Hansard -- Volume 4, Number 19 -- Wednesday, June 17, 1992 (2024)

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number 19

[ Page 2701 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

F. Jackson: Three constituents of mine visiting the buildings today are Paul Bailey, Debbie Funk and Brian Carruthers. Paul and Debbie are house-hunting so that Paul can go to law school at UVic in the fall, and Brian's taking a vacation from his work in beautiful Wells Gray Park. Would the House please join me and make them welcome.

Hon. J. Cashore: In the precincts today are 35 grade 6 students from Mundy Road Elementary School in Coquitlam, along with their chaperones and their teacher Mrs. L. Leonard. Will the House join me in making them welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: On behalf of my colleague the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, I am pleased to introduce to the House today Mr. Ted Hallock. Mr. Hallock is an Oregon member of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Council. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Hallock served for 20 years as a Democrat in Oregon state. Mr. Hallock's numerous volunteer affiliations included the Jacques Cousteau Society and the Oregon Environment Council. Would the House please make him welcome.

B. Copping: I'm very pleased to introduce to the House today a constituent who worked very hard in my campaign, Al Tokarchuk, who is recovering from recent heart bypass surgery. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I also have the pleasure of introducing some constituents of mine today: 35 grade 6 and 7 students from Grosvenor Road Elementary School, with their teacher Mr. McCallum, as well as several other adults accompanying them today.

Hon. T. Perry: I just had the pleasure of escorting up in the elevator Mrs. Ford, a life-long CCFer presently from Kamloops, and her companion, and also two unidentified Americans from Florida who were so fascinated by the debate yesterday they've come back for more. So I'd like to ask the House to make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

GUARANTEED AVAILABLE INCOME
FOR NEED AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. J. Smallwood presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I am pleased to introduce Bill 68, which proposes several amendments to the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act, as well as consequential amendments to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act.

The amendments to the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act have three purposes. One is to redefine certain social services as income assistance, so as to make the act consistent with options put forward in several judicial reviews in recent years. This will also allow clients who are requesting or receiving these types of services to make appeals to a tribunal, rather than being limited to the present administrative review.

The second purpose is to establish an income assistance advisory council. This council will involve the wider community in government decision-making around the design and delivery of income assistance programs in the future.

The third purpose is to improve the family maintenance program. This program provides services to single parents on income assistance by helping them to obtain child and spousal support orders and to vary the amount of the orders if they are inadequate. The amendment removes the requirement to participate in the program as a condition of receiving social assistance and gives single parents the choice of whether or not to pursue maintenance orders through the program. Further, this amendment will enable the continuation of program services that start while a single parent is on income assistance but are not completed when the client ceases receiving the assistance. Finally, these amendments repeal the unproclaimed sections 19.6 and 19.7.

Bill 68 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.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill 70, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1992. This bill contains amendments needed to implement the vehicle emission testing program in September of this year. This program addresses the growing air quality problem in the lower mainland by requiring that all vehicles operating in the region meet exhaust emission standards. The amendments contained in this bill provide the specific authority for program procedures.

To improve the level of service provided to the public, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia is moving to introduce insurance policies that expire on days other than month end. The purpose of this change is to reduce month-end lineups and allow better service to be provided to the public.

Driver licensing services provided to the public will also be improved with amendments, which will allow administrative flexibility in licensing provisions.

Finally, the current four distinct procedures for the appointment of motor vehicle branch enforcement

[ Page 2702 ]

officers will be replaced by a common process that will establish a single enforcement officer designation.

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.

MEMBERS' CONFLICT OF INTEREST
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 64, Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 1992. This bill contains a number of significant amendments that significantly strengthen the Members' Conflict of Interest Act and reflects the government's commitment to rigorous and fair conflict of interest rules. Such rules are of critical importance in helping to ensure the high standard of conduct on the part of members of the Legislative Assembly which British Columbians rightfully expect. The bill significantly broadens the definition of conflict of interest to apply not only to the making of a decision but also to the exercise of official powers and performance of official duties and functions.

Another amendment of fundamental importance is the addition of the definition of apparent conflict of interest, which is defined in terms of a reasonable perception which a reasonably well-informed person could properly have that a member's ability to carry out his or her duties must have been affected by his or her private interest.

[2:15]

Other amendments in this bill augment and strengthen existing provisions respecting the activities of former members of the executive council and parliamentary secretaries and the provisions respecting offices or directorships which they may hold.

Other amendments strengthen the procedures dealing with conflict and provide for continuous disclosure within 30 days of material changes in assets, liabilities and financial interests, and provide that members of the public who have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the act has been contravened may request an opinion of the commissioner of conflict of interest.

In addition to these amendments to the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, the government also intends to provide a process by which conflict-of-interest issues can be considered generally, including such questions as whether such laws should apply to public office holders other than Members of the Legislative Assembly. I will elaborate in greater detail on some of the more significant amendments at second reading of this bill.

I commend the bill for the consideration of the House and urge its passage.

Bill 64 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

IMMIGRATION POLICY CHANGES

G. Wilson: My question is to the Deputy Premier, the minister responsible for immigration. Yesterday the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration announced new immigration policies with some fairly sweeping and effective measures that are going to put additional burdens on the budgets and taxpayers of British Columbia, among which is the refusal for refugee claimants to work and the dependency that these claimants will have on the welfare rolls. Would the minister tell us what input the British Columbia government had in the making of this policy, and to what extent the minister has calculated the cost to the B.C. taxpayer of such a policy?

Hon. A. Hagen: The amendments to which the Leader of the Opposition speaks were announced yesterday by the federal government. As he notes, they are indeed extensive. To the specific question about one change, namely the right of people coming into the country as refugees to work or not to work -- the change that they will not be able to work until their status is confirmed -- that's another example of federal downloading onto the provincial government. I would think that all members of the House would join in ensuring that our concern about that is expressed to the federal government, and I invite the Leader of the Opposition to express his concerns to his counterparts in the Liberal Party in Ottawa.

G. Wilson: It's interesting to note, however, that in the agreements at the latest round of constitutional discussion on immigration, this is precisely the kind of downloading that's being requested by this government. I wonder if the minister can comment on whether or not she agrees that refugee claimants should not be permitted to work, and also whether or not she agrees that immigrants into the country of Canada should be required by law to have residency requirements in one province for up to two years as a result of their permission to enter the country.

Hon. A. Hagen: The leader of the opposition has asked about four questions in one, which makes it a little difficult to provide him with a clear and coherent answer. He has raised some questions about constitutional matters, and, as we know, those constitutional matters are around agreements between federal and provincial governments on matters with respect to immigration. That is a matter that we intend to pursue most vigorously within the current and potential constitutional framework.

On the issue of the specifics of the federal government proposals, they have just been tabled with us. We will indeed be making representations to the federal government in the interests of British Columbia's economy and social fabric, as far as those proposals are concerned.

[ Page 2703 ]

G. Wilson: The reason we put four questions out is on the off chance we might get an answer to at least one of the four. Unfortunately, that wasn't forthcoming.

Going back to the question, I wonder if the minister can tell us whether or not she agrees that we should define a Canadian as an immigrant with seniority. Should we in fact have a law that prohibits a refugee claimant from working and puts them on the welfare roll? Does the minister agree that there should be provision for a law, and would she, with her government in negotiation with the federal government, agree to implement regulations on immigration that would have a residency requirement of an immigrant for up to two years with respect to their provision for entering the country? Does she agree with these recommendations?

Hon. A. Hagen: As usual, the member is far out of the domain of where we make law. We are indeed talking about federal amendments to the immigration law of the land. I believe that all Canadians have an interest in those amendments, which are in fact a part of federal law. I would again invite the Leader of the Opposition to express his concerns to his counterpart, the leader of the Liberal opposition in Ottawa. Perhaps you can get your act together on immigration policy.

Let me assure you that this government will be addressing the immigration policy that is proposed by the federal government in amendments that are proposed before the Parliament of Canada as it affects our immigration needs and our responsibilities. We will be doing that in the context of Canada-B.C. immigration agreements that are the subject of negotiations between our two governments.

REVIEW OF GAMING REGULATIONS

J. Weisgerber: A question to the Attorney General. Last year the former government appointed former Deputy Minister Stephen Stackhouse to conduct a review of gaming regulations and to draft new ones. I am led to believe that Mr. Stackhouse has completed his work and that the legislation has been drafted. Could the minister advise us of the status of Mr. Stackhouse's work?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't comment on the accuracy of the statements contained in the question, but I can inform members of the House that the Minister of Government Services and myself have been working jointly to review gambling issues in British Columbia. Mr. Steven Stackhouse has, in fact, been a participant in that review on my behalf.

J. Weisgerber: A supplementary question then. As the Attorney knows, a former casino manager has raised some serious questions today about increased scope and hours of gambling in British Columbia. I'm wondering whether the Attorney can advise this House if he or his ministry have done any investigations or studies to determine the impact of increased gambling in British Columbia, particularly the impact on those people who could least afford it.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: From the beginning of our time in office, I have expressed concern in various quarters about gambling issues and the potential proliferation of gambling in an uncontrolled way if we aren't careful in this province. Together with other concerns that have been raised, including many by the Ministry of Government Services, that led us to make a decision some months ago to proceed with a full review of all the issues.

Earlier the Gaming Commission, which is an independent body, responded to issues -- which I believe developed mostly in the lower mainland -- with respect to long lineups at a small number of casinos, and indicated that it would look at the question of whether to expand (a) the hours and (b) the tables. That independent review is being conducted now by the Gaming Commission, and was a decision made prior to our full review of this issue.

I simply want to say in conclusion that I share the concern of all members of this House about gambling. The government is moving as quickly as it can to do a full and thorough review.

J. Weisgerber: Supplementary to the Attorney General. Would the Attorney General, in view of the study, agree to discontinue the authority that has been given to casinos to expand their hours and their table limits, until a review has been completed and until legislation has been brought to this chamber for debate by all members of the House?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's a good question, which I'll take on notice.

FOOD BANKS

V. Anderson: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. As an elected representative of the east side of Vancouver, the Premier must be very aware that many of his constituents are trying to survive by getting their daily food in the food bank lineups. On this Food Bank Day.... Having chaired the organization of the food bank in the 1981 crisis, I know that 2,000 people were served each week then. That grew in 1991 to 4,000 each week in Vancouver alone, and at the present time it's over 8,000 persons per week. Will the Premier advise the House what specifically is being done now to meet this urgent and critical need to replace the food banks, so that people might be adequately fed?

Hon. M. Harcourt: It is indeed a very alarming and sad fact that the increase has taken place, as the hon. member has outlined. I think the hon. member will agree that it has been made worse by the terrible offloading that has happened in welfare costs to the province, with a 40 percent increase in caseloads. That's an extra $420 million that the federal government has loaded onto the taxpayers of British Columbia. That has made it very difficult for us to ensure that the people who should be on a pension can lead a dignified life with it. There is great difficulty in doing that because of the huge increase in costs. The Minister of Social Services has made some moves in the right direction in

[ Page 2704 ]

terms of raising the exemptions that people can earn to the cost of living -- a very modest increase -- and other measures to try and relieve the situation. But you're right, hon. member. It is very desperate for large numbers of British Columbians who are having to use the food banks.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the Premier's concerns. My supplemental is again to the Premier. Recognizing that about 40 percent of those who need to use the food banks each week are children, and recognizing that the school lunch program does not meet the basic needs of these children to overcome hunger, for they have that need for three meals a day, seven days a week and recognizing that it does not at all meet the needs of their preschool sisters and brothers, will the Premier advise us what plans this government has now -- not next fall or next year -- to make sure that our children are not hungry?

Hon. M. Harcourt: This government introduced a school meals program so that children could be fed. The response of the schools and the school boards to the government's initiative has been to oversubscribe to the program. More funding is going to be provided to those schools so that we can do exactly what the member has requested.

DUMPING OF AMERICAN PRODUCE

R. Chisholm: Yesterday my colleague for Langley asked a question on the dumping of cheap American produce into British Columbia. While the minister made light of the situation and the Minister of Agriculture binged on bok choy in Hong Kong, farmers in the Fraser Valley were forced to plow under their crops. Why is the Premier allowing this dumping to continue?

[2:30]

The Speaker: Hon. member, is this question being addressed to the Premier?

R. Chisholm: Yes, that's right.

The Speaker: Does the member have a new question?

BUY B.C. PROGRAM

R. Chisholm: My question is to the hon. Premier. And I say it again: my question is to the hon. Premier. The Premier made a commitment to an immediate $2.8 million Buy B.C. program last fall. When will the Premier bring it forward? Now or after the end of the season, when it is far too late and no longer a Buy B.C. program?

The Speaker: Hon. member, I hesitate to interrupt, but could you ensure that your question does not anticipate future government policy.

R. Chisholm: It is past policy, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Please frame your question directly, hon. member.

R. Chisholm: Will it be when it is far too late and no longer a Buy B.C. program but a bye-bye B.C. program? Our farmers need help now.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I wish to inform the House that I did not make light of the question yesterday, and resent any suggestion that I did.

I would also like to assure this House that today I'm ahead of the question. The question with respect to the Buy B.C. portion is that we discovered, upon becoming government, that we had a serious financial situation, and that looking at....

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Spend, spend, spend seems to be the only answer. We are saying we will not spend money when it's not seen to be effective. The concept of Buy B.C....

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The members opposite don't seem to want to hear the answer to the question -- what we are doing about the Buy B.C. program.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, the members opposite are chattering so loudly that I can't even think.

An Hon. Member: Whine, whine, whine.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This minister doesn't whine, I wish to assure the members opposite. It's that corner that does the whining.

Buy B.C. is something that we consider a very serious and useful kind of program. The problem with these buy-local programs is that as simply PR efforts they don't work, so you have to design them carefully in order to spend the money wisely. We are doing just that: designing the program carefully. We're doing it in conjunction with three or four other provinces. I'm happy to assure you that although our Minister of Agriculture is over there looking for new markets in a tough, competitive world, he's also taking the leadership with the other Ministers of Agriculture in the provinces.

Ministerial Statement

EARTH SUMMIT

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to make a statement with regard to the Earth Summit, which I was privileged to attend as a representative of British Columbia and as a member of the Canadian delegation during the past several days.

This was the largest gathering of nations ever held in the history of the planet. It was attended byrepresenta-

[ Page 2705 ]

tives from 178 governments, including 117 heads of state. It could actually be said that this was the first step in the first earth parliament.

It must be emphasized that this was a conference on environment and development, and both words must be taken in the widest possible connotations. The treaties and proposed agreements on the table in Rio addressed the entire spectrum of environmental concerns, pre-eminently climate change and the maintenance of biological diversity. But of necessity, the conference also focused world attention on questions of economic and social justice between the north and the south, and between this generation and succeeding generations.

The issue of world poverty was often in the forefront. In the hotel where I stayed, one had only to look out the window for a view of Rio's largest favela, which is what many would call a slum. This very small area of land houses about 250,000 people -- about the same population as greater Victoria -- living in desperately poor circ*mstances. It brought home the reality that the world currently has ten times as many people as it can support at the material standard prevailing today in rich countries like ours.

Together with the representatives from other provincial jurisdictions, we went to Rio to learn what we could from both the formal and informal dialogue of the conference. We also wanted to provide our own perspective on the issues and make it clear that British Columbia is prepared to make its own contribution towards solutions. In that regard, the follow-up to the conference will be immeasurably more important than the protocols of the summit itself.

Despite some setbacks and disappointments, which were not unexpected, the conference helped build momentum for working together internationally, raised expectations and provided the world with a clear demonstration of the existing constraints on governments and societies when they try to work toward long-term goals.

The Hon. Jean Charest, Minister of the Environment for Canada and the leader of the Canadian delegation, should be congratulated for successfully involving such a diversity of people and points of view in his delegation's work. The Canadian delegation was recognized as one of the strongest in Rio, as evidenced by the number of delegates from other countries who sought our advice.

In addition to the official state delegations, non-governmental organizations were also widely represented in Rio. The Global Forum, held as an alternative non-governmental event, was in many ways equally important because of the information-sharing that took place. Several British Columbia non-governmental organizations participated in the forum. The Nisga'a Tribal Council, supported by the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, had an outstanding booth depicting Nisga'a heritage and values. Staff from the B.C. Ministry of Forests were also present at the Canadian booth. This booth was kept very busy handling inquiries throughout the week, and I believe it had an extremely positive impact on perceptions of our province.

I came away from this conference with renewed optimism and confidence that British Columbia has an opportunity to play a major role in helping to turn around the present destructive environmental trends. Many of us in British Columbia may be disappointed that the initiatives discussed in Rio had to be watered down due to the difficulties of negotiating treaties among 178 countries. In B.C. we must use the agreements from this conference as a minimum baseline, but we have to go much further in many areas. Clearly we have to start in our own back yard. For example, we have made a firm commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which goes beyond Canada's national commitment and the conventions signed in Rio. We are taking measures, starting with the AirCare program in the lower mainland, to back that commitment up.

Beyond that, it is clear from the inquiries we received during the summit that B.C. is well positioned to provide much-needed expertise and support to others in the world community to help develop innovative approaches for achieving sustainability. We have abundant opportunities for this in our government agencies, our academic and research facilities, in business and in industry. Additionally, our province can and will take initiatives with the other provinces on the follow-up process to Rio, to see what cooperative efforts can be undertaken and to demonstrate models of sustainable development cooperation with the federal state. I already had the opportunity at the final meeting of our Canadian delegation to present to the rest of that delegation a proposed strategy for beginning the process through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, in cooperation with ministers holding related portfolios, such as Forests, Wildlife and Parks and Energy.

It is also encouraging to note that the secretary general of the conference, Maurice Strong, has chosen our province as his home base for maintaining the momentum of the Earth Summit. I want you to know that I met with him for an hour, and he is very excited about the possibilities of working with us in British Columbia. He will be moving to Vancouver in the near future to take up a faculty position at the University of B.C. We will be seeking his advice on environment and development concerns.

Much of the attention devoted to the Earth Summit in recent months has centred on political considerations and other considerations which were expected to prevent wider consensus or more decisive action. Those are realities. Despite them, many gains were made. The long-term realities -- the ones that will matter to our children and grandchildren and the world's ecosystems -- have been given greater prominence than ever before. That is a challenge for all of us. I hope we, both in this House and outside it, will look at our future actions on the environment in that light.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister on his participation and to recognize that Canada was at the forefront and that British Columbia played a vital role in this first, what you could call, world parliament on the environment. All of us were watching at this end. We were wishing

[ Page 2706 ]

you well and hoping that you would represent us in the best capacity that you could.

It was very interesting to see that a country the size of Canada could play such an enormous role at such a critical conference in terms of the future of the world. I know that all of us in this House support the biodiversity measures that were being put forward at the summit. I was proud to be on this side of the border during that summit. I felt very sorry for those people on the other side of the border, who had very poor representation. Many of them would be, I think, ashamed of their leadership on such important issues.

With regard to biodiversity, I would like to take the opportunity, in keeping with the theme of the summit, to urge that this minister continue to put representative ecosystem preservation at the top of his agenda when dealing with a land use strategy for British Columbia; that when the resources and environment commissioner comes forward, this minister would then review those recommendations with regard to representative ecosystems with the spirit of biodiversity from this summit; and that we look at the sustainability and viability issues that came forward from the summit and put those to use with the policy direction of the ministry. As this minister talked about the follow-up to the summit and what happens after the summit, I would like to encourage his efforts with regard to air quality, and that we in B.C. continue to work to follow up on the very important recommendations of the summit.

Finally, I'd like to encourage this minister, when he does participate in these international forums and when he follows up from the summit, to look at things like the NAFTA agreements that are going on. When they start talking about competitiveness and whether or not Canada can compete, I hope this minister will go forward and say: "When you talk about competitiveness, let's not talk about economic competitiveness. Let's talk about environmental and ethical competitiveness as well when we're dealing with international agreements." When we go forward to places like Rio and when we follow up on them, I hope we don't look at competitiveness and look at the bottom line. When we look to places like Mexico and other countries that we refer to in the north-south dialogue as being in the south, I hope we don't say that we have to compete with them, but that we have to bring them up to a standard that we consider acceptable so that in dealing with the north-south difficulties we don't end up bringing ourselves all down to a level where we can't deal with representative ecosystems and the preservation of those ecosystems and, ultimately, with biodiversity.

I'd like to conclude by saying congratulations to the minister. I think Canada did a fine job there. I hope that we have more of these conferences....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: This minister is always doing his best.

I hope that we have more of these conferences in the future where we work toward biodiversity and ecosystem preservation.

C. Serwa: I also welcome the Minister of Environment back to his home province of British Columbia. It's always nice to see you here. We have the most travelled group of ministers that I think have ever been in the province of British Columbia. They're all over the world. This, in fact, was a very important trip, and I'm pleased that the Minister of Environment represented British Columbia individually and as part of the Canadian delegation at the conference in Rio. The minister has stated it's the first step to the first earth parliament on the environment. I think it was a very important first step.

[2:45]

I hear a great deal, unfortunately, of the so-called failures, but I don't think that any aspect of it was a failure. I think it was a remarkable success. When you bring that large a group of people from all over the world to discuss environmental issues, it has to be a success. It certainly raised the profile, in British Columbia and in Canada and in many jurisdictions all over the world, that the clock is ticking and time is running out and we have to take the appropriate steps. Certainly the conversation with respect to climate change, to freeing carbon that is locked in, either in fossil fuels or in the forest -- freeing it up into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide -- is a substantial interest and of concern. Obviously a change of a few degrees in temperature will change the agricultural production of many countries throughout the world. Global warming probably will change the climate to the point of rainfall. We're seeing more and more evidence of this.

I think that the real challenge, though -- I don't know if the minister addressed it in Rio -- and fundamentally the greatest threat to the environment is the growing world population. That is one aspect of it. It's the wants, needs and expectations of that growing world population that are creating the pressure on the environment. In British Columbia we can see the pressure that we put on the environment. A lot of us perhaps live in densely populated urban areas, and we don't relate our wage demands or increases in wants to negatively impacting the environment; but in fact we're all related economically, and those increases, whether they are in the public sector or in the private sector, impact the environment. The environment has become the shock absorber to satisfy our wants.

Now when we talk about world peace and the world economy, because that is part of the environmental issue, you don't see a situation where you have a healthy environment without a healthy economy. I think the minister spoke briefly on Rio; we could go to many Third World countries and understand that equally well. We must have a healthy environment and a healthy economy.

Perhaps we have to look at ourselves, because we place ourselves as examples to the world. Yet the reality is simply this: Canadians produce more garbage per person than any other jurisdiction anywhere in the world. We consume more energy per capita than any jurisdiction in the world. That is what we do in Canada. The answer is not to say that we'll have a healthier world if we bring everyone up to our level and we talk about the economics. We're going to have to look at our

[ Page 2707 ]

own lifestyles, and we're going to have to start making conscious decisions -- all of us, all of us in this chamber, all people in the province, all Canadians -- to improve the quality of life and perhaps reduce the quantity of life. I think that society and a civilization, in providing leadership, by that factor will provide better leadership to all the people in the world.

If we only pay lip-service -- and that's the problem with Rio -- to restraining our needs, wants and expectations, our leadership in consumption and demands will lead the world on a path where it may not survive, because of the environmental concerns.

I thank the minister for speaking up on behalf of British Columbia. It's a major challenge. I'm very pleased that the first earth parliament has been as successful as it has been. I look forward to future opportunities for the minister and the Canadian government to be represented, so that we all strive to do what we're responsible for: to act as stewards and make British Columbia and the world we live in better, more beautiful and greater than ever before.

The Speaker: Hon. members, before we proceed to orders of the day, the Chair has had a chance to review a point of order that was raised yesterday.

As you will recall, after question period the Minister of Health rose to reply to a question she advised she had taken on notice, whereupon the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca rose on a point of order to say that the minister had in fact answered the question and had not taken it on notice.

The Chair has had a chance to review the Hansard, and technically the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca is correct. The Chair had interpreted the answer as an answer and allowed a supplemental. However, the Minister of Health, in rising, obviously indicated she had more detailed information. I'm sure she will make that available to the hon. member on a private basis.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR
AND CONSUMER SERVICES

On vote 51: minister's office, $303,875 (continued).

G. Wilson: I think that we pretty much exhausted much of the discussion with respect to matters relating to Labour yesterday. I note that there are questions, certainly from the Liberal opposition, that the minister, I'm sure, would want to discuss with respect to workers' compensation and the two Crown corporations under his administration. However, I wonder if we could move at this point to one other area of the minister's jurisdiction, and that is with respect to matters on the constitution. We note that this is under the minister's jurisdiction and authority, and I wonder if we could move to questions specifically in relation to the constitution.

We note that this Minister of Labour and Consumer Services and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs has also spent a great deal of time and energy recently outside of the province attempting to try and find a sensible and workable solution to constitutional reform, which is before Canadians. It should be noted that the members in the Liberal opposition would like to express our appreciation for the hours that he has spent away from family and his duties as a member of this Legislative Assembly in order to try and come up with an accommodation for Canada. We're very sensitive to the sacrifice that this minister has made, especially with respect to the time away from family. It's a very difficult time, I'm sure.

It's with respect to the proposition that is put forward on the constitution that I'd like to direct some specific questions to the minister now. We note that within the constitutional document that is coming forward there are a number of areas where there has been some agreement and a number of areas where there is no agreement at all.

Perhaps we could start this round by my expressing to the minister the view of the Liberal opposition, which I'd like this minister to comment on. What is really at issue in this constitutional round is the notion that there must be equality among all Canadians. The constitution, first and foremost, must reflect the fact that every Canadian is equal to every other Canadian, regardless of their race, colour, creed, language, religion, gender or province within which they reside. If we recognize that first fundamental principle, presumably whatever constitutional amendments are put in place, we are not going to sacrifice that fundamental principle in order to have a political accommodation of interests that might suggest that provinces may wish special status and special powers or that certain groups, on the basis of ethnicity or race, may want special powers and special privileges.

Having asked that question, I wonder if the minister might want to comment on the extent to which that fundamental principle that every Canadian is equal to every other Canadian is still adhered to in this line of negotiation. It's one that I'm sure he would agree is paramount in Canada. Where are we within the draft text of the agreement, which this minister has been kind enough to supply to the Leader of the Opposition?

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, I wish to thank the hon. member for his kind comments about my burdens, particularly the burdens on my family. That is really deeply appreciated, believe you me. In this business of politics, it is the families who often pay the deepest of all prices. I really appreciate the comments he made. I can assure him that my family, when they read this, will as well, particularly my five-year-old daughter, who has great difficulty with her father being away as frequently as he is.

Secondly, I also thank the hon. member and the leader of the third party for their availability for consultations. I've appreciated hearing from them, and I can assure them that I take their views into account while I'm at the negotiating table. I honestly and deeply appreciate the extent to which they have made time and

[ Page 2708 ]

provision in their schedules so as to allow for us to engage in dialogue around these matters of the nation.

Equality of Canadians is an important principle -- I agree with the hon. member. I'm pleased to report that that principle has been captured in the Canada clause, as has the provision of the equality of the provinces. The reason why I think it's particularly important that the latter point, the equality of provinces, be captured in the Canada clause is because it takes away the argument that many have made before -- and, I think, appropriately -- that distinct society conferred some type of special power or status to the province of Quebec. Given the fact that clause is now contained not in an isolated way but in the context of the Canada clause, combined with the equality of male and female persons and the equality of the provinces, it seems to me that we have done a good job of construing the effect of the distinct-society clause.

G. Wilson: I would agree that the Canada clause as drafted does speak to the question of equality, although it does point out also that there are distinctive characteristics within Canada -- which, I think, is fact and a product of the history of this country. One can't and should not try to deny that, or try to diminish the importance of the distinctive characteristics among peoples.

If we start to look at matters with respect to the second fundamental equality -- and I'd like the minister to comment on this -- with respect to the provision of provincial equality, that every province must have equal status and equal rights with every other province, then we get into what remains to be a somewhat disputed area that would argue that if you're going to give distinction to a province on the basis of language and culture, recognizing that there is a historical context to that, there has to be a measure by which you can explain to Canadians that that additional distinction does not provide powers or authority that will give it a different status or different class with every other province. By virtue of that, recognizing matters which I think are also historically easy to document -- that is, the evolution of the power base of the two provinces, formerly Upper and Lower Canada, which have emerged today into the provinces of Ontario and Quebec -- there is a desire among Canadians who live outside of the Canadian heartland to have some measure of equity in a reformed Upper House that recognizes that the Lower House is determined by population, and therefore as long as the population remains distributed as it does in Canada, the power will always reside within those two provinces; that we wish to have a balance, a counterbalance, to that proposition of a Commons that is determined by population.

[3:00]

Could the minister address two questions: one, with respect to the distinct-society clause generally, in terms of the agreements that are now before us, which provide for no special authority, special status or new or additional powers for one province over the others; and the proposition in relation to an Upper House that would act as a balance to the Lower House, which is determined by population.

Hon. M. Sihota: I will take some time and care in addressing the two very important questions that the hon. member has been kind enough to raise. I'll take them in reverse order, if I may, and talk about the Senate first, the distinct society second, and I will talk about the notion of equality of the provinces as it relates to both.

The hon. member is quite correct in saying that British Columbians, as well as Canadians on the Prairies and in Atlantic Canada, have for a long time felt that they were not getting their fair share of federal resources and that their voice is not adequately represented or heard in the national institution of Parliament. From time to time, that concern has led to the cry for a reformed Senate. Senate reform, as one of the great Canadians, Henri Bourassa, once said -- if I can quote him correctly -- "comes periodically like other forms of epidemics and current fevers." Certainly in 1992 we are at the height of the current fever with respect to Senate reform.

Let me therefore give the hon. member an indication of the government's thinking around the Senate, particularly as to how it relates to the notion of equality of the provinces, our current thinking in terms of triple-E and, very quickly, other proposals which I think would help expedite the debate.

Because of this current fever, as Mr. Bourassa once described it, there has been a lot of discussion about reforming the Senate. Clearly the Senate to date has been wholly ineffective, and clearly the way in which the Senate has functioned in Canada is obscene. Some of those who are seeking to reform the Senate have proposed a triple-E model, which is equal on a provincial basis, effective and elected. I think that is a useful model on which discussion ought to occur, and of course discussion is raging in this country around that model. I think that their efforts to put forward such a model are indeed both genuine and sincere, from what I've been able to ascertain at the table.

There are, however, some problems with the triple-E Senate. The first of those problems is that British Columbia is a "have" province, and as an outer province -- if I can put it that way -- in Canadian confederation, finds itself at these meetings and other meetings in a situation where all too frequently the six economically weakest provinces in Canada combine their resources and votes to frustrate the desire of provinces such as British Columbia, and to the same degree, I would suggest, Ontario and Alberta. Time and time again, from a practical point of view, we have found ourselves at this table facing six provinces and sometimes seven opposing our positions, much to the detriment of what is in the natural interests of British Columbia.

I ask British Columbians whether it makes sense to have a Senate where the six economically weakest provinces in the federation can combine their votes to frustrate the desire for a greater voice and a better share of resources on the part of provinces like British Columbia.

The second problem that comes up again and again with respect to the triple-E is that you have a situation under that model where -- not in theory, but on the balance of probabilities, and certainly most regularly, given experience -- you could have seven provinces representing 16 percent of the population frustrating the will of the House of Commons, which is elected by rep by pop, and by overriding the will of that body. When we are talking about Senate reform, one has to be mindful of the principle that one does not wish to paralyze the operations of the House of Commons. I think that's universally agreed to as a very important principle. We do not want to see what has happened in the United States, where there is legislative paralysis; the ongoing clashes between the Senate and the other House have resulted in legislation not flowing at any pace.

[ Page 2709 ]

Let's not forget that in Canada, despite the fact that we have had an ineffective Senate over the years, we've been able to build a truly marvellous country, one unique among all in the world in terms of the social progress we've been able to secure for our people, the protections that they enjoy and the economic advances. I don't think that's lost on any of us. The United Nations most recently accorded Canada number one status on all the important indices that they look at in deciding how to rank countries. So we've done very well, thank you very much, with a very ineffective Senate. Our system works very well.

We obviously have disputes. We saw those disputes today in this House in terms of immigration policy, and I've got some concerns, obviously, about what the feds are proposing there as well. The GST and free trade are other examples. But we also recognize representation by population.

So there are some problems in the triple-E, and I don't think they should be camouflaged. In fact, they should be up front and centre so that they are understood by people and we can have a calm and rational debate around Senate reform in this province of ours, particularly because we have a referendum.

There are others who have advocated a truly equitable Senate -- a Senate where Quebec, for example, would have 24 seats, Ontario 24, and then, based on ratios of population, different numbers of seats for other provinces. For example, B.C. would have eight and the Prairies would have four each and so on. I think that notion is fundamentally flawed. It's flawed because it places another House of Commons on top of a House of Commons, and I'm not sure if that's exactly what we're trying to achieve when we're talking about the principle of equality of the provinces.

I'm pleased to report that in all of the discussions that have occurred with respect to an equitable Senate there has been a recognition among those provinces that have opposed a triple-E Senate that the numbers must be rearranged so as to achieve closer equality within the provinces. We have taken the leadership in that regard by proposing a regionally equal Senate. Remember, that approach has some advantages in the sense that it moves us away from the seven and 16 conundrum that I talked about a few minutes ago. You'd have to have three of the five regions of the country voting to block an initiative of the House of Commons, and so you would have 60 percent of the regions then agreeing to support or veto a particular piece of legislation. There are some benefits to that approach, and those benefits have been long recognized in British Columbia. A former Premier of British Columbia, W.A.C. Bennett, was the first to propose this idea some years ago. It's a good idea; I think it ought to be the preferred position of the government of this province, and it has been in terms of discussions that we've taken. I appreciate the support that came from the two opposition parties in putting forward that idea during the discussions that led up to the conclusion of our legislative committee report.

Those three models have been there. However, none of them has been able to secure support from seven provinces representing 50 percent of the population. Some of those have been the second position, some of them in the first position, but none of them have been, on the seven and 50 basis, the first position for the various provinces.

As a consequence, the province of Saskatchewan sought to put forward a proposal last week at the conclusion of the hearings which tried to break the logjam, so to speak, on the issue. They proposed a Senate which recognized the principle the hon. member refers to -- equality of the principles -- on some issues and rejected it with respect to other issues.

The Saskatchewan proposal, for example, would allow for an absolute veto for the Senate on an equal voting basis for areas related to new taxation -- regarding natural resources that contain provisions resulting in fundamental policy changes to the tax system -- and ratification of certain federal appointments. It would also call for equal voting in areas that concur in jurisdiction, declared areas of provincial jurisdiction and general legislation regarding natural resources. In the latter three areas, a House majority of 60 percent of the reformed Senate will be required to reject the legislation. To resolve the impasse, there would be a joint sitting of the two chambers: the Senate and the House of Commons.

All other matters would be dealt with on the basis of an equitable Senate with a weighted vote system. It has the optical effect of creating an equal Senate in some circ*mstances and having an equitable Senate in other situations, and it's seen as a compromise. This government is always interested in compromises. We will not reject Saskatchewan's proposal out of hand. I would be lying if I said that we were more than lukewarm to the Saskatchewan proposal. It helped break a log-jam and psychologically triggered a dynamic of thinking that's going on right now in terms of discussions with the provinces. It would clearly not be our first position.

On the other side of the coin, we would not purposely seek to oppose the Saskatchewan model if it was evident that the vast majority of the provinces were in support of that proposal. Quite frankly, I have discomfort with the proposal. I've shared my concerns in that regard with the hon. member, and I'd be happy to elaborate on them. It's a classic of what you would expect to come out of a committee. I call it a camel; a committee tries to design a horse and comes up with a camel. I think that's a lot of what has happened here. It's a two-headed monster in the sense that it makes a lot of sense around the negotiation committee room that

[ Page 2710 ]

we're involved in. When you stick your head outside -- and if editorials around the country are any indication -- it's not exactly a proposal that's excited the nation. Most editorials in the country have rejected it.

There are other models, and I want to speak about them. The more I begin to think about this problem with the Senate, those other models become more and more attractive. I think that the Senate should be abolished. I've said that before, and I say that again here today. It's not a change in the position I have personally taken; it's certainly not a change in the position that my party has traditionally taken.

If the Senate were to be abolished, there is still a need, as the hon. member correctly knows, for some type of voice on some notion of equality of the provinces -- more accurately put, on the principle of equality of the provinces. There needs to be such a voice in Ottawa. I would like to suggest to hon. members today that perhaps British Columbians should think of a different form of voice in Ottawa. Let me suggest what that may be. I would be most interested in hearing what the hon. member has to say about that.

Canadians, as I said, are tired of the debate. I think it's important that there be a rational debate, and that we cut through some of the emotion around the various Senate models and just ask ourselves what we are trying to achieve here. We're trying to achieve some semblance of equality to the provinces. It's a very important principle, as the hon. member notes. We're trying to increase the voice of the provinces and particularly the provincial governments in Ottawa. We're trying to have a better check and balance in our system to check the activities of the House of Commons when the federal government is out of sync with the wishes of the province. We see that all the time. We saw that here in British Columbia and our frustration when they cancelled the Polar 8, when they want to vacate the E&N railway and when they waver on their commitment to KAON. We see it in other provinces with respect to proposals like the national energy program.

Perhaps it's time to go back to 1978 and take a look at some of the proposals that were being put forward by the Social Credit administration -- the officials and the ministers of that day. The House of the Provinces idea, the more I think about it, begins to have an increasing appeal. I think the time has come to inject that option back into the debate. The House of the Provinces is a furtherance of the first ministers' notion of where provincial governments would have people representing them in Ottawa to express the views of the government. These individuals would be elected members of the Legislature and part of the delegation of the province of British Columbia, for example, based on the ratio of representation here in the House. They would go and vote as a delegation on behalf of this province. They would be elected; they would be effective; in fact, they would have a lot of clout because they would have the mandate of this Legislature, the mandate that flows from the people of the province, and the knowledge and the background sufficient to make the case on behalf of the province of British Columbia based on the material that the government and its civil service provided.

[3:15]

The Chair: I hesitate to advise the minister that his 15 minutes are up.

B. Jones: I am absolutely fascinated by the proposals the minister is making at this point. It would be an extreme inconvenience to the House not to allow him to continue.

Hon. M. Sihota: I would like to thank the hon. member for those kind comments.

It would be effective and would have the ability to deal with the powers that we've suggested here, the new taxation relating to natural resources, ratification of appointments. There is significant power in terms of being able to ratify appointments to the CRTC, for example, or other national institutions. It would have effective power; it would have the mandate of the government; and it would be equal, because all the provinces would be represented there on a equal basis much as they are represented in the first ministers' meetings. It would be -- as in a federal proposal of September 1991 -- a little bit like the Council of the Federation idea. It would have the opportunity to review the plethora of agreements that are executed between the federal and provincial governments.

Quite frankly, there may be times when the head of the delegation or the composition of the delegation should change based on the expertise of the members. For example, if we're dealing with immigration -- because it's contemporary -- it may be that the delegation may be led by the minister responsible for immigration, and the critic from your party and the third party who are responsible for immigration matters, so that they could influence policy development. If a subsequent issue were to arise with respect to labour market training, it may be that the minister occupying my portfolio or your critic or the third party critic in that regard would form the delegation. You would have the relevant base of knowledge going to Ottawa to make the case on behalf of the provincial government.

It would have other advantages over and above the traditional triple-E model. Those are advantages that I think should not be overlooked. First of all, it would be inexpensive. One of the problems of the current Senate is that it costs $44.5 million to run it. Some have estimated that the administrative costs of a reformed Senate would go up to $225 million. Add on top of that the $100 million required for elections, because the current proposal calls for stand-alone elections. You see that significant federal, provincial and taxpayers' dollars, at the end of the day, are being allocated to the Senate. All those costs would vanish. They would be members of this assembly, so they're paid for by this assembly. It saves that expense. There would, of course, be a secretariat, but we already have a permanent secretary working with the first ministers. You've got that option there. It would not always have to be full time. They could come back and resume work here, because I don't think the responsibilities are entirely full time. As issues change, in any event, the delegation would change.

It would eliminate another layer of politicians. I think there is some popular appeal in that. I'm not too

[ Page 2711 ]

sure another layer of politicians in Ottawa is going to solve all of our problems, despite the best intentions of those who have supported the reform of the Senate. Rather than having just another layer of politicians, it would give more effect and more voice to the politicians who are elected to this chamber. That is not as important as the point I'm about to make now.

If you have these eight senators elected, as proposed in the various models, the question arises: who speaks for British Columbia? Is it the members of the House of Commons? Does the member from Saanich speak for British Columbia? Or is the senator going to say: "Look, I'm popularly elected along with the other eight. We don't care what you -- the province of British Columbia as a government -- say. We don't care what the Premier of the province says."

Why should the Premier of British Columbia have to lobby through a layer of senators and a layer of members of the House of Commons in order to impress upon them the views of the province of British Columbia? Why not have the Premier of British Columbia represented there straight up front at the table, pounding away for the interests of British Columbia? So if the federal government makes a decision to get rid of the E&N railway, to cancel the Polar 8 contract or to vacate responsibility for KAON, they're up and centre taking on the federal government in an arena that's developed for that purpose.

From some of the discussions I have had with the other governments around Canada, I know that they like this idea. The traditional view has been that it's 14 years too late. I don't think it's ever too late to inject a good idea back into the debate, and I think this idea should find its way back into the debate. I want hon. members to know that I, in the days ahead, will be talking to my counterparts and encouraging them to take a look at this idea.

I give the former Social Credit administration.... Bill Bennett, despite all the political differences I've had with him over the years, I think made a good point back in 1978 when he suggested -- someone took it as a facetious suggestion -- that the province should appoint its senators to Ottawa on the current formula of appointments. The point he was making was a good point; it gave the province and the government of British Columbia direct representation in Ottawa in a hitherto unseen fashion. That was a good point in those days. It's not every day that I grab onto an idea put forward by the previous administration, but I commend those -- at that time it was Mel Smith; I hate to say this, but I think Mr. Mair was there at the time too -- who came up with the idea. I don't think it ought to be rejected out of hand at this time.

Finally, I don't want any members to be under an illusion with respect to the potential for success of this idea. I don't know how far we've gone in the negotiations. We've gone past the point of no return. I don't know whether it's going to be the Saskatchewan proposal at the end of the day. But I think it would be an error if I were not to raise the issue at this time, because it's important to have the debate and for people to see that there are options and to have an honest and fruitful discussion of all the options -- none of which are immune to warts. They've all got problems, but some I think would serve the interests of this province better than others. I think it's our obligation to try to draft or craft a Senate that serves both the interests of this province and of this country on the principles that the hon. member opposite raised.

Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to pause at this point. I know that the hon. member asked me to comment on distinct society. I've spent some time taking on the Senate, and I think he would far prefer that we deal with this issue and that we can come to the other later. So I'll take my place in debate.

L. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Reid: Mr. Chair, I welcome Mr. James W. Mann to the gallery this afternoon. Mr. Mann is a long-time associate. He was instrumental in the B.C. Youth Parliament, followed by the national Youth Parliament in 1980. I ask the House to please make him welcome.

G. Wilson: I appreciate the remarks from the minister, particularly with respect to the proposition of a House of the Provinces that has been advanced. With respect to the proposals on the Senate, I would argue that the minister has taken an assumption that is fundamentally incorrect, and that is that we have an ineffective Senate. I would argue that we don't have an ineffective Senate; we have a Senate that is very effective. The problem is that it isn't elected. When it is effective and uses its effective powers, people in the Lower House -- the elected members of parliament -- and I think a lot of Canadians argue that the Upper House is very effective and has the ability to disrupt legislation from the Lower House. But the Upper House does not have elected representation or accountability to the people of Canada. That is the root cause of the difficulty.

The problem is that when we get into a proposition of how to reform the Senate.... In simply moving toward an elected Senate -- notwithstanding how many people we have from each province -- that has those effective powers, we then run into the difficulty where people will argue that now that we've taken care of the accountability side of that problem, we still have a Senate that has very effective powers that can, in fact, bring to a halt the bills that are being proposed by the Lower House.

It would seem to me that in the proposition of the triple-E.... I don't want to ascribe any motive to the minister when he stands and says he is in favour of abolishing the Senate, but I would hope that that didn't deter him from arguing as strongly as I have urged him to over the last several months for a triple-E -- equal, effective and elected. I realize that that may have required a certain level of schizophrenia, but when going back through the Hansard, it certainly isn't the first time that schizophrenia has been used in relation to that minister.

[ Page 2712 ]

But not wishing to detract, the difficulty we have with respect to the proposition of the effective powers of the Senate lie far more with the problems that central Canada has with respect to the acknowledgement that population is not necessarily the criterion by which we should be judging or measuring the way we reform the Upper House, because population is the measure by which the Lower House is determined. So when we argue about the question of going to regional representation based on the three models of Senate that the minister has put forward, to suggest that we're going to get into some kind of population ratio in the Upper House loses sight of what we're trying to do, which is to create a counterbalance in the Upper House to a Lower House that is determined by population.

Notwithstanding the fact that you might have 16 percent of the population affecting policy with respect to the powers of the Senate, we have to look at the GDP of the provinces that we're talking about; we have to look at the debt ratio between the population of the province to the demand on the central treasury. If we do some comparative work on the impact on the economy of British Columbia overall and its potential in terms of growth and development as a contributing partner in confederation, then we would have to argue that indeed we are a have province, and we have a great deal to contribute to the country of Canada. Notwithstanding the fact that we only have three million people, the impact of those three million people, if one looks at the ratio of their contribution to the economy, is very substantial. As a result, we have to recognize that there has to be some equity in terms of the relationship that is generated by the Upper and Lower Houses with respect to that.

I would also argue that with regard to the proposition on triple-E, there has to be some recognition given that it is the only way in which we can, in my judgment, reform the Upper House and still accommodate the first fundamental principle: every Canadian is equal to every other Canadian. Once we get into ratios on the basis of populations, once we start to get into formulas -- I would comment with respect to the Saskatchewan model -- that becomes.... I'm trying to find a term that is fitting of the proposal. Essentially, I think it is an affront to Canadians to suggest that their elected member in an Upper House will have a certain weighted vote on some subjects but less of a weighted vote on other subjects, depending on the matter for which the votes are going to be cast.

I can imagine that what we're likely to see in this Saskatchewan model, if it should come through, is that decisions by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans -- unless, of course, we've divested fisheries to the provinces in other sectors of this agreement.... The minister is shaking his head. Some might say that's too bad. But let's leave that for the moment.

If we have a debate in the Upper House that deals with Pacific salmon, then Senators from British Columbia will be given three votes, but Senators from Atlantic Canada will only be given one; unless, of course, we're talking about Atlantic salmon, in which case Senators from British Columbia will be given one vote and Senators from the Atlantic provinces will be given three. If we're talking about arctic char, then we'll give one vote to both. I mean, it simply becomes absurd if we get down to the level where we start to argue and determine the weighting and percentage of the vote according to the subject that comes before the Senate. Anybody who gives serious proposition to that really is doing a disservice to a discussion in the debate on the constitutional level, and I think that was fairly close to some conclusions, if the communication that the minister and I have had recently is so.

[3:30]

I would argue that tied to this concept of reforming the Senate is the question of whether or not we're going to do it all in this round. Or are we going to do some of it in this round and then have a proposition to further reform, refine and amend in another round? That comes to the question of the Quebec veto -- or the veto of any province for that matter -- over the further reform of the institutions of government.

With respect to the comments the minister made -- and I'd like to give some response to those if I may -- on the proposition of the House of the Provinces, the difficulty I have with that is not economical. Because I think you're right: that would be an economical way to deliver some measure of sober second thought -- if I can use the old term -- to policies coming out of the Commons. The difficulty I have is that yes, you will find that we will have people there speaking clearly for British Columbia; but my question is: who speaks for Canada? When will we have an Upper House that has a vision of Canada as a nation, that is not determined by the interests determined by legislative priority and legislative desire from the provinces, which are going to be essentially taking a provincial view on the matter of federal statutes rather than looking at the concept of nation-building? Who, in this new House of the Provinces, is going to be sitting as a Senator reviewing the legislation from a federal House with respect to the proposition of the nation itself? Where can we have the proposition of the nation itself looked at?

I would argue that that's what we are trying to do when we elect Senators. We're trying to elect people who have a national vision for Canada, which is something that's sorely lacking right now. I think that one of the reasons we have slipped into such a terrible malaise on these negotiations is that we no longer are trying to build a constitution based on principle; we're now building a constitution on political accommodations, accommodations of special interest groups and of provinces with a desire for a more parochial attitude that says: let's do for our province first, and if we are able to do that satisfactorily, then we'll look after the issues and conditions of provinces other than own; and possibly we'll even get down to some questions on nation-building.

On that proposition, I have to ask the minister how he responds to the question of who speaks for Canada, and how do we get the proposition of the vision of Canada articulated in a House of the Provinces? That would be my biggest concern.

Hon. M. Sihota: How do you get around that on triple-E?

[ Page 2713 ]

G. Wilson: The minister asks how do you get around that on triple-E, and I'm delighted that I can respond to that. The way that you get around that in triple-E is having a vision of, as I see the triple-E, an Upper House in which, I would argue and have argued consistently, we would have six senators per province, and those six senators per province, with two per territory until the territories receive full provincial status, at which time they would also have six.... What we do is elect people, at a time intermediate or between federal elections, who have a vision of Canada and who would be in place in an Upper House and who would be charged with the obligation of passing judgment on bills and acts and laws that come up from the Lower House. Not with a proposition to have exclusive authority or power, but in some instances to have only suspensive power, where they can in fact refer back, but on other matters their powers essentially would provide them veto provision.

I would argue that if we look at some of the federal questions that came before Canada, where the vast majority of Canadians stood solidly in opposition.... Let's take as an example the GST. There the Senate was effective. It was effective in its full measure, because it saw that there was a strong opposition on the question of GST, not only because Canadians didn't want an additional tax, but because it was going to have a serious impact on the regions -- and it is having a serious impact on the regions -- and because it was going to have a serious impact on the ability of merchants and citizens in various provinces to be able to effectively compete within Canada. And it has.

Another question is with respect to free trade within Canada. We need to have a generation of politicians in this country who in an elected Senate are going to have a vision of a Canada where there are no trade barriers, where we are by individual right accorded the ability to freely trade between provinces. And that may be against the provincial interests at times. We have heard certainly in this province.... One of the questions I put to the minister in the estimates of Government Services is whether or not there is a belief that we need to have this free trade between provinces as an individual right, or will it be by government agreement. Clearly there are times when by government agreement it serves the interests of the government of the day to put in protective measures to look after special interest groups and groups within the provinces which would not be there if in fact we had an agreement that ran with the individual as an individual right.

So I suggest that there are times when members elected out of the province of British Columbia may in the interests of Canada look at a broader vision, at a wider view, and not simply take always the more parochial and more provincial attitude with respect to the proposition on the Senate. Even today I have not heard an effective argument that would suggest to me that an equal, effective and an elected Senate is not a proposition that would better serve Canada than the models that have been put forward. I wonder if the minister might want to comment specifically on the matter of the veto provision now, because I think that is the key, certainly in terms of the federal proposition that was active last week, which was saying: "All right, we're going to go to a form of triple-E, but we'll recognize there will be a seven out of ten, 50 percent amending formula to further amend it, with a recognition of another round."

That is something where we might say: "Well, all right, we've made steps toward the final resolution of what we see to be the pure and perfect solution," but I have to tell the minister opposite that I could not, nor would I, support the proposition that has been put forward by Saskatchewan. I think it is unworkable. I don't think that it is a sensible solution, and I certainly don't think it's one that is going to further the cause of resolution to the question. I wonder if the minister might want to talk somewhat on the question of the veto.

I see that the leader of the third party wishes to engage in debate. I would certainly yield on the question of the Senate at this time.

J. Weisgerber: I also welcome the opportunity to hear some of the proposals that are being tabled and to thank the minister for his efforts to keep in contact with me and the Leader of the Opposition. It's been an extremely busy time for him, and it's gracious of him. It recognizes the genuine approach that the minister has taken to representing British Columbia's interests at those talks. I think we should all recognize the job that he's doing in that regard.

I've listened with interest to the minister's explanation of some of the proposals that are on the table. I've been a long-time supporter of the triple-E notion. Long before it became popular in British Columbia, I thought that it was a reform that was long overdue. I still am of that mind. If there were to be a reform of the Senate today that I had an opportunity to influence, my first approach would be toward a triple-E Senate.

I did think that the work that was done by our committee in British Columbia and the compromise that was developed -- the five regions for Senate representation on an equal basis -- was a good approach for us to take. In retrospect, I think that we might have waited a while longer before we put that option on the table, but that's easy enough to look at in hindsight. My fear -- and I think it's been demonstrated -- is that the counterproposal from central Canada will be that there are only four regions in the country: Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes and the west. I don't think British Columbia is particularly well served in that model.

As we move away from the notion of a triple-E Senate, we get closer and closer to the notion of Senate representation by population. The minister has indicated -- and I agree -- that if you're simply going to have a Senate that reflects the makeup of the House of Commons, then you're better off not to have a Senate at all.

I too would have a great deal of difficulty with the Saskatchewan model. It's window-dressing, but one that wouldn't serve anyone's interests particularly well.

When we think about the notion of a veto for the provinces -- it's often talked about in terms of a veto for Quebec, and the correction is quite rightly made that it would be a veto for all provinces -- it's understood by

[ Page 2714 ]

most Canadians that Quebec would be the most likely body to use that veto, probably followed by Ontario, who would again try and use it to protect the interests that they've established with their majority in the House of Commons and the Senate. If we were going to consider a veto.... I don't think we should. I would like to see the seven and 50 rule apply across the board.

I don't expect any province or party, the minister included, to be able to go to these talks and come away with everything they want. That's unrealistic and shouldn't be expected of anyone. If, as part of the compromises that are made, a veto is going to be thrown into the package, it should only be done when the Senate issue is resolved. The sort of partial solution to the Senate with a veto thrown on top of it is the ultimate formula for failure as far as the regions of Canada outside of central Canada are concerned. I would really encourage the minister not to involve himself in any agreements of that nature.

The House of the Provinces has, of course, been around for a while. As the minister suggests, it looks like it may well be one of the things that may come to the surface again in our approach to reform. My concern is that the House of the Provinces would be, as I understand it, quite a bit more limited in its effectiveness. At least I've never had the anticipation that legislation, for example, would come to the House of the Provinces for comment or approval; so you start to deal with a much narrower range, in my understanding of that issue. That would probably be one of my greatest concerns. Other than that, the House of the Provinces in many ways answers the proponents of triple-E and those people who, as the minister has noted, are concerned about the added costs of a Senate in our society.

There are clearly a number of other issues that we would like to discuss. I'm not sure to what depth we can do that. I think it's a useful exercise for us to talk about the things we think are important. I'm going to try to refrain from trying to convince the minister that my arguments are the soundest ones. I will simply put forward some of the things I believe.

I would like sometime today for us to spend a considerable amount of time, if it's appropriate, talking about the referendum for British Columbia. It seems to me, as I observe these talks -- as all Canadians do -- that the referendum for British Columbia has been an important factor in the discussions. British Columbia's clout in these discussions has been, to some degree at least, enhanced by the notion that British Columbia has to be satisfied with the solution and that it has worked, I hope, in the interests of all British Columbians. What I would like to talk about -- perhaps not now -- is the makeup of the questions, who develops them and how they're going to be structured. Perhaps before we get onto that, the minister might want to respond to some of the comments of myself and the Leader of the Opposition.

[3:45]

W. Hurd: I seek leave of the House to make an introduction at this time.

Leave granted.

W. Hurd: I wanted to take this opportunity to introduce a couple of visitors from Great Britain, Edward Irvine and Winifred Doyle of Coventry, who are here in the precincts today along with their relatives, David and Shirley Irvine of White Rock in my riding. Would the House make them welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'd also like to extend greetings to those visitors from England. I'm sure they have noted that in this part of the Commonwealth the debate in our House is calm, controlled, rational and without any rancour or furore. I'm sure that when they go back to Britain, they'll....

The Chair: I must bring the hon. minister to order. [Laughter.]

Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry. I was getting carried away there for a moment.

I want to respond quickly, because I know there are some time constraints here, to the issues raised by both hon. members. I appreciate the comments both of them have made in furtherance of what I think has been a good debate. I certainly appreciate, again, the comments they've made about my efforts around the constitutional discussions.

The question was raised in comments made by the Leader of the Opposition: who would speak for Canada in this concept of House of the Provinces? As I said while he was speaking, the same question arises with respect to the triple-E Senate. The whole purpose, of course, of the triple-E Senate is that there will be provincial representation on the notion of equality of the provinces at the federal level. Both proposals that I put forward, on the House of the Provinces and the triple-E, invite that question.

I would reject the notion that only an elected Senator can hold a national vision, have a national view or be able to speak for Canada. A few minutes ago the Leader of the Opposition laid out a vision for Canada. He has demonstrated -- as I think all of us in this House have demonstrated -- that we're able to rise above the partisan or parochial fray around these types of issues and look at them from the perspective of national interest and also from the perspective of provincial interest.

If I may say this, I think it's exactly the approach that this province has been taking at those negotiation tables in the last few months. I'm pleased to say that we've been able to take that kind of view. There's a dynamic to it. When you all gather from different provinces, you share your regional and provincial concerns, but you're also very mindful then of the tensions that are found in this country. You try to accommodate one another. In that process of accommodation, in the great tradition of compromise that we find in this country, out comes a national vision.

Sometimes some of the best ideas come from provinces. Medicare was an idea that came from the province of Saskatchewan, but it caught fire across the country. It was a sensible and prudent concept and was ultimately embraced by the federal government, so

[ Page 2715 ]

much so that now we worry about opting-off formulas around health care.

I think that this constitutional round has demonstrated, when we deal with issues such as regional economic disparity and division of power, that they were very sensitive not only to the situations found in other provinces, but to the needs of the country as a whole. I would reject the notion that only an elected Senator can articulate such a vision. We've seen evidence of that here today.

I would also add, only in the briefest way, that just the fact that one is elected to a triple-E Senate in between federal elections somehow means that one is in a better position to speak for Canada. Let's not forget that under our proposal that I put forward today, elections to the provincial legislatures generally occur in between federal elections. I appreciate the comments that both members make. I don't hear any one of them rejecting this out of hand as an idea, and I appreciate that.

The reason this issue is being brought to the floor at this point is because, quite frankly, the triple-E proposal does not have the measure of support from other provinces that is necessary to make it a reality. Those are the blunt facts. Assume for a moment that this province was to come up foursquare in favour of triple-E and join the five provinces that are there. You would have six provinces; you wouldn't have seven. Even if you had a seventh, you wouldn't have 50 percent of the population represented there, because Ontario and Quebec have stated their views. As the hon. member knows, we've all come to accept the seven-50 rule as on the one hand recognizing some sense of equality between the provinces, and on the other hand balancing that against rep by pop notions. We accept the reality of that rule in our constitutional fabric.

Let's face facts. It's not in the cards, because you're not going to get seven provinces -- assuming that B.C. was on board -- representing 50 percent of the population. That's not to say that we have demonstrated great skill at being schizophrenic at the table; I can assure the hon. member that we have. But I can tell him this: it's just not there. Ontario and Quebec will not support it. We will not get 50 percent. That's why I say abolish and move to a more sensible model. When we look at all the models that are second choices, this House of the Provinces emerges as good idea.

There are other ideas. I want to tie it in with the veto. The federal government has proposed an idea that would allow for an equitable Senate. I prefer to look at the numbers to move them more towards equal, with some substantial powers. I should say in passing to the hon. leader of the third party that it is quite possible to have the House of the Provinces have a say in legislation. It would be my view that it should. I wanted to address that point quickly.

The federal government has put forward a proposal, and if I heard members correctly, they're not averse to it. The federal government says: "We'll reform the Senate as much as we can in this round, to the extent that we can get agreement on a seven-50 basis, and we will also agree to defer the matter of the veto until such time as the Senate is conclusively resolved. Maybe we'll put off the veto for five years." The feds have put forward that proposal, suggesting that unanimity would occur five years from now.

The problem that we, as a government, have had with respect to that proposal is that there is no hammer, and at the end of the five years you may end up having unanimity in the current Senate. There has to be some provision for a hammer. Unfortunately, the discussions prorogued at a certain juncture in the negotiations, so that issue never really found its way to the table. Should they resume, we will obviously be making that point.

Regarding the veto, I think this has be stated, because it's not stated often enough to make the point clear: the veto already exists. We seem to forget that. You can't get rid of the monarchy or make substantial changes to the House of Commons, for example. The veto is not new to the Canadian constitutional fabric. The second point is that there is no way, politically speaking, that Quebec will have a general and generous veto over all aspects of changes to the constitution. It's not in the cards, if I may put it bluntly. Thirdly, the point has to be made that, assuming Senate reform, there is a compelling argument that goes along these lines: the three institutions -- the Supreme Court of Canada, the House of Commons and the Senate -- are of such vital importance that with respect to that narrow band of issues, if you're going to change those institutions, perhaps in that narrow band you would require unanimity; whereas in the other areas, it would all be seven-50. I put that out because that's what the proposal is all about. I think it often gets misrepresented.

Earlier on the hon. Leader of the Opposition asked me to comment on distinct society, and I'll turn to that if that's okay. I believe the question related to how the concept of distinct society is being dealt with so as not to allow for special powers or privileges for one province and how it respects the principle of the equality of the provinces. On that point, let's not forget that unlike previous arrangements, the distinct-society clause is not an isolated little clause that sits out there. In light of the public comment around distinct society, in this round the distinct-society clause is now founded in what is known as the Canada clause. It is an interpretative clause and an introductory clause. It's a clause that talks about the attributes of Canada, attributes that we all agree with: the democratic nature of our parliamentary institutions; the equality of all people; the role of our aboriginal peoples -- I guess that at some point we will have a debate about that as well; and the distinctive nature of Quebec as part of the Canadian federation. These are some of the principles found in that opening Canada clause.

We find comfort, and certainly would subscribe to the view, that the distinct-society clause, as it's worded, will not result in conferring special powers or privileges on Quebec. That is our goal: we do not want that to occur. We find comfort in the way in which the Canada clause is structured. First of all, distinct society has to be considered in light of the attributes of Canada as a nation as we have come to know it, and that limits it. Secondly, it is further limited by the fact that the equality of the provinces is found in the same clause. It

[ Page 2716 ]

constrains: when you're looking at distinct society, you also have to look at equality of the provinces. That notion is right there, smack in the same clause, so a court must recognize that all provinces are equal. It is a fundamentally important provision, one which I'm pleased to say we argued for, along with the provinces of Alberta and Newfoundland, and were able to secure. Those steps are, I think, important, and from a legal point of view clearly diminish the prospect of a distinct society clause being interpreted to confer special power.

On top of that, the Charter of Rights definition of a distinct society is proposed. It defines distinct society as limited to matters of culture, language and civil law traditions in the province of Quebec. I've not yet heard of a government that has taken issue with this definition, including the Premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Wells.

When you tie all that together, I think there's a high degree of comfort, at least from a legal point of view. From a political point of view, well, you can have fun with it. You can make whatever political arguments you want.

That deals with both distinct society and the veto. The hon. leader of the third party referred to the referendum. In response to questions that he posed to me during question period a month ago, I said that the matter had not been discussed by cabinet, and it still has not been discussed by cabinet. The referendum in B.C. is very important, because it will obviously touch on issues such as the veto, and British Columbians will get an opportunity to express their opinions.

I promise both of the leaders that I will be in touch with them as we develop and conclude the package. We'll sit down and talk it through in terms of how we're going to deal with the referendum. I have not yet had the opportunity to discuss that issue with our cabinet or with caucus. We have just started -- and I mean literally within the last week or ten days -- to engage personnel to begin looking at the structure of a referendum. You should also know that I have had some discussions with the federal governmentvis-�-vis costs. The cost of the provincial referendum is $11 million to $13 million, and there may be some opportunity for cost-sharing. I want them to understand that the framing of the question, the structure and timing of the referendum, are issues that are not lost upon me. Much as I have discussed these matters of the constitution in a substantive sense with them in the past, in the same spirit will I discuss these issues with them in the days ahead.

There are days when my mood swings. Sometimes I think we've got a deal; other days I don't think we do. Today I feel pretty optimistic. Last week I came home pretty glum. Let's just see how it works out and what deals are arrived at. But I think it's fair to say that we've had some good discussions, and I assure you that I'll canvass these issues with those gentlemen in the same spirit.

[4:00]

G. Wilson: I too am cognizant of time and, in trying to move through this debate, don't want to back up too much and get into a sort of one-on-one debate on matters. I recognize the comments from the leader of the third party in terms of the difficulty in trying to persuade the minister opposite that we have the right path to follow.

I want to comment briefly with respect to the proposition of the House of the Provinces. I think it's important that it be clearly on the record that the House of the Provinces as proposed by this minister would be more acceptable to this Liberal opposition than the proposition being put forward by Saskatchewan. That's an important message that needs to get out there, because it does address the question of equality and the concept that there has to be some provisional measure for the protection of provinces within the Upper House.

That is not our preference, and that is not the way we would proceed. We would prefer to have a triple-E, because the dynamic in the election of Members of the Legislative Assembly and the issues that are current in the heat of an election campaign when we select the members of a provincial legislative assembly may be quite different from the dynamics, discussions and issues before the electorate when we are selecting six members to go to a Senate. Similarly, the jurisdictions that the Senators would represent in terms of constituencies may be crafted in a manner that's quite different from the provincial constituencies and the way they're distributed. I think those are two points that need to be made.

Quite frankly, I'm very pleased to hear the minister outline the question on the distinct-society clause because I think there has been movement there. This minister is to be congratulated that, in working with Alberta and Newfoundland, there has been clarification in the concept of the distinct-society clause. I think it's also important that British Columbians know that the proposition the courts may interpret in a very narrowly defined position that may be advanced by the province of Quebec is unlikely under the language currently before us. I think it's important to know that there is a recognition of the distinct society in terms of language, culture and common law, but not in the provision for special legislative powers or provisions that would bring about the lack of provincial equality. I think that's important.

Similarly, I think it is important to acknowledge the fact -- and I want to restate this from the Liberal opposition point of view -- that the proposition with respect to the provisions on a veto are well understood in this caucus. There already exists a veto. What we are saying is unacceptable is that the veto would be expanded for the province of Quebec with respect to the provision of Senate reform, which currently does not exist. Outside of the number of seats in a Senate, I think that does not exist. That's what we're saying we do not wish to see. I concur entirely with the leader of the third party that, if we're going to talk about a proposition of Senate reform prior to that being acknowledged and worked out, it is a recipe for disaster. Notwithstanding what any of us may agree on in this House, I don't think it would pass in a provincial referendum. I think that's an important consideration.

In welcoming the comment on the referendum, I would like to take the minister at his word -- and I will -- that there is going to be consultation on both the

[ Page 2717 ]

formation of the question and the manner in which we're going to handle the matter. I think that's what I heard the minister say.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I'm hearing the minister say: "Not quite." I would like to have some clarification on that. I think it is important that whatever question is put before British Columbians is both understandable in terms of the language and context and timely with respect to referendums that are being held provincially in other jurisdictions or with respect to whatever national referendum may or may not be decided.

I'm very cognizant of the fact that October is a trigger month in the province of Quebec. Whatever decision Quebec takes with respect to their provincial referendum, we in British Columbia have to be armed to coincide with it rather than to go before or after. The prospect of whatever revolution or whatever resolution -- hopefully no revolution.... You never know, there may be a revolution. That might be what we need in this country; I don't know. Nevertheless, clearly we don't want to be put in the position that Manitoba and Newfoundland were in in the final ratification votes on Meech Lake. I'm very cognizant of the fact that British Columbia may be the fourth province in a seven out of ten. We may, in fact, cast the deciding vote, which would be a unique and historic day in British Columbia, in that the votes cast here would be the subject of television all over Canada, so that the viewers would see how we did rather than just reading about us as an also-ran in a federal election.

Let me come to a final point, again recognizing that there are some time constraints here. It's one that I move into with a great deal of care, because I do not want my comments to be misconstrued. The Liberal opposition supports the proposition that there has to be a successful and fair resolution to aboriginal land claims. The Liberal opposition recognizes that indigenous government existed in this country long before the colonial regime that is now Canada took shape. We recognize that indigenous governments, through devolution of their own power and through the federal Indian Act, have had those powers removed, and we recognize that there has been a great deal of abuse. Civil rights and freedoms of aboriginal people in this country need to be restored and addressed.

However, the minister should be aware -- I say this carefully and with very considered judgment -- that the Liberal opposition has a great deal of difficulty with the proposition of a third order of government as it is being proposed in the federal package that I have had an opportunity to read. We have difficulty with it because there is not sufficient clarification with respect to the provisions in this document that would allow us to have some comfort that what we are doing here is something other than the creation of a special jurisdiction, with powers, authority and rights accorded that jurisdiction that may or may not run with the land, and with rights, privileges and powers defined simply and solely on the basis of racial origin. I can tell you that fundamentally, philosophically, I have enormous difficulty with that, because it runs counter to everything I believe deep inside myself.

We must be equal regardless of race, colour, creed, language or religion. No question -- we have abridged those principles for 125 years in Canada with respect to the aboriginal people, and as Canadians we have to take strong action to correct that. But I do not believe that you correct it by writing into the constitution authorities and powers that basically entrench it on the flip side, and that's my concern. Not that that's what's intended, because what is intended is not clear; not that that is what will eventually result, because there is no language here to tell us what will eventually result. But what the proposition suggests is that we are going to constitutionalize distinctions in Canada that are basically determined by race, and I think that is wrong.

I say this with a great deal of care, because I realize that I run the political risk of being misinterpreted, of being misquoted and of not being politically correct in 1992 on this question. But if we do not move forward with the proposition that the acknowledgment of indigenous government provides for the rights, authority and self-determination of the aboriginal people in a manner that provides equal authority, equal status, equal rights to every other Canadian, notwithstanding that there will be divisions of the land that recognize that there will be jurisdiction determined by an inherent right to govern that land which is deemed to be theirs.... I recognize that to be a desirable fact, and a fact that has to be resolved quickly. If we're not careful on that question, I think we will have taken an enormous step backwards in Canada. I suspect that in the long term we are going to work ourselves into a proposition where constitutionally, legally, we are going to set ourselves up for litigation after litigation, which is going to be extremely difficult to manage in Canada.

On the third order of government, I am also cognizant of the question that there already exists a third order of government: municipal government. And there is a fourth order of government: regional government. If the proposition -- it's hard to determine and define specifically from this language what that is -- proposes that the third order is to be given provincial status or status that is equivalent to the federal and provincial authorities, with full rights to the notwithstanding clause, opting out and the kinds of provisions that are there in order to protect culture -- and I understand the desirability to try and do that -- then British Columbia is in for a very difficult time over the next number of years, trying to sort out how we're going to work these jurisdictional questions out without any clear road map to guide us to that resolution.

By way of a constitutional solution, we should recognize that indigenous government existed prior to the colonial regime. Notwithstanding what transpired from 1867 to the current day, the rights and the abilities of aboriginal people in that indigenous level of government have not been -- or should not have been -- extinguished. If we recognize that to be so, it will allow the flexibility that is desirable among aboriginal people to determine their own system of administration and government. I believe that that is possible in Canada if

[ Page 2718 ]

it is given maximum flexibility in the proposition of the laws of the provinces and of the country.

By structuring it as a third order of government, recognizing the enormous complexities and divisions that exist among aboriginal people on a basis of tribal affiliations, I think that Canada is walking into a very difficult decade ahead. I strongly caution the minister on this question. The minister and I have had long discussions on this, as I have with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Before we agree on this proposition and move forward with it, Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, must be very clear on what we're talking about. Otherwise I believe we are building expectations among aboriginal people that may not be realized. Without realizing the expectations that we have created in the language that is before us now, I think we're asking for a great deal of trouble.

I say again that I hope the spirit of my comments are not misinterpreted. I hope I'm not misquoted or that somehow there is a proposition here that says we should not take swift action to correct the injustices that have been done to aboriginal people, because I believe that we must do that. It is also important for politicians to stand up and speak out about the proposition of every Canadian being equal to every other Canadian and not entrenching inequality and racial distinction as a quality for power and justice in this province or in this country that resides outside of that which runs with the individual.

I'd like the minister to comment on that, if he would.

J. Weisgerber: I'm interested in the comments by the Leader of the Opposition on the question of aboriginal government. I'll touch on that in a few minutes.

With regard to the referenda, I believe that the questions that are asked and the timing of those questions is critical. I appreciate the offer by the minister to consult with us. I would like to suggest to him that he look seriously at referring those issues either to the select standing committee that we have on intergovernmental relations or, perhaps even preferable to that, reactivating the committee that travelled around British Columbia on the minister's behalf and the committee that developed the position that the minister now is arguing on Senate reform and other constitutional issues. It seems to me that that committee was successful in finding some compromises.

[4:15]

Let me say this on the referenda. I believe that we have to ask the question: do you support the agreement, yes or no? But I think we should go further than that. We should also give British Columbians an opportunity to express their opinion to the government on the various sections of the agreement. In other words, I think there should be a part A that could be a plebiscite, if you like, which would say: "We like the resolution you've come to on Senate reform and on veto, but we don't like what you've done with aboriginal government." Those are the topics we've touched on today. Those could be in the form of a plebiscite, and there could be a question at the end that would be binding on the government that is: do you approve or disapprove of the agreement that has been proposed? So I'd like to have the minister perhaps examine that down the road.

The issue of aboriginal self-government, as the Leader of the Opposition correctly points out, is a sensitive one, and one that we've talked about at great length. I too, as the former Minister of Native Affairs, am interested in the resolution of land claims in British Columbia, and I was pleased to be in that portfolio at a time when some progress was made. Self-government is obviously an important issue for aboriginal people in this province.

The difficulty that I have -- and I agree with the Leader of the Opposition -- is with the notion that Canadians should be equal to the greatest degree possible. Unfortunately, we're never all equal. We're always a little unequal in one way or another. But equality is certainly a goal we should attempt to achieve. I believe the primary difficulty with this question of aboriginal self-government is that it is, so far, undefined. I know that there has been a lot of talk about it. My specific difficulty is that I haven't even seen some sample models. Clearly, there has to be a form of government, probably not a municipal-style government. It would probably be something that is compatible with the federal and provincial systems of government that we have in this country. Federal politicians seem quick to say that any form of aboriginal government would have to recognize the supremacy of federal law as it exists. We very seldom hear any comment made on the relationship between provincial jurisdiction and aboriginal jurisdiction from the federal folks.

As I've said before, I think that the difficulty with this is the timing. I remember how quickly three years went when I was Minister of Native Affairs; it was the blink of an eye in the time of the issues that have arisen. To establish in our new constitution a process that would allow aboriginal leaders to go to the courts to seek a resolution in only three years, I think, pushes the issue too quickly. I know that we started with a notion of ten years, and then it shrunk down to five years, and now it is down to three years. I know also that there is an impatience among Indian people. They feel they've waited and worked generations, and ten years seems too long.

So I'm not certain how we find that accommodation along with recognizing the realities and the difficulties of establishing a new form of government that recognizes aboriginal peoples' interests and also recognizes the complexity of implementing that, particularly in a province where land claims are unresolved, where treaties don't exist and where there are 1,600 existing reserves. To try to find a level or style of government that accommodates all of those conflicting interests is a very real issue. British Columbia is the one clearly faced with the most complex issues. With that in mind, I urge the minister to recognize the impact and to call on other governments and aboriginal people to recognize that if the issues can be resolved to suit the circ*mstances in British Columbia, I suggest they would be suitable in most other parts of the country where there are much less complex issues, much larger reserves, fewer reserves, treaties established and all of those things.

[ Page 2719 ]

I will repeat that I think we are on the path of recognizing the inherent right of self-government; we've probably gone that far. I hope that the notion of there being three years before those are challengeable in the courts is still open to debate, because I believe it's too soon. It won't serve the interests of anyone to see some leader pressured by his or her own political forces within the aboriginal community to take an issue to the courts in three years and to find resolution there rather than in negotiation and debate. With that, I'll take my place and look forward to the minister's response.

Hon. M. Sihota: I want to deal with the galaxy of issues that have been raised by the members opposite. I agree with the previous speaker in the sense that no province in Canada is more exposed, if I can put it that way, than we are around these issues, given that most of this province is not covered by treaties. You're correct in saying that great care must be taken by this province to assess the package and to make sure that it accommodates the interests of aboriginal people, of third parties and of ordinary British Columbians.

During the course of your comments you were talking about starting off at ten years, down to five and down to three. I've got to tell you something: it was down to zero. The position that had been agreed to at one time was that it would be immediately justiciable. We've argued that there should be delayed judiciability. We made that absolutely essential in terms of our support for the package as it was developing. We've been able to secure delayed judiciability.

I want the hon. member to understand that the agreement now is for three years. That's not to say that we put forward the proposition that it be three years. We put forward the proposition that it be longer -- five years. I can tell you that caused a lot of discomfort around the table, but we took that position. As you said earlier, you don't always get what you want in negotiations. We were outvoted on the matter.

The other point I should make in relation to that issue is that we have also taken the view that there should be a renewal period upon expiry of the three years -- that the parties mutually agree to extend the period for another three years or whatever. We're making progress on that front. I thought we had it at the last round of meetings in Ottawa. Mr. Mercredi indicated publicly in any event that he didn't think we had, so we have some work to do there. I think I should let you know that we're doing that work and trying to do the best we can on that front.

I should also let you know that in some of my private discussions with some of the other governments, they are revisiting this issue. I think that is important to lay out. The reason I say this is that we think negotiation as opposed to litigation is the way to go. We're not interested in extensive litigation. We've made a commitment as a government to establish a treaty commission to begin to deal with these issues through the negotiation process, and that's the way we're going. That is the way we prefer to go, and I know that with the native chiefs in British Columbia -- as in all national organizations, including the political party that I represent -- there are all sorts of tensions. The caucus from British Columbia, with respect to those groups, is of the view that they prefer to negotiate through the Treaty Commission process. I think that also augurs well for British Columbia. Quite frankly, I think the risks are greater for the aboriginal peoples, should the matter be litigated, than they are for the province of British Columbia.

You indicated that there were agreements you were not familiar with. I think the Yukon agreement is one that you may want to look at. It's certainly a model that the Premier of the Yukon has indicated he'd be quite happy to speak to us on. They've negotiated self-government agreements in that regard.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about recognizing that indigenous rights have not been extinguished, and that from that may flow administrative responsibilities. Certainly that's the view we're taking to many of these discussions -- that extinguishment hasn't occurred, that there was a form of government there and that, commensurate with the culture and tradition of the aboriginal people, they ought to be allowed to exercise some form of government.

He is correct when he says that the form of that government is not clear. It is not clear, because we'll have words in the constitution. We don't have living agreements, nor is it possible, nor would anybody expect us to be able to conclude agreements at that table. It's not the place for it, nor is there the time for it. But what the constitution does is create a box. Through the process of negotiation, the box would be filled and defined, and given its colour, its texture and its meaning. That is the best way that I can describe what is at the table.

There is a distinction between municipal and regional governments and a third order of government, in the sense that municipal and regional governments are creatures of a statute of the province. Aboriginal self-government is not a creature of a statute of a province or of the federal government, but of the constitution. Hence the notion of a third order.

I know that the third order of government as a concept gives some difficulty. We have proposed alternative wording, perhaps along the lines the hon. member suggested -- indigenous order. I've got to tell you, to be honest, that some of the native organizations in Canada are quite prepared to live with that wording and others are not. So there is sort of an internal matter there that needs to be resolved. Some have suggested a distinct order of government, but the word distinct has its own constitutional pitfalls. I want both hon. members to understand that the points they make are taken in by the sponge you're looking at and considered when we're involved in discussions at the table.

I can't at this point tell you what the final package will look like, except to say this: there is constant reflection going on by various governments. You see, at times the impression one is left with is that there are not seven governments in favour of the package or the principle. I must confess that when that occurs I have some difficulty, because philosophically and very fundamentally I believe that the treatment accorded aboriginal people in this country over the last 125 years has been anything but just. The condition of poverty,

[ Page 2720 ]

the kind of lifestyle that young people from the native communities find themselves in, for example, is not anything that would make any tolerant Canadian proud.

[4:30]

There is a deep conviction on the part of this administration, and a conviction, I'm sure, on the part of all members in this chamber, to address those issues in a fair, honourable and compassionate way. It's not our view as a government that the package should be allowed to fall should this government become the swing vote on the issue, if I can put it that way. It is the intention of this government to negotiate as aggressively as we can so as to ensure that there are no unintended consequences of constitutional change governing native people. It's hard to say, when you're dealing with the constitution, how the courts would ultimately interpret it. I guess that's what gives constitution professionals their occupations and past politicians all sorts of employment in terms of advice to groups.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

I can't tell you what it will look like. I can't tell you what shape it will take. I can just tell you that we're committed to dealing with that injustice, but we're also mindful of practical limitations, practical realities and practical attitudes. That's the balancing act that we find ourselves in. I don't think I can be any more candid than that.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

Speaking of candour, I want to make sure that you clearly understood what I have said with respect to the referendum. I do not yet have authority from cabinet to be able to say to you: yes, we will agree to the very interesting suggestion that the leader of the third party makes. I'm not in a position today to say to you that we will agree to a select standing committee, or to recreating the very successful constitutional committee we had in this province. I want this understood: I'm not saying to you that you will be sitting there with us in some capacity writing the question. I am saying that I understand what you're saying. I understand the concern that you have. I'm prepared to take those concerns, and I'm prepared to consult with you as we work through those issues, in the same spirit that I have consulted with you throughout. That is as far as the parameters of my authority allow me to make a commitment at this time. First, let's see if we have an agreement in terms of the constitution. If we can get over that hump, we can probably solve any problem. I look forward to consulting and working with you in that context.

If this is the end of the debate on the constitution.... I don't know if it is. It isn't. Fine. I'll take my place.

G. Wilson: I appreciate the candour with which the minister has replied with respect to that. It's always nice to get a glimpse into the inner workings of the government opposite. We've been led to believe all along that the minister is all-powerful; now we see that in fact he's not, and that he has a....

Hon. M. Sihota: This is the only exception.

G. Wilson: It's a significant exception, and we take note of that.

I did have a couple of other areas I wanted to explore. I recognize that we have some time constraints. I don't intend to go over a lot of ground. I'm curious, though, with respect to a very important principle. I wonder if the minister could comment with respect to the principle and the position that his government will take in the final analysis on what I think is a fundamental principle that needs to be addressed here. Under "National Institutions" on page 4, "A. The Senate," of this document the minister has provided us with, the proposition says: "Aboriginal representation in the Senate should be guaranteed in the constitution. Aboriginal seats should be additional to provincial and territorial seats, rather than drawn from any province or territory's allocation of Senate seats." It then suggests that the aboriginal Senators will have the same role and powers as other Senators, plus they will have a possible double-majority vote in relation to certain matters. Then it suggests that details relating to aboriginal representation in the Senate, including the method of electing aboriginal Senators and the possible aboriginal double majority, will be discussed at some further time.

My question to the minister on this is a fairly direct one. It goes directly to the heart of a fundamental principle. In the discussion on the selection and voting for aboriginal Senators, has there been discussion at the table as to whether or not voting for aboriginal Senators will be exclusive to aboriginal people? Or will it be a vote that will be cast at large? If it will be exclusive to aboriginal people, then given that we have an elected Senate, will aboriginal people have the right to vote for non-aboriginal Senators in the Senate? I wonder if there has been any discussion on that question. It comes to the heart of what will be a fundamental problem with relation to the whole question of aboriginal self-government and the proposition of membership. Could you just tell me if there's been any discussion at all on that question?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, the option is (a). No, they would then not have two votes. They would have to determine if they're going to be voting in the aboriginal election or in the non-aboriginal election, if I can put it that way.

G. Wilson: I take it, then, that they would have a choice as to whether to participate in one or the other election. Will that be a choice that they will be free to make?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.

G. Wilson: But non-aboriginal people would have only one choice, and that is to vote in the non-aboriginal election. Is that what's being proposed?

[ Page 2721 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: Non-aboriginal people will have the choice, of course, of the constituency that they live in and of the candidate they will vote for. The system that's being proposed is not materially different than the system in New Zealand. The answer to your question is essentially yes.

G. Wilson: So we are talking about the New Zealand model. That was essentially my next question. That clarifies that point, and I appreciate that clarification.

My last comment.... I don't think this will be a contentious one. It's one where we have made some substantial gains. It does address a fairly important question, and it has to do with the proposition of freedom to trade within Canada and the removal of trade barriers. There have been substantial gains made. The minister was largely responsible for clarifying a lot of the division of powers on matters that previously had been shared provincial and federal jurisdictions and have now become exclusively provincial. We would assume that the associated dollars will also be coming to the province. With respect to the matter on trade, what is the discussion there? Are we talking about agreements between provinces, between governments, or are we talking about the freedom to trade as an individual right in Canada? Are we talking about those two? There is a distinction that has to be made on that question.

Hon. M. Sihota: Can you repeat the question?

G. Wilson: Are we talking about an agreement between governments on the matter of this trade -- the governments will initiate trade agreements by the constitution -- or are we talking about a right that will run with the individual, an individual right to the freedom of trade? It's a fundamental distinction that needs to be addressed.

Hon. M. Sihota: If I understand the hon. member's question correctly, if he's talking about section 121, then the right would run with the individual. There is also an economic union provision analogous to that in the social and economic covenant. We're talking about agreements between governments on that one. I think you're talking about section 121, where the right is with the individual.

I'm not going to debate it at any length. I just want to flag that. It is an important issue. It will obviously divide people along ideological lines. It's got all the elements of that kind of debate, just to tip the hon. member off as to what I think the debate will come down to, because I think it's important. In the debate, we really come down to the extent the courts should be setting economic policy in Canada. Do we want to see an Americanization of our courts and to allow the courts to dictate economic policy, or are those kinds of decisions better left in the political realm, as they traditionally have been in Canada, to be made in democratic, elected legislative chambers? That's a very important debate.

One of the things I worry about a lot as we go through the various options around constitutional change -- and I even say this with respect to the debate around the Senate -- is the extent to which we are endeavouring to Americanize our politics.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, just like health care. There's a real concern about what's happening with the erosion of standards with respect to health care; hence the support for the social covenant. I really worry about that. I've got to tell you, I find that a frightening prospect.

We have been able to build one hell of a country -- just a great country, an unbelievable country. When you really look at us and compare us with the rest of the world, it's incredible what we've been able to build in this country. For all of our philosophical and political differences, for all of our frustration with the Senate and the House of Commons, and for all the time we spend beating up on federal politicians -- and occasionally the public beating up on provincial politicians; only on the rarest of occasions, of course -- I think you have to remember that we've done very well. I worry about changes that try to improve a system that is among the most perfect in the world. If we're going to do it, we ought to do with care.

I'm not persuaded that economic policy should be set by the courts any more than social policy should be. I'm persuaded that they ought to be set by members of the Legislature, democratically elected, openly lobbied, where you don't have to have bucks. I'll tell you, it will be the major corporations in this country that will litigate around the economic union, as much as it may be a right open to individuals.

W. Hartley: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: We have in the precinct today a class of students from Highland Park Elementary School. They're here with their teacher, Mr. Rondpre. They're here to visit Victoria for the next three days, and I'd like the House to make them welcome.

G. Wilson: I agree with the minister. This is a most important philosophical debate that has to take place and that I hope will not get shuffled under the table for more high-profile discussions with respect to things like the Senate and self-government, which are equally as important.

I also agree that the minister is right. I have grave concerns about the Americanization of our political system in British Columbia and Canada. It starts with the people we import to run our provincial campaigns. Those kinds of things really do Americanize our system. We want to be careful that we don't import the bad from our neighbours to the south. But we have to recognize that there are some provisions and measures in which the operation of the economy in the south has

[ Page 2722 ]

some good ideas. Where there are good initiatives, we need to look at them.

Where the concern is with respect to major corporations and litigation, I think the minister is quite correct: that is likely going to be a big-dollar-ticket item in Canada. The ability to trade in Canada is something we have to be protective about. Where we have to be equally protective, however -- and I hope that we can flag this for the minister for discussion -- is when you have provincial governments that will become protectionist in their view toward particular special interests that reside, operate or work within the province. They may find that free trade between the provinces will be less than desirable for themselves. We have to put a balance in place. I don't have any special suggestions or a quick resolution for you on this question. I'm just delighted that the minister recognizes the importance of it, because it is a very important question. It concerned me that in all the discussion, this did not seem to have been a matter that had been picked up on or articulated very effectively in any of the reporting that was coming back. It seemed to be shuffled under some of the more high-profile issues.

With that in mind, I have completed the proposition of this debate for this time. I am cognizant of the fact that the minister has been very forthcoming and has engaged in a useful debate. I sincerely hope that this will not be the only opportunity that we will have in this House to debate this package, as I'm well aware -- as I'm sure the minister is -- that this package is likely to change before we come to the final vote. Perhaps in a short, agreed-to fall session -- the month of October comes to mind -- we might have an opportunity to have a fuller and more detailed debate on each of the provisions within this constitutional package.

[4:45]

Hon. M. Sihota: I just want to make one concluding comment. I'm sure we will have another debate. I'm confident that at the end of the day there will be a constitutional consensus in this country. I know that when the vote occurs, British Columbians, having the opportunity to pass judgment on the package in a referendum, will understand the full implications of the vote, as much as I hope people in Quebec understand the implications of the vote that they've suggested.

When there's a constitutional consensus and a constitutional package at the end of the day in this country, it will be because of the hard work of a lot of people. I deeply appreciate the kind comments that members opposite made with respect to my involvement and the pressures on my family as a consequence of my travels back east. I want hon. members to know that a number of very dedicated people have been working very hard on the part of British Columbia at these negotiations. We have one of the smallest delegations in the country. Ontario, for example, has two to three dozen people there at all times. The size of their bureaucratic infrastructure around the constitution is remarkable. We've functioned with a very lean SWAT team of people who are highly skilled and highly dedicated and who have worked incredible hours. When I talk about incredible, I'm talking about people getting up at six in the morning, going to bed at 2o'clock in the morning and getting back up at six to do all the background work that's necessary, and going in the neighbourhood of 50 days without a break and for weeks without seeing family and loved ones.

I would like the House to join me in applauding the efforts of the following people, who are seated with me in the House today: Jack MacDonald quarterbacks our team, which consists of David Perry, Vick Farley, Claudia Herbert, Patrick O'Rourke, Peter Heap, Mark Krasnick, Mark Stevenson and Bruce Kennedy. Would all members please join me in giving them congratulations for a job well done.

Vote 51 approved.

On vote 52: ministry operations, $30,719,125.

G. Wilson: I rise for clarification on this. It was my understanding that we were going to deal with matters on the constitution.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: An hour in constitutional time is.... It takes time to get debate forward. I understand that there are questions with respect to the Workers' Compensation Board, B.C. Hydro and ICBC that require discussion.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: If we can move to the questions on workers' compensation, I will at some point defer to other members who have worked on the workers' compensation review. It is the position of the Liberal opposition and one that I have expressed to the minister -- so it will come as no surprise -- that we have very grave concerns about the manner in which the Workers' Compensation Board operates in the province. I note in yesterday's estimates debate that the minister did make comment with respect to the proposition that was put forward that there should be reform and review, but essentially that he was going to put off any substantive review of the Workers' Compensation Board for 18 months or so.

Let me say that where the fundamental problem exists in the Liberal opposition is with respect to the way that this board is constituted, the powers that are inherent in the board, its authority that is provided through the provision of those powers and the accountability that this board has to government. We have a proposition where the Workers' Compensation Board is, in large measure, an instrument that is of itself, by itself and unto itself, with some very substantive powers with respect to its right to seek information, to provide almost a judicial comment and review on claims, and to work with respect to the provision of this service to the people of British Columbia.

By way of the first set of questions, we understand that of the roughly 2,000 Workers' Compensation Board employees who are actively involved in looking after claimants, only a very small percentage are fluent in

[ Page 2723 ]

any other language than English; yet English is not a first language for a fairly significant proportion of claimants. When he is able, the minister might want to comment on what provisions are being made to assist claimants who claim in languages other than English. That would be the first question, notwithstanding -- to recap very briefly -- that the Liberal opposition has some fundamental problems with the way this whole operation is constituted and operates in the province.

Hon. M. Sihota: I think the last minister in this government who would be reluctant to deal with these issues is myself. It's vitally important that British Columbians of all multicultural and multilingual groups have access to and comfort with a system such as workers' compensation. Certainly in the casework that I have done over the years, I have recognized the deficiency in that regard. The instruction that I provide in a general way to the ministry is to proceed with employment equity programs to address the very questions that the hon. member raises. We are doing that. We are doing it in the ministry, and we're doing it with workers' compensation.

I can assure the hon. member that I particularly will make every effort to make sure that those who are not proficient in English, or who do not have English as their first language, will have access to and be able to understand the rights and responsibilities accorded to them under the legislation.

D. Mitchell: Another question while we're on the Workers' Compensation Board. The claims procedure at the WCB seems very complex. As members of the Legislative Assembly, we have all had a number of inquiries through our offices. For example, an injured worker is assigned to one of seven different claim units at WCB, but has to contend with different personnel because there are different file numbers in the different units. Could the minister indicate whether there's any plan to revise the system at the WCB to allow for a faster processing period and better customer-client relations, if I can refer to them as that?

Hon. M. Sihota: I share much of the frustration that the opposition has around workers' compensation. I've never hidden that; read what I had to say yesterday in Hansard. It'll change, believe you me.

Secondly, Deloitte and Touche just finished a study that dealt with all these matters of customer service and making sure there is teamwork in terms of handling an individual's files in a more customer-oriented perspective. In terms of the private discussions that I've had with the board, that is certainly one of the goals they have in mind. A lot needs to be done. They'll read that in Hansard

D. Mitchell: The minister has indicated that a lot needs to be done, and we agree. Would he agree that the caseload of WCB adjudicators and claims officers needs to be addressed? We understand that the average caseload is something like 115 per adjudicator or claims officer. Is the minister thinking about doing anything with the Workers' Compensation Board to rectify the caseload-to-officer ratio at the board right now?

Hon. M. Sihota: We've hired a significant number of new adjudicators, and there has been a significant increase in that element of the budget to deal with the very problem the member has identified and which I identified when I was occupying the seat behind him some years ago.

D. Mitchell: It wasn't very long ago at all. In fact, I can still sense the presence behind me. I think it was just a little over a year ago.

I wonder if the minister could indicate what the ministry is doing to work with employers and employees to reduce the amount of work-related injuries at present. I know that's an area the WCB is active in, but are there any specific initiatives that he has undertaken during the period covered by the budget that we're reviewing in this committee today? Is the minister planning to implement any new programs during the period covered by this budget?

Hon. M. Sihota: Unlike other provinces, in British Columbia occupational health and safety falls under the mandate of the Workers' Compensation Board. The ministry's role is limited in that regard, but within that limited role, I'm pleased to advise the member that, within this budget and within the time-frame that we've been here, we've sponsored a series of very successful safety forums in the logging industry, which is one of the most affected industries in the province in that regard. I'm pleased to see that it has met with success.

Other industries are free -- and indeed they do make requests -- to have similar treatment, and they will be attended to at that time.

[5:00]

D. Mitchell: I have another question on the WCB. The minister recently announced that the Workers Compensation Act would be extended to apply to farmworkers. Could the minister indicate when a similar move is going to be made to cover workers classified as domestic workers, home-care workers, artists and employees of professionals such as doctors or lawyers?

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, I think you misunderstood something. The board is engaged in a broad and expansive policy review to look at coverage in a variety of areas. One of those areas is farmworkers, because of the attention that is often focused on them. It has overshadowed work being done in a number of other categories. There's a full policy review going on. Farmworkers just happen to be one of them. A number of other areas are being looked at to expand the extent of coverage.

D. Mitchell: The minister has indicated that farmworkers have been one priority, and he indicates there's a review ongoing. But is it possible for the minister to inform the committee today of a similar

[ Page 2724 ]

move to expand WCB coverage to domestic workers, home-care workers, artists and employees in doctors' and lawyers' offices? Is that going to be implemented during the year that we're asked to approve the expenditures for?

Hon. M. Sihota: The board is currently in the process of taking submissions with respect to the whole area of coverage. That includes all of the occupation groups that you've enumerated. So it's farmworkers and....

D. Mitchell: Would the minister be able to tell us if there is any requirement to have employees informed as to whether or not they are covered by WCB?

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know if there is a regulation or a provision in the act that requires that, to be honest with you, so you've stumped us on that one. We'll get you the answer.

D. Mitchell: Just for the minister's benefit, the reason I ask the question is that it has been asked of me as an elected representative. A couple of specific concerns have been raised with me as to whether or not an employee of a company in British Columbia, whether they are on a part-time or full-time basis, should have full knowledge as to whether or not they are in fact covered under WCB in case they're injured. Today there doesn't seem to be that requirement.

It might be something that WCB might want to look into, so that any employee, whether part-time, casual, full-time or permanent -- whatever their status -- at least would have knowledge as to whether or not they are covered by WCB. That might be something worth looking into. That's why I asked the question. Does the minister have a response?

Hon. M. Sihota: A requirement currently exists on the part of the employer to register, but it clearly is a good point and an issue worth looking into. Wnd we shall do that, hon. member.

D. Symons: I would first like to just make a comment to the minister regarding the workers' compensation advisory board, because I have had to refer to it a few times. It's a marvellous thing within the Workers' Compensation Board, where they are able to give advice and help to people who feel they haven't been done right by the board. I find it rather interesting that they have within the organization this independent group that will work on behalf of them to make sure that their case goes forward in the right way and they are given a full hearing. That wasn't really why I stood up to ask a question.

In relation to that, I'll have to refer a little to the case to give you a flavour of what my question is about. It deals with a person who basically lost most of his front teeth. In the process of it, he told me that what happened was that almost before they gave any sort of consideration to treating him at all, he had to give a waiver that he would not sue anybody involved in the action that caused him to lose the teeth; that he wouldn't have any legal recourse after he accepted compensation from the board. He was told at the time he was doing it that they would basically replace his teeth -- "as good as new" were the words he said were used.

It turned out after he signed this waiver and after the treatment began that he had two options open to him. One doctor suggested Swedish implants which would apparently give him something fairly close to as good as new. The Workers' Compensation Board turned that down and went for a bridge, which, considering the distance this is going to go, would be terribly unsatisfactory. The distinct impression I got in speaking to people there and speaking to the gentleman involved was that it was a monetary decision, not the quality of service that he was going to get. Money determined what service or what appliance he would have for this, rather than what would be best for the client.

Is that the premise on which the board is working on these things, or do we put the person and the service first? There seemed to be a dollar figure that they gave you. You could go up to this dollar, but beyond that they weren't even going to consider talking to him about it.

Hon. M. Sihota: I have a number of comments with respect to that question. First of all, I wish to thank the hon. member for the comments he made with respect to the advisory board. I want him to understand this, because it is very important and certainly something we take pleasure in. Those services are provided by the ministry, and we take pride in what we do in that regard. I want the hon. member to understand -- keeping in mind the comments I made yesterday -- that we will be expanding those services, particularly to areas in the interior of British Columbia. I must reiterate my appreciation of the members from the Cariboo and Prince George area for their lobbying in that regard. They can expect an announcement soon that will give them all sorts of joy, let alone material for their next mail-out.

I don't know why someone would have been required to fill out a liability form. The hon. member may not understand this, but let me just go back. The traditional trade-off with respect to the WCB is that you are provided with coverage under the Workers' Compensation Board system. In turn, you agree not to take legal action against your employer. That's the way the system works; that's the law. It may only have been because.... I see the member for Cariboo North is now with us in the House. I was just saying that I was thanking him for all the hard work he's been doing to try to get us a WCB adviser's office in central British Columbia. There must have been a fear on the part of somebody that someone else may have been liable; hence the liability form. That's the only basis upon which that makes sense.

The objectives of the WCB system, as noted in the legislation -- I invite the member to read the legislation -- are very clear. The claimant comes first; the dollars come second.

D. Mitchell: I ask leave to introduce some guests.

[ Page 2725 ]

Leave granted.

D. Mitchell: We have joining us in the gallery this afternoon some students from Signal Hill Elementary School in Pemberton, which is in the northern part of my constituency. Leading them is their teacher, Ms.Zurcher, and five adults are with them as well. They are 30 grade 5 students. As I said, they're here in Victoria today to learn a little bit about the history of our province and our Legislature. I would like to ask all members of the committee to welcome them today.

I wonder if we could turn to one of the Crown corporations the minister has responsibility for: the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, a major corporation. I think it makes sense for this minister to have responsibility for it, given his responsibility for Consumer Services and the Labour portfolio. The corporation has had a new board appointed. The existing board was purged completely of its former members. A full new board of 16 new appointees has been put in place by the government. I wonder if the minister can indicate what directives, if any, he has personally made to the new board with regard to directions at the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

Hon. M. Sihota: I certainly give a warm welcome to the students from Pemberton. I'm sure that they've noticed the eloquence of their member. I must say it's a great improvement on the previous member, but not as great an improvement as it would have been if there had been a New Democratic member from there.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Now what are you going to do? Take that!

The hon. member may not be aware that I'm a member of the board by virtue of my responsibilities as minister. There's no need for me to fire scud missiles, sending over all sorts of directives. I'm a member of the board, I speak as a member of the board and I express opinions as a member of the board. Generally speaking, the intention of this government is to provide public auto insurance at a reasonable and fair cost, to make sure that never again do we have the kinds of days we've had in the past, where British Columbians have been faced with remarkably high insurance rates, and to get control financially of that corporation. It needs a lot of work and a good board that has the skills to handle the job.

D. Mitchell: One of my concerns, and one of the concerns the general community must have about the way the new board was appointed, is that when you have a whole board fired, a whole board sacked, a completely new board put in place, there is no corporate memory left. There's no one left on the board for continuity purposes. There's no one left to understand why previous decisions were made or what the rationale was at the time. Certainly there's got to be some concern about that. I'd like to ask the minister whether or not he has any concern that a full, new, inexperienced board has been given the responsibility for providing future direction for a major Crown corporation in our province at a time when there are reports that ICBC is expected to suffer a loss this year in the range of $150 million.

Hon. M. Sihota: There are a number of points that I'd like to make. Some would argue that we would want to purge ourselves of the memory of those 19 percent rate increases and the financial incompetence of the previous board, which took the earnings of ICBC from a profit of about $17 million to losses close to $100 million. Let's not forget that from a corporate point of view, there was a whole shift in this province. The previous cabinet went out, and in came a new cabinet on October 17. If I may say, the current cabinet is doing a better job than previous cabinet. It's quite possible to bring about a fundamental change in administration yet still be able to ensure that good, prudent, practical decisions are made. If I may say so, the opposition changed during the last election campaign, and I'm sorry to say that the improvement hasn't been as great.

All I can say is that in the case of the new board, we looked carefully at the backgrounds of various people, assessed them for their skills bases, looked at their experiences both in the corporate world and in the non-corporate world as consumers of ICBC, and tried to bring a team together that we thought had the right chemical mix to take the corporation to where it should be going. Your point is well taken, because not only were the changes made on the board, they were also made in terms of the president. I think it was deserving. When you take the corporation from that kind of profit to that kind of loss, it's time for a change. The change demonstrated itself in the decision we made. If anything, I'd criticize us for taking too long in making that change. I would have preferred to make it a lot faster.

D. Mitchell: The minister is trying to make a case that there was not a single member of the previous board -- not one -- who was worth keeping on for purposes of continuity. There was not a single member of the previous board who didn't deserve to be dismissed. I have a hard time understanding that. I have a hard time appreciating that, given that there was some good business experience on the previous board. I have a hard time understanding his rationale.

Let me ask this question, because the minister made an interesting comment here. ICBC rates have increased by some 19 percent in this past year, and the minister alluded to that. They increased after weeks of speculation that ICBC rates might increase by something like 24percent. There was an interesting trial balloon floated and some good political public relations on the part of the government. The minister reported, in May of this year, that ICBC had a quarterly loss of $35million. This is in addition to the $98 million lost last year. Is the minister telling us that there won't be any more 19 percent rate increases at ICBC under the NDP government?

[5:15]

[ Page 2726 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me make a number of comments. First of all, that board was fired, and if I can use a sports analogy, it was for the same reason that the Hartford Whalers just got rid of Jimmy Roberts. It's performance that counts, and the performance wasn't very good with respect to this board.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: The whole board. You're making one assumption in your question that I would caution you against. Your assumption is that everybody who was on the previous board wanted to stay and be on the new board. I'm not too sure if that assumption is correct. I'm sorry to say that you haven't detected the flaw in your line of questioning.

An Hon. Member: Where is Jimmy Roberts now?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sure he'd take pride in knowing that he's being bandied about in the Legislature of B.C.

Can I promise that there won't be any further 19 percent rate increases? I can promise you this: we're determined not to repeat that kind of situation. I can also be honest about it and let you know that that's not an easy task. You're correct that the initial projections for this year are not good, and there may well be a significant increase this year. It's our objective to keep it down as low as possible. We're making a series of wholesale changes at ICBC to try to do that in the way in which we're running the corporation. I would hope that we can bring those rates down to single-digit levels as soon as we possibly can, and I would hope that we don't see another 19 percent rate increase. I certainly wouldn't like to go through that again. We're doing the best we can, hon. member, to bring down those rates, but there will be a rate increase this year. We'll watch how the year progresses before we're in a position to say.

We're looking at a number of options; we're looking at initiatives on the part of the board to go out and meet with British Columbians to talk about how the process works. The corporation's board has never met face to face with its shareholders in its history. They've never gone out and talked with people in British Columbia. Maybe we need to go out there and talk to our shareholders and have a dialogue about rates.

We're taking some actions. I know the Attorney General recently announced some changes with respect to traffic safety initiatives. Those are designed in part to deal with issues that fall under his mandate and in part to deal with issues that fall under my mandate. You bet, there is a need to throw the book at some people when it comes to their bad driving habits.

If I may go on a bit more, we've taken some cost-cutting measures at ICBC. A lot of the frills are gone that were there before. We'll do that some more to the extent that it's required. We've had two reports that have made some suggestions with respect to management structure changes. The board is currently working on a policy that it will discuss at its next meeting in terms of implementing the recommendations of those reports. The next meeting of the board is scheduled, I think, for June 24 or 25, so you can see that they are moving with dispatch on that front. The new president, Robyn Allan, and Len DeVito have also been in there. If I can put it this way, they're trying to create a different type of corporate spirit from when people simply thought that at the end of day the government would bail out ICBC. That is not the case. We need to deal with a lot of the structural problems, and we're beginning to do it. Like I say, my only regret is that we made the changes in May, when I would have preferred to have made them in March.

D. Mitchell: The minister has indicated there are going to be some changes and different approaches at ICBC. Maybe the changes will be good. We can only hope that they will be good, but the true test will be ICBC rates. If the premiums go down, if they don't increase at the levels they've been increasing at in recent years, that will be the test. That is how British Columbians will judge the performance of this administration when it comes to ICBC.

The minister has been very anxious to criticize the previous administration for mismanagement, but he hasn't been willing to commit or give us any comfort today in this committee that rates won't increase by as much or more under the NDP. There is a disappointment there.

The minister has also tried to use a sports analogy to compare running a corporation the size of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia with a hockey team: when the performance is not satisfactory, you sack the coach, you sack the manager. I don't know if the analogy works. I'm not sure that in the world of insurance underwriting -- public automobile insurance -- we should be looking at a sports or entertainment analogy. I think it's pretty serious business, actually. And I think the case has not been made that there was a need to fire the whole management team. It's not only the coach and the general manager; you sacked everyone on the board. You sacked everyone and brought in a new board, in the hope that you can change the tone. I'm not sure that that's an appropriate approach on the part of this government.

I have a question for the minister that's quite specific. The minister says that perhaps he moved too slowly. Perhaps he did move too slowly, in particular when he seized the reins of power and the reins of office and assumed cabinet responsibility for this corporation. In fact, in recent years ICBC rates were generally addressed each year in January. This year rates were increased only on February 1, after some controversy and some significant confusion, it seems. I wonder if the minister could indicate the amount of money lost by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia during that one-month period of dithering.

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me deal with the points that you raise.

I'd be most surprised if the rates went up near the percentage that happened last year. I don't think they'll go up 19 percent this year. That's the best guess that I can put forward at this time. That's not to say they

[ Page 2727 ]

won't go up. But if you're saying that I've left that question uncovered, now I've dealt with it dead-on.

Secondly, fine, you think that we should have maintained some continuity there. I didn't think it was necessary. I'll let the hon. member know that I spent a fair bit of time evaluating both staff and the board before we made the changes. You should know that there will be more changes at ICBC, because I think they're long overdue. There is a stagnation there in terms of some of the attitudes, and they'll have to change.

There was no dithering for a month. We came in as government in November. Sometime toward the third week in November we were told that there was going to be a 24 percent rate increase with ICBC. I think you can agree with me that there would be a considerable reluctance on the part of any administration to approve that without question in a matter of hours. I was not prepared to do that; rather, I insisted that they go back and sharpen their pencils. That one month shaved 5 percent off the rate increase. Consumers -- British Columbians -- who use ICBC for their automobile insurance saved 5 percent on their rates as a consequence of that month of review and telling them to go back and sharpen their pencils. So that month saved people a good chunk of money.

As for the answer to the specific question you put, the number has already been given in the House; it's in Hansard. That question was asked by your colleague from Surrey, who asked that very question in the House some three weeks ago, and the answer was $10 million. Further, I should let you know that that money is recouped when we come back next January.

D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for the answer to that question. He has indicated that the delay and the confusion of setting the rates in February as opposed to January cost the Insurance Corporation some $10 million. He has also indicated that during that period there was a sharpening of pencils. I'd like to get his assurance that it wasn't simply a political decision, because he did commit, when he assumed responsibility for the corporation, that political rate-setting was going to be a thing of the past, and that there was going to be some independence and a mechanism put in place so there would not be political intereference in setting ICBC premium rates in the future. I'd like to ask the minister how he's coming along with that project, and whether he's going to get to an independent mechanism for rate-setting during the year that we're approving the spending estimates for.

If the minister has answered the question of why the increase was delayed, can he tell me on what basis the 19 percent increase this year was made, if there was an independent mechanism? If the recommendation came in that the rate should be 24 percent, how did they get down to 19 percent? Was that done in an independent fashion, or was it simply political interference again?

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, politics rule the day. I'll tell you one thing: we wouldn't have walked into the first days of our administration and approved a 19 percent rate increase. I don't think that's particularly politically smart. Let me disabuse you of any suggestion that it was done politically. If we were going to do it politically, we would have made it 0.19 percent instead of 19 percent.

I hauled in the president at the time, called for an emergency board meeting and went over their analysis. It was interesting, because they had predicted a 12 percent rate increase as late as October. Then as we got closer and closer to November, the numbers kept going up and ultimately doubled to 24 percent. I was not left with the impression that the board felt firm in its view that it was 24 percent; that was the first hint I got that perhaps there was room there. Secondly, we sent in a team of auditors to work through the numbers with the corporation's financial people. That certainly assisted in their coming to the conclusion that the rate could be and should be reduced to 19 percent. So an independent group headed by Mr. Healey went in very quickly and did some good work. If you look at his CV, Mr. Healey has had good experience in insurance work over the years.

The independent agency is an excellent question. I want the hon. member to know that we have not forgotten that issue. We've been working on it fairly regularly over the past few months. I'm not in a position yet to make an announcement on that front; hopefully we'll be there very soon. The problem is that agencies such as the B.C. Utilities Commission don't have a legislative mandate to do that, so we could not simply toss it off to an existing agency. Creating a new agency and trying to get it up and running in time would, in all probability, not have allowed us to have an independent agency deal with it this year. There are some options with respect to existing agencies in government if we were to provide them with some interim assistance. We're looking at some of the options there. We haven't concluded exactly what route to go in that regard.

I think that fills you in on where we're at on the issue.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

C. Tanner: I have two quick questions. One, is it the minister's intention to take ICBC back into the general insurance field? Two, when pension funds are being negotiated in settlement of a claim, are those contracts put out to bid, and if they are, to whom?

Hon. M. Sihota: On the first question, the government has not made any decision in that regard, nor have we discussed it to date. I've thought about it, but I haven't done more than that at this stage. Obviously the province will know if we decide to go beyond that, but at this point there's nothing happening on that front.

On the second question, what are you talking about when you talk about pensions? Are you talking about actuaries who do work for ICBC? If you can give me an example of what you're talking about, I'll let you know where we stand on it.

C. Tanner: If ICBC is settling a claim with a claimant who is in need of a pension, I assume that ICBC will get the best pension they possibly can at the

[ Page 2728 ]

best rate, and that it will be put out to contract. The question to the minister is: are they put out to contract, and to whom?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm still not sure that I understand the member's question. Under the insurance scheme with.... As you can see, I don't have any staff here from ICBC. Under the scheme of insurance as it works, a claimant receives proceeds from the Insurance Corporation in the form of a lump sum payment -- right? The present value of that lump sum payment is calculated, and then they're paid their lump sum. It is then up to them to invest that money in whatever fashion they choose to provide them with a stream of income. Therefore they would go to the marketplace, if they wish, and secure the services of a financial analyst, or whoever, to do that work for them. That is typically how a case is handled with respect to the Insurance Corporation. In some areas there are structured settlements, but as I understand structured settlements, and as I have dealt with them in the past, the moneys flow from ICBC. Since it's structured, the corporation does not have to put out the money in one lump sum, and that obviously works to the benefit of the corporation. That's how the scheme works, and that's why I'm a little perplexed at the question. It's not like WCB, where you actually get a pension per se.

[5:30]

If you're talking about our underwriters who underwrite the corporation, I share your concern on that front. I'm not persuaded. At least, I don't think that it has been put out to tender for some time, and that's just on the basis of some information that I've seen. Obviously that decision needs to be revisited, and yes, I have had discussions with the president about revisiting it. Those discussions happened very recently. I think it was the week before I went to Ottawa, so that was last Monday.

D. Mitchell: The minister indicated that there are going to be more changes at ICBC and that there are some management issues there. I have some concerns about that, because I know that ICBC is regarded as being a very well managed corporation and that the management of the corporation is actually considered to be top-notch within the insurance industry. I'm concerned about the comments that he has made, and he's clearly indicating that the blame for some of the losses is due to management. I question that.

The minister has also blamed the record high losses on the high cost of insurance claims -- in particular from bad drivers -- and on crime-related claims from vandalism and theft. The minister has indicated this in previous weeks and months. Would the minister care to bear himself some of the responsibility for the lost moneys to ICBC because of the political interference in delaying the rate increases this year?

Hon. M. Sihota: No.

D. Mitchell: The minister has indicated that changes can be expected at ICBC. Would the minister be willing to inform the committee today as to whether or not one of those changes might be a wholesale change to public automobile insurance in British Columbia through considering a no-fault system?

Hon. M. Sihota: That is not under consideration.

D. Mitchell: Pay-outs for comprehensive claims have more than doubled since 1987. Is it not perhaps feasible for this minister to work with his cabinet colleagues to attempt to remove drivers from the road with incentives to take public transit? Cuts to municipalities, as well as the hidden increases we can expect as a result of Bill 51, the British Columbia Transit Amendment Act, indicate that this government is not wanting to be responsible to the environment or to the taxpayer who eventually pays most of the costs. Is the minister contemplating anything in that area?

Hon. M. Sihota: I saw that shy smile you cracked when you talked about us not being responsible. As much as you articulated the word, I'm sure in the depths of your heart there is no way you agree with that utterance. Your body language tipped you off there.

D. Mitchell: What was that smile I saw?

Hon. M. Sihota: The joy of being able to tell you that.

The corporation obviously wishes to encourage -- and should -- better and more frequent transit utilization -- no two ways about it. I'm pleased to see that certain changes are happening both outside the corporation and within. Outside, for example, I notice the GVRD's most recent policy switched their priorities and put the automobile from the top to the bottom. They inverted it and put the pedestrian, bicycles and so on at the top. I think that's really the way to go. I'm glad to see that, and that's consistent with the philosophy of this administration as well.

Within ICBC, we announced last year some rate classifications that would encourage people to use transit. For example, we introduced a new rate structure for park-and-ride: if you park and ride you will enjoy a lower rate of insurance. That's indicative of the kind of initiatives we're taking there.

Thirdly, I will be asking the board to take a look at another area. Let me just share that with you very quickly. We are, after all, a public corporation and have some responsibilities that are distinct from those of a private corporation. There are a number of intersections in British Columbia that are just horrendous. They're just bad intersections where there are all sorts of accidents. I see my colleague from Victoria-Hillside is out of the room, so I can speak freely and let all members know that the intersection of Hillside and Blanshard is a classic example. It's one of the worst intersections in all of British Columbia -- just down the street here in Victoria. We pay out hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in ICBC claims because of fender-benders or rear-enders -- resulting in whiplash or back injury -- that occur at these intersections. Municipalities are often cash-starved and aren't improving those intersections. It may make more

[ Page 2729 ]

sense for the corporation, through its public conscience, or because it is a public corporation, to actually fix up the intersection instead of just paying out to all the claimants. So I'm looking at identifying a pilot project where we begin to clean up some intersections. It will be money better spent, in the long run if not in the short run, to fix up those intersections. That's part of the reason why you have a public corporation. It's one of the innovative things that I'd like to move in on, which would bring down claims, help out municipalities and result in a better stream of traffic.

Having said that, I expect all members of the Legislature now to begin lobbying me for their favourite intersection, which they will say is the worst in the province and worthy of remedial action.

Those are some of the actions that we're taking that are innovative, on the rate side, GVRD, and with Bill 51 and within the corporation.

D. Mitchell: The minister has given one rationale for why we have public automobile insurance in the province of British Columbia. I take it from his comment that therefore he's committed to public automobile insurance, and the possibility of going back to private automobile insurance is not under active consideration. I can infer that from what the minister has said.

But clearly there is something wrong at ICBC. There's something very wrong, given what the minister has reflected in terms of concern, massive board changes, huge losses. In order to satisfy the public about this publicly owned corporation, would the minister consider a full public accounting of ICBC, conducted by the independent offices of the auditor general of British Columbia?

Hon. M. Sihota: At first blush, I don't know if that would be redundant. We've just had a major validation, as the good member for Prince George-Omineca has so well noted: Peat Marwick Thorne, at some expense, which eludes me, but which I'm sure is embedded in your minds as members of the opposition. At first blush, my answer to that would be no, but I'll consider it. Certainly we may want to do something if problems continue. The point I made earlier on, which I won't repeat but just draw your attention to, is that I think there has to be a better interrelationship between the corporation and the shareholders. The board needs to get out, management needs to get out and explain what they're doing. Like I said, there will be an initiative announced very soon that will get them out and meeting with British Columbians, explaining their problems and seeking the assistance of British Columbians in terms of coming forward with ideas to clean up ICBC -- the sooner the better. I think everybody wants those rates brought down. That view is shared as strongly on this side of the House as it is on that side of the House.

D. Mitchell: We spoke earlier about the board changes at ICBC. Could the minister tell the committee today what role the Crown corporations secretariat had in determining who the new members of the board would be, and in terms of their appointments as well?

Hon. M. Sihota: The general question is yes, and the specific question is nominal. Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I spoke way out of turn there, but the answer is nominal.

D. Mitchell: The minister has indicated that there was some influence there, but perhaps nominal. The minister will appreciate why the question is asked, because the new president -- I believe she is the acting president; there was some clarification after her appointment -- was, previous to her appointment with ICBC, a member of the Crown corporations secretariat. There certainly is an appearance that there is a very direct connection. In fact, it might even appear that the Crown corporations secretariat is in charge of ICBC. Would the minister be willing to comment more specifically on the role that Bob Williams, the secretary to the Cabinet Committee on Crown Corporations, had in the appointment of Robyn Allan as president of ICBC?

Hon. M. Sihota: Again, I would say that it was nominal. You're presupposing that (a) I don't know Robyn Allan, and (b) that I wasn't at the time sufficiently confident in her skills and sort of passed off to somebody else the decision to engage her services. Both of those assumptions are invalid. I should let you know that she's a remarkably skilled person. I would encourage you, or your critic, to make your own judgments. Members of the opposition should spend some time talking to Robyn and getting a feel for her skills and her interest in the corporation. We'd be happy to make those arrangements through my office. I think that would be a good way for you to get a better read on (a) what the corporation is doing and (b) her skills. She's very talented, and we're very lucky to have here there. I must say that I'm most impressed with the work that she's done. I was most excited that she was prepared to make herself available to do that job -- excited because of her talents, which are immense; she's a very bright, capable woman.

This is the first woman we've had in the capacity of head of a Crown corporation. We're really proud of that, as an administration. In an area that has been totally male-dominated, Robyn has made a substantial breakthrough. I think that's a tribute to her skills, because all too often for someone to get to that kind of position, they have to demonstrate that they're one notch better than the next person. She has done a really good job in that regard. I'm very proud of the appointment, and I'm delighted that she agreed to do it. She had done some work prior to that in the insurance field, and some work through the secretariat with respect to ICBC.

That's the history there. I'm quite happy with what has transpired. You're right that it is an acting position. The position will be nationally advertised, and we'll see who comes forward. There are, of course, all sorts of people who would love to move to British Columbia to run ICBC. We'll see what that search reveals.

[ Page 2730 ]

D. Mitchell: The minister has commented on the professional qualifications of Robyn Allan. I'd like him to know that I've met Robyn Allan and have the highest regard for her as a professional economist. In fact, I know that she had some experience with the Saskatchewan government insurance corporation in Regina some years ago, but certainly not in the position of running a corporation of that size. There's no question that she's a talented and very bright individual. But I fear that the government has done her a disservice by putting her into this very difficult position at this time, in a corporation of this size that is suffering those kinds of losses. In terms of putting her in in an acting capacity, I hardly think that that reflects well on her abilities as a woman, in terms of corporation management. In fact, it suggests that she doesn't have the ability to do the job on a full-time basis. It suggests that they don't have full confidence in her to do the job.

The other point that I make is the relationship with Mr. Williams and the Crown corporations secretariat. From a perception point of view, it certainly doesn't reflect any independence at all. I wonder if the minister could comment on that. If the member for Okanagan West has a question on ICBC, I will give way to him before I move on to B.C. Hydro. But I'd like to have the minister address that comment in particular first.

Hon. M. Sihota: Let's face facts, hon. member. Don't try to cut it both ways. If we had appointed her as the permanent, new president of ICBC, you would have admonished us for not having a national search for other candidates. You would have taken the view that it was an appointment straight out of VanCity. Don't give me that guff; you're trying to go both ways on it. I've made it very clear in terms of my feelings about her level of skill. At the end of the day, she may be the permanent president, but we owe it to the process to allow it to run its course, and we will.

[5:45]

C. Serwa: It's a delight to get involved in this particular debate on ICBC rates. The minister obviously has had a great deal of fun with ICBC and the increase in rates. I'm curious to know if the minister can give me an answer on the reason for the purported 19 percent rate increase. Actually, from all the figures I have, it is closer to 24 percent. When you look at all the jurisdictions, the older vehicles, medium-priced vehicles and late-model vehicles, and average it out, it comes much closer to 24 percent than 19 percent.

The minister in his earlier comments was not reluctant or hesitant to blame the former administration. He ran that one by us for awhile, and then he somehow blamed the federal government. Then the minister looked at the next opportunity and blamed the drivers in British Columbia with their increasing frequency of accidents. I don't know that he mentioned lawyers and litigation costs or the 6 percent on legal fees, which wasn't in place at that time. Has the minister made a determination of why the 19 percent -- or actually 24 percent -- increase is really required? Does he have the specific reason or at least a major reason for that?

Hon. M. Sihota: On the last question the answer is: we increased the rates because there was a substantial loss to the corporation. It is as simple as that -- it lost money.

With respect to your first question on whether it's 19 or 24, the average rate is 19 percent. You have some documents there. If you table them, we'll look at them, and we'll explain to you why the numbers come out the way they have.

C. Serwa: It appears to me that there is another reality that enters into the equation that the minister conveniently dismissed. There are two other elements that he has conveniently dismissed. Obviously the drop in interest rates impacted on investment earnings and on reserves that ICBC had for claim settlements. That had to have cost ICBC a substantial amount. I doubt very much that anyone in management or on the board of ICBC or anyone here in the Legislature could have forecast what happened to interest rates and their dramatic decrease. Of course, that impacted the earnings of ICBC considerably. The only alternative was to go to the drivers of the vehicles. Clearly that has to be a substantial....

There is some concern in my mind, too, with the government's interest in making the Crowns profitable. A portion of that rate increase is dedicated for profitability that would be turned into general revenue. ICBC was set up initially by the government that is now currently government, then put on a stable foundation by former administrations, but always on a break-even basis. That was the basis for it.

The hon. minister has indicated that there were serious flaws in the board; there were serious flaws in the previous administration; and there were substantial losses. My figures indicate that for the last three years there has been a profit. From 1988, there was approximately $26 million; in 1989, $90 million; and in 1990, another $17 million. The net result of that is there was a surplus in profitability at that point to the tune of $132 million, and there was a forecast put out by the board for a loss of about $100 million, perhaps $125 million, for the current year. I guess the minister refused to accept the figures of the administration and the board and went to the chief of Crown corporations for utilization of their figures, which were substantially higher -- in the area of approximately $150 million. But with the record in view, the reality is that over that span of four years ICBC turned over a small profit. Perhaps the minister can explain to me the magnitude of the purported loss or the mismanagement of ICBC.

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member raised a number of questions, and I'll try to deal with them all quickly.

You're right in identifying the fact that there was a drop in investment income. It was a good point and really shouldn't be lost in this discussion. But you should know that the corporation has candidly admitted it missed a bond rally that had been caught by the vast majority of players in the market. These things happen from time to time, and I'm not going to go out and axe the whole works because they missed it. But

[ Page 2731 ]

you should know this so that you've got the facts before you.

You mentioned litigation costs earlier. Litigation costs certainly have gone up -- in the neighbourhood of $34 million last year, I think -- and we're taking a number of steps to try to reduce those costs. We have contacted the Attorney General, whose responsibility it is to deal with court rule changes. There need to be some changes in that regard, which I think would go a long way towards decreasing litigation costs. On that front, despite my own background, I can assure you that we want to see some changes.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I think it was page 538 of the yellow pages, if you look really carefully.

In terms of profitability, it's not our intention to seek a dividend from ICBC at any time and have those moneys placed in general revenue. It's different from B.C. Hydro in that regard. However, we need to rebuild the reserves that were there so as to cushion you against rate increases.

You're correct in noting the numbers that you did, but what happened in each year -- because rate increases were not approved at the level that they had been requested, particularly in the last year -- was that they had to dip into those financial protection reserves to keep the rates down low. That's fair enough. It was a decision made at the time. They then found last year, in October, that their forecast was about $100 million off in terms of the extent to which they had to dip in. That explains why they went from $17 million to the loss they had last year. That deals with the $132 million figure you refer to.

On top of that, you're correct. In its initial analysis this year, the board suggested in its three-month review that there will be a lower deficit than what the secretariat estimated. When the two of them compared numbers, my recollection -- and it's very clear -- is that management agreed that the secretariat was bang-on. The difference between the two was the way in which they were forecasting it. The corporation would have picked up those losses later on in the year, and they would have shown up in their quarterly statement in August, as opposed to the way the secretariat calculated it out. It's just that the secretariat was ahead of the board in their calculations, but they both agreed with the ultimate number. That explains that discrepancy, but all the numbers agree.

C. Serwa: Perhaps the minister could indicate to me what the 24 percent premium increase that was recommended.... I make no bones about it. Earlier the minister said that he felt that the board wasn't really firm on the request for 24 percent. Yet in earlier statements on the CBC news on December 3, the minister said: "The board made a recommendation of 24 percent. The auditors made a recommendation of 24 percent. I'm saying I don't like it, and I want them to go back." That seems to be fairly firm. Obviously if the board made that statement, it was a recommendation by management or administration and a reality recognizing, perhaps, increases in costs of ICBC and decreased.... It appears that the board was in fact very firm on it.

Perhaps it was difficult for the new minister to be faced with a rate increase like that. If it were a legitimate request based on actuarial cost, the reality is.... There's some question in my mind on that, because over and above the requirement for building up the cash flow to attend to the cost of ICBC was the additional expressed desire to again build up the surplus fund, the reserve fund.

On the basis of the 24 percent, with the number of vehicles registered in the province of British Columbia, perhaps the minister could indicate to me what the projected revenue increase would bring to ICBC.

Hon. M. Sihota: You have to understand that I'm functioning here without staff. So far I've been doing really good, but I can't....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: In my estimation, and yours too, because you've been getting answers.

I'm not sure if I can give you that number, but let me tell you this: for every 1 percent, you get $17 million in revenue. Whatever 24 times 17 is will give you the number. That much I can tell you; I just can't add it up that fast. I know the hon. Member for Okanagan West is as quick as a computer, and his computerlike mind will calculate the number in terms of the new revenue that came in. But you've got to understand that that revenue comes in over the course of the year. The full brunt of the revenue will show up in next year's fiscal statements as opposed to this year, because you're collecting it as the year goes on.

Your other question dealt with the firmness of the 24 percent. It's a good question, because you picked up on the point that it was tied in with the financial protection reserve that was there with the corporation. At the end of the day, the board was firm on this point: they felt that a 24 percent rate increase would allow the rate stabilization fund to build up to the point where it could be a real rate stabilization fund, so these wild oscillations in claims could be cushioned. That is how both the auditors and the board came to the conclusion that it should be 24 percent. I asked them to go back and sharpen their pencils to see whether there were other models available. For example, they might want to extend the time-period in which to get to that financial protection reserve level that they wanted, or they might want to decrease the quantum of that reserve, given the fact that it is public auto insurance. I forget which of those two options they selected, but that assisted in driving down the rate from 24 to 19.

C. Serwa: My calculations would be that approximately 1.5 million motor vehicles in the province plus a number of motorcycles, utility trailers and commercial trailers signifies that income for ICBC could be up by nearly $400 million over the previous year on the basis of the projected rate increases. I note that there was a forecast for premiums to be written in 1992 of almost

[ Page 2732 ]

$2 billion. What has happened? Are we on that projected increase of premiums? If so, that really means that factored into that would be the expanded growth of the traffic that required licensing, plus the increase. We must have obtained additional revenues of approximately $400 million or more into ICBC. Has that occurred in the projected gross income for ICBC in 1992?

Hon. M. Sihota: I think your number of $400 million is too high. I don't know where that comes from. I will get you the actual number, so you'll know what we're working with. I'll shoot that over to you in a letter at some point.

Secondly, whatever that number is, if your question is have we achieved 100 percent of that target or are we off target based on our projections, we're somewhat off. There's obviously been a drop-off in people who are renewing, because of the increases in the rates. That's most pronounced in the motorcycle category that you talked about, because the rates went up substantially on the motorcycle side.

I've got to tell you that I've asked for a special review of the motorcycle component of it, because it's really injuring the industry. People are not prepared to buy motorcycles because of the cost of insurance. When that industry quite legitimately came to me, we agreed to do a study. Eckler Partners Ltd. are doing that study. I can't tell the hon. member when it's going to be completed. I would have thought that it would have been completed by now so that we can adjust those rates for next year. We made that commitment to the motorcycle group.

[6:00]

C. Serwa: I note that there appears to be a decrease in the claims-incurred expenses over the past two or almost three years. What happened in '91-92? There was a forecast of an increase of 7.4 percent. Going back to '89-90, we were looking at an increase of 20.9 percent. It dropped off in the following year, '90-91, to 12.5 percent, and an increase of 7.4 percent was forecast for 1991-92. What has happened in 1992? That's certainly a positive sign and indicates the driver out there is striving to do a better job. Perhaps it's enforcement; perhaps it's education. But that's a positive sign, and it certainly doesn't appear to justify that type of an increase.

While I may be a bit high on the $400 million, the reality is that it's probably conservatively $350 million or more. The costs haven't gone up abnormally. If you're looking even at a projected loss of $150 million in one fell swoop, with the high rate increase you're putting another $150 million into the account. The reality is that the account wasn't drained in any event. It did get very low, but in 1991 we left it at $176.7 million. It's not as if the surplus account is in jeopardy. Perhaps the minister could elaborate on that.

Hon. M. Sihota: Last year the $176 million was eroded remarkably because of the increase in the cost of claims. It's in the teens, if memory serves me right, where it sits. I can't remember exactly where it is, but it's in the teens to the low twenties -- in the million figure.

There's a projected loss in the corporation notwithstanding this year's rate increase of 19 percent. That's why I dispute your number of $350 million to $400 million. We anticipate that we'll be able to turn the corner in year three, and we'll start to show a level of profitability sufficient to replenish those funds.

The reason seems to be the cost of claims. I know you're looking at the annual statement. Far be it for me to suggest how accountants dress up numbers, but I can tell you this much. Maybe you can tell us. All of the charts that I've seen show the numbers going up. I think they will. Unfortunately, we're becoming a highly litigious society around ICBC matters, and quite frankly, as someone who has practised in the area I fully understand how that happens, and I fully understand how it can be controlled.

There are a number of innovative things that have to be done to control those increased costs in claims. It's not just saying to drivers that you've got to cease being bad drivers. You say that, and that's all nice and good, but remember, only 10 to 13 percent of drivers in British Columbia are involved in a motor vehicle accident in a year. So 87 to 90 percent of people shake their head; they know it's not them who are to blame. It's amazing that that small component of the population can drive up the claims to the extent that they do. We have to deal with them and the litigation costs that come. There are a number of initiatives that I think we should be undertaking in that regard. If you want me to amplify on them, I'd be happy to do that.

C. Serwa: Could the minister explain to me why the rate increases for older vehicles were so high in the lower mainland? We have a 27 percent increase in Maple Ridge; Pitt Meadows, 27.8 percent; Squamish-Whistler, 28 percent; Pemberton-Hope, 28 percent; Fraser Valley, 28 percent; Okanagan, 29.2 percent. As I go through all of these, I find that the older vehicles have abnormally high rate increases. If these are based on an actuarial rationale, are we to tie up the fact that the drivers of old vehicles have more accidents? This is in sharp contrast, marked contrast, to late-model vehicles at 15 percent increases, more or less through the board -- 15 or 16 percent.

Perhaps the minister could explain why there was this substantial rate increase. Really, the minister knows full well that those who drive older cars aren't driving them because they like to, but probably because that's all they can afford to drive. It seems that we're taking sort of a punitive action unless there are substantial reasons for these abnormally high rate increases.

Hon. M. Sihota: I was trying to remember if you drive an older car or not. I thought I'd seen you puttering around in a Volkswagen or something like that.

I remember asking that question and getting an answer, but I can't remember what the answer was. I'll get you the answer.

[ Page 2733 ]

C. Serwa: The minister mentioned a study being done with respect to motorcycles, and this is one aspect that has really bothered people with motorcycles, which are really cost-effective and fuel-efficient and a number of other things. Most of the accidents that involve automobiles and motorcycles are not caused by the motorcycles.

They've got quite an education program for drivers of motorcycles, and they try to remain as visible as possible and probably drive as if they were invisible. Nevertheless, the ICBC rate charged for motorcycles is very high indeed. Perhaps the minister could indicate when he feels the study or assessment will be complete, because it's certainly a very burning issue with the operators of motorcycles.

Hon. M. Sihota: I have to agree strongly with the member. I've met with the motorcyclists and their coalition, including the dealers, and share their concern. I told them that when that report comes down, if they're not happy with the results, we will allow for additional funding for an independent study on their part, to review and point out flaws in that study. We made that commitment on top of the commitment to have a study. So I'm as perplexed as you.

As to when, if my memory serves me right, we were supposed to have that study done in June. It is June now, and I have not seen it, so I would assume it is not completed yet. I was told that it would be done by June.

C. Serwa: I guarantee, hon. Chair, that this is the last question. In view of the discussion we've had in this interesting debate on ICBC, where the minister really concedes that the rate increase requested by the former board was appropriate; where the minister has acknowledged that the substantial revenue loss from capital invested in ICBC is a direct result of decreased interest rates -- and they have really plummeted.... On the basis of all that, and with no difficulty with the existing board, what was the rationale for firing all of the board? As I see it, they have done good, capable, conscientious work and certainly didn't deserve that type of treatment.

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, you've overlooked the point I made earlier. Your question assumes that they all wanted to stay. Secondly, in prefacing your comment, you have made certain acknowledgments which I think are not quite accurate, if I can put it that way. I know you're trying to make your case. Indeed, if that case were entirely true, you would have a good question. But if you reflect on the comments I made, and read them in Hansard, you will see that I didn't quite give you the acknowledgements that you've taken.

F. Gingell: Just following up on the same subject, it seems to me, listening to the exchange that has been going on, that the one thing the board really messed up on was missing this bond rally. Do you believe that it is the responsibility of a board of directors to instruct staff when or when not to sell bonds?

Hon. M. Sihota: I think you're putting too much into my response to that question, because you're almost presupposing that that was the only issue. You totally overlook the fact that there are other variables. In fact, the largest variable, which I alluded to in response to the questions of the member for Okanagan West, was the increasing cost of claims. I think you probably could have handled the loss in investment income. If you look at the performance, compared to other Crown corporations, it jumps out at you. But don't for a moment think that's the exclusive or the material reason for the loss. It was a reason; it was a variable. Because of that, one of the things we did when we looked at the new board was to make sure that there were people on the board who had that kind of experience and could ask the skilled questions that are necessary with respect to the investment policies of the corporation. And we've done that. Please don't come to the conclusion that the bond rally was the only issue.

F. Gingell: Just to finalize that subject, I'd like to say a couple of things.

I would be most interested in the minister's understanding of the role of a member of the board of directors, when we're into such things as the administration and management of an investment fund.

When the minister talks about the ICBC bond investment results, I understand that he's looking at a fairly recent evaluation -- up to some period ending in 1992. When he looks at the results that the provincial government is speaking of in their trust fund management, the results we've been discussing have all been for periods ending in 1991. Appreciating that bond rates have decreased fairly dramatically in the past 12 months, can the minister assure us that the evaluation he has made is on a similar basis?

Hon. M. Sihota: Basically, yes.

F. Gingell: Moving on from ICBC to B.C. Hydro, there are certain stories around about what B.C. Hydro's operations for the year ended March 31, 1992, are going to show. Could the minister give us some indication of the likely financial results for B.C. Hydro for the year ended March 31?

Hon. M. Sihota: I didn't quite hear the question. Are you asking what we expect the dividend to be this year?

F. Gingell: No, I was asking what you anticipate the income will be.

[6:15]

Hon. M. Sihota: The information will be going to the audit committee next week. The board is meeting on Friday next, and it will be released at that time. Not having been to the board meeting, which hasn't yet been held, obviously I can't give you the number, which I haven't yet seen.

To be candid about it, that delay, which is somewhat inordinate, occurred because we took some time in

[ Page 2734 ]

terms of changing the board, and certain material was held back.

F. Gingell: Nonetheless, anybody who is a director of a corporation will have some idea of whether the number is expected to be the $207 million that it was for the year ending March 31, 1991, or whether it will be in the region of $400 million, which is a number that has been bandied about in certain discussions, or whether it is in fact expected to be even greater. I was wondering if we could just get a ballpark. I appreciate that the minister certainly wouldn't be in a position to give us an exact number, but has B.C. Hydro had a good year or a very good year?

Hon. M. Sihota: It has had a bumper year. I think that information has been made public.

F. Gingell: So the ICBC directors had a terrible year, and they all get fired. B.C. Hydro has a bumper year, and every single one of their directors except for the chairman of the board gets fired. Perhaps the minister would like to explain to this committee exactly why the directors of B.C. Hydro were fired.

Hon. M. Sihota: On October 17, 1991, there was a change of government.

F. Gingell: Yes, I recognize that. There was a change in my lifestyle too.

Is it fair to ask the minister if all the statements he made about the change in the board of directors of ICBC, and the aspersions that were cast upon their business acumen in this House, aren't really the case? The real case is that on October 17, the people of British Columbia in their wisdom changed the government of this province. If ICBC had had a bumper year, would the board of directors also have been changed?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member is overlooking comments that I made earlier. He is assuming that the board wanted to stay.

F. Gingell: So we are to assume that it is a fact that every single one of the board of directors of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia delivered to you a written resignation shortly after the result of the election. They all voluntarily resigned. Is that what you're saying?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes. Ultimately, they all voluntarily resigned.

F. Gingell: In 1990 B.C. Hydro implemented a policy of equal opportunity, called Building the Team 2000: Human Resource Strategy for the '90s. One of the goals was to bring more qualified women into the ranks of the management of B.C. Hydro. Could the minister indicate how many women have since been promoted or hired in either full-time or contract middle and upper management positions, in what capacities, in which divisions and at what salaries? Would the minister also indicate the salaries of their male counterparts? Perhaps that's a question you'd like to take on notice.

Hon. M. Sihota: I shall, that component of it, but I will tell you in a general sense that there were targets set, and those targets are being achieved; they're actually being met. If you're worried about whether we're actually getting the job done, the answer is that we are.

F. Gingell: I understand that the chairman of B.C. Hydro, Mr. Robert Wyman, is the one person who has carried on. We appreciate that and understand that. I was wondering whether you plan on keeping Mr.Wyman there or changing that position along with others as things move along.

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't think it's appropriate to talk about personnel here. I will tell you this: Mr.Wyman has a contract that expires on March 1, 1993. It has been his advice to me that we need someone in charge of the corporation who is prepared to be there for a four-to eight-year span, and I'm obviously functioning on the basis of that advice.

F. Gingell: B.C. Hydro has spent a lot of time and put a lot of energy into their Power Smart program, something that I strongly support them in. Recently, Mr.Chris Boatman left B.C. Hydro, stating that there was a difference of opinion. I was wondering whether this difference of opinion would indicate that B.C. Hydro's policy relative to its Power Smart program has in any way changed since the board of directors was changed.

Hon. M. Sihota: Two points, hon. member.

If you're wondering whether the government had a role in that issue, if that's the purpose of your question.... It's not. Then I won't answer that aspect of it.

Secondly, I'm somewhat reluctant to talk about the issue, because there's a distinct possibility of litigation around it. I wouldn't want to prejudice the litigation -- the fact that it may occur.

F. Gingell: Perhaps I should put it in plainer terms. The question I was really trying to get at is: has there been any change in B.C. Hydro's commitment to Power Smart?

Hon. M. Sihota: No.

F. Gingell: Earlier this month we saw reports that B.C. Hydro had cleaned up more than 15,000 litres of diesel fuel that had spewed after a valve ruptured at its plant near Port Hardy. Could the minister please indicate how many other incidents B.C. Hydro has had in the past year, the cost of the cleanup and whether Hydro conducted environmental impact studies on the results of these incidents?

Hon. M. Sihota: We monitor that regularly. There have been less than five, and I will get you the details of

[ Page 2735 ]

those. Just put it in a letter to me, and we'll get that information for you.

F. Gingell: I appreciate that I have made remarks in the House on a couple of occasions with respect to B.C. Hydro and corporate capital tax that they will have to pay. Is it your intention that B.C. Hydro will apply to the PUC for a rate increase to cover the additional costs they will now bear because of the corporate capital tax?

Hon. M. Sihota: That's a matter of future policy. It's a new board. The matter has not been dealt with at the board level, to my knowledge.

C. Serwa: I'll keep my questions very short. I'm under very heavy pressure at the moment, and I know the minister wants to get his estimates through. Nevertheless, in view of remarks that I made with respect to the investment portfolio of ICBC, I want to ask the minister what is happening with WCB on that aspect. They have approximately $4 billion or so in the account, and surely this has impacted dramatically on their investment. Have they made better investments, long-term investments, or are we going to see substantial increases in WCB rates to employers?

Hon. M. Sihota: The answer to that question is that WCB has done very well in that regard. From my guess.... When you look at the two, immediately you can tell where there's a problem and where there is not. By comparison, they've done quite well. It should not have the effect on premiums that you allude to.

L. Fox: I have a couple of questions with respect to ICBC. It's really too bad that we don't have more time. I know that the NDP caucus has a free dinner waiting, and I don't want to keep them from it.

I'm concerned that the minister earlier in his statements -- and I've listened considerably -- still tries to put a lot of blame on the previous board and administration. My questions are very specific. Given the fact that investment income had increased in 1989 by $65 million over 1988, and in 1990 by $53 million over 1989, would it not be reasonable in his view to believe that when they were setting the projections for 1991 they could have assumed something similar in terms of investment income, instead of achieving the $16 million loss that they achieved?

Hon. M. Sihota: If I understand that, you're asking a question that relates to a time when I wasn't the minister. I don't know if it would have been reasonable or not at the time for them to come to that conclusion. I'm sorry; I'm not trying to be evasive. I think you've seen that I usually answer questions in a fairly upfront way. I don't know what would or wouldn't have been reasonable. If you want to ask me another question, let's just assume that it would have been. You can ask your next question, and I'll try to deal with it.

L. Fox: There's just one more issue with respect to the loss in 1991. That's what I was trying to get to -- why the corporation lost $98 million in 1991. In 1991 we had an increase in claims of 33,000, and the cost of claims increased by $180 million. Now, how do you perceive, Mr. Minister, that a previous administration could have reduced those two areas, which were substantial in terms of their relationship to the loss?

Hon. M. Sihota: The board requested of the previous administration an increase in excess of that, which was approved by the previous cabinet. If memory serves me right -- and I stand to be corrected on this point -- the previous cabinet approved a rate increase of 7 percent, and the request was higher than that. I can't remember how much higher, but it was higher. If they had responded with a rate increase at that time -- the Insurance Corporation having detected that there were going to be problems -- then it obviously would have ameliorated the conditions.

Secondly, it was generally the policy of the previous administration, as evidenced by some of the discussion here today, that the corporation should break even and, if necessary, reach into its reserves in order to keep rates low. As a consequence, there was a higher ratio of dipping into those reserves than prudent accounting would support -- at least that was the conclusion of the independent work done on the corporation. So that tended to make the situation worse.

There was a material set of decisions made by the previous administration which resulted in the situation being that which we inherited. I trust that gives you an indication of what was happening. I know you weren't there. Neither was I, but that's the way it's been presented to me and now to you.

[6:30]

L. Fox: I was aware of that rationale, but I was specifically asking how, given the fact that the cost of claims had increased by $180 million, that could have been reduced by another board or another administration, to lessen the losses.

Just one further thing, and I'll sit down. I also want to point out for the benefit of the taxpayers that may still be listening at this hour that from 1988 to 1990, besides the profits of $132 million, the assets of the company also grew by $660 million. While we show a book loss of $98 million in 1991, we also had growth in our assets of $146 million. So it would be possible, depending on the accountant of the day, I suppose, to utilize those numbers in whatever way they could. That's the end of my question.

Hon. M. Sihota: I just received a bulletin telling me that all the houses in the riding of Prince George-Omineca just switched on their TVs, so it's not that late of an hour.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: They don't get it up there, no.

Look, I don't know what the practical effect would be of liquidating those assets, and obviously we'd have to take a look at that in order to make those determinations. There certainly have been some questionable

[ Page 2736 ]

asset acquisitions from my point of view, and we're reviewing those. I'm not sure we've got much of an option in terms of what we've inherited there. But the asset side of it is certainly an area of inquiry on the part of this government.

The Chair: Does the hon. member have a further question?

L. Fox: No, I don't. I just have a further request. Earlier the minister suggested that there was going to be a public process to seek input in terms of how to improve ICBC, and I would really like the opportunity, rather than play politics with it publicly, to give him some of my insights as to how the delivery of service might be improved.

K. Jones: Does ICBC plan to do a change of insignia this year, including stationery, logos, uniforms, building colours or any of those?

Hon. M. Sihota: I will get the answer to that. I can't remember if they had done that already by the time I became the minister or if they had let out the contract to the point that we couldn't rescind it, or indeed if we were able to rescind it. I definitely remember dealing with the issue, but I just can't remember exactly what the status of that is. I'd be happy to get that for you. It was some incredible figure that they were spending on that, and it certainly didn't sit well with me, if that's what you want to know.

K. Jones: Could the minister give us the figures of that cost in ICBC's budget for this year, when he's giving us those details?

Hon. M. Sihota: I think I just said that, but if it's not clear, I think I just said it now to make it clear. So if it's clear to you, it's clear to me, and you'll get it when I can get it.

K. Jones: I'd like to go to the WCB question with regard to what action the minister is taking to extend WCB to the farmworkers of British Columbia. What is his plan in regard to providing fair coverage for farmworkers, and what is it going to cost the farmers to have that type of coverage provided to the farmworkers?

The Chair: Hon. member, part of your question has to do with future action and legislation by the government. Perhaps one part of it is in order. It's up to the minister to respond.

Hon. M. Sihota: I should remind the hon. member that if he had taken the time to listen to the scintillating debate for the last two days, he would have found that we have already dealt with that issue....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, if you're only listening half the time, that's your problem rather than mine.

But in a recap, let me say as follows: the policy review is ongoing, I'm pleased to say, on that front. I'm particularly pleased to say that the B.C. Federation of Agriculture has been working in conjunction with the Canadian Farmworkers' Union and the Workers' Compensation Board to develop that policy. So the interest groups are involved in a way that they have never been involved before, and I commend the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and the Farmworkers' Union for showing that initiative, and Mr. Dorsey at WCB for bringing them together. It is our objective to have a policy in place for the next farming season.

K. Jones: I'd like to thank the minister for that, and I'd like to ask him to thank us for very, very serious questions. He was making remarks previously that he wasn't getting serious questions from the opposition. I was listening to that part of his remarks yesterday.

Hon. M. Sihota: I want the hon. member for Surrey to know that of all the members on the opposite side, no one is taken as seriously on behalf of our caucus as you are. We always take you seriously. We always appreciate the seriousness of the questions, the depth of the research that goes into the questions, and the methodical and sensible way in which they are articulated in this House.

C. Serwa: The reason I have for getting up is partially to do with the estimates. I have a great deal of difficulty with the estimates of the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. One of the problems I've had is getting a list of ministers for question period. I was wondering if the Attorney General might nod an affirmative on that, because I'm contemplating calling division on this particular matter.

Vote 52 approved.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

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

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Before moving the adjournment motion, I would just say to members that we will sit tomorrow from 10 till 12 and from 2 till 10 in the evening. We will start the day tomorrow by doing second reading on the freedom of information bill.

Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:39 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada