.

[2:45]

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll come back to the complaint process in a bit, because I do want to spend some time on that.

The minister stated that these investigations or inspections will be done on a complaint-driven basis, and that a $3-per-$100 figure is currently in operation. Are there a large number of domestics covered by workers' compensation? Is it ten, 500 or 10,000? I don't know what the number is. If so, how valid is that information going to be in setting those rates? What are we likely to see? If it is a small number, I would anticipate that those employers would be more concerned with it as an issue and would probably take the necessary precautions.

My concern is that if you broaden it to include all domestics, you may find that you will be covering workplace environments that are not as safe as those of good employers who have taken the precautions. In this case, are we perhaps going to see an increase in the cost per $100, as opposed to a decrease?

Hon. M. Sihota: I have a couple of points. We'll use the example of domestics that you referred to. Currently someone will shop around for insurance coverage, and they will contact both the private sector and the Workers' Compensation Board. The rates are generally a bit lower in the private sector. People will not go to the Workers' Compensation Board unless the private sector won't pick them up -- and that's usually because they have a poor record. They will end up with the WCB, and our rates are a little higher as a consequence.

With regard to homemakers, let me tell you what the experience has been in jurisdictions elsewhere in the country. I guess that's some evidence to rely on in terms of what might have happened in British Columbia. Like I say, we have a rate of about $3, based on the small pool we have right now. In Manitoba the rate is $1.73 to $2.10; in Ontario it's $1.81; in Quebec it's $4.20 -- so it's a little bit higher there; in New Brunswick it's $1.65; and in P.E.I. it's 96 cents. You have to understand that you could be comparing apples and oranges here in terms of the nature of the service.

In terms of a trend, I guess that speaks for itself. It's generally lower than $3, with one exception. But again, with a broader pool of mandatory coverage, you can bring those rates down.

G. Farrell-Collins: I think the minister is correct in saying that it is difficult, because you are comparing apples and oranges. He knows, as indeed most employers do, that the coverage that exists from province to province varies widely, and the types of benefits that accrue to an injured worker vary widely. As a result, of course, the costs also vary widely.

I guess my concern is that we're looking at such a range. We're looking at $4 in Quebec and at 96 cents in Prince Edward Island. That's a fairly substantial differences. One amount is 300 or 400 percent higher than the other one. I'm wondering how much of a base we already have to work with in this province to give us the $3 amount. Is it a substantial base, a small base or a moderate base, or is it virtually non-existent? It's important to have an idea of what that number is so that we know how valid the sample size is.

Hon. M. Sihota: The sample base in British Columbia would be small, and the numbers in the other provinces.... You can always fuel whatever argument you want on whatever numbers are given to you. I gave them all to you. I said right at the beginning that there are differences in coverage. Obviously there are going to be differences in the experience they have in those jurisdictions versus the kind of experience we may have here in British Columbia. Just quickly looking at them, the amounts seem to average out at around $2, and we're at $3. Two dollars is probably a bit on the higher end of the estimate.

Obviously, as time goes on, we'll develop a better base to work from. As I say, we have a small base here in British Columbia. We know that about 4,000 domestics in the province would be covered. If you want a benchmark figure based on our experience of the small sample we have in B.C., it's about $3. If you want benchmarks elsewhere, you can see what the range is. I suspect that we'd come somewhere within that range. It will depend on the experience that we have in B.C.

[ Page 8269 ]

But I would caution the hon. member. I understand that you want to seize on the highest number in debate. Somehow that helps people make their point, but you have to understand that we have the lowest assessments in the country. Quebec has, if not the highest, the second- or third-highest. I think that's reflected here on the domestic side as well. If you look at the system that we offer and assessment rates that we provide to industry in British Columbia, we're actually on the low end in terms of assessment rates and on the high end in terms of the coverage that we provide. So we also have to put that into the mix when we consider these numbers.

G. Farrell-Collins: I've been using this instance of domestics as an example and as a means to focus the discussion. I'm not trying to seize on the highest or the lowest numbers; I'm just trying to get an idea what the numbers are. It's becoming obvious that the minister doesn't know exactly what these numbers are going to be. He has a ballpark range. Again, the coverage and services applied in this province are substantially different. It makes me a little nervous when I see this type of legislation and I don't have any hard numbers with it. I don't have the minister saying: "We're expecting it to be in the $1.80 to $2 range."

I would assume that the minister had done those actuarials before we got to this stage. How much of this work has already been done by the minister? How much of this has been anticipated by the minister? How many of these numbers -- not just for domestics but for the other range of people who are going to be covered -- have been calculated in advance, so that we know what the impact is going to be for employees who are going to be covered and what the rates are going to be for people who are going to be paying them? Has any work been done to find out what those firm figures are, or is this going to take place over the next little while?

Hon. M. Sihota: If you want me to say it's going to cost $1.83 for domestics on $100 worth of assessment, I can't. Obviously, when we prepare for this type of program, we do some background work in order to read what we think the range will be. I can tell you that the range, based on experience elsewhere in the country, varies from about $1 to $4 -- 96 cents to $4.23. I can tell you that the experience we've had in British Columbia resulted in an assessed level of $3 at this point. I can tell you that because that sample base is small and will expand, we will likely see the numbers drop.

But I can't give you any harder information than that. I would argue that the information I've given you is not particularly soft. I think it gives a good indication of where we will settle.

I can't predict what will happen in a particular industry five or seven years from now. You can ask me about forestry, which is covered, but I can't crystal-ball that now. I can give you some guesstimates, based on our actuarial experience, of what I think it might be -- just as much as I can in this case. That's what I am doing.

G. Farrell-Collins: That answers my question to a certain extent. Those numbers aren't done. The minister is going to do it over some period of time. I note that this bill comes into force by regulation, by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Could the minister give us some indication of what the transition period is going to be to allow those types of assessments to be done so that we can come up with a firm figure that these employers can then be charged and which they can in turn pay?

Hon. M. Sihota: We don't underestimate the magnitude of the chore here. After all, 15 percent of B.C. workers currently don't have coverage. Therefore it will take some time to do the necessary calculations, do the necessary education and gather the necessary information. Some of that is done; some of it remains to be done. It could be as long as six months before every worker in the province is covered, but we need the legislative mandate to start the work. We'll breathe life into the legislation when we've completed that work.

The board will be establishing a subcommittee to begin some of this work once the legislation is passed, and then we'll establish the rates. We have no mandate to go out and do the required actuarial work on site or with the employers until we've got the legislative mandate. Once we have the mandate, we'll get on with the job.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister says six months. I guess we'll see what happens.

The minister says that he doesn't underestimate the magnitude of the job they're taking on. What allocations of staffing and costs have been or will be put into play to deal with the implementation of this program over the next six or eight months? It will probably be a full year before the whole thing is up and operating properly.

Hon. M. Sihota: First, as I said earlier, we do have regulatory responsibilities for some areas already, under the provisions of the workplace health and safety legislation in this province. This will end up dovetailing those responsibilities into the workers' compensation system. Second, we already have people who do this work. Obviously we will utilize that base to do some of the work in addition to their current duties. Third, as I think I mentioned during second reading debate, the board has passed a motion requesting the government to move in this direction and introduce the legislation.

I wish to point out to the hon. member that this board was established by the previous administration. There hasn't been any change since we've come to office except, I think, two members, and that was because people resigned. The board, through the CEO at WCB, will have to add resources. Some will be permanent, some will be temporary. Obviously you want to use the full measure of resources that you have now, and you want to be prudent in doing additional hiring. That's the approach that I'm sure the board of governors will take when they make those management decisions.

[3:00]

[ Page 8270 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I am not convinced and I am not comforted by that answer. I guess the past history is the reason. We are dealing with a board that has a $100 million deficit, shooting for $280 million, and the minister is now telling us -- despite his earlier comments that they didn't nip this in the bud or didn't get on top of it earlier -- that somehow he is willing to bring in this legislation. He is comfortable and confident that that group of administrators is somehow going to deal with this in a fiscally responsible way.

On the one hand, I suppose the minister is chiding the board somewhat for the unfunded liability. On the other hand, he is giving the board his unmitigated confidence that they will be able to take care of it in the proper manner. I am not sure that the employers of the province are as convinced that this will be handled in a cost-effective way.

I wonder if the employees who are there already have the time to take on a job of this magnitude, as the minister stated. What are they doing now with their spare time? How much spare time do these people have? It seems to me that it is a big task; the minister admitted or offered that it is a huge task. How are these people going to take on this job? If they do, how many people are we looking at bringing on board? Do we have any firm figure on the number of FTEs that will have to be brought on board to implement this policy decision?

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, in terms of the hon. member's opening comments with regard to the unfunded liability, there was a surplus in Workers' Compensation, I guess about two years ago. The unfunded liability last year was $97 million. Although it is expected to go up this year -- and I will grant him that -- I am not too sure if his $280 million number is right. I would venture to say that it is probably off the mark. We have a plan that I asked for to deal with the problem once it became evident. It will be dealt with, and we will nip this thing in the bud. I am determined to make sure that that occurs.

The administration will decide on how it will allocate resources to do this; they will make the determinations with regard to FTEs. They haven't done that yet. The board, under the statute, has a responsibility -- and I will quote the

section -- to "develop policies to ensure adequate funding of the accident fund." I am sure that they will do that. So when the senior administration of the board makes those determinations, they will report to the board, and the board will make the determination.

I have never been an advocate of having to get out and say: "I want X number of FTEs hired at this point to look after this problem." I think you are better off to try to marshal the resources you have and to make sure that you have the maximum benefit of that, before you go out and start hiring FTEs.

I have no difficulty advising the hon. member as to the final costs of administering the implementation of these changes, but anything now would be just a guesstimate.

G. Farrell-Collins: I am sure that those numbers will be available, no matter how difficult they are to find. If the minister gives them to us, that will be nicer. Often we don't receive those numbers. The minister says that it is a guess; that somehow -- within its mandate, of course -- the board has to deal with these issues. Nobody is arguing that point. When the minister asks for a policy decision to be implemented, I would assume that he would also request some sort of an estimate of what the costs and the impact will be, before making that decision.

I would think that in weighing the options in one's mind of going ahead, not going ahead or somewhere in between, some dollar figures would come into play, there would be some accounting process, and the minister would request some indication of what those implications are. I accept the minister's explanation that this hasn't been done in this case. I don't agree with it; those numbers should be done before the decision is made. In this case the minister has made the decision to spend the money before he knows how much money is going to be spent.

He has made the decision to hire people before he knows approximately how many people are going to be hired. That's the way he operates. It's not the way I would operate, but we disagree on those two things, and I suppose that's what makes us different politically.

I want to follow up on the minister's comment that he addressed the issue of the unfunded liability when it became apparent. My understanding from his earlier comments was that this unfunded liability has been around for over 18 months or so. Last year it was $97 million. In fact, I am using the corporation's own estimates to cite the $280 million; those aren't numbers I thought up.

If the minister just asked for an unfunded liability reduction plan in April and he's going to get it in July, I would say that he didn't act -- nor did the board -- right from the start, but is acting, as he stated earlier, after the fact and has caught this late in the game. I'm glad to see that there is some plan and that there was some direction given by the minister, no matter how belated, to address that unfunded liability problem.

I hope it is addressed, not just on the backs of those paying the fees for workers' compensation but also in some part, or in great part, by looking at the administrative costs of Workers' Compensation to make the corporation more efficient and leaner so that it offers a better product and better service at less cost. Those are the things all organizations are having to do these days in difficult times. I would hope that it is going to continue.

I guess what we've discovered so far in this

section -- and I know the member for Okanagan-Vernon wishes to get involved, so I'll yield to him -- is that we have set a policy direction and we are heading off on it without the groundwork and without the fiscal and staffing calculations being done, as approximate as they might be. We have embarked in a political and philosophical direction without doing the groundwork ahead of time to find out what those costs are. That is an important distinction. It is important that it be on the record also, given the record of one of the last policy decisions brought forward by the minister, the matter of the fair wage policy, which, despite opposition

[ Page 8271 ]

comments and opposition from the general public, proved to be, in the minister's own terms, a disaster. I will yield to the member for

Okanagan-Vernon.

L. Hanson: I haven't been here that long -- not as many years as the Chairman, obviously -- but for a number of years I have had a number of requests from various people concerning WCB decisions. Most of the requests were from people who were covered by the WCB; in fact, they had been denied coverage, or whatever. As I recollect, I did have a request from ski agencies for coverage for their patrol people during the ski season. I never actually had a direct contact from a part of industry or business where coverage was not available to them.

Maybe the minister can give us some idea of where the initiative for this broad expansion of the coverage has come from. Was it from a particular sector of business? Maybe he can give us some idea of where the energy came from to bring this in, because during the years that I have been here I have never really had a concentrated lobby from a particular sector of industry or business that felt that coverage should be applied to them and wasn't.

Hon. M. Sihota: I want to deal with the comments from the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. The budget for the workers' compensation system deals with about $4.5 billion a year, so the shortfall of $97 million last year in relation to that large budget has to be looked at in that context. In that case you would expect, when you are dealing with a budget of that size, that there will be years when you run surpluses and years when you generate losses. The swings are 1 or 2 percent, and we have obviously hit a swing which has resulted in a loss. We expect to remedy that quickly.

There are a number of reasons for that, one of them being the fact that the rates were depressed by the previous administration. I am not going to get into a long diatribe on that point, but I think it's fairly well known that the previous administration made a conscious decision to bring down the surplus. A lot of decisions were the subject of debate in this House, with regard to those calls on the surplus. Be that as it may, we have to deal with the consequences of those earlier decisions in arriving at the situation in which we find ourselves. That's water under the bridge. We have to correct it, and we will.

I don't want him to think that no work has been done, as indicated by the tenor of his comments with regard to the administration of this policy. I want him to understand that this is a request of the board. The board was duly diligent before it made its request to government. That gets me to the point the member for Okanagan-Vernon made.

First of all, the request did come from the board of governors, which unanimously requested that the coverage be extended. As part of their ongoing work, they felt it was an appropriate time for them to cover this gap in coverage.

Secondly, there were lobbies from different elements in society. I know that performers were active in their lobbying of the Minister of Tourism. Domestics certainly have been very vigorous in their lobbying. And I think the hon. member appreciates that domestics have been very active in their lobbying in a number of areas, including areas that deal with the minimum wage and employment standards. We have obviously got another review there, so that shouldn't come as much of a surprise. We received lobbying from the medical side, and to a lesser degree from the legal side -- both from unorganized and organized workers.

Quite frankly, when I took a look at the issue, I had to ask whether one should simply extend coverage, let's say, to a subset of those that weren't covered, or whether one should just move full measure with the policy. Obviously, with the motion from the board and the philosophical question of whether there is a reason for people not to be covered, the board felt it was a right move for the public interest to proceed with the full extent of coverage.

Yes, there was some lobbying. Yes, there were some decisions at the administrative end -- certainly at the board level. And yes, to some extent it was a decision on policy made by government. So it was a combination of variables that arrived at the formation of this amendment.

L. Hanson: I do acknowledge that during my short experience I had some lobbying from domestics as to working conditions and pay and employment standards issues. I have to honestly say that I never had one domestic lobbying situation for workers' compensation coverage, so the minister's experience has been quite different from mine. But I can also understand why the WCB might be interested in the initiative. I'm not sure that business as such could say that they would be interested in that coverage and that it wasn't available to them. But we have a difference of opinion there.

I'm a believer that there should be an initiative on the part of someone before you make a social change such as this. The philosophies of this government and of our party are diametrically opposed, but that's all right.

I just wanted to point out to the minister -- and I'm sure he's aware of it.... He suggested that there was a distribution of surplus. As I understand how the WCB process works -- and maybe it has changed -- it's in a pooled type of application: if certain industries have exceptionally good performance, they are rewarded by a reduction in the rate applied to the payroll; if they have a particularly bad record, then the rate goes higher. Each of those funds is calculated separately -- not necessarily kept separately -- so that there can be an annual calculation of the performance of a particular pool.

If the performance is good, there's a surplus; if the performance is bad, there's an increase in rates, and more funds need to be put into it.

[3:15]

In that context, I think the minister would agree that any distribution of surplus would not have a direct effect on that some $100-odd million deficit that they're planning, or at least experiencing, this year. I don't think there's doubt in anyone's mind that out of the some $4-odd billion WCB budget, a $100 million or $150 million deficit is cause to look very seriously at the operation. But it's a signal that there has to be some scrutiny of the operational process to ensure that those

[ Page 8272 ]

sorts of things don't happen again. Given the $150 million deficit that they're talking about, can the minister report on what the various pools are doing? I'm sure some of the pools have quite a surplus and some quite a deficit. So I think that the minister's suggestion that the past government caused this situation by distribution of surplus requires some very close scrutiny and that it will not bear up under that examination.

I assume the minister is suggesting that these new WCB clients, the 15 percent of the workplace that's not covered now, will fit, generally speaking, into the same pool or category. Each of the categories is assessed a part of the costs of administration of the workers' compensation program on the basis of some formula. The claims are automatically paid out of the pool, but there has to be an assessment to each of the pools for the administrative part of it.

I suppose that if this 15 percent coverage that is not there now is put in place -- as it will be because of the government's majority -- it could be that a pool has no claims to cover, but there is an administrative claim against that pool. Is that not correct, Mr. Minister?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, that's possible.

L. Hanson: I guess having established that.... This

section of the act brings in very broad coverage for everyone, although it does give the board the opportunity, by regulation, to exempt certain categories. Does the minister anticipate that those categories would be exempted on application by the type of business that coverage wasn't needed for because there had never been a workplace difficulty, or would it be done strictly at the discretion of the board without outside lobbying? Which way would that regulation be driven?

Hon. M. Sihota: The work to implement these matters and the criteria for exempting will be established by the board of governors. It will be possible for employer groups to make application for exemption if that's the case. There will be hearings to determine whether or not an exemption should apply. That's how I anticipate it will work. I would expect the board to develop criteria. Once this legislation passes -- which I'm sure it will, as you say -- they will get on with that job.

L. Hanson: There's a list of 50 or 60 different kinds of businesses that are not covered now but that this act will automatically cover, other than those that might be exempted by regulation of the WCB. They would be obligated to provide the coverage; it's not voluntary. Such diverse things as bed-and-breakfast operations, legal services, mailbox rentals, preschools, play schools and physiotherapy offices will all be covered unless the board gives a specific exemption. This list of business operations and employees is quite broad; as the minister says, about 15 percent of the workforce is encompassed by this.

It seems to me that one of the difficulties with workers' compensation is the delay in the decision-making process. We did canvass this just slightly during the estimates. As an example, some of the workers' advisers who counsel people about working their way through the system have caseloads in the area of 100. The rehab consultants who provide advice to injured workers have caseloads in the 90 to 100 range. There is good evidence that before a workers' adviser can deal with a new file there is a delay of 60 to 90 days before they can even respond to a request for assistance.

There is pretty good evidence to say that two to four months is not an unusual length of time to wait for a response from a rehab consultant adviser.

Can the minister assure the Legislature that the WCB can take on the workload that we are talking about here, in a reasonably competent manner? The system seems to be having great difficulty in functioning efficiently at the moment -- or at least what we would accept as efficiently. If I have heard of any difficulty with workers' compensation coverage, it's the fact that it takes so long to work your way through the maze to get a decision and, if you don't like that decision, to appeal it and get a look at the case file and so on.

I hope the minister can give us some assurance that this broad undertaking is not going to create more difficulties than many of the workers are already experiencing.

Hon. M. Sihota: We have about 200,000 cases a year in workers' compensation, and 97 percent of the cases that come before the workers' compensation system are handled to the satisfaction of the worker, in the sense that the claims are accepted and processed. About 6,000 cases a year fall between the cracks, and we deal with those 6,000. First of all, many of us in our constituency work as MLAs.... And as the hon. member knows, it's still those 6,000 who really are the ones that end up coming through the doors of our constituency offices. You get the feeling that they all come through your office, believe you me.

We have to make sure that the rejected claims are dealt with in a smooth way. I've been very candid in terms of my frustration with how they have been dealt with in the past. And I have shared with members of this House steps we are quite proud of that we are taking to change the review system to make sure these cases are dealt with in a far more expeditious way.

I'm not going to repeat all the good stuff that we're doing, although I'm tempted from time to time to do that -- the two-form process we have established; the hearings which we can now have within 30 days and decisions within 90 at the review board; the backlog that has been cleared up at the appeal level; and the work that we have been doing, still are doing and certainly enjoy doing with the medical review panels. I think we are making remarkable progress in the area of establishing additional workers' advisers in different regions of the province, and so on.

All those good things will help deal with those 6,000 cases in a far more expeditious way. I don't deny that there are some costs associated with doing that. But as I said earlier, justice delayed is justice denied with regard to those cases.

With regard to the quantum of work that would arise under these provisions, you have to remember that a lot of these cases are low-risk occupations.

[ Page 8273 ]

Therefore there are cases that will simply fall in the category of medical aid. We're not looking at significant wage loss; we're looking at primarily processing costs related to physicians, and maybe a day or two off here and there. Some will obviously be bigger than those which we will have to deal with, and with some there will be more cost to the board. Because of the nature of the work we are capturing by this legislation and the associated risks of that work, we are not anticipating the volume levels to be anywhere near as great as to place an onerous demand on the system.

L. Hanson: The minister has just detailed the differences in our philosophies. There probably isn't a burning desire or need in the workplace for this expanded coverage, because the minister anticipates that there are going to be very few applications for claims. But be that as it may, I have to acknowledge that the minister is correct in saying there are 200,000 cases a year and that we don't hear of the majority of them. I suppose that due to the very nature of our responsibilities as MLAs, we get cases before us that are a problem, as opposed to hearing about those who are happy with the service. I can accept that.

I guess the only point I am trying to make to the minister is that there are some inefficiencies in the WCB that need to be brought forward with great haste and cured. If there is any difficulty in our society today.... Some of these workers' compensation cases have fallen between the cracks, and they are really the ones that very badly need attention. My only point to the minister is that maybe we should be cleaning that up before we take on a bunch of new responsibilities that may make the problem more difficult than it is now.

Hon. M. Sihota: I agree with a lot of what the hon. member has had to say. It is true that there are philosophical differences between the party he represents and the party I represent, which in part explains these decisions and why this legislation is before the House. I make no apologies for holding the view that all workers in British Columbia ought to be covered by workers' compensation, regardless of whether they are a low risk or high risk. We on this side of the House take some pride in introducing legislation that expands the scope of coverage to every worker in British Columbia. In any event, as you said: "Be that as it may...."

[3:30]

You are also right in that there are inefficiencies in the system. I've said that in the estimates, and I have no hesitation in saying it here again today. I'm not totally satisfied with the inefficiencies in the system, and I expect the place to run in a far more efficient way. Believe you me, I've made that abundantly clear to those who are entrusted with the administration of the system, because I share those concerns. As the hon. member knows, one of the benefits of the experience he has had, and that I am having, is that you get to see how various bureaucracies work.

It doesn't take very long to be able to pick out areas where you know that things work very well and areas where you know they don't.

As a consequence, we have established a set of priorities for the Workers' Compensation Board. I've shared those priorities, and I'll share them again. Yes, we expect administrative efficiencies. Yes, we expect a better system to deal with the 6,000 cases that are rejected, and that's why we made a series of announcements in that regard. Yes, we expect that the unfunded liability will be dealt with, and we made that abundantly clear to the board. That's why I expect a report on my desk by July 19 laying out the plan. If it's not satisfactory, they won't have much time to improve on it.

Yes, we believe it's important that the scope of coverage be extended, and we've done that in this legislation. And yes, we believe that workers' advisers' offices should be available to people in Prince George, Kamloops, Victoria and Nanaimo just as they are in Vancouver. These are changes that we are introducing.

I don't believe that I should just bring in one change and leave it at that, and then move to the next one when that is fully done. We've laid out some objectives that we want them to work on over a time frame, and they've been told to work on those. I guess that's the beauty of the privilege we have in doing the job we do, and it's what gives us satisfaction in the work we do.

The priorities have been defined to the board. They've been asked to meet those objectives, and I'm sure that they will.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like to move down just a bit, if we can, to

section 2(2)(

a) and (b). Could the minister be a little more specific and give us a wee bit of an explanation as to what that means? I think I've grasped it now, but the wording is relatively complex. My understanding of it is that the board may allow an independent contractor or employer to apply for workers' compensation coverage for themselves and cover themselves as the employer; however, they're not required to do so. That optional inclusion exists until such time as they hire an employee, at which time they must provide the coverage for that employee. Does that optional coverage for themselves continue even if they have employees, or does hiring another employee change their status?

Hon. M. Sihota: I was going to say yes, I follow every aspect of what you have to say, and yes, you are totally right. But I didn't anticipate that question at the end of the day. I've just asked staff to phone and get an answer to that question.

G. Farrell-Collins: I guess that's really the only implication. Until I have an answer, it's difficult to have follow-up questions to it.

Hon. M. Sihota: We'll come back to it.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, we can stand that down, I suppose. I think the member for Vancouver-Langara has a question or two.

V. Anderson: On the exemptions by order of the board, have you given the board some criteria or guidelines to indicate the kind of groups that would

[ Page 8274 ]

have exemptions? I hear you have said to the board that there are certain things you want done in a number of areas by July 19. Have you given some criteria -- or conversely, has the board, in putting this forward to you, given some criteria that the community might know about -- that would be a guide to who would have an exemption or not?

Hon. M. Sihota: As I said earlier on -- and I appreciate that you may not have been here; I wasn't looking to see if you were or weren't -- there will be a delay from the time this legislation is passed till it's actually implemented. The board has indicated that they will develop the criteria once the legislation is passed. That's what the board's job is, so they will do that. Then they will decide which areas will be exempted, and they may have to have hearings to do that. With some jurisdictions -- for example, professional athletics is the classic one that comes up -- the board has provided a blanket exemption. So it does have the prerogative to do that in that kind of situation.

V. Anderson: I have been here, I think, throughout all of this discussion. I just sit here quietly behind the scenes.

But I assume that one has done some research and planning for this in putting it forward. From the other boards that you examined across the country, is there some example besides the one you mentioned of the kind of areas that might have exemptions or might consider themselves as having exemptions?

Hon. M. Sihota: It varies from province to province -- for example, professional athletes. I just used that example because I knew the Chair would be interested in knowing whether they were or they weren't. Certainly in his day they weren't.

Domestics, for example, aren't covered in some jurisdictions. That again is a policy decision that governments often make. The system that we have here in British Columbia is a little different from other jurisdictions, because the board is directly appointed by government, and quite often the decisions fall more in the category of political decisions. The previous administration, through legislation, set up the board in a particular way, and the board is far more independent here in British Columbia than these kinds of boards are in other jurisdictions.

Performers are another example of a category of people who would not be covered in other jurisdictions. Interestingly enough, in British Columbia performers have requested this coverage.

V. Anderson: Is one of the criteria for exemption based, on the one hand, on political decisions and, on the other hand, on a requirement by the board to balance their income and outgo?

Hon. M. Sihota: I can't see how that would be. I can't really explain all the decisions that other jurisdictions make, and I'm sure the hon. member doesn't really expect me to do that. But it is an experience....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Finish your hand signals. It's like the coach at third base telling you whether you should steal one here or not.

An Hon. Member: He sees an opening.

Hon. M. Sihota: Just make sure there are no curve balls.

Because it's an experience-rated system where you actually pay for the experience that you have in a particular sector, I don't think it would generally hold that decisions would be made on those fiscal considerations.

L. Hanson: I just noticed in the minister's reply that there might have been an implication that coverage was not available. Coverage has been available to everyone under workers' compensation. We're not talking about a lack of availability of coverage; we're talking about mandatory coverage. There's quite a difference. I just wanted to make that point.

Hon. M. Sihota: Employers -- if this is your point, and I think I made this point earlier -- could opt in, but employees couldn't.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, the employer had to agree to the opting-in.

V. Anderson: I'm wondering about how two areas will fit into this. I'm wondering about persons under 19 -- students working at A&Ws and these kinds of places. Are they covered now, and will they be required to be covered -- those employees under adult age? The other ones I'm wondering about are volunteers who are working in non-profit and charitable organizations. Are they required, or do they have the option, to be covered under this as well?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'll just deal with your questions in the order they came up. First of all, a 17-year-old student working at A&W would be covered right now. There is no exemption on that basis unless you are under 19 years of age and a member of the employer's family. That is just a quirk in the legislation, but basically if you're working at A&W and you're 17, you're covered in the legislation.

I believe your second question related to voluntary organizations and whether they would or wouldn't be covered. They are not captured by the definition of worker. We just went through a situation in Houston, British Columbia, which I know the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine actually wrote to me about. They would not be covered. There are actually exemptions in the legislation that deal with that kind of situation.

If I may, I have an answer to the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. He inquired about whether or not an independent operator who could opt in would lose that coverage if they hired one employee. The answer is

[ Page 8275 ]

no. If they opted in as an employer, they would still be entitled to the coverage.

V. Anderson: A number of church and other groups that I am aware of have covered their employees through insurance coverage rather than through workers' compensation. Is that option still available to groups, or are they now forced to give up their insurance and go under workers' compensation instead?

Hon. M. Sihota: If they are a worker under the act, then they will now be covered by workers' compensation. If they are a volunteer, then the status quo would remain, and they would have to go outside of workers' compensation to get the coverage.

V. Anderson: That helps, because these are workers who have been covered under insurance instead of under workers' compensation. They could have been covered under workers' compensation, but it was voluntary.

[3:45]

One of the difficulties when people try to get advocacy groups is finding non-governmental advocacy groups they can have some rapport and trust with that could operate on their behalf. It seems to me that it could be a very important aid to both the government as well as to the people who are trying to do this. In attempting to broaden this scope, will you give some support to advocacy groups so that they might be able to do this in a more effective way -- at least their administration funds, because most of them are volunteers, to enable them to do advocacy work which would be beneficial to the clients as well as to the government?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sorry, I'm not sure if I really understand the question. I'm not sure what you mean here by advocacy groups. Do you mean groups that would advocate on behalf of employees to get coverage, and would we provide them with assistance to make sure that they get that coverage? Is that what the hon. member is asking?

V. Anderson: No. There are persons who are probably under coverage now, and you are extending their number. They are finding that their employer, their union and the government people they're going to are not able to meet their needs, to advocate on their behalf and go with them to the WCB to help them understand the consultation. We have found in many areas that having a volunteer with training and experience who has a similar kind of feeling for the person and who the person trusts, can be a tremendous help to everybody.

It's an advantage to the worker, the client and the total system, and if we're extending this to the broader area.... One example would be nannies who have an association and an understanding of each other. If there was a support group of that nature to help them out with language and with translation and understanding, that could be very important to those advocacy groups.

Hon. M. Sihota: I am not sure if the hon. member is aware that this is well outside the scope of this legislation. We are getting into stuff that is best left for estimates.

We have established workers' advisers. We are starting to move them around by setting up offices around the province. We opened one in Prince George in December, we have just opened one here in Victoria, and we have committed to opening an office in Nanaimo later this year. We have also made commitments elsewhere in the province.

The experience in Prince George has been that once we establish the workers' advisers, the advocacy groups go by the way, because they had always advocated the need to have government assistance for those workers. That has been our experience in those situations.

We have hired people who are proficient in more than one language, and we are continuing to do that. We have made information available in more than one language to deal with some of the difficulties people have in accessing the system.

I should caution that we are well beyond the scope of this legislation, and I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair in this.

G. Farrell-Collins: In response to the answer to my earlier question, the minister stated that hiring an employee would not preclude that employer or independent contractor from opting in for coverage for themselves. Is there any size limit to that? Is it ten or 100 employees? Or can any business person, as an employer, opt for coverage for themselves under workers' compensation?

Hon. M. Sihota: If the employer wants to opt in, regardless of size, they can receive the coverage.

G. Farrell-Collins: I guess there is a bit of a question there, because when I look at the job an employer is doing, it is often a little nebulous and usually quite different from what the employee is doing. It's not always -- many times the employer is actually right there in the thick of everything, but sometimes it tends to be more administrative. Sometimes they may be out running the forklift, then for the next three weeks they are in the office all the time with the phone in their ear. How would that type of assessment be done?

Would that have to be done on an individual basis when that person chose to opt in, or would they be compensated at their employees' rate after the injury occurred? How would that work?

Hon. M. Sihota: Within their industry they are put into an occupational coverage that they are aware of and that best fits their situation. That is basically how it works.

G. Farrell-Collins: I imagine that could be pretty tricky, trying to.... I guess that is just the way it is.

The wording of this

section is complex. It says in

section 2(1): "This Part applies to all employers, as

[ Page 8276 ]

employers, and all workers in British Columbia except employers or workers exempted by order of the board."

It goes on in subsection (2): "The board may direct that this Part applies on the terms specified in the board's direction (

a) to an independent operator who is neither an employer nor a worker as though the independent operator was a worker, or (

b) to an employer as though the employer was a worker." That is not easy to follow, but I hope the minister is coming along with me on this one, because I do have a question here and I'm trying to sort this out in my mind. Is this stating that employers can only cover themselves if it's directed by the board, or is it saying that employers are automatically covered unless the board directs otherwise? Or is it doing neither of those?

Hon. M. Sihota: I think it's fairly straightforward: 2(1) applies to all workers in British Columbia, and 2(2) applies to those people that are independent operators, and it allows them to opt into the system. With regard to the terms specified in the board's direction, they may wish to opt in only for a specific time period, for example. That explains the utilization of that language.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm just trying to come to grips with the beginning of

section 2(2). That first sentence says: "The board may direct that this Part applies on the terms specified in the board's direction." Perhaps the minister can walk me through it. Maybe I'm just having difficulty with it, but that line is causing me some confusion. I'm wondering if he can give us a scenario, or if his staff can give us some sort of a scenario where this applies, to make it a little easier to understand.

Hon. M. Sihota: A self-employed person will make an application to the board to be covered. The board will provide that coverage on the terms specified in the board's direction. In other words, the self-employed worker or employer may wish to be covered for a period of six months, and the board will then direct that the individual be covered for six months. It simply means that the person can apply to opt in; once they have applied and have been accepted, then it's on the terms outlined in the direction established by the board.

G. Farrell-Collins: A final point of clarification: is time frame the only direction we're looking at here, or are there other possibilities that would be included in those directions? What sort of a spectrum of options are we looking at that the board has in its direction?

Hon. M. Sihota: Usually it's duration, the amount that they have to pay, and there are directions in there that require them to comply with the health and safety regulations which may occupy that field.

L. Hanson: Is it correct, Mr. Minister, to suggest that an operator who is an independent operator and has no employees has coverage on a voluntary basis, not on a mandatory basis, and that an employer, even though he has employees, has not mandatory coverage but only discretionary or voluntary coverage if it is requested?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, that's right.

V. Anderson: I have two questions following from the answers. A few minutes ago the minister mentioned family members. If a person hires a spouse or son or daughter, are they automatically covered as part of the family? You said something that led me to believe that family members were perhaps excluded from the automatic coverage and pay.

Hon. M. Sihota: The board can look at that whole issue, which it may well do, but they were previously exempted. The idea is that they're arm's-length employees. Should this legislation pass, clearly the board will have the ability to look at that issue.

V. Anderson: What I'm trying to get at is the assumption that unless they get an exemption they will automatically expect to be covered. While I'm asking that question, at what point do part-time employees come in? The first one is the family connection and whether a person is automatically covered and expected to come in and therefore would need an exemption and have to ask it family by family. Deal with that one first, and then I'll ask the second one about part-time.

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me make it clear that family members are now excluded, but should this legislation pass, they won't be excluded. Part-time workers will be covered when this legislation passes, and they'll be covered on a pro rata basis.

V. Anderson: At what point do part-time workers come into this? Does it include a babysitter who comes once a week for two or three hours, or is it six hours or 12 hours?

[4:00]

Hon. M. Sihota: It doesn't matter whether they're full-time or part-time. Their claim will be predicated on the number of hours they work. They may work only 12 hours a week or they may work 40 hours a week, but whatever it is, that's what their claim will be predicated on.

V. Anderson: That clarifies one part of it. The other

part is that since it's compulsory for all employers to take out coverage for their employees, are you required to have workers' compensation coverage for a babysitter who comes one night a week 52 weeks a year, or is there a certain number of hours per week that an employee must work in order to be automatically covered? The babysitter could be a 16-year-old or a woman who's a senior, but no matter who they are or how long they work, are they now expected to apply for workers' compensation?

Hon. M. Sihota: If they are a worker under the legislation they are expected to be covered. A worker is

[ Page 8277 ]

defined in the legislation, and if they fit that, then they're covered for the time period that they are working.

G. Farrell-Collins: I've just been going through the act and looking at the definition of "worker." I am having a hard time trying to understand if someone like a babysitter is going to fall within it or not. Perhaps the minister can give us some guidance. Would they be considered an independent contractor? If so, they would be employing themselves and contracting out their services, and they could choose whether or not to cover themselves -- but the onus would be on the babysitter.

Whereas if they are included in the definition of worker, then the onus falls on the person hiring that babysitter to provide coverage on an hourly pro rata basis.

Hon. M. Sihota: The board will determine which people fall within the ambit of the wording as it relates to worker. It is possible that someone providing day care services to a family could be covered; it's also possible that they won't. It depends on a number of variables as they relate to the relationship.

G. Farrell-Collins: I can understand that. During the transition period, what are these people to do? Are they going to have to apply as individuals if they want an exemption for their babysitter, or is the babysitter going to have to apply either for an exemption or for optional coverage? Is this going to be a piecemeal decision on a case-by-case basis -- complaint-driven as the minister stated -- or by request? Or is it going to be a blanket decision that will apply to all these cases under some guidelines?

Hon. M. Sihota: I think it would be prudent for the board to make a determination on a broad basis and advise the public of its determination, with regard to professional athletes or babysitting services, for example.

G. Farrell-Collins: I assume that's probably the best guidance we're going to get from the minister in terms of direction to the board. The member for Vancouver-Langara, by getting into this, raised a very good question. It could be a huge can of worms if it were opened. For a very small benefit and small amount of money, the administrative costs could be quite substantial. I hope some broad

interpretation will be given to that clause, and I hope that it will be optional coverage that the babysitter can choose. I am sure the board will come up with that decision on its own. If we sit here long enough, we could probably find a half dozen or dozen other instances where we have these independent people.

I am just looking through the act and the definition of "worker" under (

c) in

section 1. A line has been pulled out of the current definition of "worker," and it is amended. I suppose we can do that when we get to

section 2(1)(

f) of the act. Anyway, I'll ask the question. If it's out of order, we can deal with it at that time. Perhaps I could just ask the question quickly, because I am sure he's had representations also. It talks about members of a fire brigade or ambulance drivers, and it says that they are considered as a worker whether or not they are being paid. I have had certain representations from people who have been unemployed at the time they were injured.

They were employed, but they were on a temporary unemployment when they continued their duties as a volunteer firefighter and got injured, and all of a sudden they're in trouble because they don't have any salaries to base it on. Is there a system coming into place under the universal coverage that will deal with the rated scale for those people so that they get coverage that is realistic to potential lost earnings, or are we just going to deal with that temporary time frame in which they are unemployed?

Hon. M. Sihota: The wording here doesn't change the system.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's unfortunate, I suppose. I am sure the minister and the staff were aware of this issue. I know I have addressed correspondence to the minister on behalf of the firefighters with regard to this. I'm wondering if an amendment needs to be put into this bill, or if it can be done somewhere down the line or by regulation.

Hon. M. Sihota: All of us have volunteer firefighters in our constituencies. In many ways they are the backbone of the constituency. In fact, I have spent very many enjoyable Tuesday and Thursday nights, after practice, with the volunteer firefighters in my riding. This doesn't change the situation, but it's a good point. All I will say at this point is that I will agree to make further inquiries with regard to the volunteer firefighting situation. Legitimately, these people perform quite a service to the community, and you do worry about the impact on their lifestyle.

There is obviously a scheme in place that protects them. I just can't remember off the top of my head to what extent and the way in which they're covered. Perhaps the previous minister would remember. But it is a valid point, and it doesn't change the status quo here in this legislation.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't want to belabour the point, but it's an issue that was brought up to me over a year ago. It's something that I have been keeping in the back of my mind -- indeed, at the forefront at times -- and I have forwarded correspondence to the minister and written to the minister a number of times about it. I would feel somewhat remiss if I didn't put in the request, now that we're dealing with this legislation, to try to address it before we pass the legislation.

I know we have a certain amount of time to go through this and deal with the changes to the Workers Compensation Act today, but I would be disappointed if we had to wait another full year until the next session, if that's when it's going to be, to deal with a small change. I would be willing to deal with the debate as it stands on this. Perhaps the minister may want to bring in an amendment to deal with it, and we could put it through. I don't know if he's interested in doing that,

[ Page 8278 ]

but we would be remiss if we weren't trying to at least take advantage of the fact that we have this before the House. I would be prepared, and I'm sure my caucus would be prepared, to deal with the whole bill in its entirety, but not put it out of committee stage until we can bring in that amendment, pass it quickly and deal with it through third reading posthaste.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, I'm not going to agree to that. I'm not trying to be belligerent or anything; it's just that there are significant public policy decisions that are associated with covering volunteers. I'm not going to get across in negotiating the matter, but I can see another way it could be dealt with without this legislation. I'll be happy to talk to the hon. member about how that can be accommodated, perhaps once we are finished with this debate.

G. Farrell-Collins: I will be glad to engage in that debate and look at the issue. My understanding is that the coverage is substantially better in the majority of provinces. I think B.C. is the only one that has this loophole there that puts these people in limbo. If the minister or his staff can come up with any way to rectify that, I'd be glad to deal with it as quickly as possible. If it's in the legislation and it's necessary, that's fine; we can certainly expedite that. If it's required by regulation, then of course that's something the minister can do.

I think that wraps up my direct questions relating to that section. Unless someone else has questions, I'm fine with that -- unless the minister has any closing comments.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

G. Farrell-Collins: This is, I suppose, the second half of the bill. There are really only two mini-debates on this piece of legislation. As I said in second reading, it's a decision the government has made under some perceived threat of a court challenge to the current process. The minister stated in second reading that the reason for removing this provision of the act was to deal with the application of the Charter of Rights to provincial government legislation, retroactive to April 17, 1985.

As I said at that time, while it's laudable to have all these goals, and it's nice for the government to be able to do all sorts of wonderful things that we all feel are justified, we always have to look at the cost implications. That's why I was asking so many questions on the last

section -- to deal with what the cost impact and implications were going to be.

My question relating to

section 5 deals primarily with the cost factor. Perhaps the minister can walk us through what the costs are going to be both for rectifying this situation and for the exposure that will exist in the future.

Hon. M. Sihota: I think these were put on the record, in any event. I know that the hon. member was briefed on this issue. It would cost $60 million to continue the 1985-90 pensions prospectively; $11 million retroactively, plus the interest of another $6 million; and $10 million per year for new claims.

G. Farrell-Collins: When workers' compensation was brought in, was it intended to be compensation for lost income or for damage, suffering and those types of things? What was the intent of the act? The question is important, because it relates to the intent of this section.

Hon. M. Sihota: It does not compensate for pain and suffering; it compensates for loss of income.

[4:15]

G. Farrell-Collins: I want to be a bit philosophical here for a second and detach ourselves from the costs and just look at the rationale behind this decision. In second reading the minister commented that removing compensation from a surviving spouse of a worker killed on a worksite, if that spouse were to remarry, would run the risk of being seen by the courts as discriminatory. In fact, legislation has been changed in other jurisdictions to remove that.

I know this is philosophical, but I think it's important to understand the rationale. If the decision was to provide a surviving spouse with an income stream as compensation and that income stream is then replicated by another spouse, why is there a need to have two income streams: one by the new spouse and one by the deceased spouse?

Hon. M. Sihota: You are correct in saying this is the second half of the debate, and maybe it's best, as you say, to spend a few minutes being philosophical about this issue. I'm going to come at it from two points. I'm going to take a few minutes to deal with the issues. Let me start on one, then I'll go to the other.

People would make decisions not to remarry, because it would mean that the benefits under the legislation would not accrue to them. I will consciously use the word "benefit" to put it into the context the previous member was referring to. You have to ask yourself whether or not a statutory scheme in terms of the provision of benefits or a pension ought to prevent people from getting married.

People know that if they remarry they would lose this benefit, so people would engage in a common-law relationship in order to preserve the benefit, as well as having the additional benefit that comes from two people living together. You have to ask yourself whether it's right that a quality-of-life choice should be impacted upon and be determined by the existence of this legislation. You have to ask yourself whether it's fair that some people would make a conscious decision to remain in a common-law relationship and maintain the benefit, while others would get married and lose the benefit.

In tangible terms, there is no difference.

The second point I would make -- and let me just use myself as an example; perhaps it's easier to make that philosophical point.... Let's say that tomorrow I am involved in a motor vehicle accident -- probably the

[ Page 8279 ]

best example I can think of -- and I die. My wife -- I hope she's not watching; she's working, so I guess I can use this example -- would be entitled under a statutory program, assuming the fault was attributed to another party. So we're dealing with one statutory program against another: ICBC and WCB. She will be entitled to damages predicated on my wage loss -- the interruption to the stream of income that would occur. That would be predicated on what people assume to be my earning pattern between now and age 65.

There would be an award through the courts -- or by agreement with ICBC -- and she would receive those benefits. She would receive a lump sum payment or periodic payments, depending on how it was structured -- because you could have a structured settlement -- notwithstanding the fact that she might remarry, to go to the member's point.

As a society we have made a decision, in the context of insurance law, that we don't get into questions of probabilities of remarriage in assessing loss of income. There was a time in this country -- as it related to insurance litigation -- where we did that. As attitudes shifted in relation to dependency arguments and the nature of relationships, those issues are no longer -- and have not been for the longest time -- a matter of discourse in determining loss of income for insurance. I just used the example of automobile insurance, because we are talking about a statutory scheme in that case as well.

Should it be any different if I were to die as a result of an injury sustained at work? I think that's the nub of the philosophical question. Under one statutory system of insurance -- ICBC -- someone is entitled to that income regardless of remarriage, while under another as it currently exists you lose it upon remarriage. Both are statutory schemes made here in B.C., and both deal with the same kind of contingency -- i.e., someone loses their life and there is an interruption in earnings through no fault of their own.

In the context of insurance coverage -- I can think of other insurance examples; I just use ICBC because it's one we're all familiar with -- does it make sense to deny that coverage in one scheme and not in another, and is it not discriminatory to have that kind of restriction in one versus the other? I think that defines the philosophical differences in real terms.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't want to belabour the point, because we did go through it to some extent in second reading, although not in a back-and-forth manner. We can go into it, but I guess the question is whether we're dealing with an insurance program or with workers' compensation. Is workers' compensation theoretically an insurance program? I guess it would get a little too esoteric to start delving into those areas at this stage of the debate.

I want to focus a little on the costs and where the money is going to come from to pay this one out. Essentially, this act brings in a $10 million retroactive liability for workers' compensation. In addition, I think we're looking at $7 million in interest over the past eight years. How is that money going to be raised? Is it going to be raised proportionally through the classifications of workers who are injured? I notice that we're only dealing with 155 people, but is it going to have any substantial impact on...? It's certainly going to have an impact on the unfunded liability.

What time frame is it going to be amortized over to make this up, or is it going to be a one-shot deal? How is it that we're looking to deal with gathering the money to pay for this?

Hon. M. Sihota: It may have a big effect on assessment rates, and it may not have any effect. It just depends on where those cases fall. If it's a category like forestry it really won't have a big effect, but if it falls into a small pool, potentially it could have an effect on assessment rates.

G. Farrell-Collins: Have those numbers been done? Have we looked at where those 155 people fall? Are we affecting any small pools, or are we primarily dealing with the large ones? I don't imagine that too many office workers have been killed at work. I suppose the small pools and the lower rates would have the potential for the greatest impact. Is there some indication of where that impact is going to be? I would imagine that deaths generally take place in the resource sectors where there's heavy machinery and the risk is much higher, and I would assume that the rates are therefore substantially higher.

Indeed, given this province's economy, there's probably a broader base of people to draw from. I'm just trying to determine what they are and whether those numbers have been done.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, we don't actually have specific numbers. We took a look at numbers in the public sector to see the impact there, but not broadly in the private sector. Generally speaking, in B.C. I think we all realize that forestry, construction and mining, which are major employers, have the largest preponderance of exposure, and that is where one would expect most of these cases to fall.

G. Farrell-Collins: The second half of my earlier question was: over what time frame are these going to be amortized? Is this going to be a one-shot deal where assessments for the next fiscal year are going to absorb this $17 million retroactively, as well as whatever portion of the future $60 million would pertain to that time period? Or are we amortizing it over three or four years? Or is this going to be absorbed in the context of looking at the whole $280 million unfunded liability?

Hon. M. Sihota: I think I am answering your question; if not, I don't underestimate your ability to ask me again. The assessments can be increased each year, and some of these costs will be picked up each year. They won't be picked up in one year unless they have a nominal effect, because the board policy is that you can't have rate shock of any more than 20 percent in a particular category. So you could spread it out, for example, over a five-year period to handle that in a small pool. In a larger pool I guess you could pick it up without any effect. In a small pool the maximum rate shock that you are going to see would be 20 percent,

[ Page 8280 ]

spread out over about a five-year period to pick up that kind of a cost.

G. Farrell-Collins: I think it would have helped us in the debate if we had had those numbers; it is important to know whether a 20 percent increase was likely in one area.

While I know that 20 percent is the maximum in the policy of the board, we are addressing another even larger problem within Workers' Compensation: the $280 million unfunded liability. You tack onto it a $17 million retroactive liability, and then each year you have to absorb your proportion of the future $60 million liability. I am concerned. While this is in proportion to the $280 million unfunded liability, it isn't as large. I wonder what sort of time frame is involved. Is the minister willing to let this go to the 20 percent maximum, or are we looking at amortizing it over a longer period of time? I think it is worth getting the indications now of what that direction is.

For employers the biggest problem with this

section is how it will be paid for. What time frame are we going to provide with the assessments to cover these costs, so they will know if they are going to get a 20 percent or a 10 percent increase? When we look at this, combined with the $280 million unfunded liability, it does have an effect. I know that those employers are interested in knowing what the possible ramification of that is. Is this all going to be folded into the unfunded liability, which can then become part of the strategy we are going to get on July 19, or is it something that we are going to try and deal with immediately?

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I hope you weren't talking about me. If there is someone here who needs to be taken downstairs, I would be happy to volunteer to take him down.

[4:30]

As for the matter of the unfunded liability and whether or not I can direct the board -- this is the way I sense the question -- not to have a 20 percent shock in a particular area, I don't have the statutory power to do that. The statutory provisions are very clear. Only the board of governors has that authority. There are times when I'd love to be able to make amendments to a number of sections that deal with this legislation.

So they have to make those determinations, and they have to have a plan with regard to dealing with the overall unfunded liability. They requested that these changes be made. They are being made now, and if the Legislature approves them, they will be law. They have to develop -- and I can ask for it -- a strategy for dealing with the unfunded liability, and I have. But they will make those determinations. I am statutorily prevented from interfering in that process.

G. Farrell-Collins: I know the minister doesn't have the statutory ability to do it, but.... It's always difficult to engage in debate when the person you're debating with isn't there.

I don't underestimate the minister's ability to exert moral suasion on the board. I know he's done it on a number of issues and on a number of occasions. While I know that there's no statutory ability for him to do that, I do know that he as minister has a good deal of influence on the board of a Crown, and that he certainly could give his assurance that he's not looking for that type of shock, as he's given some other direction here already today in a casual way. It would provide some reassurance for those employers out there to know that they had at least one person advocating against the 20 percent rate shock and whatever possibilities there are.

Hon. M. Sihota: I do make it a habit -- and it's an enjoyable one -- of attending board meetings, and I'll continue that practice.

G. Farrell-Collins: I suppose that's about as good as it's going to get.

I have just one final question that comes back to the philosophy of it, I guess. I know the minister chose April 17, 1985, because of the provisions of the Charter of Rights and its application to provincial legislation. Is the rationale for this decision a legal one? Is it because of the exposure and the risk that existed there -- or that we thought existed -- as it related to the Charter, or is it a philosophical decision? Which is it?

Hon. M. Sihota: All legal decisions are philosophical. I can tell you that, as a student of law. Some will even tell you that a lot of legal decisions are political. So this is legal, political and philosophical.

I think there's a philosophy that underlies the Charter, and all governments were obliged upon introduction of the Charter to comply with it. And we are doing it for all of the philosophical reasons that underlie those provisions in the Charter. I don't think a government should be purposely allowing provisions to remain that are or could be contrary to the Charter. I guess the honest answer to that question is that it's both, because I'm not too sure if you can draw a line between what's legal and what's philosophical.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister has drawn a line, and that line was drawn on April 17, 1985. He has drawn a line between the philosophical and the legal. If it was strictly a philosophical decision, the exposure beyond that I assume would have been taken into consideration here.

I'm just curious to find out from the minister when he takes credit for this decision or responsibility for it -- whoever it is he's talking to -- whether he's doing it for a philosophical reason and he's going to stand up and take it as a wonderful thing that they've done, or if he's going to stand up and say: "Look, the law was coming after us anyway, and we had to do it. It's a legal decision, and I have drawn that line between legal and philosophical by statute on April 17, 1985." When the public hears about these things, it's always nice to know exactly what the rationale is for them.

I guess that's the question.

I have one final question in that regard. Can the minister tell the House what sort of liability exposure

[ Page 8281 ]

would have existed had this dealt with all surviving spouses at present?

Hon. M. Sihota: We don't have that number, in answer to that question.

Going back to the first point, I note that the hon. member's party will be supporting this. When they tell people that they supported

section 5, I don't know whether they will be saying this on legal grounds, philosophical grounds or on what grounds. I think the example that I'll use is the same example that I used in the House to explain it, and that is really the ICBC-WCB situation, because I think that covers it reasonably well. There is a date that we applied because of the Charter legal considerations to April 15. It is true that one could go all the way back, but as I said, we don't have a number on that, and I can't speak to the exposure.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

section 7.

L. Hanson: Just a quick question to the minister. When was the last claim against the silicosis fund, and is there any residual balance in it?

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sorry to see the heavyweight back in the House.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Oh, I've got to watch my language around here too. It's politically incorrect language to describe the hon. member as being a heavyweight. I'll resist all other comments, but a number of potential ones crossed my mind as I spoke.

There were nine claims in 1992, and there is no surplus. The funds have been paid back on a pro rata basis.

L. Hanson: I don't want to belabour the point, but I think there is a surplus, and none has been paid back. I accept that. Maybe the question should be....

Interjection.

L. Hanson: It has been totally paid back? -- to the various pools that created it, I suppose.

Sections 7 to 14 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Sihota: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

Bill 63, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Sihota: I call second reading on Bill 52, Beaver Lodge Trust Lands Renewal Act.

[4:45]

BEAVER LODGE TRUST LANDS RENEWAL ACT

Hon. J. Cashore: I move that Bill 52 now be read a second time. The bill ratifies and confirms previous dispositions and alienations by the Crown of certain lands in Campbell River known as the Beaver Lodge lands. These lands were conveyed to the Crown by the Elk River Timber Company in 1931 for experimental work in reforestation and forest management purposes. The Beaver Lodge lands have been largely used for experimental forest purposes since that time, and healthy stands of second-growth fir, along with deciduous species, exist on the site.

The bill confirms that the core lands will be held in trust along with additional lands that will be acquired by July 1, 1994, to increase the trust to 502 hectares from its original size of 413 hectares.

The bill permits the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks to dispose of portions of the Beaver Lodge lands required for a joint high school and college campus, residential purposes and the completion of Campbell River's road network. The road network, in particular, is important to facilitate an additional route to the Island Highway and alternative access to the airport.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

The bill permits the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks to acquire additional lands in proximity to the core lands and to designate these as trust lands. The minister is required to enlarge the trust by July 1, 1994. The cost to acquire the lands shall be borne by the Crown lands special account. No legal action can be brought against the Crown, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, ministers of the Crown or public officers, and no compensation is payable to any person resulting from any past or future dispositions of, or dealings with, the Beaver Lodge lands or developed lands.

This bill requires the Minister of Forests to establish a resource use plan for the trust lands by July 1, 1994, and in the establishment of such a plan, to consult with the public. Local bodies will be encouraged to support the Ministry of Forests in the creation of a resource use plan, to participate in providing expertise to the use of the lands for forestry education and other purposes and to construct and maintain walking trails, etc. Money required for the ongoing management of the Beaver Lodge forest lands will be paid out of an appropriation of the Ministry of Forests.

This bill requires the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to designate as trust lands the core lands as well as the lands that are acquired under this bill, and that all of these lands are to be used solely for

[ Page 8282 ]

experimental work in reforestation and forest management, to be known as the Beaver Lodge forest lands. The Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks is authorized to purchase, acquire or transfer Crown land in exchange for land which must be added to the trust lands and designated as such. Further, the minister has the authority to expropriate land or property to which, if expropriated, the Expropriation Act applies. The two primary private interests in adjacent land are held by Fletcher Challenge Canada Ltd. and Campbell River Land Corp.

This bill requires the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks to file with the registrar under the Land Title Act a description of the trust lands and the purpose for which they are being used -- for experimental work in reforestation and forest management.

This bill reflects the government's commitment to restore and protect a vital and important trust area, and to ensure that the needs of the Campbell River community are supported. If enacted, this bill will be the first of its kind to legislate the creation of an experimental forest in British Columbia.

J. Tyabji: I want to preface my remarks on the bill by saying that there is always a temptation in opposition to focus on the negative, and I would like to use this bill as an example of where we can have some constructive criticism and input. Given the circumstances surrounding the Beaver Lodge lands, I think this was the best compromise that could be brought forward. The minister is aware, because of the discussions we had in the estimates of Environment, that the opposition had some serious concerns with problems of the Beaver Lodge lands.

The questions that surround this are: when is a trust a trust, and at what point can the government arbitrarily designate lands for development in the absence of any knowledge of what the lands were meant to be?

I understand that this government inherited a problem that had been there for some years, and I understand that sometimes clerical errors occur, as with the letter that deeded the lands to the Crown for an experimental forest. It is unfortunate that that happened. I think there should have been more effort on the part of the government, particularly the offices of the Ministry of Forests, to find the letter and to at least establish what that land had originally been given to the government for.

If there was any negligence, it was that the research that brought us to this bill was done by the Friends of the Beaver Lodge Lands Society, and not the government; that it actually became incumbent on the citizens who live there to do the background research and to find the letter that set aside these lands as an experimental forest. That's the only negative that I would say. I know that this minister can't necessarily be held accountable, but with regard to negligence, it's unfortunate that it had to come up through the citizens.

Having said that, I recognize that this is landmark legislation in terms of an experimental forest being designated by law. I think that's a major positive. The fact that Crown land will be expropriated for the purpose of replacement of the land that was taken out for development is excellent. I am happy to see that there will not be a net loss to the trust that was set aside by the letter of 1931. In fact, if I can give credit where it's due, the fact that there will be some additional effort to expropriate Crown land to make up for development lands beyond what was required by this decision that came out is a good move by the minister.

The opposition also had some difficulty with regard to the potential perceived conflict of the MLA for the area, who is the Attorney General, in terms of the Attorney General's office providing legal advice to the Ministry of Environment on what should be done with regard to the trust lands that were taken out for development. Those concerns were discussed during the estimates debate.

I think that most people will agree that the decision made, not just by this legislation but also by the local government, was the best compromise that could be reached, and that if things could be done differently, there would have been a stronger effort made originally to establish what those lands were. If that effort had been made, perhaps a decision would not have been made for development in absence of that, and we wouldn't need this legislation now.

I look forward to the committee stage of this bill. Given what the minister was left with, this is a good compromise. It will be interesting to see how the people of Campbell River respond to the new lands that will be put into the CORE lands from the expropriated lands. I am also very curious to see what the community will do regarding participation in the experimental forest. I look forward to going over some of the details of this in the committee stage.

I received a letter from the minister and the definition of "experimental forest" and the publication that came out of that. I hope we will use this as a learning experience. Maybe, as the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Minister of Forests are updating their land registries and titles and computer system, that will pre-empt this from happening in the future.

There is really not much that can be said about this except that it's unfortunate that it happened. This is the best solution that could be given, and I look forward to committee stage.

W. Hurd: I think it important to read into the record as well the role played by the Friends of Beaver Lodge Lands in bringing this issue forward. I would like to recognize their considerable work in identifying that this particular

section of Crown land was subject to a trust arrangement with the government, and that through no fault of anyone, I suppose, the area designated for the trust in 1931 had been compromised by development -- in particular, a request for the runway to be extended at the Campbell River airport, as well as a request by the college to include a portion of the lands for expansion of the campus facilities.

It's important also to note that the opposition has done some research that indicates that in the 1930s, when this land was originally logged and designated as a trust, the Crown actually did plant some types of trees on the site, including some exotic species which would be called "exotic species." So there was a recognition in the 1930s that this was indeed a trust land area.

[ Page 8283 ]

Somehow between that date and today it was compromised.

The opposition understands that this is a solution for adding to the land base to restore it to its original trust. However, the minister will be aware that some groups, in particular the Friends of Beaver Lodge Lands, have approached both the opposition and the government to express their concern about some of the land use decisions that might take place in the areas being added to the trust -- in particular, the issue of where access roads might go and whether they will compromise the intention of the original trust. We'll welcome the opportunity to canvass those issues with the minister in committee stage, when we go through the various clauses of the bill.

Generally speaking, the bill is an essential element to restoring a trust. As the opposition Forests critic, I certainly welcome the addition of another experimental forest in the province, which I think has tremendous educational opportunities for the public and for schoolchildren in a region of our province -- namely, Campbell River -- which is becoming more populous by the year. With those few remarks, I welcome the opportunity to deal in committee with this bill on the Beaver Lodge lands.

L. Fox: I welcome the opportunity to speak to this bill. A rather unfortunate set of circumstances has led us to this point. I think, as others have said, that one really can't blame any particular individual or level of government....

Interjections.

L. Fox: If the member would like to stand up and speak, he should take his place.

It draws some concerns to mind. When government accepted a trust some 60 years ago based on the principles and values of that particular day, should we as a government be making a promise or commitment to reflect the values of 1931 in 1993? Should that commitment really be made? Or should we, in accepting a trust such as this, have a process of evaluating whether or not the principles and thoughts of 1931 should be in place in perpetuity, and whether or not we should be re-evaluating them on an ongoing basis?

Often we accept these things with the best of intentions -- not so much land, but other things such as vehicles for the archives, or whatever -- and find later on that they become a stone around the neck of the province, rather than the value that was originally intended.

[5:00]

This particular land, however, was set aside for experimental work in reforestation and forest management, and, as I understand, was used for that purpose over some time. As I said earlier, it is unfortunate that somewhere along the road the process wasn't maintained and the property wasn't properly identified. The concerns of the Friends of Beaver Lodge should be front and centre when we think about this particular bill, because a commitment was made in 1931 that obviously wasn't maintained up until 1993.

I see that we have no choice but to support this particular bill. I may have some difficulties with our critic on that, but I see a situation here which really is unfortunate. This bill will put that land back into the state that was intended in 1931, and I think that is in the best interests of all concerned.

C. Serwa: I am going to speak on the philosophy and principles of Bill 52. There are a number of aspects to this bill, but in total I can't support it, for a variety of reasons. As indicated in one of the newspaper columns, it is called the "Beaver Lodge Foul-up Bill." It developed out of a situation that perhaps in hindsight appears to be no one's fault. Perhaps when the original deed was registered, there was no restrictive covenant readily identifying in a title search that the land was in fact trust land, and I appreciate that.

But there is a much bigger issue at jeopardy in this particular bill. The minister and the government are quite aware at the present time that these were and are trust lands; they were donated to the Crown. Some of the land has been subdivided for development, and apparently there is a school on the property.

I don't know the extent of infrastructure-building on roads; whether it has advanced from the planning stages; whether the highway right-of-way has advanced to the point where it is absolutely necessary; whether the proposed school and North Island College expansion have been compromised in any way, shape or form; or whether new residential areas have encroached and compromised where infrastructure has gone to a certain point.

But I am very concerned. I