2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 27, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Don Ramsay

B. Penner

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Carrier Lumber Ltd. Forest Licence Compensation Act (Bill 58)

Hon. M. de Jong

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Work of Mothers Against Drunk Driving

R. Stewart

Adult basic education programs

T. Christensen

Responsibilities of MLAs

J. Bray

Oral Questions

Negotiations with physicians

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Collins

Hon. C. Hansen

Canora Club mental health centre

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Cheema

Sumas power facility

B. Penner

Hon. J. Murray

Hydroelectricity prices

J. Les

Hon. R. Neufeld

Tabling Documents

Office of the merit commissioner, annual report, 2001-02

Private Post-Secondary Education Commission of British Columbia, annual report, 2000-01

British Columbia Centre for International Education, annual report, 2000-01

British Columbia Assets and Land Corporation, annual report, 2000-01

Travel Assurance Fund and Travel Assurance Fund Board, annual report, 2001-02

Motor Dealer Customer Compensation Fund and Motor Dealer Customer Compensation Fund Board, annual report, 2001-02

B.C. Lottery Corporation, annual report, 2000-01

Petitions

B. Belsey

Hon. C. Clark

Standing Order 81.1 Motion

Hon. G. Collins

J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House

Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 28)

Hon. J. Reid

Hon. G. Bruce

Hon. G. Cheema

J. MacPhail

Hon. R. Thorpe

R. Stewart

Hon. J. Murray

L. Mayencourt

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 28)

Committee of the Whole House

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 54)

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Plant

Hon. R. Neufeld

Hon. S. Santori

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 54)

Committee of the Whole House

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 52)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 52)

Second Reading of Bills

Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 49)

(continued)

J. MacPhail

K. Krueger

R. Stewart

Hon. G. Bruce

Tabling Documents

Police complaint commissioner, letter of resignation

Second Reading of Bills

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 48)

Hon. G. Bruce

J. Kwan

S. Orr

Public Sector Management Remuneration Allowances and Perquisites Act (Bill M203)

(continued)

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 48) (continued)

J. MacPhail

[ Page 3581 ]

MONDAY, MAY 27, 2002

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two school groups from

Dogwood Elementary School in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead.

[1405]

Today we

have 58 grade 4 and 5 students. With them are their teachers, Mrs. Chohan, Mr.

MacPherson and Mrs. Ecclestone, and the parent volunteers that make these trips

possible. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I have three announcements for the House today that are of equal

import, I think. First, I'd like to inform the House of the birth of Nicholas

Andrew Beatty. He was born on Friday, May 17 and weighed in at seven pounds,

nine ounces. His mother, Diana, is doing well, as is his brother B.J., and I

assume his father, Jim Beatty, is doing equally well as they celebrate

Nicholas's birth. Can we give them a round of support.

I am also

pleased to inform the House that today the director of communications for the

government, Andy Orr, celebrates that incredible period of time when he turns 40

— no longer a kid. I think he should know that the next half of his life will

be a lot more difficult than the first half of it was.

Finally,

none of us in this House today should let the exceptional performance of the

Kootenay Ice go unnoticed, when they won the Memorial Cup for the province of

British Columbia.

Hon. L.

Reid: I have a number of individuals visiting us in the gallery today. Janet

Law and her son Brandon are with us, and they have guests: Henry and Dorothy

Benham from St. Albert and Margaret Davison and Gillian and Linda Westgarth from

Burnaby, B.C. I'd ask the House to please make them extremely welcome.

Hon. G.

Abbott: We have a number of distinguished guests from the local government

realm in the gallery here today, specifically from the Association of Vancouver

Island and Coastal Communities. They include Councillor Mary Ashley from

Campbell River, who's the president of the association; Mayor Pearl Myhres from

Zeballos, who's the past president; Councillor Stan Dixon from Sechelt, the

first vice-president; chair George Holme from the Nanaimo regional district, the

second vice-president; director Adrian Belshaw from the Sunshine Coast regional

district, who's an electoral area representative; Councillor Don Gemmel from the

Powell River district, director-at-large; Councillor Bea Holland from Victoria,

director-at-large; Mayor Jack Peake from Lake Cowichan, who's a

director-at-large; and Eydie Fraser, who's their executive coordinator. I'd like

to ask the House to make them all welcome.

Belsey: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce the winners of the

Pacific Northwest zone championships for the gentleman's sport well known as

golf. These young fellows are here to golf in the competition in Victoria. I'd

like to introduce Dave Clark, Jeremy Pierce, Dave McKay and my two nephews Dylan

and Devin Palmer, along with the two coaches Larry Hope and Howard Linn.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Today in the House I'm really proud to have one of my brothers in

attendance — my brother Larry, one of the original six Falcon boys. Larry is

joined by his daughters, and my nieces….

Interjections.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Oh now, come on. He's joined by his two daughters, my lovely nieces

Kelsey and Alison. I would ask the House to please make them welcome today.

Brenzinger: I'm very proud today to introduce in the House my mom, Jena

Haggart, who's here for the week to visit Victoria. Would the House please make

her welcome.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: Today I have the pleasure of introducing a constituent of mine,

Yasmin John-Thorpe, the better half of the Minister of Competition, Science and

Enterprise.

[1410]

Hon. M.

de Jong: Joining us today are students — 80, I think — from MEI school

in Abbotsford, with their teacher, Ms. Baarda. I hope all members will make the

MEI elementary students welcome.

Tributes

DON RAMSAY

Penner: It is with great regret and sadness that I rise to report the

passing of Don Ramsay, mayor of the village of Harrison Hot Springs, at the age

of 52. Don succumbed to cancer this morning after a valiant battle over the past

year.

He was

first elected mayor in 1996 and was re-elected in November 1999 with about 83

percent of the vote. Don was much loved and well known in his community, both as

mayor and as the piano player and singer at the Harrison Hot Springs hotel.

Don is

survived by his mother, Muriel, in Coquitlam; his brother, Jim Ramsay, in New

Westminster; and his sister, Donna Ramsay, in Prince George.

I ask, Mr.

Speaker, that on behalf of the House you convey our condolences to his family.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you. So ordered.

[ Page 3582 ]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

CARRIER LUMBER LTD.

FOREST LICENCE COMPENSATION ACT

Hon. M. de

Jong presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled

Carrier Lumber Ltd. Forest Licence Compensation Act.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that Bill 58 be read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: The introduction of Bill 58 signals the achievement of a negotiated

settlement to the longstanding Carrier Lumber dispute and brings to a close a

dark

chapter in our provincial history authored by the previous government.

All British

Columbians were shocked and saddened to learn of the political interference and

government conduct that the Supreme Court of British Columbia naturally

identified as being deceptive and the result of bad faith in their finding in

favour of Carrier Lumber in July 1999.

Today, Mr.

Speaker, this bill will bring closure and provide both Carrier and the Crown

with the ability to put this dispute behind us and to move forward on to more

positive endeavours.

These were

not easy negotiations. The amounts involved were significant. But today's

settlement fairly addresses past injustices while at the same time focusing

additional resources happily on the pine beetle infestation in the interior. The

settlement package with Carrier Lumber totals just under $75 million in terms of

costs to the Crown. That is $30 million cash, $2.6 million in terms of land

transfer, $1.1 million referring to gravel and an estimated $41.1 million

relating to 1.5 million cubic metres of timber to be harvested over the next

five years free of stumpage.

This bill

specifically provides the government with the means to directly award the forest

licence that I have just referred to for the 1.5 million cubic metres.

This is a

significant settlement that reinforces the point that when governments abuse

their power, it is the taxpayers that ultimately pay.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Forests has the floor.

Please

continue.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill 58

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.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) WORK OF MOTHERS

AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING

Stewart: One of my classmates in high school was Fred Gribble. We graduated

in 1977. A couple of years later, my classmates and I were shocked when Fred was

killed by a drunk driver.

[1415]

Fred's

mother, Sally Gribble, brought MADD, or Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, from

California to Canada in 1981 in memory of her son. Today there are 50 MADD

chapters across Canada, with chapters in every province and territory. Here in

B.C. there are five chapters, greater Vancouver being the largest, which reaches

from Squamish to Aldergrove. There are also MADD chapters in Chilliwack,

representing the upper Fraser; in Port Hardy, representing Vancouver Island; and

in Kelowna and Cranbrook.

Mothers

Against Drunk Driving has two main purposes: get drinking drivers off our roads,

and help the victims of this terrible crime. I know that representatives of MADD

met in April with the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General regarding

their ongoing advocacy.

These days

it is street racing that is in the news. For me, these senseless deaths of young

people from street racing are made even more personal as my eldest daughter

turned 16 this past weekend and is busy reading her driver's manual. As we

witness the carnage of street racing on our roadways, it is perhaps too easy to

forget that all too often it is alcohol or drugs which add to the feeling of

invincibility in our youth.

I take my

hat off to MADD, which has succeeded in changing many of the prevailing

attitudes of our society about drinking and driving. MADD is now working with

our young people, trying to change their attitudes. This very day, MADD has

speakers in two lower mainland schools, talking to secondary school students

about the issue of drinking and driving.

I stand in

the House today to recognize Sally Gribble, who has since passed on. I know I

join with my colleagues in congratulating and encouraging mothers and the others

who work against drinking and driving.

ADULT BASIC EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Christensen: Last week each of us were in our constituencies doing our

constituency work. Beyond providing me with an all-important opportunity to

attend my daughter's first birthday, being in my constituency for the week also

allowed me to attend the graduation and participation ceremony for the adult

basic education program at the Kalamalka campus of OUC, which is in Vernon.

Adult

education programs offer adults an opportunity to acquire the skills necessary

to competently and independently function in a modern, technological society as

citizens, workers, community and family

[ Page 3583 ]

members and consumers. The programs offer competencies in a variety of

curriculum areas, including life skills, mathematics and the all-important

communication skills of speaking, reading, writing and, of course, listening.

They also provide opportunities for pre-vocational and academic training.

In Vernon

74 students were recognized for their participation in the ABE program and their

completion of various levels of education within the program. It was unlike any

other graduation program I've attended. Students in the ABE program come from a

wide variety of backgrounds and circumstances. There are single parents. There

are recent immigrants. There are people who have worked for years, often in

labour-intensive jobs that have resulted in one or more injuries, who wish to

improve their formal education and obtain different employment. The one thing

they all had in common was the desire to improve their education — in many

cases, to obtain their grade 12 equivalency as a foundation to go on to

post-secondary education.

They have

goals of pursuing academic programs, skills-focused vocational and technical

programs or other educational opportunities at our colleges, universities and

otherwise. Many have a goal of improving their employment opportunities. They

are all seeking to improve their lives and the lives of their dependents through

bettering their education.

listening to the students, two things stood out: firstly, the dedication of the

students themselves, who are returning to school later in life, often when their

high school experience wasn't a positive one, and who, because they're later in

life, are juggling the responsibility of parenting and/or working while pursuing

their studies; and also the dedication of the instructors. Student after student

commented on the integrity and commitment of their instructors in going the

extra mile to build enthusiasm in the classroom and to ensure their students'

success.

I want to

commend OUC for continuing to offer these programs. I wish them the best in the

future.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF MLAS

J. Bray:

As the Legislature gets ready to rise this week, I wish to speak on what I

consider to be our common responsibility over the coming months.

We have

seen significant changes over the last 12 months. During this time of change

we've also seen an unparalleled level of rhetoric in the media — some by

organized labour, some by professional associations.

[1420]

This

crescendo of conflict sometimes serves to smother the most important voices,

those of our individual constituents. We must work over the months ahead to

ensure the ability of our citizens to speak to us in our communities and make

sure that it is enhanced. In order for us as legislators to assess how changes

are impacting our businesses, industries, public services, neighbourhoods and

neighbours, people must be able to communicate with each of us, their elected

representatives.

However,

there is a second part to this relationship: our commitment to actively listen

to all the voices in our province. There are rural and urban perspectives, union

and non-union perspectives, and high-, middle- and low-income points of view. We

must listen to those who provide services by government and those who receive

services from government, those who agree with government policies and those who

oppose government policies.

In my own

riding I will be meeting with persons who run small businesses, those who work

in the public service, families who rely on services from the Ministry of

Children and Family Development, constituents who are concerned about the

environment and environmental protection, people with disability, tourism

operators, high-tech company owners, parents of children in the public school

system and seniors.

These

meetings will be my opportunity to hear and see firsthand about those government

policy changes that are benefiting my constituents and to learn how government

policies can be improved on behalf of those who feel they are negatively

impacted by government changes. My role as an MLA over the coming months is to

make sure I represent all in Victoria–Beacon Hill and to work with the various

ministries to ensure the best possible public policy. I am honoured to have this

responsibility.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

NEGOTIATIONS WITH PHYSICIANS

MacPhail: Let me see if I can find something for the member for

Victoria–Beacon Hill to do. The doctors dispute is creating chaos in the

health care system, and I think British Columbians are saying they have had

enough. The Minister of Health Services says he's considering legislative

options, so here's my proposal to the minister and to his government.

If the

government agrees to forgo closure of the bills currently before the House and

to extend the session by a week, the opposition will agree to pass all three

stages of legislation in one day, ending the doctors dispute, provided that:

(1) the legislation creates a mechanism whereby doctors are legally bound to provide

services; (2) it establishes a fair and balanced binding arbitration process to

handle all future disputes; and (3) it's exclusive to the doctors dispute and

doesn't tack on other items the government would like to slip through.

So to the

minister: will he accept our offer, bring in legislation that meets the test of

these three simple principles and put an end to the doctors dispute today?

Hon. G.

Collins: It's not the practice of this House to debate the order and the

regulations and the standing orders in question period. However, I will advise

the member opposite that the standing orders already

[ Page 3584 ]

provide for the government, in urgent business, to move it through all three

stages in one day. Should that happen or be required and we're advised by the

Minister of Health Services, we would do so today, tomorrow, the next day, on a

Saturday, on a Sunday, whatever it takes to get the doctors back to work and get

patients proper care in British Columbia.

However, if

the member wants to offer her legislative drafting experience to provide the

parameters of the proposed legislation to the Minister of Health Services, we'd

certainly look forward to seeing anything she could put on paper.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with a supplementary question.

MacPhail: As usual, the House Leader takes matters that are very serious

very lightly. This is not an emergency, because this government has been in a

fight with the doctors for months now, for almost a year. What possible ruling

could there be without the cooperation of the opposition to put this through in

all three days? I would like to say that in the past, these disputes were

settled without legislation.

May I also

remind the minister that in previous disputes, the Liberal opposition always,

always took the side of doctors. I can remember the current Minister of Health

Planning pleading with the then government to give in to doctors' demands, but

I'm saying today to the Minister of Health Services that the opposition is not

going to play that game.

[1425]

Our offer

is simple. Allow more time for debate on the bills currently before the House,

and we can pass and proclaim legislation today that ensures patient care

tomorrow.

I would

have thought the Minister of Health Services would have jumped at the

opportunity. He's had weeks to devise a legislative package. What's the holdup?

Hon. G.

Collins: If the Minister of Health Services makes it clear that legislation

is required in order to settle this dispute and to make sure that patients are

getting the care they need, this government will do whatever is necessary to

make sure that passes through this House as timely as possible, because patients

are at the top of the agenda of this government and always have been.

As well, if

the members opposite would like more time to debate any matter that's before

this House, we're more than happy to extend yet again the offer that we open

Committee A, as has been done in the past, and provide for that opportunity to

double the time that may be required by members opposite to debate any

legislation.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: Instead of the Health Services minister getting up, we have

political spin from the chief political spin master of the Liberal government. I

know it's a tough spot for the Liberals to find themselves in.

For years

they were very close to the BCMA. The BCMA donated to the Liberal campaign, and

every time they attacked the former government, the doctors could count on full

support from the Liberals, then in opposition. I think, now, the cozy

relationship has degenerated into name-calling.

Today

doctors are closing their offices. Tomorrow specialists are closing their doors,

and on Wednesday doctors are resigning their hospital privileges. Why won't the

Minister of Health Services take action that ensures patients aren't again held

hostage by the intransigence of the BCMA? Stop the political spin-doctoring by

the House Leader. Stand up for patient care.

Hon. C.

Hansen: I certainly appreciate the sentiments of the member and her

willingness to assist. I would welcome any suggestions she may have. Over the

weekend we have looked at a range of options as to how to ensure that patient

care can be maintained in this province.

I was very

pleased to hear on Friday the leadership role that was being taken by the

College of Physicians and Surgeons to ensure that patient safety would be put at

the top of the agenda. We are still hopeful that we can get back to

negotiations, because we recognize that through negotiations we probably have an

opportunity to close these few very minor issues that are still outstanding. We

have indicated a willingness to be flexible on that, but we need the BCMA back

at the table to do that. If they're not prepared to do that, we will be taking

action very soon.

CANORA CLUB MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

J. Kwan:

For weeks now we have asked the Minister of State for Mental Health why mental

health services are being cut when he claims to be putting more money into the

system. Every time, he gets up and gives a lame answer. He says it's not up to

him to manage the system. If it's not up to the minister to ensure mental health

patients and their families get the care they need, then why is he taking up

space at the cabinet table?

The Canora

Club mental health walk-in centre on the North Shore is closing…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order so that we may hear the question.

MacPhail: Pardon me?

Mr.

Speaker: Would the Leader of the Opposition please come to order so that we

may hear the question.

Please

proceed.

J. Kwan:

…because this government is eliminating its funding. Does the Minister of

State for Mental

[ Page 3585 ]

Health consider it his job to find a way to keep the centre open, or is it

not up to him?

Hon. G.

Cheema: Mr. Speaker, it seems like the members opposite are not listening.

We are investing $263 million over the next six years to improve mental health

in this province. For the first time, health authorities…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Cheema: …have been given specific performance expectations on mental

health. I understand why the NDP is sensitive. It's because they failed the

patients with mental illness in this province.

[1430]

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary

question.

J. Kwan:

The minister's words just don't add up, because they're closing centre after

centre across British Columbia. Those drop-in centres, mental health services,

are being shut down. The Canora Club has been a sanctuary for mental health

patients since 1958. As one of its clients says, in a letter to the Vancouver

coastal health authority, without the Canora Club he would not be alive today.

The

executive director of the Canadian Mental Health Association has taken the issue

directly to the minister. He's met with the local MLAs, and he's even met with

the Premier. Still the minister has not lifted a finger to help. The minister's

hands-off attitude is resulting in the collapse of mental health services in

communities across British Columbia. Will the minister listen to the pleas of

mental health patients and their families and stop with the excuses and keep the

Canora Club open?

Hon. G.

Cheema: Mr. Speaker, let me outline some of the positive changes we have

made for mental health in this province: No. 1, the commitment of capital

funding for the Riverview replacement facility; No. 2, child and youth mental

health action plan; No. 3, clear performance expectations for mental health in

this province. No. 4, $263 million for the mental health plan….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. Order, please. Order. We will pause here

until there is quiet. The minister has the floor, and the time comes out of

question period.

Please

continue, Mr. Minister.

Hon. G.

Cheema: No. 5, three new facilities for mental health in this province:

Connolly Lodge, Iris House, Seven Oaks in Victoria. Mr. Speaker, the

provincial….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order. Order, please.

Please

continue.

Hon. G.

Cheema: Mr. Speaker, No. 6, anxiety disorder initiative in this province;

No. 7, depression initiative in this province; No. 8, raising the status of

mental health at the cabinet table; No. 9, $20 million for Kamloops psych

facility. It goes on and on. We are improving mental health in this province.

SUMAS POWER FACILITY

Penner: My question is to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection.

Fraser Valley residents were extremely distressed last Friday to learn about a

decision in Washington State to recommend approval of the Sumas 2 power plant.

If this project is built, it will pump another three tonnes per day of extra air

pollution into the Fraser Valley's already fragile airshed. Can the Minister of

Water, Land and Air Protection tell us what her ministry has done to date to

oppose SE2 and what the government's reaction has been concerning this

disturbing turn of events?

Hon. J.

Murray: I was very disappointed in this decision. It was a terrible decision

for the residents of the Fraser Valley and for their health and well-being. We

will continue to strongly oppose the Sumas 2 power plant in the Fraser Valley

area.

When we

were elected, this government had a new-era promise to intervene in the Sumas 2

power plant, because it is the wrong plant in the wrong location. We intervened.

We had an excellent staff, an excellent legal representation, strong support by

the local community and the MLAs, and a very effective intervention, but

unfortunately, we were not successful. I was personally appalled by the

regulator's decision, and I will continue to fight it.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Chilliwack-Kent has supplementary question.

Penner: During the regulatory proceedings last year and this year the B.C.

government called a number of expert witnesses who gave compelling testimony

about the impact the extra air pollution would have on human health on our side

of the border. Can the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection tell us what

additional steps she is taking to continue to oppose the construction of Sumas

[1435]

Hon. J.

Murray: As the member is aware, this EFSEC decision is a recommendation to

the Governor of Washington. It is not a final decision on the Sumas Energy 2

facility.

[ Page 3586 ]

I started

by calling an emergency meeting of the Fraser Valley MLAs. We met yesterday, on

Sunday, to strategize our continuing opposition to this power plant. I've

already instructed the staff in my ministry and our legal representatives to

review all the aspects of this process and find if there are any grounds for

appeal of EFSEC's recommendation. If so, we will file that appeal.

Secondly,

we will be communicating very soon to the government of Washington our profound

disappointment with this decision and our recommendation that the Governor turn

this power plant project down.

HYDROELECTRICITY PRICES

J. Les:

My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines.

The future

of electricity prices is a concern to many people in my riding and throughout

the province. Recently a number of concerns have been raised about reports that

have suggested the possibility of increases in the price of electricity.

Can the

Minister of Energy and Mines explain how increases in energy prices can even be

considered when only last year B.C. Hydro was posting record profits and issuing

rebates to customers in British Columbia?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: This government put together a task force to come up with a plan

for British Columbia, for its energy needs into the future. Part of that plan is

to continue to provide the lowest possible prices for hydroelectricity to

British Columbians well into the future. We want to do that by supplying a

secure, reliable supply.

Many people

in this province don't realize that British Columbia in the last ten years has

been a net importer for three of those ten years. That will require new

construction of facilities to continue to power this great province as we

continue to get the economy going, jobs provided and the economy back to what it

was before the NDP came in — and that's number one.

[End of question period.]

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to inform the House at this time that as

of this morning, I have received and accepted the resignation of the police

complaint commissioner.

Tabling Documents

Mr.

Speaker: I have the honour to present the 2001-02 annual report of the

office of the merit commissioner.

Hon. S.

Bond: It is my pleasure today to table the annual reports of the Private

Post-Secondary Education Commission of British Columbia and the British Columbia

Centre for International Education for the fiscal year 2000-01.

Hon. S.

Hagen: I have the honour to present the annual report for 2000-01 for the

British Columbia Assets and Land Corporation.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I have a number of reports to table: the Travel Assurance Fund and

Travel Assurance Fund Board annual report, fiscal year 2001-02; the Motor Dealer

Customer Compensation Fund and Motor Dealer Customer Compensation Fund Board

annual report of fiscal year 2001-02; and the annual report of the B.C. Lottery

Corporation, 2000-01.

Belsey: I seek leave to table two petitions.

Mr.

Speaker: Please proceed.

Petitions

Belsey: The first petition is signed by 237 constituents opposing cuts to

legal aid funding. The second petition is from 46 constituents concerned with

the costs of relocation of workers laid off by downsizing government offices.

Hon. C.

Clark: I rise today to table a petition signed by 58 displaced forest

workers at Fraser Mills.

[1440]

Standing Order 81.1 Motion

Hon. G.

Collins: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 81.1, which is part of our new

fixed legislative calendar that provides for an orderly conclusion of government

business using the procedure of time allocation. I'll just quote from Standing

Order 81.1(1). It states: "When a minister of the Crown, from his or her

place in the House, states that there is agreement among the representatives of

all parties to allot a specified number of days or hours to the proceedings at

one or more stages of any public bill, the minister may propose a motion without

notice setting forth the terms of such agreed allocation, and the motion shall

be decided forthwith without debate or amendment."

Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to say we've come to an agreement, to conclusion, on how

the government business will come to an orderly conclusion by May 30 of this

week. I therefore move a motion to adopt the

schedule as agreed to, which I'm

tabling with the Clerk and which has been distributed to all members.

Point of Order

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MacPhail: This motion is not debatable, and I understand that. My point of

order is on the characterization of the House Leader, to say that he's pleased

we've come to an agreement. That agreement is under duress. The agreement was

made under duress after several opportunities for the House Leader to allow for

[ Page 3587 ]

proper debate. All sorts of opportunities were presented forward.

I am just

saying that this non-debatable motion will be put forward, as we had to agree

under duress to this schedule. It is completely unacceptable, but given the

overwhelming majority of this government, we had no choice. We had no choice. I

want to make it clear — not one choice.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you. The member's point of order will be considered.

Hon. G.

Collins: Just a few words on the point of order, if I may. The members of

the opposition were under no duress whatsoever when they agreed…

MacPhail: Complete duress.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Hon. G.

Collins: …unanimously to the provisions of standing order 81.1 at the

beginning of the legislative session. As well, despite the histrionics of the

member opposite, I repeatedly offered the member opposite and her colleague the

opportunity to expand the debate, to allow for passage of legislation to

Committee A, which is the process that has been…

MacPhail: There are two of us and 76 of you.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Thank you.

Hon. G.

Collins: …done in the past as well as the process that is used for the

estimates. When those provisions….

MacPhail: When no one else is speaking, we have to defend the entire

province. It's outrageous.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. G.

Collins: Those opportunities continue to exist for the members opposite.

They were the opportunities that were available to them when they agreed

unanimously with this new provision. As well, they were agreed to when the

members agreed to the fixed legislative calendar. If they had a problem, that

was the time to raise the issue.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you. The comments of both members….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you. The comments of both members will be taken into account.

You've heard the question.

Motion

approved on division.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: Pursuant to the motion we've just passed, I call committee stage of

Bill 28.

[1445]

Committee of the Whole House

EMPLOYEE INVESTMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 28; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:46 p.m.

Hon. J.

Reid: I rise to declare an interest in the matter before the House. I will

absent myself from the chamber while Bill 28 is under discussion and from any

votes on the bill.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I, too, will absent myself from Bill 28 because of my interest and

will absent myself from any votes that are held.

Hon. G.

Cheema: I, also, rise to declare an interest in this matter before the

House, and I will absent myself from this chamber while Bill 28 is under

discussion and from any votes on this bill.

Sections 1

to 5 inclusive approved.

On

section

MacPhail: What is the minister's intent in raising the cap on the allowable

tax credit allotment?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: First of all, before I answer the member's question, let me take the

time to introduce staff that are with me here today. Mr. Dale Sketchley is the

director of the business investment branch of the Ministry of Competition,

Science and Enterprise. He is joined by Ian Harper, our portfolio manager in the

Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise, and George Faddis, a barrister

and solicitor from the Ministry of Attorney General.

With

respect to the cap on venture capital in British Columbia, it was established in

1991 at $13 million. It remains today at $13 million. Any changes in total

venture capital funding in British Columbia would be subject to budget

considerations. The next budget is scheduled for February 2003.

MacPhail: Did the minister say it was established at $13 million in 1991?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Total tax credits under the Employee Investment Act are at $13

million. Yes, that was established in 1991. It remains that today. Interestingly

[ Page 3588 ]

enough, though, I believe that in 1997, '98 and '99 — during that period

— the former member was part of a government that in fact reduced those tax

credits to $7.2 million.

[1450]

MacPhail: Sorry. The history of that is that each and every year…. Well,

it was not each and every year, but over the period of the ten years, the cap on

the amount to be invested was increased. The tax credit that flowed from that

was then increased as well. I have no idea what the minister is talking about

whatsoever. It would increase from $15 million to $20 million, I think then to

$30 million, then to $60 million, to $80 million in terms of the cap and then

the tax credit that flowed from that. Is the minister trying to suggest

something different?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: No, I'm not. What I'm trying to suggest to the member across the way

is that the legislation that was in place allowed for a total cap for employee

investment, since 1991, of $13 million. That's what the legislation allowed for.

MacPhail: Then I'm not quite sure why the minister is trying to say there's

some history other than what I described.

I'm asking

what the minister's intent is for the annual maximum allowable tax credit.

There's been disappointment expressed by the business community that it remains

at its current level.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: British Columbians were very, very disappointed at the fiscal

position that the previous government left them in. As most members in this

House and a vast majority of British Columbians are well aware, we were left

with a $3.8 billion structural deficit. We have taken a number of bold

initiatives to put more money in working people's pockets. On the first day of

our government we reduced taxes to British Columbians by 25 percent, putting

more money in their pockets. In fact, British Columbia now has the lowest tax

rate of any jurisdiction in Canada for those making $60,000 or less. We have

made 17 reductions in tax since forming government. We are rebuilding the

competitiveness of British Columbia, attracting new investment and creating jobs

in British Columbia. We are excited about the future of British Columbia.

The next

budget will be tabled in this House in February of 2003, and we will address the

tax credits at that point in time.

Stewart: I rise to declare an interest in the matter before the House. I

will absent myself from the chamber while Bill 28 is under discussion and will

not vote on the bill.

The

Chair: Thank you, member.

MacPhail: It's very interesting to note that this minister, who says he's

introducing competition at every point, refuses to answer the question. His

rhetoric will serve him for whatever purpose it is, but it's to the business

community, to his friends in the business community, that he is now speaking —

not to me, but to the business community, who, after this bill was introduced,

consistently expressed disappointment that the government was not raising the

cap of allowable annual investment into labour-sponsored venture capital funds.

That cap is now at $80 million, and flowing from that is a provincial tax

expenditure of about $12 million. The combination of introducing competition is

kind of undermined, I would think, by keeping the cap at $80 million.

All I'm

asking the minister is to explain how keeping the investment cap at $80 million

and introducing "competition" assists in growing the economy, from

what was a very successful venture capital fund.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I'm going to try to be as clear as I can for the House and, perhaps,

for the member.

It's

disappointing to me that the member continues to want to turn up the rhetoric

here on this issue. British Columbians actually know that hard and tough choices

have been required to get ourselves out of the mess left by the previous

government, in which that member was a key player. We have made very, very tough

decisions with respect to funding health care, increasing funding by over $1.1

billion. We increased funding to education.

[1455]

I think,

quite frankly, that the business community welcomes competition, as I understood

the member did in some comments she made in this House earlier. I also

understand that the president of the current fund has encouraged competition.

I've also

said many times before that we look forward to a growing and prosperous economy

in British Columbia. We look forward to increasing the availability of

investment pools and venture capitals, and for startup and small businesses and

other areas of endeavour that will create jobs for British Columbians and keep

our best and brightest here after having been driven away by the previous

government.

All in all,

I believe the business community knows, as all other British Columbians do, that

tough decisions are required. We look forward to bringing forward, in

consultation with my colleague the Finance minister, a review of venture-capital

tax credit funding in the coming budget, which will be in February 2003.

MacPhail: The employment numbers plummeted after this government took

office. Employment numbers in this province plummeted. Unemployment went up

after the Liberal government was elected about a year ago.

This

venture capital fund is the way jobs are created in British Columbia. The

business community hasn't been flooding this province with investment. As a

matter of fact, it's predicted that private sector investment will fall over the

next two years in British Columbia.

[ Page 3589 ]

The

government said that the changes introduced in Bill 28 would increase investment

through competition. That's all I'm asking the minister. We had a good thing

going. Jobs were created in the thousands by the Working Opportunity Fund — by

the thousands. Jobs are being lost every day in this province as we speak. I'm

asking the minister what his plans are as a result of this legislation, through

increasing competition without increasing the maximum amount allowable to be

invested in venture capital. How does that result in better investment and more

jobs?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I realize that the member across the way wants to engage in

old-style politics of turning up the rhetoric, doom and gloom, and the world's

coming to an end. But you know, quite frankly….

MacPhail: Is the minister scared to answer the question? Oh, no.

The

Chair: Member, that's inappropriate.

MacPhail: I'm sorry. He seemed to be intimidated by a dialogue that was

going on, Mr. Chair. I accept your comments on it being inappropriate.

I know that

the minister has a lot of moxie, and he likes to stand up to people in giving

his answers, whether it be inside or outside the chamber. I asked him a simple

question. On the record it will read: how is it that these changes in

legislation will increase jobs and investment in this province, when there was a

huge amount of investment and jobs created in the previous Working Opportunity

Fund venture capital fund? Simple question.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: In fact, perhaps, if the member would have the common decency now to

sit and listen to an answer, I would be very, very clear that I'm not sure that

any member of this House intimidates any other member of this House. I'm sure

that's not the member's intention.

What we're

doing here is introducing competition. We're levelling the playing field. As we

gather information with regards to economic growth and the effective use of tax

credits, our government will review the cap on the tax credits for this purpose.

[1500]

Let me also

correct the erroneous comments, if I could, of the member across with respect to

investment. Under their administration, British Columbia was the number one

economic engine of Canada. They had the ability to drive us to number ten. Only

a week or so ago an independent report came out. Now British Columbia has worked

its way back up, through the aggressive economic policies of our government and,

I might say, the determination of the private sector and all British Columbians.

Now we're only behind Ontario and Alberta. British Columbia now ranks third. You

know, it's been a long, long time since we've been able to have that pride in

British Columbia.

People are

coming to British Columbia. People are investing; jobs are being created. We do

face some challenges again, never mind, with respect to the softwood lumber. My

colleague the Minister of Forests is working aggressively on that with the

Let me say

for the last time that our government is committed to economic growth in British

Columbia by attracting investment from across Canada and around the world. We

are committed to venture capital. We are committed to competition. After we've

had the opportunity to gather the economic growth data and understand more

efficiently the effective use of tax credits, we are going to review this cap on

an ongoing basis based on the ability of British Columbia to provide and to pay

for those tax credits.

Hon. J.

Murray: Mr. Chair, I've been absent from the House since question period,

and I rise to declare an interest in the matter before the House. I will absent

myself from the chamber while Bill 28 is under discussion and from any votes on

the bill.

MacPhail: I was interested to see whether the minister had actually read the

report on the Investment Dealers Association. It's true that they said B.C. was

third, behind Alberta and Ontario, but when they actually raised the question

about whether anyone's intending to invest in British Columbia, the answer was

no. Private sector investment is going to fall in British Columbia over the next

two years. Being third is great, but when third means zero, it ain't that much

of an achievement.

You know,

there are lots of people in this chamber and probably in the galleries right

here who thought the Working Opportunity Fund was a pretty good place to invest.

I'm not one of them because I was told I couldn't invest in it — fair enough.

My question

only was: with this introducing competition, sort of busting up a good thing

amongst smaller parts…. What criteria does the government have for that

competition, leading to more jobs and greater investment? The answer was:

"Gee, wait."

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I'm appalled by the negativity of the member across the way and why

this member wants to continue. She was part of a government that ravaged the

economy of British Columbia, drove our brightest and best…. Look; she sits

over there with a smirk on her face that's unbelievable.

The

Chair: Minister, I ask you to take back those comments, please.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: She sits over there with great interest in my words.

You know,

it's appalling that you would now want to send to the world about not coming to

British Columbia. What have you got against working people? What have you got

against small…? The question I want to know the answer to is this: what has

this

[ Page 3590 ]

member got against creating employment in rural British Columbia, in small

communities, in the high-tech industry and in the film industry? What has this

member got against creating jobs, hope and prosperity in the great province of

British Columbia?

[1505]

Our

government is committed to hope, prosperity and economic growth and to creating

jobs throughout the entire province. We are committed…

MacPhail: Let's all pray. Maybe that'll help.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: …to an ongoing review of tax policy. Again, for the last time, the

tax policies and the use of tax credits with respect to the fund will be

announced in the budget of February 2003.

MacPhail: What happens in the interim?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: The legislation stays the same. Venture capital credits available on

various tax programs stay at $13 million, and the cap for labour-sponsored funds

stays at $12 million.

MacPhail: Well, then, that means we don't have any hope of any change until

the year 2004, because of course, most people do their investment in these kinds

of funds for the RRSP season. The budget for 2004 will be in February, maybe

days before the RRSP season. I'm sure that the minister would never do anything

that would be untoward in terms of influencing that. It means the first effect

that raising the cap would have would be for the year 2004. Gee, that's really

good hope. Maybe we should all pray, then, because there ain't anything

happening before the year 2004.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I'm surprised. Well, perhaps I'm not surprised. As a former minister

and, I believe, a Finance minister, I would have thought the member would have

known that RRSPs bought in the first part of 2003 are applicable to the year

2002, not the year coming forward. They're applicable backwards, not forwards.

You know,

I'm surprised. I have been surprised many times by that member, and I continue

to be. It's important to remember that the equity capital program also

administered by this minister provides tax credits to raise up to $50 million

for early-stage investments. This complements the $80 million available through

labour-sponsored funds for an annual total of $130 million.

MacPhail: Just in case there's anybody here who is actually thinking the

minister knows what he's talking about, let me set the record straight. The

money raised under venture capital funds is done prior to February 28 of any

year if it's attached to an RRSP tax credit as well. Funds sell out before that

period of time, and unless the legislation raises the cap to take effect before

that period of time, it has no effect till the next RRSP season. Just in case

the minister needs a briefing on that matter.

Sections 6

and 7 approved.

On

section

MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could suggest the purpose and intent of

section 8, please.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: It's enabling. It's for the establishment of a structured,

consistent valuation process going forward, transparent for all the shareholders

for all the funds.

MacPhail: What is it modelled after?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: The development of this methodology or regulation will be undertaken

in consultation with the stakeholders, with the industry. I'm not going to

predescribe what that methodology will be until those consultations have taken

place. That is our commitment to British Columbians, and that's what will take

place.

MacPhail: I'm sorry; what commitment is that? When will the consultations

take place, and who will be consulted?

[1510]

Hon. R.

Thorpe: The consultation will begin within the coming months and will

include a cross-section of those affected, those who have expertise and those

who have an understanding of evaluations so that we can make sure there's a

consistent valuation process that's transparent for all stakeholders, all

shareholders, for all funds in the province of British Columbia.

MacPhail: What problem is this resolving?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: We want to make sure there is a consistent valuation process going

forward to ensure, in a very transparent manner, that the valuation for

shareholders for all funds is established. Again, I would think all British

Columbians would want their legislators to make sure that we had a consistent,

structured approach for valuation that was transparent for all shareholders.

Again, we

want to make sure the methodology for the development of these regulations will

be undertaken in consultation with a wide cross-section of stakeholders. That is

our commitment. As I said to the member a second ago, that process will start in

the very, very near future should this bill pass this House.

MacPhail: The reason why I'm curious about this is that the word

"prescribing" means regulating. This government takes great pride in

saying that they're cutting red tape and cutting regulation. In fact, there's a

Minister of State for Deregulation — a full-time job in this government, this

largest cabinet ever in the history

[ Page 3591 ]

of British Columbia. Largest deficit, largest cabinet — gee, it's a

government of large, I'll tell ya. It's a big, big government, but they're going

to root out regulations.

Here we

have, in a business-friendly bill, more to the point, red tape being introduced.

That was why I asked what problem we are trying to solve here by bringing in red

tape. You know what? The minister doesn't know.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: The liberties that sometimes are taken by some members in this House

reach new heights every day — or new lows, whatever you decide.

I'm again

surprised that a member of this House would not want to ensure, as legislators,

that we do have a structured, consistent valuation process for the ongoing

transparency for all shareholders. It's consistent with other jurisdictions

across Canada. To suggest that this would be excessive red tape is an

exaggeration but one that we are becoming very familiar with from that member

over there.

You know, I

think it's important that unlike the previous government here for the past ten

years, this will be done in consultation with the industry, with stakeholders.

We are very confident that this will be a positive move and will not create

additional red tape but will provide a structured, consistent valuation process

in a very transparent way for shareholders of all funds in British Columbia with

respect to venture capital.

MacPhail: This is the time, even though there is one hour to debate three

bills, when the government has an opportunity to explain its philosophy behind

legislation. We have a business bill. The business community hates red tape, and

yet inside this bill we have a bunch of red tape being created. That was the

only reason I was raising the question. I don't know what's wrong with that

question. I think it's pretty reasonable.

I'm very

anxious to see the regulations. Tell me: does the minister have a plan to cut

red tape elsewhere in the application of this legislation to make up for the

introduction of more red tape? I think the minister has to cut double the red

tape. It's a two-for-one kind of government. It's a big government, but it's

kind of like the pizza places. You get two for one.

Will it be

in this program that you…?

Interjection.

[1515]

MacPhail: Yeah. The legislation here creates red tape, so will there be

double the number of regulations cut elsewhere?

MacKay: I seek leave to make some introductions.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

MacKay: With us this afternoon, from the beautiful Bulkley Valley and, in

particular, Smithers, I have 13 students from the grade 7 class at St. Joe's

Catholic school visiting today, along with five escorts who brought them down to

Victoria to see the city and have a look at the Legislature. They're up behind

me in the gallery, I believe. I would like to acknowledge Mike Schultz, Tracy

Wreggitt, Eugene Cole, Leslie Bush and Brian Sikkes, who accompanied all these

students from Smithers to the beautiful city of Victoria. I would ask the House

to please make them welcome.

Debate Continued

Mayencourt: A number of Working Opportunity Fund shareholders I've spoken

with, just ordinary working families, have raised a concern regarding the report

on the valuation of the portfolio. Apparently, the Working Opportunity Fund has

GrowthWorks issue this valuation to those shareholders. Will this allow for an

independent evaluation of GrowthWorks's valuation?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Currently, the corporation is required only to value its shares

according to generally accepted accounting principles with reference to

financial information to the corporation. We are going to develop in

consultation the established, structured, consistent valuation process, going

forward, so that it's transparent for all shareholders for all funds.

I want to

make it very, very clear. This will be for all funds. This is not about a

particular fund. This is about all funds, should we in fact have funds come

forward that want to compete in this area.

Section 8

approved.

On

section

MacPhail: Why did the government have to legislate the breaking of a

commercial contract?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: This is not the breaking of a contract. It sets aside those

provisions that sought to bind government and the administrator with regard to

equity fund approvals, tax credit allocation and investment pacing. This

legislation was prepared in consultation with our legal advisers at the Ministry

of Attorney General. It is important to note that governments cannot be bound to

act outside legislative requirements.

MacPhail: Maybe the minister could expand on that, because this is the

legislation breaking a contract. Let me ask this, then. Can anybody who has a

contract arising out of this legislation now sue the government if the

government doesn't honour that contract?

[1520]

Hon. R.

Thorpe: This sets aside only to the extent that it's outside the scope of

the legislation. We are also

[ Page 3592 ]

looking to ensure and protect the taxpayers of British Columbia and the

shareholders of the fund. That's what this

section accomplishes, and that's the

extent of it.

MacPhail: Contracts that are outside of what legislation?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: The Employee Investment Act.

MacPhail: Well, it is absolutely ridiculous to somehow say that a contract

that's legally binding…. This government gets to determine with its heavy hand

of legislation and its overwhelming majority what's outside of legislation. If

the government doesn't like a contract, why don't they challenge it in court?

Not this government. They never like to do anything by the ordinary avenue

available to every other British Columbian. They like to bring in legislation

saying….

Here's what

this bill says. Here's exactly what it says. It's entitled "No

compensation." If the government were on solid ground, all they'd have to

do is go to court. That's all they'd have to do. In fact, earlier today I heard

this government saying: "Oh, isn't it awful when governments don't honour

contracts? It's outrageous; it's horrendous." But the previous government

didn't deny Carrier its right to court.

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order, members. Order, please.

MacPhail: The previous government didn't say: "Oh, and by the way,

Carrier, you don't have any access to court." No. What this government does

is break commercial contracts and then say: "You've got no avenue to take

us to court. You've got no compensation, and you can't sue us." That's the

difference. I was shocked when the Minister of Forests got up with his

balderdash, saying how bad the previous government was. The previous government

never denied anybody the right….

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order, members. Order.

MacPhail: I ain't gonna be laughing at his jokes, because time is limited.

The

Chair: Member, we are dealing with Bill 28.

MacPhail: Exactly, and it's on point. This government is breaking a contract

and then saying: "No compensation and no right to sue." Never before

has any government done that to a commercial contract except for now — never

before. Commercial contracts that are violated have always had the right to be

tested and judged in court. This time, this government says no. There are 55,000

shareholders that they have a contract with, but what do they say to the 55,000

shareholders? They say: "No compensation." That's what they say. No

compensation is payable to a corporation or any other person because of or

arising out of anything in this act or the amendments made by this act. That's

unprecedented. It's never ever been done before.

Then it

goes on to say: "No action lies, and an action or other proceeding must not

be brought or maintained, against the government, the administrator or any other

person for compensation or any other remedy arising as a direct or indirect

consequence of…this Act…." So here we have, for the first time in the

history of British Columbia, a commercial contract being ripped up, just like

this government thought they could do to working people. They have done it to

working people, but now they're doing it to a commercial contract — first time

ever. It's so ironic today that we had the Minister of Forests standing up with

a bunch of bravado saying: "Wasn't it awful in the past?" Well, the

fact of the matter is that Carrier Lumber got compensation. Carrier Lumber did

get compensation, because they had a right to take the government to court. They

had a right to sue.

Now what

this government has done…. They're breaking a contract of greater commercial

value, by the way, than could ever be contemplated in the past, and this

government is saying: "No right to sue and no compensation." Shame on

them.

[1525-1530]

Sections 9

and 10 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 62

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Hansen

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Collins

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Nebbeling

Stephens

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Brenzinger

Belsey

Bell

Long

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Bray

Locke

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Hawes

Kerr

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

[ Page 3593 ]

Sections 11

and 12 approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:32 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 28,

Employee Investment Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment,

read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call committee stage of Bill 54.

Committee of the Whole House

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2002

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 54; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:34 p.m.

Sections 1

to 29 inclusive approved.

section

[1535]

MacPhail: Sections 30 through 35 amend the Legislative Assembly Management

Committee Act. The Legislative Assembly Management Committee is a group of

officers, for lack of a better term, from the government and the opposition to

manage the compensation, benefits and working conditions, both physical and

compensatory, of people within the legislative precinct. This change in this

bill allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations that will

provide for the security of the legislative grounds.

The

legislative grounds have been expanded to include Confederation Garden Park, the

area of land bounded by Belleville, Menzies, Superior and Government Streets. It

also allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations to permit or

prohibit the use of the legislative precinct by the public or by any other

person, and persons not complying with these regulations may be subject to a

penalty. That's a

summary of what we're about to do here. My question is: why?

Hon. G.

Plant: The essential purpose of these amendments is to correct an anomaly

that exists, in our view, in the law of British Columbia in terms of the

responsibility for the legislative grounds. That responsibility is an important

feature of how it is that people have the right of access to the Legislature,

and it has, by an interesting and somewhat curious parliamentary and regulatory

history, become the case that a set of regulations that exist for the

legislative grounds has become the responsibility of the Minister of State for

Intergovernmental Relations.

It is the

view of the government that the basic principles and rules around access to the

front lawn of the Legislature and the legislative precincts are really matters

that ought to be in the hands of the Speaker, who can be expected to discharge

those responsibilities in a way that is free from partisan politics.

Accordingly, these amendments are being introduced to move the responsibility

for the regulations from the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations

to the Speaker. As the member has pointed out, when we get to

section 34, the

proposal is to introduce a regulation-making power and to give cabinet the power

to make regulations providing for the security of the legislative precinct. That

power really already exists, and the regulation already exists. Other than the

possibility of some technical changes to ensure the references in the regulation

are correct, government does not intend to amend the regulations that currently

exist in any substantive way.

MacPhail: Who will pay for security now?

Hon. G.

Plant: There is no change.

MacPhail: Well, I'm curious. There have been a whole bunch of changes made

around this building. I now have to carry a toggle — or I think it's called a

fob — to get in and out of the building. Come June 1, I'm going to have to use

a fob to get into my own office. Who is paying for those changes?

Hon. G.

Plant: They have nothing to do with the provisions that are before the

Legislature now.

MacPhail: Actually, they do, because they're security changes that are being

made by someone that isn't the Legislative Assembly Management Committee. I was

just wanting to have some input, as a member who works here, into those changes.

That's all. I've been denied any opportunity to do that. I'm looking for a place

to say what my view of security is.

[1540]

Hon. G.

Plant: The member should take advantage of the opportunity that is available

to her, as it is to all members of the House, to raise the questions and

concerns that she has directly with the Speaker, who is responsible for security

in the building.

MacPhail: The changes that have been made in security are already the

responsibility of the Speaker, the Attorney-General says. That's interesting.

I'm fine. I take him at his word on that.

[ Page 3594 ]

What is the

intent of this? What other powers are being transferred, then?

Hon. G.

Plant: What I tried to say quite carefully when I was introducing the

provisions…. We're actually talking about the front lawn of the Legislature

here, colloquially speaking. We're not talking about the building, but about the

precincts — that is, the land around the buildings. We're also talking about

Confederation Garden Park. We're drawing a distinction between the building and

the lands around the building.

The

building has been the province of the Speaker, the responsibility of the Speaker

and the Sergeant-at-Arms, for as long as I've been a member. Nothing that we

have introduced here today is in any way going to affect that. What this bill

does is clarify responsibility for the grounds, the land around the building

itself.

MacPhail: I take it that these changes are being made in response to Camp

Campbell, which was on the front lawn of the Legislature for the month of

February.

Hon. G.

Plant: There was an incident…. I always wondered why it wasn't called Camp

MacPhail.

There was

an incident on the front lawn of the Legislature earlier this year that did give

rise to some interesting research. That was really when we determined that the

responsibility for the legislative ground protection regulation rested with the

Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations under, of all things, the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act.

The member

is right. It was that incident that alerted us in government to the strange way

in which these matters were being regulated — not so much the strange way they

were being regulated, but in fact, the chain of authority. It was that incident

and the actions that took place around it that caused us to think that really,

the public interest would be better served if the Speaker were in fact directly

and primarily responsible for security for the legislative precinct.

MacPhail: I will be watching it with interest, then, if that type of

incident is the incident that provokes this change. I'll be watching it with

interest to ensure that what has always been a place of public congregation and,

frankly, a place of public protest, continues to be allowed to be so.

Sections 30

to 54 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: Just for the record, I want it noted that I have many other

questions, but given the time allocation and the inability to explore these

issues, I am picking my issues extremely carefully. By virtue of acknowledging

that I am complying with the time limits, it doesn't mean that there are not

dozens of legislative changes that are virtually going undebated and therefore

without any public scrutiny.

Section 55

changes the Mines Act and the Waste Management Act. There are some concerns.

These changes under this act propose two main exemptions that are of serious

concern. First, it provides an exemption from the permit requirements of the

Mines Act. Second, it provides a further exemption for these same activities

from the Waste Management Act — two big exemptions. I'm glad to see various

people here to talk about these exemptions.

Also, it's

clear that currently under the Mines Act, mining companies are required to

obtain a permit before conducting mining activity. As part of the application

process, mining companies are often required to propose environmental protection

measures for damage to water courses resulting from the mine.

[1545]

The Mines

Act already provides that where the chief inspector of mines is satisfied that a

permit is not required because of the nature of the work, the company can be

exempted from this requirement. Bill 54 adds another exemption, stating that the

chief inspector can exempt a mine from the permit requirements if the proposed

activity meets the "prescribed requirements" for an exemption. These

requirements are to be included in a yet-undrafted regulation. It's sort of like

the move when Minister of Finance this morning said the reason we should hoist a

private member's bill is because the work wasn't yet complete, but here we are

ramming through legislation even though there are no regulations yet.

"The

exemption is overly broad and could apply to mining works that harm the

environment."

Interjection.

MacPhail: This actually is from the West Coast Environmental Law

Association. That's absolutely right. When people heard that legislation was

going to be rammed through, they immediately came to our assistance because of

these serious matters. It's quite correct that we're getting a lot of

assistance. The West Coast Environmental Law Association has done a detailed

analysis.

"From

a land use planning perspective, exemptions on mineral exploration could limit

compatibility with established land use zones and habitat protection

concerns."

We find

ourselves in a situation once more, asking the Minister of Mines: could the

minister inform the House as to what type of prescribed requirements…? Oh, I

think that's red tape. What kind of red tape will allow an exemption from a

permit?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: This enables a more transparent process to take place and is

applicable only to low-level activity.

MacPhail: Well, it's interesting, because that exemption's already in place,

but we have another exemption allowed the mining industry. I'm not sure

[ Page 3595 ]

what the minister is going to prescribe in the regulations. It can only be an

expansion of the exemption that is currently available.

Maybe I

could ask the Minister of Mines what role the Minister of Water, Land and Air

Protection will have in setting these prescribed requirements. The Minister of

Mines said in estimates that the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection

would be setting the standards and holding the Minister of Energy and Mines

accountable to those standards. What role, if any, is the Minister of Water,

Land and Air Protection playing in expanding the exemption that mines have from

environmental protection?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: The act and the code still apply. There was consultation between

the Ministry of Energy and Mines and the Minister of Water, Land and Air

Protection when these were being drafted and proposed. There will continue to be

a working relationship, as I said in estimates, between the Ministry of Water,

Land and Air Protection, the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and the

Ministry of Energy and Mines on all these issues.

MacPhail: Isn't that good to know? The Minister of Water, Land and Air

Protection approves of this. Isn't that great? Energy and Mines get to have more

exemption from any of the rules of the land that protect the environment, and

the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection is on board — good news.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: That's absolutely an erroneous statement. The Ministry of Water,

Land and Air Protection was involved in the discussion. This does not allow the

exemption of any environmental rules. Environmental rules will still be applied

to the highest level that they've always been applied within the mining

industry. They will continue to be, along with the support and work with the

Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

The

Chair: Shall

section 55 pass?

MacPhail: Again I'm put in this situation where I have to call our protest

against sections on division. That means that the opposition, the member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I, will be opposing sections.

Section 55

approved on division.

Sections 56

to 65 inclusive approved.

section

[1550]

MacPhail: This is a curious section.

Section 66 is on the Public Service

Labour Relations Act, where it's exempting a person employed as an industrial

relations officer or employment standards officer of the employment standards

branch. That means that they can never join a union. Well, they don't belong to

unions. There was an organizing attempt, and it failed. It says here — I

always love the explanatory notes under this government — that it

"provides clarity and certainty regarding the excluded status of industrial

relations and employment standards officers."

What

clarity is needed? They're excluded. Is that because the government's now going

to force IROs and ESOs to cross picket lines?

Hon. S.

Santori: What this is doing is enshrining what's been a verbal and a written

agreement since the mid-seventies. It's a housekeeping issue, and it does add

clarity into the system.

MacPhail: Employment standards officers and industrial relations officers,

as part of their job of being neutral and assisting parties through labour

relations disputes, never had to cross picket lines. Will they now have to?

Hon. S.

Santori: We don't expect IROs or EROs to cross picket lines that would be

confrontational or that would create anything confrontational with a legal

picket line. As I said earlier, this has been the practice since the 1970s, and

this is just enshrining what has been in place for the past 30 years.

MacPhail: To conclude, there will be no requirement of…. I'm sorry —

EROs? Is that the new employee relation…? I'm sorry. Whatever. I want to get

it right. Employment standards officers and industrial relations officers will

not be required to cross picket lines?

Hon. S.

Santori: This enshrinement of what was in place over the last 30 years is

not intended to change the culture of past practices, and we wouldn't expect

them to have to cross picket lines.

Sections 66

to 69 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail: This is interesting, given what we just debated in the changes to

the Mines Act under

section 55. You have to look at what the changes to the

Mines Act were and combine it with this change to the Waste Management Act. It's

a very, very small amendment — I think it's one line. But you have to combine

the two, and you come up with a very disturbing result.

Again, the

West Coast Environmental Law Association…. Thank God there are organizations

out there that are worried about the environment, because this government isn't.

The Waste Management Act is B.C.'s primary environmental protection law. It

contains a prohibition against releasing pollutants into the environment without

a permit. That's the basis of the act. This act that we're debating right now

contains a number of specific exemptions from that prohibition. This act is

expanding the number of ex-

[ Page 3596 ]

emptions from that prohibition under the Waste Management Act. Most of those

exemptions are for activities that are supposed to be in compliance with the

permit issued by the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection.

Bill 54 —

this bill, this exemption, this amendment we're debating right now — now

allows mining operations that are exempted from permitting under the Mines Act

that we just passed to be also exempted from the pollution provisions of the

Waste Management Act. Wow. That means that mining activities could be conducted

with no regulatory oversight from the Ministry of Energy and Mines and would be

immune from prosecution for any environmental damage done under the Waste

Management Act.

Here we

have a situation where you've got to read so carefully every single move that

this government makes. You have to put the pieces of the puzzle together. Here

we see a degradation of environmental protection that will affect British

Columbians, and it's going to go through like that.

[1555]

The

Ministry of Energy and Mines, in practice, has been the regulator of mining

activity at mine sites, and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection has

played a very strong role until now in ensuring the levels of environmental

protection are maintained. If the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection no

longer has the ability to commence prosecutions for environmental harm as a

result of some mining activities, the public and the public's environment will

be left unprotected from the as-yet-undefined, exempted activities. That's what

we're doing right here. That's the combined effect. That's what we're ramming

through in this House.

How does

the minister justify…? What protection, if any, does the public have that the

exemptions he now has the ability to give, the expanded exemptions, will not do

any harm to the environment? Why is this change here?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I explained to the member earlier why it's there. The member should

know that this is for low-level risk. This is not for mining. This has

everything to do with exploration only, as will be laid out by regulation. It's

still subject to the Mines Act. It will still be subject to the environmental

rules of the day.

I want to

stress again that this just makes it more transparent, gets rid of some of the

red tape and the duplication and moves us towards facilitating mining in British

Columbia.

MacPhail: That's dead wrong. The minister is not telling what's in this

bill. This Waste Management Act exemption that we're going to pass in near

moments allows for greater pollution. It takes away any protection that used to

be held within the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection from continuing to

prohibit releasing pollutants into the air without a permit. It's gone. That's

exactly what the amendment does. If it doesn't, maybe the Minister of Water,

Land and Air Protection could get up and explain how the fact that no longer

prohibiting pollutants is good for the environment.

Section 70

approved on division.

Sections 71

to 73 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:58 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 54,

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call committee stage on Bill 52.

Committee of the Whole House

MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 52; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:59 p.m.

[1600]

Sections 1

to 3 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 4:01 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 52,

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a

third time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading on Bill 49.

[ Page 3597 ]

Second Reading of Bills

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

(continued)

MacPhail: This is the Workers Compensation Amendment Act. We're well into

the debate about the changes in this legislation.

colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant did a very thorough analysis of what

the consequences of the changes are to the Workers Compensation Amendment Act.

She described how British Columbia was making changes to basically take away

worker protection, to transfer resources out of the pockets of injured workers

into the companies in whose workplaces a worker had been injured —

transferring $100 million out of the pockets of injured workers into the

companies, reducing the protection for the families of injured workers, taking

away the long-term benefits for injured workers, reducing the nature of claims

that will be available for injured workers. She did a very, very thorough

analysis of that.

Then I had

the honour to rise and continue to address these draconian changes to the

Workers Compensation Amendment Act. I'm not going to go through it again,

because we have very little time left, but I was taking a different perspective

in addition to my colleague, a perspective on the history of why workers

compensation is in place.

[1605]

approached it from the point of view of our youngest workers. I talked about how

when we send our children off to school, we street-proof them, and every single

parent takes that very seriously. But when we send our 16-, 17- or 18-year-old

off to work, do we talk about job-proofing them in terms of health and safety?

No, but the Workers Compensation Board has done that. Many new Canadians who

arrive in British Columbia, who come and join our society and make our society

so wonderfully multicultural, need to be instructed in the rules of occupational

health and safety as they exist here.

That was

the role of the Workers Compensation Board. Huge strides were made in the

nineties — huge strides — with the WCB investing in injury and illness

prevention. That's the way to go. Doesn't it make sense, if you're trying to

find cost efficiencies where people's health and safety are at risk, not to take

money out of injured workers' pockets and give it to employers but to say to

employers: "Stop injuring people; stop killing people; let's work together

to stop that from happening"?

Does this

government do that? No. There's not one iota of pressure put on any employer by

this government to stop injuring workers. In fact, this government, by

regulation, is assisting in the injury of workers. I'd go as far as to say this

government, by regulation, is assisting in the killing of workers.

Interjection.

MacPhail: Well, let me explain. Let me explain, Mr. Speaker, because it's

factually proven. It is factually proven. This government is allowing, forcing,

hotel and restaurant workers, bar workers, to work in places where there's

secondhand smoke, where they're subject to secondhand smoke. Guess what. Five

hundred deaths per year are due to secondhand smoke. People who have never

smoked in their lives die because of secondhand smoke — 500.

What did

this government do? This government overturned a WCB regulation. Well, first of

all, they delayed a WCB regulation and then went out on some review of that

regulation. The member for Vancouver-Burrard conducted that review of whether

the regulation to prohibit hotel and restaurant workers to be subject to

secondhand smoke should stay.

Now, I

heard, and I actually asked the minister during estimates, how many submissions

were received during that review. I'd heard on the street that it was one, and

the minister didn't deny that. The minister didn't deny that at all. Given every

opportunity to deny it, he didn't. After a cursory — one might say sham —

review, this government decided to overturn a WCB regulation that prevented

hotel and restaurant bar workers from being subject to secondhand smoke, which

can kill them.

There's my

explanation, and I dare anyone, any Liberal backbencher, to stand up and say I'm

wrong — anyone. They know full well I'm right, but that isn't good enough. Not

only are they permitting greater injury and greater death, this government is

now saying that employers who participate in the injury, illness and perhaps

death of workers get more money in their pockets. That's what this legislation

is about.

Do you know

what this government would have saved in injury and illness if they'd put in

place the WCB regulation prohibiting smoking in bars because of the health and

safety of hotel and restaurant workers? Millions of dollars — millions of

dollars on our health care system. The biggest pressure on our health care

system is the cost of illness, injury and death related to tobacco use —

billions every year on our health care system.

Every other

jurisdiction is saying smoking is bad. What does this government do? "Oh,

for economic reasons we have to allow smoking in bars." Would that be for

the economy of those workers who have to work in those bars? No. In whose

economic interest is it for this government to overturn the WCB? This government

could've saved millions of dollars by merely upholding a WCB regulation, but

that should've sent us a signal. That should have sent us a signal about the

intent of this government in the way they treat injured and ill workers in this

province.

[1610]

What good

is it doing? Is it helping? Is it helping the economy in any way to have more

ill and injured workers? My colleague, in a very, very detailed analysis of the

effect of work-related injury and illness on our productivity, outlined the

hugely deleterious effect of those absences from work. Those absences from

[ Page 3598 ]

work far outweigh any strike action, any lockout action, but oh no, this

government has to make all of these changes that don't do anything to prevent

injury or illness.

They have

to do it. Why? Oh, I know why. It's because their Liberal donors asked them to

do it. That's why. That's exactly why. Here we are today, delivering, right on

schedule. Our Liberal donors asked us to take away the rights of injured

workers, and we're doing it.

Well, who

else got a say besides the B.C. Business Council and the small business

community? Oh, the board of trade would have got a say, yeah. I wouldn't even be

surprised if the Fraser Institute was consulted as well, but who else? Well, it

wasn't a lot of other people who got a say. There certainly was a lack of any

input from those who disagreed with these changes. Oh, sure, the B.C. Federation

of Labour was consulted, and they spoke out vehemently against these changes,

but the Community Legal Assistance Society, for instance, which deals every day

with people who have claims, wasn't consulted. In fact, the entire consultation

process was done in a way that really said: "Those of you that don't agree

with the direction we're going in get little, if any, perfunctory say in what is

going to happen in the changes."

Here we

have a situation where this government is fundamentally altering the pact that

was made in the early 1900s between employers and their workers. There was a

pact made. It was a legally based pact that said if a worker was injured on the

job, their avenue for recourse was to the Workers Compensation Board, not to the

courts. That was because our courts would have been tied up forever on lawsuits

against employers on whose sites or places of employment people had been

injured, killed or made ill. There was a trade-off, and this government is

altering the balance of that trade-off. They're saying to employers, "You,

Mr. or Ms. Employer, have greater rights," and workers are still denied

access to the courts. In fact, if WCB does too good a job of holding that in

balance, this government will go in and interfere directly — interfere

directly and overturn the WCB as they did on the ban on smoking in bars and

restaurants.

What does

that mean for workers? What does it mean now? Is our province a better place?

Does the new era under this Liberal government mean it's a better place for

injured and ill workers? I would suggest not. I would predict not.

[1615]

You know,

on the weekend we learned about a tragic death of a person who was a contract

worker at Cominco. Mr. Speaker, I choose my words carefully here, because I

don't want to…. There's an investigation into this, and we will await the

outcome of the investigation. This was a worker who was 41 years old. He was a

contract worker at Cominco in Trail, I think — the Cominco site in Trail.

Cominco had put these workers at risk by making them exposed to a highly, highly

dangerous chemical.

This isn't

controversial. I'm not risking anything here. That was proven. The workers

became very ill, very sick. The WCB investigated. Teck Cominco was fined

$270,000. That was last summer. Now a young man who was exposed to that

chemical, for which the company was fined, has died, and there's an

investigation.

What this

government has done is not to say: "We're going to beef up protection for

workers so that this kind of situation never occurs again." They're not

beefing up enforcement. They're not beefing up compliance. They're not expanding

the occupational health and safety requirements of employers to stop injuring

and killing workers. They're saying: "Oh no. We're going to make it so you

have to pay less in terms of your contributions for protecting against injuring

workers and supporting the compensation of families of injured or killed

workers." That's what this government's doing.

Then, as

they're wont to do…. This government's great at ballooning up deficits; they

like to do that. They like to balloon up deficits out in the future, and then

say: "Oh, bad, bad, everyone else but us." That's what they're doing

with our fiscal situation in British Columbia right now. Then on the basis of

that, they're cutting health and education programs. Now we've got another new

made-in-Liberal-land deficit. It's called the workers compensation deficit. The

minister's predicting that that's going to balloon to $300 million. He came up

with that figure.

Well, Mr.

Speaker, as time runs out here, let me just say that that is a manufactured

prediction of what the deficit will be, a manufactured prediction of what the

WCB deficit will be, for this reason. Historically, workers compensation boards

across this country have had to manage their way out of deficits and have done

so. You don't need to weaken the law on behalf of companies at the expense of

injured and ill workers. You force employers and workers to work together to

prevent illness and injury from ever occurring.

That's what

happened throughout the 1990s. The number of claims went down. It's true that

the value of each claim went up, but that was because only the most serious

claims by the most serious infractions occurred. We were on a downward trend of

the number of claims being brought, which was wonderful news.

What does

this government do? It says: "The working people who are reducing the

number of claims and the companies who are reducing the number of claims are not

required to do anything anymore." This government is going to make up a

deficit for the WCB and then say to injured and ill workers, "We have to

cut back on the benefits that flow to you and your family" — the earned

benefits, the benefits of right, the trade-off that was made over the twentieth

century. "We're going to cut back on that pact that your predecessors, your

ancestors, made." That's what's happening.

Is there

any trade-off for the injured and ill worker? There is none — absolutely none.

Never once has this government stood up and said that by the same token,

[ Page 3599 ]

we're going to beef up protection so that injuries and illnesses never

happen.

[1620]

This bill

is wrong. It's a shame to British Columbia, and it's throwing, once again, any

iota of fairness and balance right out the window.

Krueger: The opposition has almost talked out their clock on the allocated

time for this bill. I did want to respond to a couple of things the opposition

members said in their remarks. In the remarks by the Leader of the Opposition a

few moments ago I utterly refute this allegation that this government has in any

way, with its legislation and the policy decisions that have been made,

contributed to workers' illnesses or deaths.

I submit to

the House that the record of the NDP in office running the WCB was absolutely

dismal. The positions they took on smoke in the workplace were politically

driven, not out of concern for workers. In fact, in the entire ten years that

the NDP were government of this province, the WCB never paid for the death of a

worker relating to secondhand smoke — not one. I'm not saying that it

shouldn't have. There may well have been such a case, but the WCB never had such

a case. The government, I believe, ordered the WCB to bring matters on in the

arbitrary way they were brought on, and we all know the history of that. The

fact is that B.C. Liberals are utterly committed to the safety and well-being of

workers and to their fair treatment by the WCB and by the system in general.

The

opposition repeatedly makes statements to the effect that workers pay for WCB

premiums out of their pocket. That is flat not true. It never has been. Workers

don't pay anything into the WCB pool. Employers pay all of it. What this

government seeks to do is set a fair level of compensation, where workers are

properly provided for in the event that they have sustained workplace injuries

but also where employers aren't driven out of business and investment isn't

driven out of British Columbia as happened during that entire sad decade of the

NDP in government in British Columbia.

The Leader

of the Opposition should hark back to the last set of labour estimates, when she

was minister and I was critic. I stood up at the beginning of estimates and

strafed the WCB for 20 minutes or half an hour on their absolutely awful record

in British Columbia — how both workers and employers were utterly unhappy with

them, how they seemed to have no customer service ethic at all, how they were

being run by the NDP's five-person, hand-picked panel of administrators and a

whole lot of appointed people who were appointed for political reasons, not

because of any expertise in the matter they were supposed to be dealing with.

I asked my

first question in those estimates, and to my amazement, the then minister, now

Leader of the Opposition, stood up and said that she agreed with every word I'd

said and didn't want to answer any questions, because she really had no control

over the WCB, and she sat down. I was shocked and stood up and said: "Well,

you know, you're the minister responsible, and somebody has to answer the

questions. Who's going to speak for these injured workers who have such an

unhappy history with the WCB? She stood up again and said: "I'm not trying

to be difficult here. I just really can't change anything, and that's the way it

is. I can't do anything about it." She sat down again. The House Leader had

to come in and persuade her that we would have to do a special motion to allow

the WCB to answer my questions directly before she would even try to deal with

the issues that were being raised.

These

members repeatedly raise the royal commission and its recommendations. That

royal commission cost B.C. taxpayers $6 million and took two years to do, and

they never acted on a single recommendation of that royal commission. Why are

they now quoting the royal commission to us? Their buddies were running the WCB,

and they were doing a shameful job of it. It was one of the many ways the NDP

took our economy from first to worst in Canada, to the detriment of workers and

the families of workers.

[1625]

This

government, once again, is valiantly trying, in a very measured way, to fix some

of that damage and to make things happen again for British Columbians and

especially for workers. It's not a healthy thing if workers receive more in

benefits when they're on compensation than they do in take-home pay when they

are actually working. There is a claimant mentality that sets in. You ask the

principled workers of the WCB — and there are many; there are still many fine

people there — and they will tell you about what they internally call

internally "disability behaviour" and how it can set in, even with the

very best of claimants. If a person is suddenly finding himself with more in his

pocket because he's on compensation, and he also has mortgage insurance and car

insurance and he doesn't have day care anymore and he or she and their spouse

were both working before but now one of them is home, it's pretty easy to start

to settle back into the embrace of those systems.

The worst

case I heard of was a worker who was receiving 270 percent of his normal

take-home pay while on compensation, between all those various provisions. Of

course, there's no incentive to go back to work at all, and it's not good for

people.

In this

matter of stress claims, once again, I think the government has taken a very

careful, very measured, very deliberate approach: stress claims being accepted

if they flow directly from an injury on the job. If you open the door wide to

anyone who feels stress in his or her job….

Well, one

of the most stressful things in a workplace is if a person has reached their

point of incompetence, if they've advanced too far in their employment career to

the point where they really aren't competent in the job they're doing. The huge

emphasis on grievances and on advancing people forward in the public service,

pressed on by the public service unions, has put many people in those

situations. They're often hired because they look like excellent clerical

employ-

[ Page 3600 ]

ees, and they are. But then, if it's at ICBC, they want to be adjustors. If

it's at WCB, they want to be adjudicators. When they lever themselves, through

their collective agreement, into those situations and they take on

responsibilities that they never had the education or background or aptitude

for, it's very stressful. People in those positions often do book off sick

because it's very hard on them.

This

government has resisted the drive to open stress claims wide open for WCB

coverage, and that is right and good, because the taxpayer can't afford it, and

it was not an appropriate thing that people were asking for.

I regret

very much that there isn't more time. The opposition has essentially talked out

the clock, and the minister needs time to wrap up. Once again, I want to commend

the government for moving very carefully. I actually believed, in opposition —

and still do, actually — that the Workers Compensation Board needed fixing

worse than pretty much anything else in British Columbia. This government is

making very measured, careful and reasonable moves in that direction, and I

commend the minister for dealing with this immense priority.

Stewart: I rise today because I feel so strongly about worker safety. I have

listened to the Leader of the Opposition criticize a bill in a way that made me

very angry. I believe that every member of this House believes in workers

compensation and the value of worker safety. I have worked for years on it. I

know that some of these provisions were actually considered by the previous

government, because they make sense. They are the right thing to do.

In some

cases, workers compensation in British Columbia is out of step with the rest of

the country. If we had more time, we could go into each one of these issues, but

as the member for Kamloops–North Thompson pointed out, we're out of time now.

The opposition has used up the time, and I wish had time.

Let's

support this. I believe very strongly in worker safety, I believe this is the

right thing to do, and I thank the minister for bringing this forward.

Mr.

Speaker: We are at second reading stage of Bill 49, and the minister closes

debate.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Let's be clear about what are we doing here and the consultation that

has taken place. What we are doing here is fixing the workers compensation

system in British Columbia, as other provinces have found they've had to do

likewise. What we're actually doing is finishing the job that the former

administration, the NDP government, did not have the guts or the intestinal

fortitude to follow through with after they commissioned a royal commission that

cost the taxpayers $6 million-plus in 1998. They then took that voluminous

report and put it on the shelf and said: "We can't fix it. We're not going

to bother dealing with the issues."

Yet they

sit here and talk in self-righteous terms about their concern for injured

workers. They haven't even got the decency to stand up and say, "We

commissioned the report, and then we did nothing" — nothing for the very

people that they stand up now today and say they're here to look after. They had

their chance.

[1630]

Let's be

clear. What the opposition, which was then the government, did was to bring

through a report, the royal commission. They spent $7 million of taxpayers'

money and then…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The minister has the floor.

Hon. G.

Bruce: …wouldn't carry through with those very recommendations.

Let me just

read what the royal commission said. I want to be clear that I had asked a Mr.

Winter and a Mr. Hunt to undertake a review of all the work that had been done

in an effort to bring back to me a report we could put into action. I asked them

to make sure they spent time looking at the royal commission and on

understanding what the royal commission had recommended, and then, with that, to

come forward with those recommendations so that we could fix the WCB.

The royal

commission said that in keeping with the principles that workers compensation

should provide compensation primarily for lost earning capacity resulting from

permanent disability, wage loss benefits should cease upon the worker's

anticipated date of retirement, normally on the worker's sixty-fifth birthday.

At this point, the worker would commence receipt of a retirement income loss

benefit.

That's what

was in the royal commission report. The report had been commissioned by the

former NDP administration. That's in fact what Mr. Winter has recommended to us

as government, and that's what we are doing. We're fixing it.

Now, let's

be clear on another thing. There is, factually, not by anybody's fabrication or

anybody's wild ruminations of what's going on or has gone on in the past, a $287

million deficit in the workers compensation system today.

Hon. C.

Clark: How did that happen?

Hon. G.

Bruce: A very good question, and thank you for asking it.

As the

government, the former NDP administration was in its last throes, hanging on by

any shred of anything they could hang on to. They had taken this province into a

spiral downhill roll, as we were going after their ten years of absolutely

disastrous administration — probably the worst administration ever of any

government in Canada, never mind only in British Columbia. They saw fit —

without really taking a good look at what shape the WCB system was in and the

forecasts

[ Page 3601 ]

of what it would be on an actuarial basis in looking at compensating injured

workers or to making sure there were the finances, the dollars there to look

after injured workers — to give a rebate to employers.

They gave a

rebate to employers, so guess what. They had a royal commission. They were told

to fix it. They were told they were in a problem, but because they were in the

final throes of administration…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G.

Bruce: …and, hopefully, somehow, thinking that somebody in the province…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. G.

Bruce: …would vote for them if they gave….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Labour has the floor. Let us hear

the debate.

Hon. G.

Bruce: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They

ordered a rebate, and why did they do that? They ordered a rebate, and then, of

course, who's left to fix the problem? We're left to fix the very problem that

they knew they had. They knew the actual benefit package, the actual funding so

that the dollars could be there….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Will the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant

please come to order. You have had your turn in this debate. The minister now

has the floor.

Hon. G.

Bruce: The very people that they stand to say they're protecting — and

those are the people that we're trying to make sure we have a fund available for

so that they can have their benefits…. They just blew it away in the wind.

I want to

be clear. We are fixing a problem that was known back in 1998 by the former NDP

administration, which did not have the intestinal fortitude or maybe, if I were

to be generous, the business acumen — or maybe I'm not being generous; I'm not

sure — to be able to put together a system that would be there to protect the

very people they now say they're interested in protecting. They didn't bother.

They just abandoned those people in that day when they were government, so we're

fixing it.

In wrapping

this up, I also want to be very clear that anybody that's currently receiving

WCB benefits will not be receiving less tomorrow when this legislation is

passed. They will not be receiving less than what they're receiving today. I

want to be clear on that. The other thing I'd like to be clear on is that this

is a very comprehensive piece of legislation that we are bringing forward.

[1635]

The steps

we are taking will require other pieces of legislation to come forward, as well,

so that we can deal with the appeal process and with spousal benefits. We can

make sure the system is user-friendly so that people that find themselves in

need of the protection of the WCB will know it's there for them not only today

but in the future.

Quite

frankly, as I have met with people affected by WCB, as most MLAs do through

their offices, I have found that the process people are faced with today is, for

some, almost more debilitating than the actual injury they've received or that

has occurred to them. We're attempting to do two things: improve the service

delivery of the WCB so that it is, as I mentioned, user-friendly for the very

people it was meant to serve, and protect the financial sustainability of this

system so that benefits will be there today and in the future for the people for

whom this historic compromise was put in place back in 1917.

How are we

doing it? We're doing it in a balanced, reasoned manner. We've reviewed the

changes that have been made in other jurisdictions across Canada and to the

south of us. We have utilized the informed and knowledgable recommendations of

Mr. Winter and Mr. Hunt. They, too, have paid special attention to the royal

commission. As I mentioned, if you had forgotten, that was a report commissioned

by the former NDP government. They chose at that point to just ignore all, to

ignore the fact that the system was in jeopardy and really, by so doing,

thumbing their noses at the very people that needed their help. They couldn't be

bothered to do that.

We're going

to fix it. We're going to make sure the WCB system in British Columbia is in

good shape, that it's user-friendly. As we move to fix this and look after the

deficit so that there's financial stability, we will still have amongst the

highest benefit packages of any WCB system in the provinces of our area in

Canada.

[1640]

The final

point I'd like to make is that to do nothing — as obviously the opposition

would have us do, because they did nothing — and put it in jeopardy would take

that $287 million deficit, and by 2005 we would be facing a $900 million

deficit. It's not a fabrication; it's a statement of fact. That is just clearly

unacceptable. It's unacceptable to us as a government, and it is certainly

unacceptable to the very people that need those benefits, the people that find

themselves in need of the WCB system.

conclusion, I would move second reading of Bill 49.

[1645]

Second

reading of Bill 49 approved on the following division:

[ Page 3602 ]

YEAS — 65

Coell

Hogg

L. Reid

Halsey-Brandt

Hawkins

Whittred

Cheema

Hansen

J. Reid

Bruce

Santori

van Dongen

Barisoff

Nettleton

Roddick

Wilson

Masi

Lee

Thorpe

Hagen

Murray

Collins

Clark

Bond

de Jong

Stephens

Abbott

Neufeld

Coleman

Chong

Penner

Jarvis

Anderson

Orr

Harris

Nuraney

Belsey

Bell

Long

Chutter

Mayencourt

Trumper

Johnston

Bennett

R. Stewart

Hayer

Christensen

Krueger

McMahon

Les

Nijjar

Bhullar

Wong

Bloy

Suffredine

MacKay

Cobb

K. Stewart

Lekstrom

Brice

Sultan

Hamilton

Hawes

Kerr

Hunter

NAYS — 2

MacPhail

Kwan

Hon. G.

Bruce: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to

be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 49,

Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Tabling Documents

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, just before we go to the next order of business.

Earlier today, I spoke about receiving the resignation of the police complaint

commissioner. I would now like to table that letter with the Clerks of the

House.

Hon. G.

Bruce: I call second reading of Bill 48.

Second Reading of Bills

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. G.

Bruce: I move that the Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2002, be read a

second time.

This bill,

like the other two I introduced last week, is an important step towards

achieving our government's goal of encouraging employees and employers to

develop healthy workplace relationships that lead to good, sustainable jobs here

in British Columbia.

This bill

is designed to provide more flexibility and self-reliance in British Columbia

workplaces so that employees and employers can build mutually beneficial

workplace relationships.

There are

more than 350,000 businesses in British Columbia, and 98 percent of those

businesses are businesses with 50 employees or less. That's a total of 893,000

jobs in our province that fall under the small-business umbrella — 58 percent

of all private sector jobs.

If we're

going to encourage job creation and the strengthening of our province's economy,

then government needs to be sensitive to the needs of business and the needs of

their employees. We need to recognize that the vast majority of employers play

by the rules and treat their employees fairly and with respect. We need to make

sure that the changes we make maintain protection for the vulnerable workers in

the workplace today.

The goals

of this bill are to provide vulnerable employees — particularly those in

sectors where there's a high number of new entrants to the workforce, or those

with limited job opportunities or other barriers, such as language difficulties,

that can sometimes make employees vulnerable…. They are to encourage flexible

workplace partnerships that meet the needs of employees and employers in today's

economy; to help revitalize our economy, and particularly small business, by

recognizing the needs and realities of the modern workplace; and to simplify

workplace rules for everyone, allowing a greater degree of self-reliance in

working out issues quickly and, where possible, without the intervention of

other parties.

This bill

introduces greater flexibility and self-reliance into British Columbia

workplaces. It does this by making changes in four key areas of employment

standards.

[1650]

It promotes

greater flexibility in work schedules and related areas to allow employees and

employers to create agreements that are mutually beneficial.

It protects

vulnerable employees by providing a new enforcement and education approach that

will more effectively increase compliance and discourage employers from breaking

the rules.

substantially increases penalties to deter employers — the bad employers —

from violating the rights of employees. Those employers who do mistreat their

employees will now face significant financial consequences. These penalties will

be mandatory.

It also

simplifies rules and processes to help create new jobs and investment.

The bill is

focused on creating balanced, fair-minded laws that protect vulnerable workers

while stimulating our provincial economy. In order to prosper in today's

economy, business, and especially small

[ Page 3603 ]

business, needs flexibility and cooperative, productive workplaces to attract

new investment and create more quality, sustainable jobs.

This

government's New Era document specifically identified a new era of

employment as one of our priorities. The New Era document laid out this

government's goals, saying: "To compete and prosper in the new economy,

workers and employers alike need more flexibility and a modern work environment

that encourages innovation and rewards creative thinking and increased

productivity."

Late last

year we released a discussion paper entitled Fair and Effective: A Review of

Employment Standards in British Columbia. At that time we asked for input

from the public and interested stakeholders. In addition, business, labour and

specific interest groups met with ministry staff to discuss their priorities,

their concerns and their suggestions.

In total,

government received more than 265 submissions from individuals, business,

associations, labour organizations and community groups. The ideas that were

raised during this consultation ranged from increasing flexibility in work

schedules to simplifying rules around statutory holidays, overtime premiums and

recordkeeping.

A number of

submissions asked for tougher penalties on those who do not treat their

employees fairly. They also highlighted the importance of maintaining basic

protections, especially those for more vulnerable employees.

These

submissions are much appreciated and were fully considered in the development of

this new legislation. The result is a bill that protects vulnerable employees,

provides more flexibility, encourages self-reliance and simplifies rules for

everyone.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

The bill

strikes a balance by removing unnecessary requirements while keeping the

important protections and backing them up with much stiffer penalties for those

who abuse their employees.

This is a

package of changes that's going to help revitalize the small business community,

which is the backbone of B.C.'s economy, by recognizing the needs of both

employees and employers.

Currently,

workplace rules throw roadblocks in the way of achieving workplace flexibility.

For example, flexibility of work hours beyond the traditional eight hours a day

and a 40-hour week can only be had for employers and employees through a

cumbersome variance process that requires government to review and approve each

and every application. However, these applications are rarely denied, which

makes you wonder all the more why we need such a time-consuming and burdensome

process to make simple changes to work hours. For example, many employers in the

high-tech sector need modified work weeks to meet the demands of a highly

competitive industry where tight time lines demand flexibility beyond the

traditional eight hours a day, five days a week. Many workers find work

schedules such as a four-day work week, ten hours a day, to be attractive in

accommodating their family and personal-life needs.

[1655]

I know

you'll be interested in this, Mr. Speaker. When I was a younger man, which

wasn't all that long ago, I had a great job where I worked as a bartender. I

worked four ten-hour days. I had three days off. I thought I'd died and gone to

heaven. Until I got this job, I didn't realize that in fact I had reached heaven

at that point. However, for me and for my young family, it was a great time

allotment for me. It allotted me the 40-hour work week, done in four days, and I

had three days off.

There are

other examples, I'm sure, if we were to go and canvass around the room, of

different interests, different examples that other members would have found in

the need for a flexible workweek and how it worked for them, where they're able

to put that together.

Changes to

the hours of work sections of the act will provide employees and employers with

greater ability to create work schedules that work for both. Of course,

standards will still be in place to ensure that employees' overtime rights are

protected. The employees and employers will be able to agree on their own

schedules that allow some flexibility from the 40-hour-a-week standard,

including the opportunity to agree to a multi-week agreement averaging 80 hours

over two weeks, 120 hours over three weeks or a four-week agreement averaging

160 hours.

Quite

clearly, if you were working a 4/10 shift and it made sense to take two weeks

and average over one, you might work eight days in a row at ten, and then you'd

have the appropriate time off. Then you come back and work the other two weeks.

Or maybe if you're in a camp situation, you want to have all of those days

together, which you would work. Then you can go out and come back to the camp

after the appropriate time off.

Once the

schedule's agreed to, it will be written up as an agreement that has a start and

an end date, allowing both the employee and the employer to change the hours in

the future, if there needs to be change. Once the agreement is signed, if an

employee is asked to work more hours, then that is at overtime.

As an

example, an employee scheduled for eight hours or less would