1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 9, Number 12

[ Page 7539 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

L. Reid: I'm delighted to welcome today His Worship Mayor Colin Kinsley from the city of Prince George. He's joined today by George Paul, the city manager for the city of Prince George. I would ask the House to please make them both very welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: Sitting on the floor on this side of the House is the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and a former member of the caucus, Anne Edwards. I would like all members to give her a very warm welcome.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today are a number of community leaders from the greater Victoria area. We had a meeting today at lunch, talking about how we can build a kinder and more caring community in greater Victoria, around the province and, indeed, across the country, and about how we can work towards a society that says no to hate and racism. Joining us today are Mr. Michael Peters, the president of the Jewish Federation of Victoria and Vancouver Island; Ms. Miriam Fisher, president of the Jewish Community Centre of Victoria; Mr. Steve Feldman, president of Congregation Emanuel; and Mr.

Chuck Waldman of the United Israel Appeal. Accompanying them and co-hosting our luncheon today was Councillor Bob Friedland, from the city of Victoria. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, in your gallery today are two distinguished representatives from my community of Prince George, the spruce capital of the world -- or of the north, at least: Mayor Colin Kinsley and our city manager, George Paul. Would the House please help me make them welcome to this community.

F. Gingell: In the members' gallery today are Barbara and John Bosdet, longtime residents of West Vancouver. Barbara is an active volunteer in her community. John, having graduated from being my articled student more years ago than I wish to remember, is now a partner of Deloitte and Touche. I ask all members of the House to please join me in making them most welcome.

B. Barisoff: Today I'd like to welcome 20 grade 6 and 7 students from Greenwood and their teacher Mr. Chapman, along with several adults. They were in the precincts this morning. Can the House please make them welcome.

B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today another grade 5 class from Pacific Academy in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale, along with their teacher and a few adults to help. Would the House please make them welcome.

E. Walsh: I too would like to join my colleague in welcoming a constituent that lives in my riding and, more specifically, lives quite near me. That's Anne Edwards. Not only am I able to continue on with the very good work that she did in fact begin during her term in the Kootenays, but I am also able to enjoy all the good work that she completed while she was a minister and an MLA for the Kootenays. I would like to ask the House to again please make her welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In the House today is George Atamanenko, who is a very active community and provincial leader. He is the president of the Heritage Society of B.C. Please make him welcome.

M. de Jong: There is a large contingent of grade 7 students visiting from John Maclure Elementary in Abbotsford, along with their teacher Ms. Rosse. I hope all my colleagues in the House will make them welcome today.

Oral Questions

RESTITUTION OF FUNDS

TO NANAIMO CHARITIES

G. Campbell: On January 19, 1996, the Premier said: "I will ensure full restitution is made to any charities who were deprived of funds they were entitled to." He was referring to the theft of millions of dollars from charities in Nanaimo by one of the NDP's fundraising arms. Today the Premier is already starting to backtrack on that commitment. My question to the Premier is: how can anyone in the province of British Columbia trust you or your government when you are willing to backtrack and not provide full restitution for the millions of dollars that were stolen from charities in Nanaimo?

Hon. G. Clark: I've been entirely consistent in this matter from the beginning. When I was campaigning to become the leader of the NDP -- which is the time the member referred to -- I indicated that any money inappropriately diverted to the NDP which should have gone to charity will be paid back to charities. I am consistent in that. In fact, we have put aside some funds with respect to two lotteries that took place in the early 1980s, where money which should have gone to charity went to the NDP. We will be paying those to an appropriate charity as soon as possible.

We have called a public inquiry into this whole affair to look into this and other parties' fundraising activities during the 1980s, to get to the bottom of this question. We have been awaiting a thorough investigation by the police, which has now resulted in charges.

I want to say very clearly that I am as angry as anybody else in this province with respect to the actions of a few individuals, some 15 to 25 years ago, which sully the name of the NDP. We're determined to get to the bottom of it, and if there's restitution, we will pay it.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: If the Premier was so angry about this, why did he sit at the cabinet table to try to deny access to information, to try to cover this up, for up to six years? This is a matter of millions of dollars -- not a small, tiny fraction of millions, but millions of dollars. It has cost taxpayers in this province . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, your question, please.

G. Campbell: . . . between $400,000 and $500,000 . . .

The Speaker: Question, please.

G. Campbell: . . . to get to the bottom of this.

The Speaker: Your

preamble is a little long. If you'd get to the question, please.

[ Page 7540 ]

[2:15]

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, this

preamble is long because the facts are long. We've been waiting six years . . .

The Speaker: The rules are clear, thank you.

G. Campbell: . . . to get to the bottom of this. The Premier promised . . .

The Speaker: Your question is?

G. Campbell: . . . full restitution . . . .

The Speaker: Please.

G. Campbell: I will get to a question. The Premier promised: " . . . full restitution is made to any charities who were deprived of funds . . . . " Charities have been deprived of millions and millions of dollars in funds, and I want to know from this Premier: why should anyone have any confidence in him at all if he is not willing to restore the millions of dollars that have been taken from charities in Nanaimo?

Hon. G. Clark: It's a bit much, hon. Speaker, to take a lesson in ethics from this Leader of the Opposition. This is a member . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members . . . .

Hon. G. Clark: This is the Leader of the Opposition that spent a million dollars of tax money on a political mailing . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order!

Interjections.

The Speaker: Mr. Premier, excuse me.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I'm not going to take any questions from anyone if the noise level stays as it was. You have points to make and you're making them, but let's do it with a little more respect for everyone in the House.

I recognize, on his second supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: This is a Premier that sat at a cabinet table and tried to cover up the theft from charities, from people in Nanaimo. He stood here . . . . This is a government . . . .

The Speaker: And your question, hon. member? Your question, please.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I am getting to a question.

This is a government that delayed, obfuscated, denied they were involved and pretended there was nothing to this. The fact is that this government's party has taken millions of dollars from charities in Nanaimo. Their own publication has taken thousands of dollars from charities in Nanaimo. My question to the Premier is this: how can he expect anyone to have confidence in either the Premier or his government when he backtracks on his word and will not restore the millions of dollars that were stolen from charities in Nanaimo by the NDP's fundraising arm?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker . . . .

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Oh, he's found his voice, hon. Speaker.

Hon. Speaker, former Premier Harcourt appointed the Parks inquiry, the forensic audit which brought this to light. It was Premier Harcourt that moved that forward. There's been a three-year, exhaustive investigation, the most exhaustive, the RCMP say, in the history of the RCMP in this province. It has resulted in charges. I have appointed a public inquiry with full subpoena powers to get to the bottom of this question. We have nothing to hide; we've been completely upfront. This activity . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, we can hear nothing. The Premier has the floor.

Hon. G. Clark: . . . that took place decades ago by certain party members, we have found . . . . We will get to the bottom of it. The charges go a step in that direction. If any money was given to the political party I belong to that should not have been given to it, we will provide restitution for that. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to not renege on his commitment to give back to the taxpayers the million dollars that he stole by using it inappropriately to do a political mailer.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I think you've had two supplementaries already.

G. Campbell: I ask the Premier to withdraw that . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: If any member took offence from that statement, I withdraw it.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, members of this government have systematically, for three years at least, tried to cover up the extent of the NDP's criminal past. The Minister of Labour actually sat on the board of the NCHS during periods when charities were being ripped off. He sat on the board. He had no interest in bringing an end to a ripoff scheme that was costing charities millions of dollars. How can the people have any trust in this Minister of Labour -- any trust whatsoever -- if he is going to sit in his chair silently while this Premier reneges on a promise to make full restitution to all of the charities?

Hon. D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, first of all, I deny categorically the assumption made in that question.

Secondly, I must say to you, hon. Speaker, that this is a rather sad day for parliament . . .

[ Page 7541 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order.

Hon. D. Lovick: . . . because we are watching now the flagrant violation of all the rules of this chamber. I would, hon. Speaker . . . . I don't need to tell you what . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, order!

Hon. D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, I don't need to tell you what the rules are.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: You know, I endeavour . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, maybe I should cut to the chase, hon. Speaker, and defy and challenge these members to go outside and repeat what they said.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: A sad day, says the minister -- only marginally less sad than the day charities in Nanaimo found out that this party was ripping them off.

Let's be very specific. In 1995 Mr. Parks, in his report, found that there were a number of times when the NCHS used its funds for political purposes. One of those times . . . . Several of those transactions related to this member and the payment of expenses of $150 per month to the member who is now the Minister of Labour. If the Premier won't fulfil his stated promise to pay back the charities, maybe this minister will have the courage to stand up here and fulfil an obligation -- a moral obligation -- he has to pay money back that shouldn't have been in his pocket in the first place, because it was stolen from charities.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I wonder . . . .

Hon. D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, my problem is that I am not allowed to answer the question. But it seems to me rather sad that these individuals, who know the rules of the chamber, are flagrantly violating them for some rather cheap political advantage. That's sad.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, one of the rules that we all know is that questions must be within the administrative responsibility of the minister involved. I would point that out to all of you. I'm sure you know that particular rule, which is very strong here in this House.

NCHS AFFAIR AND

COMMISSIONER OF INQUIRY INTO LEAKY CONDOS

C. Clark: Two weeks ago the Minister of Municipal Affairs appointed Dave Barrett to head up the leaky-condo inquiry, a position which requires someone who is held above reproach. Yesterday we found out that The Democrat newspaper has been criminally charged for running lotteries that were run by Mr. Barrett's chief party organizer. How can we have any confidence in Mr. Barrett's ability to do this job when it was under his watch that his party set up an illegal charities scheme that laundered money to The Democrat newspaper and the New Democratic Party?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, McCarthyism is alive and well in British Columbia.

The report by Mr. Taggart . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members, if you want to hear the answer.

Hon. G. Clark: . . . is exhaustive and completely and totally exonerates Mr. Barrett and Mr. Williams from any allegations. It is shameful that members opposite would attempt to slander a former Premier, who served this province for over 20 years. I would say further that if he is guilty of anything, then so is the Leader of the Opposition, who paid off a member to resign so that he could run in his riding as well.

The Speaker: First supplementary.

C. Clark: The Premier knows that Mr. Barrett is up to his armpits in this deal.

The Speaker: Hon. member . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order!

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. member, please take your seat. If there is any more of this, I'm going to end question period.

An Hon. Member: No, you won't.

The Speaker: Yes, I will. We need order. If we've got questions . . . . There are questions and answers that are legitimate within the rules. Let's provide opportunities for people to ask a question and to answer it.

First supplementary, Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain -- and no props, please.

C. Clark: In that picture, Mr. Barrett is drawing the winning lottery ticket in one of those fraudulent bingos. That barrel might as well have been full of stolen charity money, because that's where the winning-ticket money was going. How can Mr. Barrett continue to head up this commission when he's the guy who presided over the illegal bingo that has now been exposed and for which some members of the New Democratic Party are facing 64 charges?

[ Page 7542 ]

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, it is cowardice to stand up in this House and have guilt by association. The investigation that has gone on for three years, which completely exonerated the former Premier of this province, Dave Barrett . . . . If that member has an allegation to make, she should make it to the police. She should go outside and make it. I suggest that what she is trying to do is further sully the reputation of an individual who has served this province well and who has been exonerated by the most exhaustive investigation in the history of British Columbia.

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to transmit to the Legislative Assembly a report entitled, "Statutory Officers of the British Columbia Legislature: Fundamental Operating Principles and Related Legislation."

Petitions

A. Sanders: I have a petition from 294 citizens of Lumby wishing to keep funding for their X-ray facility.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education. In this House, I call second reading of Bill 14.

[2:30]

WORKERS COMPENSATION

(OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

( second reading continued )

On the amendment (continued).

I. Chong: Yesterday I started to offer some comments in support of the amendment put forth by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena to hoist Bill 14 for a six-month period. I started to state that I support the hoist motion because I believe that Bill 14 is a very important piece of legislation -- so important that we need to provide for the maximum amount of input, not only from those we have already heard from but also from those that may not have had their voices heard. In particular, those would be the workers in unorganized-labour businesses.

It is without question incumbent on all of us here as legislators, and on all employers and on all workers, to come together in a cooperative manner to put in place rules and safety procedures which are not only reasonable but adaptable and acceptable. I say this because regardless of the debate that is occurring here today, it will ultimately be the workers who must practise those sound safety procedures that we wish them to have. We have to remember that although employers and regulators may impose whatever rules and administrative penalties they desire, it is the workers who must abide by those policies.

So we do need to hear from them. We have to ensure that we have not overlooked some very basic and very fundamental practices.

The establishment of a safety representative or a safety committee that will receive eight hours of educational training will not in itself necessarily enhance workplace safety. It may offer more insight for those representatives, but again, it remains the workers' responsibility to understand and accept whatever changes and new procedures are to be implemented.

I'm concerned that the introduction of safety representatives and committees, while it may appear fine at the outset, is nothing more than a top-down approach to worker safety. It is more bureaucracy that is being added onto businesses without any assurance that workplace injury will be prevented. I do believe that workers themselves will even shake their heads in dismay at this procedure. That is because there are workers in some industries and businesses who have endured few, if any, workplace injuries. They are the ones who object to the imposition of more rules that do not enhance workplace safety.

Some businesses do enjoy excellent employer-employee relations. In fact, those workers and employers take pride in their injury-free workplace environment. I have seen some of those. Why are they being penalized with those other businesses and industries that have failed their employees? In some small businesses, workers have the opportunity to profit-share and decision-share with their employers. Those workers would like to be able to have some opportunity to decide how funds should be expended to enhance workplace safety and at least be given the opportunity to discuss other options.

Hon. Speaker, what really is the purpose of this bill? Well, I'll tell you. It's more about appeasing the trade union leaders, it's more about empowering the trade union bosses, and it's more about sending a message to small businesses that unions are in charge and that unions are planning to take control of small businesses. That's what this bill is about. It's the first step in allowing organized labour some control over small business. We will see the second step when the Labour Code changes are introduced later in this session. That is the message that this bill is sending out today. I believe that is the purpose this bill intends -- subliminally, but it's there.

Yesterday, when the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin chose to define who our friends are, he failed to define who those opposite members' friends aren't. We know that the members on that side of the House are not friends to charities, they're not friends to volunteers, and they're not friends to non-profit organizations that own assets. We have seen that in this past year alone. I find it disgusting and hypocritical that this NDP government pretends to be on the side of the average taxpayer and the average worker -- while their hands are in those pockets.

On several occasions I have been able to offer comments on various bills due to my background as an accountant in public practice. Once again I find how valuable that is today in these debates. Previously, when I assisted small businesses in their financial reporting requirements, I was often required to assist in the completion of the WCB annual reports and the WCB injury forms 7 and 7(a). These are the injury report forms that are filled out by employers and employees alike. I had the opportunity to complete those forms firsthand. I was amazed to learn that employers were very much aware of just what WCB and workplace safety was about.

The businesses that I dealt with ranged from medical and legal offices to construction firms, subcontracting construction firms, restaurants, coffee shops, pizza takeout and delivery operations, a variety of retailers, wholesalers, roadbuilders and blasting contractors, fishing companies, insurance companies, business consultants, travel consultants and tour guide operators. I was privy to a huge range of industries and sectors in my past professional life. Most of those businesses

[ Page 7543 ]

that I just mentioned employed fewer than 50 employees and, in many cases, just over nine employees. Those businesses will have to abide by some of the regulations in this new bill. Generally speaking, these businesses are not high-risk businesses or industries. In fact, rarely do they need to report any workplace injury, because their workplace safety environment is sound. It is sound because employers and employees joined together to reduce or eliminate, as best as possible, any unsafe workplace practices.

They worked at prevention of injuries because they knew that there was a cost involved, that it was costly and detrimental both from the employers' and the employees' points of view. From the employers' point of view, it would mean a WCB demerit rating. That would mean premiums would go up, and there would be a cost there. It was also costly and detrimental to the employers in that it could mean worker stress, anxiety and less productivity. So employers didn't want to have workplace injuries.

Equally, employees did not want to see workplace injuries, because to them, if there was a problem, it would mean a shutdown. It could mean layoffs. Again, that would put anxiety on them. So workers want to have some flexibility and discretion when they are looking at workplace safety.

They want to offer that to this debate, I suppose, before these things are put in place and in stone. I am not suggesting that we allow employers and employees to decide on how workplace safety should be implemented, but surely those businesses that have a proven track record of exemplary workplace safety should be given some consideration. They should be heard, to express their views before this bill is passed.

I do want to say that, yes, in some industries there are poor workplace safety policies in place. So why do we not address those high-risk industries? Let's look at those employers who are continually jeopardizing the lives of workers because they are not aware of ways to improve workplace safety. They can be easily identified. All you have to do is go to the Workers Compensation Board and find out those who have had demerit ratings consistently and those that have filed claims consistently.

We should be focusing on those high-risk industries and those high-risk businesses that frequently file and report worker injuries. They are the ones that demand attention, that need help, that must improve workplace safety. I would hope we all agree that that is where our first focus should be. Let us help those who are needing the help, and let us not hinder those who have good, sound safety procedures.

We have learned time and time again that one-size-fits-all solutions do not work. This bill is attempting to legislate just that. If this government is seriously concerned about worker safety, it should make sure that it has first canvassed thoroughly all workers and not just workers represented by organized labour. There just might be some solutions out there that we haven't heard of. Currently, I do believe there are more questions than there are answers. We need to look at those before this bill is considered appropriate and is implemented. That's why I do believe in a six-month hoist period.

That six-month hoist period will provide the needed attention and the enhancement in workplace safety that is now lacking in some businesses and some industries.

Some of the members opposite might argue that more lives would be at risk by waiting six months. How do we know that? How do we know that the passage of this bill right now will stop all workplace injuries? How do we know?

I have noticed, during my term of office as an MLA these last two years, the frequency and the number of amendments that this NDP government brings forward every session. I begin to wonder why that is. Well, I believe it's either because this government is changing its direction or because this government doesn't get it right the first time. That is the thrust of our six-month hoist period, as well: to ensure due consideration is given to enhancing workplace safety. So let's get it right the first time.

Prior to my working as an accountant in public practice, I was also -- in my junior years, I suppose -- employed as a payroll clerk in a manufacturing business. My time was devoted not only to calculating payroll and payroll hours and to costing them but also to dealing with all aspects of payroll-related regulations.

I even administered the terms of the union collective agreement, and often I offered suggestions to workers, in particular to the shop steward, as to what areas they were lacking in. I believe that both management and union members saw in me an attitude of fairness and equity, which I have endeavoured to maintain to this very day. I want to make it very clear that I am not anti-union and that I do not disregard the benefits of union membership. But I want to see fairness applied so that workers and employers can work together productively and effectively.

When I was performing my duties as a payroll clerk, I also assisted with the completion of many worker injury report forms there. Those report forms were not always a result of workplace hazards. Rather, several of the workers' injuries that were sustained were in part due to worker carelessness and inattention. No one was to blame, because the employer could not have prevented those worker injuries, no matter how much education and training was available. Human errors do happen, and all we can do is find ways to reduce that.

This bill cannot accomplish reducing human errors due to carelessness or inattention. No one on this side of the House wants to see any unsafe workplace practice that would jeopardize the safety of others. That is the reason for this motion. We believe that we can and should work together to enhance workplace safety. That can be accomplished, I believe, by referring this matter to one of the many select standing committees that now exist -- to which no work is ever referred.

Within the six-month hoist period that we are recommending, we should be able to inform workers of their rights and, equally important, of their duties. We must ensure that workers abide by certain workplace safety guidelines, as the minister himself indicated, because ultimately, as I mentioned earlier, if they are not followed, it will be the workers who sustain the injuries. For that reason, too, workers must be made aware of how important it is to follow workplace safety guidelines and of the consequences that will apply if they do not. Unfortunately, this bill does not recognize that latter point.

[2:45]

We don't agree that workers should be penalized for inadvertent carelessness, but workers who deliberately refuse to abide by certain workplace safety guidelines must be held accountable for their actions. To ignore that would be to endanger other workers. That does not create an enhanced workplace safety environment. Where does this bill address that problem? It is not uncommon for unions to have a say in this regard.

I recall a particular instance that occurred while I was employed in that manufacturing business. There was one employee who deliberately defied a workplace safety practice.

[ Page 7544 ]

Although, thankfully, no one was injured, there was no consequence for that employee. The management attempted to reprimand the employee. Many of his co-workers even agreed; even the shop steward agreed, initially. But after the union found out about this, the management was informed not only that they could not reprimand the employee but also that there would be no record of this activity on the employee's record.

What message does that send out to other employees on the integrity of workplace safety guidelines? We cannot allow workers to flout workplace safety. We cannot allow a union collective agreement to intervene and override workplace safety when it disagrees with management's disciplinary actions towards employees. That just cannot happen. Where will we hold our workplace safety guidelines, in that regard?

A further reason why this hoist motion is supportable is because of what my colleagues mentioned earlier: the bill appears to be in conflict with other government initiatives. The first one that it appears to be in conflict with is the government's new 16-member task force whose goal is to find ways to cut red tape. For the benefit of the members opposite, I will not presuppose that this bill is described as government red tape, if that's what will make them happy. However, if the task force views it as that, then we are in direct conflict. So doesn't this piece of legislation thus contravene the spirit and the intent of that task force mandate?

What I also find appalling is that this government continues to ignore or dismiss interministerial discussions. All too often one minister of the Crown embarks on one particular path without regard to the effects that it may have on another ministry. I have seen that time and time again. They do this to the detriment of another ministry until it is too late. On this side of the House we are trying to avoid the too-late syndrome.

We are trying to say: "Let's fix it now; let us not look at amendments one year from now to fix problems that we should have considered now." I cannot believe that in all the vast regulations we now have, and with the establishment of the Workers Compensation Board that has been around for years, there are not now other mechanisms in place that can deal with workplace safety. We should be implementing those measures now, while looking at improvements during the six-month hoist period.

We heard as well yesterday that the final report of the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation is not due until September 30 of this year. So would it not make more sense to hoist this bill now and wait not only for that report but also for any recommendations that may come from the small business task force?

Yesterday I listened to the arguments presented by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, and I must say that he gave quite an impassioned speech. He accused members on this side of the House of not understanding this piece of legislation. Well, it's that member and the members opposite who don't get it. If this government truly cares about workers, then why did they not cover all workers? Why does this bill deal specifically with and put in place workplace safety measures only where there are more than nine employees in a business?

I suppose the answer that the members opposite will offer is that, in fact, they had to draw a line because they didn't want to put a regulatory burden on those other small businesses. But that doesn't cut it, either, because as the members opposite continually say: "You can't have it both ways." Either you're for workplace safety or you're not. If they are for workplace safety, then every worker should have been considered when this piece of legislation was introduced. So I ask the members opposite: whose side are you on?

This NDP government and the members opposite do not have a monopoly on worker safety, and I believe that is clearly evident now.

This Premier and this NDP government have stated that one of their priorities is job creation. Where does this piece of legislation send out a message of job creation and, more importantly, of job protection? Perhaps businesses would now not hire extra workers for fear they would go over the nine-employee threshold. How does that improve or enhance workplace safety? No matter what government is elected, we must all serve our constituents by ensuring that good legislation is brought forward in this House and that it is supportable. It must also meet this test: does it meet the needs of the people of our province?

It must accomplish the goals for which it was intended. To that end, there must be some form of measurable or desired outcome, but this bill fails to offer any of that. Everything comes down to accountability, whether it's workplace safety or financial . . . . There has to be a degree of accountability, and this bill fails to offer that.

As I stated in my opening remarks yesterday, there is no question that members on this side of the House will support legislation to deal with workplace safety. But this bill, Bill 14, is not yet there.

Certainly we endorse workplace safety; certainly we endorse worker and employer accountability; and certainly we endorse protecting jobs. But to accomplish those goals, it is necessary to bring in legislation that will move us towards that. When legislation is introduced that fails to meet its stated objectives, what does it then become? It becomes government regulation that does not work.

So, hon. Speaker, I want to say once again that I am very much in support of workplace safety. We do not oppose health and safety regulations. But this government doesn't have a very good record on anything when it comes to improving workplace safety or to any other measure. Take a look at health care. Take a look at education. Things have gone from bad to worse, and that is my concern.

The members opposite care to laugh. Well, that's fine, but you should speak to the people on waiting lists; you should speak to the classrooms that have had funding cuts, where there are no counsellors and no librarians. Things in health care and education have not got better. If we accept this bill as it is without offering some amendments, then we may have our workplace safety go in that same abysmal direction.

Also, I would remind the members opposite that we are responsible to the people of this province. It was this opposition that had to shame that government into setting up a Ministry for Children and Families. That's what they seem to forget. We did that because we were concerned about protection of child care. Now we are concerned about the protection of workplace safety. And the members continue to scoff and laugh. Well, that's fine, hon. Speaker. I guess that in the coming months, time will prove to us once again just how much this government really intends to help the workers and that they are, in fact, friends of their trade union bosses and leaders.

Since yesterday we have seen one of the most scandalous events in political history. I just hope that the members take some time to reflect . . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem relevant to the topic of the hoist motion.

I. Chong: Hon. Speaker, I would just say that I would hope the members take time to reflect on what direction they

[ Page 7545 ]

are moving in here when it comes to workplace safety. With that, I conclude my comments and thank you for the time.

B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to rise and speak to the amendment to Bill 14, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act. At the beginning of this session both the workers and the business community thought there was finally a flicker of hope that this NDP government was finally seeing the light and realizing that things were not well in this province, seeing that so many workers in this province were not being well served by the Workers Compensation Board.

The royal commission was given a very complicated task to fulfil. We owe it to them to hear their recommendations before passing any legislation that concerns the Workers Compensation Board. The Workers Compensation Board is in serious need of an overhaul, and it has been for years. I and many others thought that was why the royal commission was appointed.

Results-oriented is what this government promised to be for small business in this province. But all they get is regulation after regulation, pile after pile of regulations. Workers in British Columbia thought that this NDP government was for the workers. But injured worker after injured worker will tell you that they are not being served by the Workers Compensation Board. The Workers Compensation Board has major problems, and it was the injured workers themselves that wanted this royal commission to look into the running of this board.

The NDP have always stated that they are the only ones that fight for the workers to make sure that their rights are protected and that their jobs are protected. To listen to the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, you would think that he was the only one who stood up for anything. But they have had years of consultation. Well, they should have cleaned their ears out and listened. That is their problem: they don't listen. If they did listen, they would put forth a bill that actually did something to help the worker. If they did listen, this province would not be in the mess that it is in today.

We have taken the time to read the legislation, and we are doing our job, showing the people of this province how dysfunctional this bill is. We say to you: "Shame! Shame on you! You on that side of the House should be hanging your heads in shame. Shame on you for trying to spin your message that you're actually doing something for the worker." Somehow, somewhere, the NDP has lost sight of who they are working for and supporting in this province. It has been abundantly clear that this government has no intention of doing anything right for the workers or for the businesses in this province.

We have a royal commission that is coming forward with its final report. It is not due until the fall. This commission will be making recommendations to the government on governance, management and the operation of the Workers Compensation Board. This final report will include occupational health and safety programs and service delivery.

Here before us is a bill dealing with safety programs, and we haven't even heard from the royal commission yet. Yet in a letter to British Columbia businesses, this government states that they are putting forward legislation based on recommendations put forward by the royal commission. They say they discussed this legislation with business people, people working in the occupational health and safety field. Well, no one in the business field is aware of being consulted. When it comes to consultation, it takes a different meaning with this government. They consult with their union friends and forget about small businesses, which provide 96 percent of the jobs in this province.

What special political agenda is this government up to? Why is it so urgent that this bill come forward now? Putting the cart before the horse is typical of this government. What's the hurry? Why not wait for the recommendations? Is it possible that some of their recommendations may not be what the NDP want to hear? Or maybe I should rephrase that and say they're what big labour in British Columbia does not want to hear.

Maybe, just maybe, the reason for fast-forwarding this bill . . . . It is obvious that this bill is being fast-forwarded, by the way they are trying to rush it through the Legislature. Could big labour be the reason? They don't want this bill sitting around long enough for anyone to go over it with a fine-tooth comb. They don't want to wait for the royal commission to come down with the recommendations. There is no rationale for this bill to come forward now.

[3:00]

The impact that this legislation could have on workers and businesses in this province is unknown. Time is needed before the bill is voted on to go over the ramifications this bill is going to have on every industry and workplace. Why is it so difficult for this government to do things right? Listen to what's happening in this province, and please -- consult, consult, consult.

It's the NDP way or the highway. It doesn't matter if it serves the worker, the businesses or the province. Out of one side of their mouths, the NDP say they're cutting the red tape that is strangling business in British Columbia; out of the other side of their mouths, they continue to add red tape to the businesses in this province. It is this hypocrisy that this government continues to spout day after day.

When you read over this bill, you can see that once again we have a bill driven by big labour. Nothing has changed. This government is still hostile to business, and they will continue to leave this province for Alberta. The royal commission strongly recommended that there be fines given to workers who blatantly jeopardize the safety of themselves and their co-workers. Workers should have to take some responsibility for themselves. Do they really believe that business should pay enormous fines because they refuse to wear a seatbelt or disobey the safety rules of a company?

This bill will add to the cost of doing business in British Columbia. It states that businesses of nine or more employees must have a safety officer. Why would a number of offices such as law offices, doctors' offices, accounting firms, etc., need a safety officer? Again I ask: why would a number of offices in B.C. need these safety officers? According to this bill, it's because they employ too many workers. Their worst injury will probably be a paper cut.

This bill will encourage business to lay off workers to keep their numbers down. This is one thing this government is good at, and they do it better than anyone else in this province: helping people lose their jobs. You only have to look at the record of our youth unemployment and the unemployment rate in this province since this government took office.

This government does not have the workers' safety as its prime concern. They do not care about small businesses in this province. We need to protect the workers; we don't have any argument on that point. We want workers and businesses to have legislation that will work for everyone, legislation that will actually work for the highest and greatest good of the people of this province.

All we are asking of this government is to do the right thing for a change: to change the legislation to reflect the real

[ Page 7546 ]

needs of the workers and businesses in this province. We on this side of the House know that there is a need to have good legislation when it comes to the Workers Compensation Board, and we are willing to support good legislation that is fair to all who are involved.

Let's start moving forward and get out of the downward spiral that is destroying this province. This bill does not meet the needs of the workers or the businesses of this province. This bill gives unlimited power to the Workers Compensation Board. It states that it has "exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into, hear and determine all those matters and questions of fact and law arising or required to be determined . . . the action or decision of the board is final and conclusive and it is not open to question or review in any court." Even our justice system gives us the choice of appealing a judge's decision.

Will the people on the board itself have knowledge of our laws so they can determine a fair treatment for those who come before them?

The more we go over this bill, the more I fear that this government is creating more problems than it is solving. We only have to take a look at the past actions of this government to confirm our worst fears: that this bill does not serve the workers or the employers of this province. We need a bill that reflects the needs of the injured worker or the employer. This bill does not reflect those needs.

This minister has chosen not to respond to the problems or the solutions that are needed so the fundamental rights of all parties are met. This bill should be put on hold until we hear from the royal commission.

T. Nebbeling: I also rise to speak in favour of the amendment to hoist Bill 14 for a six-month period. The reason I think it is good thing to do is that this bill will have a serious impact on a number of businesses. I think this bill somehow does not necessarily reflect the careful consideration that government should give when introducing bills that will have negative impacts if elements are not introduced in a proper way.

One of the first questions I have is: why is this bill being introduced today? Is it because of the royal commission's recommendations in the first report? Where is the foundation for the minister to come forward today with a bill that will have a considerable impact on smaller businesses in particular?

I attended a number of the meetings of the royal commission here in Victoria. I must say that during the times I listened to the presentations by the various participants, not once did anybody speak to the royal commission on their sense that safety measures in the workplace are such that an immediate reaction -- almost an emergency-type reaction -- has to come from this government to deal with the so-called lack of safety measures.

The whole focus that I heard during the presentations I witnessed was much more on the fact that the Workers Compensation Board as an organization seems to let down an inordinately large number of people who expect, after having paid into the system, to be taken care of when problems arise in their life -- when an accident happens in the workplace and they need either temporary or long-term help.

Most of the people I heard speaking at the royal commission were there to explain that there is a serious need to restructure the rules and regulations and also to focus on how the needs of injured workers have been dealt with. I'll be frank. I have, from time to time, been in dialogue with the Workers Compensation Board because of my work for the municipality of Whistler.

But I never truly knew firsthand how much hurt and pain and suffering there is amongst people who rely on the Workers Compensation Board to have the quality of life they should expect to have, where that lack of quality of life is related to an accident at the job site and the lack of a proper response by the Workers Compensation Board.

When we talk about this bill, which suddenly appears for reasons that I just do not understand . . . . As my colleagues have already expressed very clearly, the royal commission hasn't even finished its conclusions. They have until September 30 to produce the final report. If, because of the recommendations or presentations made by the public at large, there is a need to consider tightening how the rules are applied and how the health and safety of the worker can be further protected, so be it. At least then it will be based on the consideration of a group of people who make recommendations by going over all the facts. We don't have the facts today.

I cannot understand why this hurry. In all fairness, we have heard a number of members opposite speak, and not one of them has really been able to tell me why this hurry is there. Not one of them has been able to justify -- in an articulate and reasonable manner -- why this bill, as it is presented here, is needed. If I listen to the people who deal with the Workers Compensation Board, all I hear is that there are so many rules that stop the system from providing the help they need. If there is a real need, it means that these rules should be streamlined and reconfigured so that the Workers Compensation Board can truly assist people who are in need. That's not happening today.

Like I said, I listened to some of the presentations, and in particular I listened to the member for Skeena. He, as a member, started to talk about the desperate need for this bill, the desperate need for these new regulations. He, as a worker and a friend of the forest industry -- having worked in the forest industry and having lived in a forest industry-dependent community on a daily basis -- was confronted with situations that demanded that this kind of bill pass.

The relationship between the employers and the employees is such -- according to the member for Skeena -- that unless the government interferes right now, more people will get hurt, and more people will have accidents that could actually be fatal. It was not that the workers are not careful; it was the employers who were so horrendously horrible, careless and callous.

When I was listening to the member for Skeena, I truly thought he was talking about the twenties and thirties, when the union was indeed needed to make some good changes for people -- when it came to the relationship between employers and employees, when it came to the need for fair wages. Of course, that was in the twenties and the thirties. When the member was speaking, I reminded him that we do live in the nineties and that we're going into the millennium and that things really have changed over the last 60, 70 or 80 years.

If the member was really directed by the fact that he was still focusing his belief about the need for this bill on what he read in books prior to Karl Marx, I do not really think he had much to add to the debate as far as legitimacy for approving the bill. He certainly did not, in any way, shape or form, convince me that he was right.

Then I listened to the member for North Island. The member for North Island was, in particular, focused on the forest industry as well. He brought some statistics with him about the fatalities at job sites in the forest industry. Of course -- who is not going to look for something that will make things better, particularly in that industry? It is a high-risk industry. One of the reasons British Columbia has higher fatality rates than other provinces may well be because we do

[ Page 7547 ]

have high-risk industries. People who are into falling trees take higher risks than a person who sits behind a computer. When the member started to run down all the numbers of fatalities and the improvements over these years, I was quite pleased to hear that indeed things have improved over time. But then I also thought: why is he doing this? This bill and the new rules and new regulations will have very little or no impact on that industry. The reason is that that particular industry is so highly regulated and already has so many safety committees and safety rules in place that nothing in this bill will strengthen how the safety aspects are being dealt with in the forest industry.

As a matter of fact, I often visit forest-dependent communities. I do visit mill sites; I do visit logging operations. What happens there . . . . The first thing I always see when I get to the site is a huge sign. There's the name of the company, and then it says, "Three hundred and twenty-eight days without any accidents," or: "Eighty-five days without any accidents." That was used as an example of why I should be convinced that this bill should get passage immediately.

In the forest industry in particular they have a tremendous record of safety, and they have a tremendous record of implementation of safety rules and regulations. That doesn't mean that from time to time there isn't an accident, and that doesn't mean that from time to time there isn't a fatal accident. That is a consequence of that high-risk industry. It is like photo radar's introduction: it did not stop fatalities on the highways. What we have here is a second presentation that clearly could not convince anybody who would look rationally at the issue that this bill should pass immediately.

[3:15]

It was interesting, however, that both members that support this bill come from forest-dependent communities. The reason it is interesting is that this government was involved in another set of rules and regulations that they introduced in this House with much vigour and with much pride and with a commitment of: "This has to happen, because it will be good for the forest-dependent communities. It will create jobs; it will protect the environment." That was the Forest Practices Code. Look at what the Forest Practices Code has done because it was introduced so hastily.

The day it was introduced in the House it had 80 amendments. That's how badly it was thought through. When the Forest Practices Code was adopted, it started to be a very major factor in the decline of the forest industry. Nobody could get a cutting permit anymore because of the overregulation that it applied.

Once we did it, the NDP, the government side -- making legislation, putting in place legislation that is totally driven by overregulation . . . . The consequences are that you as a government have, been part of the demise of the forest industry, or the almost demise. Now you have another bill here that you're again trying to rush through without any thought of consequences, of what it will do to business.

I want to talk for a brief minute on what this will do to business. The rule that a business with nine or ten people working for it has to implement a new position called a safety officer, with one of the existing workers . . . . I don't think this government has thought for a second about what that means. First of all, that so-called safety officer -- who's just one of the workers -- is going to be taken out of his or her position for the time that they have to be going around the store, going around the business, to check if everything is in order. They have to check from an enormous number of different angles.

It is not just: "Everything looks okay; I've done my job." No, they get a book this thick that they have to know the details of in order to make sure that the job they're doing and the reports they're writing reflect what the Workers Compensation Board is dictating. So here is a business with ten people . . . . Small businesses today have an extremely tough time keeping their heads above water because of other rules and regulations, cost factors, red tape and bureaucracy. So, suddenly now, as an owner . . . .

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: The member for Skeena sitting there opposite . . . . Well, I know that the member for Skeena has never spent a dime investing his own money to create his own business. If he had, he would never, ever talk the way he does now.

However, considering that now a small business suddenly has to give up a person -- who would normally be providing his hours towards the business -- to check on the business, thereby being totally unproductive . . . . Who picks up the tab? The owner of that small business. It may well be just enough of a factor, in addition to all the other elements, for a person to say: "You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to lay off two people. I employ ten people today, and I'm going to lay off two people so that I'm under the margin of nine employees and I do not have to do that.

My other eight workers may have to work a little bit harder, but I as an owner will be able to keep my business going financially. But I'm not going to employ ten people, because the tenth person is a person that the other nine have to work for and that I as an owner have to carry."

These elements should truly be considered. The impact on businesses should truly be considered before this bill passes. As this has definitely not been the case, I will not support the bill when we come to final reading. At this point, I think there's one way out for the government: to get further consideration of the points they're trying to make by giving us more background and by looking at some of the implications. For that reason, I support the hoisting of the bill for six months.

F. Randall: I would just like to start off by saying that I'm certainly opposed to the hoist motion and that I support Bill 14. I think delaying it another half a year would possibly lead to more deaths and injuries -- if we waited six months. I think it's pretty common knowledge that there haven't been any amendments to this legislation for 20 years, and it has taken about six years to get to this point with people working on it. So I don't understand what all the panic is.

The other thing that's interesting to note is that management has been involved in this, and they have agreed to practically everything that's in here. They had some dispute over the matter of applying a penalty to a worker.

Interjection.

F. Randall: That's right -- it would be a disaster. I think I'll address that point about . . . . The opposition are saying it would be a disaster to apply a penalty to a worker, and I agree. But his comments were sort of in the negative, saying: "Why not?" How you can blame workers for what happens in the workplace is beyond me, because all workers operate under the direction of a supervisor, a foreman or a superintendent. Workers do as they're told to do. If they're told to do a certain job, they do it.

Interjections.

[ Page 7548 ]

F. Randall: The comments that are coming from over there about one person -- a worker -- defying the employer and performing unsafe acts . . . . I mean, this is absolutely ridiculous. If a person does that, you fire them. People do as they're told.

Interjections.

F. Randall: Where? You can terminate a person . . . .

Interjections.

F. Randall: You guys don't know anything about the workplace, unfortunately.

Hon. Speaker, I just want to read

part 3, the purposes.

Section 107 says: "

(1) The purpose of this

Part is to benefit all citizens of British Columbia by promoting occupational health and safety and protecting workers and other persons present at workplaces from work related risks to their health and safety." It also says:

" . . . the specific purposes of this Part are (

a) to promote a culture of commitment on the part of employers and workers to a high standard of occupational health and safety, (

b) to prevent work related accidents, injuries and illnesses, (

c) to encourage the education of employers, workers and others regarding occupational health and safety, (

d) to ensure an occupational environment that provides for the health and safety of workers and others, (

e) to ensure that employers, workers and others who are in a position to affect the occupational health and safety of workers share that responsibility to the extent of each party's authority and ability to do so, (

f) to foster cooperative and consultative relationships between employers, workers and others regarding occupational health and safety, and to promote worker participation in occupational health and safety programs and occupational health and safety processes, and (

g) to minimize the social and economic cost of work related accidents, injuries and illnesses, in order to enhance the quality of life for British Columbians and the competitiveness of British Columbia in the Canadian and world economies."

I think that's an important purpose that's been spelled out. I think we should pay a lot of attention to those comments.

I think comments were also made by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena with regard to too many regulations. Well, you know, he says Bill 14 has too many regulations, and regulations do not make a safer workplace. I think it's important to note that you've got to have some sort of rules for people to follow. You can't just say: "Well, everybody will go out and try to be safe." There have to be some sort of provisions, and meetings held periodically. There has to be some sort of protection for workers.

I think it's important to understand that most workers, if not the large majority, are certainly concerned about their jobs. I know that people used to vanish from their jobs and disappear. We could never find out what happened to them. What happened was, the employer just got rid of them. People who do not do as they're told -- in many, many cases -- are let go. They're laid off from the job. They have no protection. In construction particularly, there's no seniority. It is really very difficult. A lot of workers are afraid to raise an issue by saying, "This is unsafe," because the employer discriminates against them.

I have been involved in this probably since the sixties -- earlier than that, actually; it was the fifties. I'm getting old. I can tell you that there are employers who discriminate against employees who are safety-conscious. If an employee is safety-conscious, and it becomes common knowledge in the industry that they are very safety-conscious, they never get hired. In the industry I came from, again, as I mentioned, there is no seniority. The employer's job is complete, and they have to rehire for new jobs. So anybody who is safety-conscious and very keen on it doesn't work very much, I can tell you.

There have to be some sort of rules to make sure the employer complies. There are employers who are very good employers, but there are employers who are not very good employers. I just want to make that point.

The other thing I just want to say again is that the proposed changes were agreed to by management. The member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head over here was asking: "How come you've got a cutoff of nine?" Well, I take it that nine was obviously negotiated between the employees and management. She's arguing that if there's one employee the rule should apply; if there are two employees the rule should apply. Nine is an exemption area. I don't understand where she's coming from, when she says: "Why have nine? Why not just have it so if there's one employee it applies?" I'm sure management wouldn't agree with that.

All those small employers would say: "The member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head is crazy. Here we negotiated nine, and now she wants it down to one."

I don't think people really understand what's happening. I think the employer certainly has an obligation to create a climate of safety on the job. There are employers who don't like any WCB claims. In fact, there are lots of jobs where you see the working wounded walking around. The employer says: "Stay here, and you won't have to do anything. But, in effect, there will not be a WCB claim." There are a lot of people who stay working at the employer's request. The employer will look after you, but just don't put in a claim.

The other thing that employers are happy about is that we have a Workers Compensation Board. In other countries and jurisdictions, if a worker is hurt, there's a lawsuit -- you sue. With the Workers Compensation Board -- by the employers paying their assessments and their premiums -- an individual can't turn around and sue the employer. The employer is protected from lawsuits by workers who are injured. This is a pretty good deal for employers, because lawsuits can run into tens of millions of dollars. The compensation board is a pretty good friend to employers by protecting them against lawsuits.

It has been mentioned a number of times, and I think it's worth repeating, that 150 workers die each year in British Columbia, and about 5,000 people are permanently disabled each year in British Columbia. Those are huge numbers. If we talk about delaying this bill for six months, just think what could happen. How many lives could we save, with 150 deaths and 5,000 injured a year? Certainly that's a human tragedy.

Hon. Speaker, I don't know how you can put up with those people on the other side continually yacking.

[3:30]

Another thing that's important is that the worker representative has the right to attend a tour of the site. Too often -- if it's a safety committee member or a shop steward -- when an inspector from the WCB comes out and does a walk-around, only the superintendent or the foreman is with him. Here they are going to have to have the worker representative with them, because the worker representative normally has very good knowledge of what is unsafe on the site. The superintendent is certainly not going to bring that to the attention of the WCB inspector. I think that is very, very worthwhile.

As I mentioned earlier, after six years of consultation, you say you want to keep delaying it. Some notes I have here say

[ Page 7549 ]

that there was an extensive consultation process. There were over 200 worker and employer representatives and unions and associations involved in this process. Approximately 20 subcommittees and working groups were formed to address industry-and-hazard-specific topics. Five sets of public hearings were held, and during this consultation period approximately 2,000 written and verbal submissions were made. Labour and employer representatives reached consensus on almost all of the 4,000-plus regulations. You wouldn't know that from listening to the opposition.

I would like to mention that the new regulations are designed to drive down the injury rate and prevent accidents. That's the whole purpose of Bill 14. It will certainly benefit British Columbia workers and their families. It will also reduce the cost of workers compensation for employers and the cost to the health care system. We're all aware that B.C.'s injury rate is falling, but it is still too high. As I mentioned earlier, there's a substantial number of deaths and injuries.

With respect to provisions on environmental tobacco smoke, which is certainly an issue that I feel very strongly about, this won't take effect until January 1, 2000, as far as smoking in restaurants, bars and game rooms, etc. I just want to say this, because it's very, very important: most people agree that secondhand smoke is causing illness and reducing productivity in the workplace. New regulations will require employers to either restrict smoking to designated ventilated areas or to prohibit smoking in the workplace.

I just want to add a couple of things with regards to tobacco. Thousands of chemicals are involved in tobacco. There's turpentine, which is very toxic. Acetone is in tobacco. There's benzopyrene and propylene glycol. There's arsenic in tobacco. There's butane, methoprene, cadmium, lead, ammonia -- I notice that the Minister of Energy and Mines is looking my way. There's benzine. There are all kinds of things. You want to remember that tobacco smoking is part of this bill. There's heart disease. There's lung cancer and emphysema. There are mouth cancers and throat cancers.

Cataracts and stomach ulcers come from smoking. There's skin damage and -- oh God, you can lose your hair too! -- also hair loss.

There's just a little line in a letter. I won't read the letter, but I just want to make a quick comment on it. This is a letter to all of the chief executive officers of the tobacco industry in Canada. It was sent on June 18 last year. It says:

"I'm disappointed that your initial response to British Columbia's actions to protect kids from tobacco products is to hide behind your industry's lobby group -- the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Association, led by Robert Parker. I deplore your industry's public comments, made by Mr. Parker, that the cost of smoking to our society is not high when you consider that smokers die early and therefore can't collect pensions."

Smokers die early and can't collect pensions -- what a rationale for saying that tobacco is okay. I'm sure British Columbians and the many families of smokers hooked on addictive tobacco products are not consoled by this.

The other point I want to make is that all of the complaints by the official opposition are about problems with the WCB after deaths and injuries take place. This bill is to prevent that. This bill is to try and have such a safe workplace that you're not dealing with the problems that people have with the WCB. They shouldn't be on the WCB if we have a safe workplace.

An Hon. Member: But they are.

F. Randall: But we have to work to improve that, hon. member.

I just want to add this, and then I'll wrap up. I hate to say this. It really hurts me to say it, because I do have a lot of respect for elected people regardless of their political stripe. I'm really, really concerned about the anti-labour comments, in effect -- talking about big unions and union bosses. You know, "bosses" is a dirty word. That's why people that don't like unions use the word "bosses"; it's sort of bad. Everybody hates a boss, right? They all don't like the boss. But why don't people say union official or union leader? Why is it always "union boss"? It really tells me a story when I hear somebody say union boss.

I feel sorry for the opposition -- for the way they're handling this matter. I just want to say that I support Bill 14, and I urge all members to support the withdrawal of this particular amendment. If it's not withdrawn, then certainly I would ask everybody to vote to defeat it.

W. Hartley: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to make a couple of introductions.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: Thank you, members. Today in the precincts we have two groups. One is from Westhill Elementary School in Bothell, Washington. There are 39 grade 6 students with their teacher Mrs. McCue and some adults. They're here for comparative government and local history.

The other group is from Celebrate America, in Woodinville, Washington. There are some 25 visitors; they're here with their teacher, Mrs. Rusch. Please welcome them.

G. Janssen: I'm pleased to rise in support of this bill, and I'm pleased that we have young people in this chamber to witness this debate. Surely when they enter the workforce, these rules that are proposed in this bill will be even more profound than when we entered the workforce and when our parents entered the workforce.

Massive changes have taken place in the workforce. We're seeing a diminishing of industrial sector workers. In Port Alberni, for instance, where a Nexgen plant was built -- a $230 million investment -- only 30 people were required to run it. They're planning a co-gen facility there -- another $200 million in investment -- with 23 new workers. Those workers are more skilled; they face new challenges and are certainly going to face a different type of work environment than we presently see.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

In British Columbia we are still a resource-based industry . . . . Three workers die from workplace injuries every week in British Columbia. More than 700 suffer injuries on the job. Every day, 16 workers are permanently disabled. These injuries and accidents impose a tragic cost on the workers and on their families. The new legislation sets up structures to encourage labour-management cooperation on health and safety. It requires joint workplace health and safety committees.

I want to talk about the bill in the opposition's -- the Liberal Party's -- terms, which is the bottom line. I want to talk about the bottom line. My family was in business for 40 years. Coming from a Europeans social democratic background, we recognized the importance of protecting your workers, who are the backbone of your industry. Without them, no business has a future. This bill provides for joint

[ Page 7550 ]

committees -- and I want members to pay particular attention to what we're saying here, because I'm going to come back to it -- paid educational leave for committee members and a reduction in employer premiums for lower accident and injury rates, which will more than offset any additional costs. There has been consultation . . . .

Interjection.

G. Janssen: Relax, member. I will get to that in a moment.

There have been six years of extensive consultation with business, both large and small -- a consultation process with over 200 worker and employer representatives, and over 2,000 written and verbal representation.

We are seeing a revolution that will happen in the workplace. The National Institute of Disability Management and Research has done a report. This organization is based in Port Alberni. It has done extensive consultation; it has examined, for the first time in Canada, something that has been done in Europe for many years: the true cost of worker injury. In 1994 dollars the British Columbia economy lost $3.6 billion because of workplace injuries. It's a phenomenal amount of money. This was led by light manufacturing, service . . . and trades, and they accounted for $1.5 billion.

I want the members to pick up copies from the institute and read it, because it will tell you the true cost, not just in human terms but in monetary terms.

The cost per person in mining for injury, for instance, was $5,993 -- almost $6,000 lost because of injuries every single year for every person working in mining. In forestry, it was $5,500 lost every single year for a worker. In fact, 8 cents out of every dollar earned in British Columbia was lost. If you're in business and you're losing 8 percent of every dollar you make, it's going to affect your bottom line. Yes, there will be some cost, but any business will recognize fairly quickly that worker injuries have to be brought down in order for a workplace to remain competitive and to stay in business.

If we don't act now, by the year 2006 workplace injuries in British Columbia will cost the economy $30.5 billion. Resource industries in British Columbia account for 81.5 percent of all major injuries in the workplace.

I want to go on to the institute for a moment, and I want to tell the members quickly -- particularly the members opposite -- about the institute. Some of the founding sponsors were the B.C. Rehabilitation Society, Canadian Forest Products Ltd. -- I think they donated to your party -- the Coulson group of companies, CP Rail System, CU&C Health, Falconbridge, Fletcher Challenge, Weyerhaeuser, MacMillan Bloedel and Northern Pulp. I want to go on about some facts and why these people invested and joined the institute. Why did they do that?

[3:45]

Well, I'll go to my own community and the pulp mill in Alberni known as Alberni Specialty Wood Products, which employs 966 workers in a wide range of employment in the pulp and paper industry. Here are some facts. The reduction in the number of workers who are on long-term disability and not working was significant and represented considerable savings in both benefit payments and productivity. In July '95, when they joined the disability management plan, there were 76 workers on long-term disability. By July '96 there were 48.

As of July '96, Alberni Specialty was given a one-month premium holiday from their LTD insurance because of the savings that they realized for the insurance company. That reflects a 25 percent saving in premium rates. In July '96 the company received a two-month premium holiday on short-term disabilities and is expected to realize a 20 percent reduction in short-term disability rates. Alberni Specialty will realize a $1.25 million saving in one year. With a reduction in premium rates, workers will receive a $480,000 cash saving in one year. That's where it works.

At the Somass division, a sawmill which employs 450 workers making -- I know the members are going to get upset about this -- between $19 and $26 an hour . . . . I know you're not in favour of those kinds of wages. The disability management staff assisted 14 workers who were on long-term disability to return to work. Six of those workers had a total of 148 years of benefit payments projected for their lifetimes, and three of these workers had been dropped from LTD and were receiving social assistance. Because they were off on a work injury, they ended up on social assistance trying to support their families.

These represented a net present-day-value saving of $2.5 million, and the WCB rates, in one year, were reduced -- are you ready members? -- by 50 percent. Since 1991 the number of workers receiving Workers Compensation benefits at Somass was reduced from 37 to five.

Interjection.

G. Janssen: I'll get to the corner store.

British Columbia Hydro -- 5,000 workers, two unions representing them. The time lost because of the disability management plan has been decreased by 65 percent. Workers compensation payments were reduced by $700,000 in '96 alone, because care was taken. Based on current trends, the projected saving in four years will be $1 million.

I want to ask the members something. If you make these savings in business, every saving you make -- whether it's in productivity costs, delivery costs, efficiencies or long-term disabilities -- affects the bottom line.

I want to talk about the largest forest company in British Columbia, MacMillan Bloedel. They didn't wait for the royal commission. As the members say: "Wait for the royal commission; support the hoist." They didn't even wait for Bill 14. They didn't wait for this government. They didn't want to wait a further six months. This is a quote from Tom Stephens: "I believe in walking the talk, and it starts in this room. Safety is first. My philosophy on safety is simply that I assume that every job in the operation is being done by one of my grandkids, and I manage that environment accordingly."

Guess what they've done. It's something the opposition doesn't approve of. They have formed a union-management team, a worker-management team. A 17-member team was formed in early March and comprised of representatives from each of M&B's solid wood operations. They report directly to a steering committee of senior management and IWA members. They didn't wait. I believe they're friends of yours. Didn't they donate to your party? They saw the light. They know where the savings are, because the bottom line is affected by injuries, whether it's a big workplace or a small one; it is affected.

If you don't understand that, you have obviously never been in a small business. As you've heard from Tom Stephens, a safe workplace is the first goal of MacMillan Bloedel.

More than one in ten employees in that company are injured. In the solid wood group, it's one in five. It's clearly the goal to have no injuries. But other companies in the world, word-class operations, don't have one in ten, don't have one in five. One in 100 is the norm, and we in British Columbia

[ Page 7551 ]

have an intolerable rate of injuries. This bill addresses that; this bill will bring down that intolerable rate of human suffering, and it will increase the bottom line of most major companies.

How are we going to pay for these safety initiatives?

Deputy Speaker: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds rises on a matter.

F. Randall: I'm having a problem trying to decide who to listen to: the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi or the speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. I'm sure all members will take that to heart and listen to the person who has the floor.

G. Janssen: As I was saying: how are you going to pay for it? There is a huge potential to improve each division's bottom line. Mr. Stephens, who took over the company, has virtually turned that company around overnight, to improve the bottom line. This is what the Liberals, the opposition, understand. They're not interested in human tragedy; we understand that. They're interested in the bottom line. They're interested in premium increases. They're worried about red tape. Forget workers' safety; forget injuries; just get rid of all that red tape.

But the head of the largest forestry company in British Columbia recognizes that injuries cause an effect on the bottom line: " . . . to improve work safety and performance. However, the main priority is to provide a safe environment in which people can work. Meeting cost targets while hurting people is not acceptable." Hear that? That is humanity.

We in this province of ours have to recognize that worker safety should be the concern of everybody in the workplace. If that means that we have to give a wake-up call to some employers, the people who own those businesses, to say to them once that . . . . "If workers have injuries, my costs go up, so therefore my taxes have to come down. I don't want to have any more safety committees in my business, because that might take some time. There might be a little paperwork; there might be some red tape. There might be some costs. So I'll tell you what I'll do.

I'll just go tell the government that taxes are too high and to reduce them. I'm not so concerned about how many workers get hurt in my business; I'm only worried about the bottom line." The bottom line is affected by injury.

Anybody in business recognizes that. Anybody who has seen their WCB premiums go through the roof understands that. Anybody who has seen their productivity cut because workers -- who are valuable to every industry and who are valuable to every company, no matter what size -- can't perform . . . . If your employees are hurt and in the hospital or disabled, they can no longer work for you. That affects your bottom line. You have to train new people; you have to ensure that their families are looked after. It becomes an expense for the company. Remember what we said earlier: 8 percent of the bottom line.

If a company makes 8 percent today, it's considered a decent profit level, but if you're losing that same 8 percent in worker injuries, your company will quickly go broke. You'll be in bankruptcy, and you'll no longer be around.

It is time to address the issue of worker safety. That's what this bill does. It sends a clear message that occupational health and safety is important to everybody in British Columbia. It makes the government clearly responsible for the broad area of workplace safety. It establishes an appropriate legal base for the health and safety work of the Workers Compensation Board, and it establishes a legal requirement for employers to create and maintain workplace-based health and safety programs. That is a responsibility that is not just an employer's, as the members opposite say.

It is everybody's responsibility, whether you're in the workplace or at home, and it's something that we should teach our children.

What about those costs they talk about? What about those onerous costs that the employers are going to face? Well, the board recently announced a 6 percent reduction to employer premiums for 1998. Costs aren't going up because of this bill; they have just gone down. And if the effect of this bill is to bring fewer injuries to the workplace, those costs will continue to go down. If you reduce costs in business, you increase profits. Everybody should understand that. If you don't, you haven't been in business.

An Hon. Member: Have you ever been in business?

G. Janssen: My family recognized the importance of safety in the workplace. We didn't just sell retail products; we did a lot of repair work that involved the use of torches, that involved casting equipment, that involved chemical products. The rule that my father always taught every last one of us was: use safety first. Because if you get hurt, you won't be here tomorrow; and if you're not here tomorrow, that means productivity drops; and when productivity drops, that means that profits drop. So take care.

This bill will reduce the number of accidents, increase productivity and increase profits for employers. Members opposite should understand that. If they don't understand it, they should go and talk to Tom Stephens, who I think deserves congratulations from this House. Before this bill came out, he went out and said to his employees, his management team: "Make this happen, because this company is losing money because of its injuries." I think that deserves some response from this government, and I congratulate him for leading the way before this bill ever came to the House.

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak briefly to the hoist motion on Bill 14, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act.

I've listened yesterday and today to many of the arguments put forward by both sides of the House. I've listened carefully and tried to remove some of the rhetoric. What I do hear consistently from this side of the House is the fact that we do believe in worker safety. We think it's the most important thing there is. I agree with some of the things the member for Alberni talked about: that we have to have a safe workplace, that we have to have workers that work in a safe environment. It's going to be beneficial not just to the employer but to society as a whole. That's the place I think all of us should be striving to go.

[4:00]

Unfortunately, that's not the direction that the government of the day is taking. They stand up and talk about how we have to pass this bill very quickly, because it's going to save lives. I think that is just a little bit too much of a stretch of the imagination for most of us. I have a hard time with some of the members opposite using that kind of an analogy -- that we should be out here hurrying this bill along.

But I want to go back a little bit. I think it's always good to go back to our own work experience and things that we did as a youngster. When I started working in the oil and gas industry in the community I still live in -- Fort St. John and Fort

[ Page 7552 ]

Nelson -- I was a very, very young person. The company I worked for was very safety-minded. I guess that was at a time when we didn't have hundreds of pages of legislation and hundreds and hundreds of pages of regulations to tell people how to work safely. I think there are some places, the much more dangerous industries -- the act actually deals with it -- where you have to have a certain amount of training. I agree with that.

But generally speaking, in the oil and gas industry I worked in, whether it was heavy construction or whether it was moving drilling rigs all over the northern part of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and into the Yukon and the arctic . . . . I've been there and done that. I learned very quickly as a young person that I didn't need someone to have a meeting with me to tell me to be careful or I'd cut my finger off.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: The member across the way says that my mother probably taught me that, and he's probably right. I guess each one of us has a mother someplace who probably taught us that we should be as careful as we can be.

I worked in that industry for quite a few years. The company I worked for had hundreds of employees -- a fair-sized operation that operated in Alberta and B.C. and, like I say, into the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. As I recall, we didn't see a lot of injuries, although there were some. No doubt about it, there are always going to be some injuries; you're never going to be able to stop all of them. But we didn't have a lot of injuries, and I often think nowadays, when I go out to the same worksites and witness much the same work going on . . . .

That kind of work generally goes on in a wintertime atmosphere, when it's very cold. Now we have WCB regulations in place that you have to have the steel toes and certain winter apparel and all the things that go along with it. It's almost endless -- what you have to have on.

When I watch some of those younger people as they are today, trying to work in that cold weather, it becomes very apparent to me why some of them are being hurt. That's because they can't move fast enough with all this equipment on -- to get out of the way or to stay out of the way. It's an interesting concept that maybe some members opposite have never experienced. In all the years that I worked as a labourer or as an operator, I never wore steel-toed shoes -- not once -- and I've got all ten. It's interesting. It's not just because of me; everyone was the same way.

I saw that those people were able to do their jobs and still retain their health and their limbs. I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that we had to watch and we had to be careful, and there were always older employees around to make sure that they looked after us.

In today's world, we've gotten to another place -- I'm not sure whether it's good, bad or indifferent -- where we expect government to tell us everything that we're supposed to do, almost from the time we leave our doorstep. In fact, in some cases, government does tell you what to do: get in your car, do up your seatbelt, drive to work, be careful. It's endless, and the piles get thicker and thicker. The interesting

part is that the injury rate goes up. Probably what we've done in society, when you think about these things, is take some of the responsibility away from the individual worker and from the companies that employ those workers. I don't know whether or not we're really better off in the long run.

I go back to the business that I had for 13 years before 1991, when I was first elected to this House. I had over nine employees. I had a really good business. I had some -- in fact, all of them were -- very good employees. We didn't have a high accident or injury rate; we didn't have a safety committee in my group. But I worked with employees who, if they saw something unsafe, came to me and said: "This is unsafe. We should look at changing it around" -- or they did it on their own. It's called responsibility.

In many cases, I'm sure I wasn't even aware of some of the things they changed in my workplace, the business that I had, that made things safer. I was in a business that was fairly volatile. I had a business that handled petroleum products -- well over 50 million litres a year. I moved that product all through northern British Columbia, Alberta, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. We didn't experience the kinds of difficulties that some members of the government seem to think are taking place. In fact, I can't remember if we had any WCB claims.

If we did, they were very minimal -- and that was through 13 years.

I didn't need a safety committee to come and meet and tell me what was safe and what wasn't safe. But that is what this government wants to put in place. It's a bit bizarre to me to think that if I were still in business, I would have to have a government say: "This is what you have to do to make your workplace safer." I'll tell you, in my experience in business, that if government got out of my face, if government got out of my business, if government got out of my workplace, I could get the job done a lot better, along with the people that worked with me and for me. In many cases, that's what you will hear from most small business operators.

The member for Alberni actually defeated his own argument when he talked here earlier about M&B realizing that their accident rates had to be brought down. Obviously they did, and it's great. They set up a process for how they were going to do it. You know, they did it. They did it without this. Isn't it interesting? They did it without this. He defeated his own argument. Why, then, do you need this? If business is already doing it -- if business is already looking at the safety factors -- why do we need another bill with 57 sections and some 200 subsections?

It's because this government thrives on regulation, red tape and legislation. I arrived in this House in 1991, and on a consistent basis we have passed somewhere between 60 and 80 pieces of legislation every year, some of them exceeding 300 pages. They've done a marvellous job of choking British Columbia to death -- absolutely choking it to death.

Some members talked about the Forest Practices Code. The same rationale was used there. I remember clearly when members from the government got up and talked about how badly we needed this Forest Practices Code: our industry was going to hell in a handbasket without it. And what's happened with it? Where is the forest industry today? It's absolutely on its knees. It's gone -- and what hasn't gone is going to Alberta.

Those folks over there think that what you do is bring in more legislation and bring in some more regulation. They really believe that this heavy hand will improve safety in the workplace. As I say, I think all of us in this House are concerned about safety in the workplace, but I don't think that we have to pile endless regulation on our small businesses and our big businesses in the name of safety.

I said earlier that I was first elected in 1991. In the years from 1991 to the present, I've dealt with quite a few people with WCB concerns -- both employers and employees. Not once out of all those visits from either side did I have someone come to my office and say: "Richard, I'll tell you, we need some more regulation." Not one employee or one employer came in and said: "I want more regulation." Nary once did I hear that.

[ Page 7553 ]

What I did hear was: "We want to get rid of some of the regulation. We want to get rid of some of the stupidity in the regulation so that we can get on with creating jobs or doing our work." In fact, if you go out there and talk to many employees, that's exactly what they'll tell you. They'll tell you how stupid some of this stuff is.

Just to give you one quick example, in my business in Fort Nelson . . . . I had it there for 13 years. Maybe some folks don't realize it, but in summertime we have daylight for about 20 or 22 hours of the day -- broad daylight. I had a WCB inspector come to me and tell me that I had to replace a light bulb on my warehouse in the middle of July so that workers could see it in the dark. It's absolutely bizarre that somebody has enough time to come out and tell me something that stupid and that I have to abide by it. It's ridiculous. That's how bizarre some of this stuff is.

[4:15]

It's not just this bill; it's not just the 200-plus sections. It's the regulations that are going to go along with it. It's that other pile that gets about this high. That's the part that stymies business; that's the part that discourages workers; that's the part that doesn't keep workers responsible themselves.

We heard the member for Vancouver-Quilchena talk about Alberta in comparison to British Columbia. We have much the same industry. Alberta has oil and gas; we have oil and gas in B.C. Alberta has forestry; we have forestry in B.C. Alberta has manufacturing; we have manufacturing in British Columbia. Alberta has agriculture; in B.C. we have agriculture. The western provinces are much the same -- other than that we have a few more mountains. When I heard the numbers -- and I wasn't aware of it until then . . . . In Alberta they have 25 inspectors -- two dozen -- and they do an average of 1,200 inspections.

In comparison, British Columbia has eight times as many inspectors -- 190 -- and they do 46,000 inspections. Do you wonder why employees and employers are tired of regulation and inspectors? My goodness, it's no wonder that we're leading Alberta -- that we have more deaths than Alberta, that we have more injuries than Alberta. What's the magic here? How do you look at that? Do you look at it and say: "Gee whiz, Alberta has half the injuries we do, but they've only got 25 inspectors"? They probably have a piece of legislation that is much smaller than what we have in British Columbia for workers comp.

How does that work in relation to what the member for Alberni talked about? I'll tell you how it works. If you unfetter people, they become more responsible for themselves. If you unfetter business, they can create the jobs that are needed in the economy. You don't pile more on. It's interesting that we have a government that talks about reducing red tape. In fact, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Small Business and Tourism are part of that committee. They're going to clear red tape. Wow! You hear it daily on the radio ads; you hear it on the TV.

You hear people from the government side stand in the House and talk about reducing red tape -- until you start asking them: how much red tape are you going to reduce? Well, I took the opportunity to ask the Minister of Energy and Mines. The government's own studies said that overregulation was one of their biggest problems. That was their own study. Isn't it interesting? So I asked the minister: "What are you going to do? What part of your regulation . . . ? " I had a book that was about a foot and a half high, but that only had a little bit of the regulation.

I said: "What parts of this regulation are you going to tug out and get rid of?" I don't have his exact words, but his response was: "Well, we're really not going to get rid of any regulation, member. What we're going to do is try to work around it a little bit smarter." What kind of bizarre b.s. is that? Then we see them coming in with more bills and more regulation.

You know, here we have a royal commission that went out and that was supposed to have a report completed by the end of September or the first part of October. But what we had was a government that went to them and said: "Look, we want part of it earlier so we can bring in some of the regulation in the 1998 session, because we don't want to bring it all in together." It's guaranteed that if these wizards across the way are here next year, we'll have another bill that's bigger and fatter than this one to finish out what the royal commission comes through with. It's unconscionable.

What are they doing? What's going on here? Why don't they pay attention to small business? You have the Premier out there talking about trying to encourage investment, trying to encourage business. Then on the other side, they try to bring this stuff in the House and sneak it through fairly quickly and see if they can't get a little more regulation in place, because this group of wizards over there doesn't work well without it. They think you need piles of it. The Forest Practices Code was well over 1,000 pages -- well over 1,000 lousy pages.

By the minister's own admission, it cost that industry on average $300 million a year for needless regulation. What a damning report on these wizards from across the way. Can you imagine? You would have thought that this spring, when the Premier saw the light -- I guess on the road to Damascus -- about reducing red tape . . . . He came out and said strongly: "We're going to reduce tape; we're going to encourage investment in British Columbia." The first thing they did was bring in some more enabling legislation, and golly knows what's going to happen with the regulation that goes along with it.

You know, the member from across the way from one of the Prince George ridings was talking to me about occupational health and safety. That's in brackets. This is the "Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 1998"; that's what it is. The other little

part in there is to make it sound like something that it isn't.

Before my time expires, I've got to mention one part that really bothers me. This happens to be no fines for workers. It has to do with seatbelts. I very well remember having quite a few of both employers and employees coming into my office -- mostly employers -- about this issue of wearing seatbelts and how you fine the company if the employee doesn't wear the seatbelt. Can you imagine anything so stupid? Should we be fining GM if you don't wear your seatbelt?

Or actually, when the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin was speeding all the time . . . . I think he had ICBC removed from his portfolio. That's when he was in cabinet, before he got caught doing all those crazy things. He ended up on the back bench. But that aside, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin . . . . Really, what we should have been doing with his speeding fines is applying them to government, because that was his employer. Can you imagine the . . . ? I can't even . . . .

An Hon. Member: Tell him to start taking taxis.

R. Neufeld: Exactly.

This commission went around, and they heard from probably hundreds of companies and individuals that this responsibility should lie with the worker. Guess what. The wizards . . . . The person that just spoke awhile ago -- I can't even remember his constituency, he so seldom stands -- was

[ Page 7554 ]

in the union. He was saying you can't fine workers if they're not responsible. Can you believe that? How can you absolutely believe something like that?

You know, if a worker goes to work . . . . You have safety meetings, and I know companies in my constituency that do that; they've been doing that since a long time ago. The worker goes out on his cat -- caterpillar tractor, for some that don't understand what that means -- and is clearing a line for a pipeline, clearing brush, and decides on his own to not wear the seatbelt, even though he's been told to wear the seatbelt. The WCB inspector comes along and spots the person not having the seatbelt on. They love those kinds of fines. Let me tell you, WCB loves those kinds of fines, because the guy just runs right up behind him with the ticket.

He's writing out the ticket to the company. And guess what: the ticket's not based on $100; it depends on the size of your payroll. So the bigger the company, the bigger the fine. You know, it might surprise some of you, but I've had companies come to me that have had a $15,000 fine because their employee didn't wear a darn seatbelt. And what do they do? Can they fire that person? Only if they have good cause and they've got a file that thick can they fire that person. Then who do you replace that person with?

You know, it's the most bizarre thing. Even the royal commission had enough information given to it to recommend to this bunch of wizards over here . . . .

Interjections.

R. Neufeld: They think it's funny. Have you ever tried to raise $15,000 -- any one of you?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, please, member.

R. Neufeld: Through the Chair, can you imagine these companies having to pay these kind of fines because their workers will not wear seatbelts? In most cases, there's no need for wearing a seatbelt. But $15,000 is pretty difficult to come up with. In fact, they can double after that. Can you imagine? The royal commission saw through that hokey-pokey.

But this group of wizards over here couldn't. But should I be surprised? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. All they can do is laugh about it -- sit over there, laugh about worker safety, point fingers and act in their sanctimonious way like they know best. I'm here to tell you that they don't know best.

I notice that my time is coming close to expiry. I thank the Speaker for the time given to me to put on the record some of the issues that I think are serious -- serious flaws with this type of legislation, brought in by this group over here who actually dislike business, who want to send more business to Alberta, who are actually being the best economic officers Ralph Klein has ever had. They want to keep that record, they want to keep at it, and they are doing it.

With this kind of legislation and the regulations attached to it, there will be more companies moving. There will be more jobs lost -- it's a sad day, isn't it? -- not because some worker's injured, but because of some stupidity from a government that doesn't quite understand and doesn't quite get it that when a royal commission recommends something, you should listen and apply it.

R. Thorpe: We're here today to talk about hoisting Bill 14 from this House. But I want to make it very clear that I and my colleagues know how important workers' safety is. We know how important it is to have safety in the workplace, because we have worked on the floors of businesses, have built businesses, have owned businesses, have turned businesses around. And we know that those things can only be achieved by employees and employers working together, with as little interference as possible from big, central bureaucratic government. We know that, and workers know that.

[4:30]

But you know, it was only a month ago that the Minister of Finance stood in this House and told us what a great tomorrow we were going to have and what a great, new direction that this government was taking, because finally they had seen the light of day. They had listened to some people not just in big business but in small business. They promised to continue to listen to the people in small business, because they told us that was the future of our province, the future for our young people. What has happened? That is the question.

You know, on March 30 the Minister of Finance said in this House: "We want to make it easier to do business so that business can create jobs. We know that red tape and overregulation have increased business costs and made B.C. less competitive. We are determined to improve the way we work with business." Although the Minister of Finance's budget was judged by all to be a complete failure, some people did want to believe in the words. They wanted to believe that a new direction might be seen and followed.

Maybe they had finally got it that big, central overregulated government was strangling and killing British Columbia. In fact, it was driving our unemployment rates up to double all of those in western Canada.

Of course, the biggest crime of all is the unemployment with respect to our youth -- 18.6 percent in British Columbia, the highest west of Quebec. Where were many of those youths traditionally getting their jobs? In small businesses. You do not have to be a graduate of the NASA school of business or the NASA school of anything to understand that it is small business that's going to build the future of our great province. But apparently we're going to have to wait for a change in government. You know . . . . I thought I heard a whimper over there, but I wasn't sure.

Bill 14 is about workers compensation. It's an amendment act to the Workers Compensation Act, yet the government members over there continue to ratchet up the rhetoric to pit workers and owners and employers against each other. That is wrong, and the members over there should be ashamed of themselves. Bill 14 is not about results; it's not about building a better tomorrow for British Columbians; it's not about reducing the unemployment roles in British Columbia; it's not about addressing the problems of youth unemployment. It's not about any of those things. It's about more red tape.

The Finance minister's speech of March 30 talks directly about red tape. It says, in point 5 in the document of March 30, "Cutting Red Tape": "We want to make it easier to do business so business can create jobs." Again: "We know that the number of regulations and how they are administered adds to costs and delays . . .

In this session," the minister goes on to say, "legislation will be introduced to streamline filing . . . [and] eliminate duplication . . . to work on the unique issues faced by small businesses, a task force, made up of business and government representatives will [report back to this House] by June 30 on how to cut red tape, improve competitiveness and create jobs for British Columbians."

We now know those are idle words, more broken promises, or else government members would be standing up and

[ Page 7555 ]

supporting the hoisting of this bill for six months so that we can get the first report from this task force on cutting red tape and so that we can hear the final report from the royal commission. Again, this government says one thing on March 30, and a month later breaks its own promise to British Columbia, to small businesses, to small employers and, most unfortunately, to employees -- unemployed employees in British Columbia.

So what happens? We have this government that believes that legislation and regulation and books and piles . . . . They measure their success by the depth of their regulation. But nowhere in the world, especially the free world . . . . Maybe in the not-so-free world it does work. I don't know that Russia or Cuba is that successful today, either. But we do know that legislation and regulation do not equal worker safety. They do not.

Worker safety comes from people working together, from employees understanding employers, from employers understanding employees, and from people working together as a team and being responsible to each other. That's how you protect worker safety. That's how you build a very safe and sound workplace. That is what the successful businesses in British Columbia have done, both small and large.

But what do we get from this government, on April 15? We get more WCB regulations, two inches thick. Now we get Bill 14, with 57 pages and 200-plus sections and who knows how many more regulations to follow. As you know, hon. Speaker, our most important role as elected officials is to work with our constituents. That is why we are here. I am here to represent the people of Okanagan-Penticton. Let me just take a second and talk about what happens in my communities, whether it be Peachland or Naramata, Summerland or Penticton.

I have not had one employee, since I was elected to this House, come to me and say: "We need more regulation; we need more safety committees; we need more red tape." Not one. But what have I had? Who has come to my office to talk about WCB? Employees who are hurt, who are not serviced properly, who continually meet delay.

What this government should be doing is hoisting this bill and giving direction to WCB to get their organization in shape, to get it streamlined, to get it working, to get it working for the injured workers of British Columbia -- not adding more red tape and more regulation on top and strangling everyone in the process. That's what we need in British Columbia.

It's interesting. Why does this government go through the expense of a royal commission and then not listen? Oh, I remember. It was so the Premier could stand in this House and say: "It's before a royal commission." He had no intention of listening to this royal commission. Quite frankly, he listens to no one anyhow; it's the one-man band. Why is this NDP government ignoring its own royal commission -- a royal commission that has travelled throughout the province of British Columbia and talked to hundreds if not thousands of individuals, associations and employers to get their views?

The provisions for ten to 19 employees are not recommended by the royal commission. It's just layers and layers of more red tape.

Yesterday one of my hon. colleagues, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, challenged the minister responsible to produce the research by experts that says that what this government is doing is correct. Unless I am not up to date, I do not believe that research has been delivered to us as yet. We are led to believe, in fact, that the research does not exist. What's going on? The experts are saying no; there's no research to support it; employees aren't asking for it. Why are we doing this? Whose idea is this? I wonder where this comes from. You know, this is a very serious issue.

I don't want to get into attacking people, but I have to make an observation. I'm not so sure that the government of the day understands the complexities of business today, understands that it's a globally competitive marketplace we're in. I think they're locked into the factory mode, the smokestack mode, and it's time for them to wake up. They have to wake up for the workers. The unemployed workers of British Columbia deserve better than what they have over there.

Our future -- we've heard the Premier say it; we've heard the minister responsible say it; we've heard the Finance minister say it -- is small business and tourism. That's what they tell us. You know what? We know that to be the case. We're just glad that the government finally woke up to the fact that that is the case. The Minister of Small Business says that he is an advocate for small business and tourism in this House and at the cabinet table. That's what he says. That's what he's told the industry, and that's what he's told this House.

I challenge that minister to come into this House and speak to Bill 14, to have the courage to stand up to his government and tell them that it's wrong for small business in British Columbia, that it's wrong for tourism in British Columbia today. I challenge that minister to have the courage to vote to hoist this bill.

No one is saying that parts shouldn't move forward. We're saying: "Let's step back, take a review, understand it, amend it, fix it." You don't just go in and buy a blue suit just because you want it. It has to be tailor-made sometimes, because some of us have things that have to be covered.

But we need this minister to come into this House and take a position on behalf of British Columbians -- of the small business and the tourism operators he said he was going to be an advocate for. We need that to happen in this House, or his words, too, are hollow and idle and are more potentially broken promises. I look forward to that minister visiting the House and talking about this bill.

The royal commission said that legislation belongs in the hands of the legislators. But what happens here? The WCB gets all of the power -- the power taken away from the elected representatives, taken away from the people of British Columbia. What is going on? It's more central power control and building of bureaucracies, the hallmark of this NDP government. It's big, central, socialistic government. It doesn't work.

This government has talked about the time for meaningful, open, public consultation. If this government is really, truly concerned about worker safety and workplace safety, and if it truly is concerned about small business and tourism, it will step back. Surely they've seen the errors of their ways, with the Forest Practices Code costing us billions of dollars and almost single-handedly destroying the economy of British Columbia. Surely they've heard about that; surely they've seen that.

This government is so bent on its central control and red-tape bureaucracy that it has lost touch with the families, the unemployed of British Columbia and the people whose businesses are vanishing. This legislation before us does not take into account seasonal businesses or part-time workers. It just adds more bureaucracy.

This government does not understand British Columbia. It does not understand small business in British Columbia, and it's not even prepared -- nor does it have the courage -- to step back. What shame can there be in stepping back to

[ Page 7556 ]

learn and to listen, so that we can have a better tomorrow? There's no shame in that. It may take a little courage. You know, they don't back down on their bills, and quite frankly, they don't stand up to the big boss too often either.

[4:45]

But we did learn in this House that even though everyone thought the Builders Lien Act was a good piece of legislation, and the intent was there . . . . We did come across some things that had not been thought through properly. That caused difficulty and pain to one sector of the industry, and I am very, very concerned that this is going to happen with this legislation. Once the folks at WCB get hold of all this information and all these new regulations, they'll run rampant through the province.

And what's going to happen? We're going to have less investment in British Columbia today and tomorrow. And when we have less investment today and tomorrow, we have fewer jobs today and tomorrow. When we don't have the jobs tomorrow, that means that our youth are going to face higher unemployment rates than they already face in British Columbia -- a staggering 18.6 percent. That is criminal in the province we live in.

Let me, if I could, just look at a few notes. As the official opposition critic for Small Business and Tourism, I've tried to familiarize myself with some of the background that goes on in the ministry. Recently, through a freedom-of-information request, I got some documentation with respect to the consultation with small business. I want to quote what the key message was, the government's key goal they wanted to achieve in consulting with small business.

"The ministry will consult with small business to determine ongoing and future program and policy priorities." Then when we look further on in the documentation, the number one priority -- and there are six strategic directions listed -- is consultation with small business.

Well, let's see what small business throughout British Columbia is saying. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is saying, as they list a 19-point plan for jobs and economic renewal, that one of their key concerns is the Workers Compensation Board. What a surprise! Their number one priority is improved WCB service to small and medium-sized businesses. This bill does not address that. Yet this government says that consultation with small business is the number one priority. The facts do not support that.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of speaking with the fastest-growing sector for creating jobs in British Columbia: the Restaurant and Foodservices Association. Their comments were that this is just going to make it tighter and tighter. What we're going to do is end up hiring less and less. Is that what we want in British Columbia today -- to hire less and less? It doesn't make sense.

What is the Council of Tourism Associations of B.C. saying? They have identified labour issues as one of their five top priorities, and they are saying that with B.C.'s economic uncertainty, the wisdom of further changes is dubious at best. At the same time, some of the existing policies are unrealistic for the unique nature of the tourism workforce. But are these very legitimate concerns addressed in this amendment act to the Workers Compensation Act? The answer is simply no, they are not.

Let us see whom we have here. We have the B.C. Motels, Campgrounds and Resorts Association, another employer in small business. What do they say about the Workers Compensation Board? The WCB has just completed three years of revising the rules and regulations. There are now over 4,000 regulations, of which one-third are new. What do they say they have to do? "We need time to educate our members on their responsibilities."

We do not need at this time, hon. Speaker, more regulation in this bill. We need some time for these very responsible groups to review it, to work with it, to fix it and to make sure it works. Everyone is concerned about worker safety and safety in the workplace.

What does the British Columbia Hotels Association have to say? "This act is contrary to the provincial government's commitment to cut red tape and regulations and to foster a climate of business growth." Now, this is from a government that says its number one priority is to consult with and listen to small business. I don't think they're doing it.

You know, hon. Speaker, the government -- Small Business, Tourism and Culture -- recently conducted some public consultation in 11 communities around British Columbia. I believe that some of the members on the government side -- because, unfortunately, no members from the oppo