British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, May 16, 2002

H0516pm-03

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

3rd Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, May 16, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Volume 8, Number 3 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 3RD SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. Internet: www.legis.gov.bc.ca/hansard

Party Standings: Liberal 76; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 1. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind L) .................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) ..........................................

West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (L).........................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L).......................................................................

Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon. Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................

Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon. Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ......................................................

Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon.

John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon. Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)...........................................................................

Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Thursday, May 16, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 3533 Statements (Standing Order 25 B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 3534 Gang activity in Indo-Canadian community R. Nijjar Protection of drinking water supply J. Kwan Canada-U.S. relations and U.S. softwood lumber duty K.

Johnston Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 3535 Health care wait-lists and waiting times J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen Hon. S. Hawkins J. Kwan Care facilities for seniors B. Suffredine Hon. K. Whittred Funding for early childhood development S. Orr Hon. L. Reid Parental involvement in children's education H. Bloy Hon. C.

Clark Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 3538 J. Bray Hon. R. Coleman B. Suffredine A. Hamilton Tabling Documents .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 3538 B.C.

Human Rights Commission, annual report, 2001-02 Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 3538 Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002 (Bill Pr401) T.

Christensen Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 3539 Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002 (Bill Pr401) Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 3539 Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002 (Bill Pr401)

Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 3539 Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 42) (continued) J. MacPhail K. Krueger Hon. G. Bruce Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 49) Hon. G. Bruce J. Kwan Tributes....................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 3560 Kate Ryan-Lloyd Hon. C. Richmond J.

MacPhail Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 3560 Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 49) (continued) J. MacPhail

3533 THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2002 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Introductions by Members P. Nettleton: I'd like to introduce two very sweet ladies to the House today: sisters, seniors and Victoria residents Pauline and Joy Cowper-Smith. Hon. C. Clark: We are joined in the gallery today by many of our constituency assistants. I think I can say, on behalf of all the members in this House, that our constituency assistants are amongst the most im- portant individuals in all of our lives.

I know that to- day all of the members in this House will take the op- portunity to thank them for the work they've done. [1405] I just want to add this: thanks to all of you for the work that you've done. Thank you for being our public face in the communities when we're over here in Victo- ria, because it's something that we aren't able to do as often as we'd like. Thank you for weathering on our behalf what are sometimes difficult days in those of- fices. Thank you for serving our communities as well and as diligently as you do. Hon. L.

Reid: I, too, have the privilege today of introducing some outstanding British Columbians: those who are involved with infant development pro- grams in the province and who provide guidance to brand-new moms who are having babes and require support as they go through the process.

I'd like to introduce them to you: Dana Brynelsen, provincial adviser of the Infant Development Program of British Columbia; Carolyn Graves, chair of the Pro- vincial Steering Committee, Infant Development Pro- gram of British Columbia; Mary Stewart, regional ad- viser of the Infant Development Program for the north region, Valemount; Marie Watts, policy analyst, Minis- try of Children and Family Development, Victoria; Karen Isaac, executive director, B.C.

Aboriginal Child Care Society, North Vancouver; Annie Wolverton, re- gional adviser, Infant Development Program, lower mainland region, Burnaby; Maryanne Robinson, B.C. Association of Infant Development Consultants, Co- quitlam; Valerie Massy, executive director of the Nanaimo Child Development Centre; Dr. Michael Whitfield, Centre of Community Health and Health Evaluation Research, B.C. Research Institute for Chil- dren's and Women's Health; and Sue Khazaie, Ministry of Children and Family Development, Abbotsford. I'd ask the House to please make them all extremely welcome. J.

MacPhail: On behalf of my colleague from V an- couver–Mount Pleasant and myself, I'm delighted to say that visiting in the Legislature today, and in the gallery right now, are students from the Britannia Out- reach Secondary School. Outreach is an alternative program at Britannia Secondary that borders on both my colleague's and my riding. It began in the early seventies to service students in the downtown east side, but the program has expanded now to include students who live throughout the greater Vancouver area.

The students won the right to come here and visit with us because of good attendance, a model for all of us to follow. They are accompanied today by their teacher, Terry Johnston. Again, would the House please make them welcome. Hon. R. Coleman: Visiting the precinct today is Sharleen Verhulst, who from May 6 to May 16, after leaving Mission, has been driving a slow vehicle that has a maximum speed of about 30 kilometres an hour, which is the first electric and slow-pledged vehicle in the province.

Sharleen lost her twin sister to an impaired driver some time back and has taken the initiative to let young people know the outcomes and difficulties that can be caused by death by bad driving. Her objective was to get 10,000 pledges from young people at schools, safety centres and any other thing they could go to, on pieces of paper like this — pledges that they wouldn't drink and drive or that they would slow down on our highways. At noon Sharleen gave me 10,000 of these from 10,000 people from Mission all the way across the lower mainland and Vancouver Island.

It's a commit- ment of a young person who believes she can make a difference. I would ask the House to please make her welcome and congratulate her on her efforts. Hon. K. Whittred: In the gallery today is a group of people who represent the Nicola Native Lodge Society. This society is a non-profit organization made up of five first nations bands in the Merritt area. They were formed in 1974 to develop a residential care facility for aboriginal elders. I would like the House to please wel- come Peter Vlahos, Johnny Joe, Madaline Lanaro, Mary Archacham and Josie Saddleman.

Would the House please join me in making them welcome. Hon. G. Bruce: The other day I introduced two of the ten friends that I have. Today there are six others t h a t I ' v e f o u n d w h o w e r e p r e p a r e d t o c o m e h e r e . I would like to…. Interjection. Hon. G. Bruce: No, it's not all ten. There will be a few more yet. [1410] I'd like to introduce them to you. They're here for a very special reason. It's time once again to reinstitute that great tennis match between the Members of the Legislative Assembly and the press gallery.

We're in the throes of organizing this particular tennis tourna- ment under, of course, the watchful and respectful eye

3534 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 16, 2002 of the Clerk of this House, who does such a fantastic job in organizing something like this. In fact, the Clerk of this House is so well organized that the trophies are already engraved. Of course, you might want to ask whose names are on those trophies. It's unfortunate that press are unable to attend this afternoon for this little bit, but it's not actually a sur- prise that they aren't here. You might ask me. This will be the thirteenth annual tennis tournament. I'm sure one of you would like to ask me how many times the press have…. K.

Krueger: How many times have they won? Hon. G. Bruce: The press have won it only once in 13 years — only once. They are striving diligently to put together a better team this year than what they've had at any time in the past. Of course, with the Clerk and the guidance of the Speaker, we'll make sure that our team is just that much better than their team. Some of you have asked me if you can participate on the legislative team. I'd like to say there is still room on our team, although first you would have to check with the Clerk to make sure that you have the proper credentials.

You have to have whites to be able to play on this very auspicious occasion. Of course, for the few spots that are left, we need…. J. MacPhail: It's not because you're boring that you have no friends — eh? [Laughter.] Hon. G. Bruce: I ' d l i k e t o m a k e s u r e … . W e h a v e room yet for a ballgirl and a ballboy, if you'd like to let the Clerk know. Now, if I could just have one last quiet moment here. Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, this tennis match was first to have been a fundraiser for Provi- dence Farm.

CNN was prepared to cover this match, but only if we could find better opposition than what we actually have. Here today to help us put this whole event together…. J. MacPhail: Order, please. Order! Order! Hon. G. Bruce: No, no. Here today to help us put this whole event together is the sponsor of the tournament, the Cambridge Cor- porate Group, Lois Cartlege. With her are Jude Ca- hoon, president of the South Cowichan Lawn Tennis Club, which is 115 years old, and Allan Case, treasurer of the South Cowichan Lawn Tennis Club.

Ladies and gentlemen, the one thing that the press do very, very usefully is that they serve dinner the night before at Providence Farm, which is just a fantas- tic facility in our community. If you would like to come, you're welcome. Ladies and gentlemen, repre- senting Providence Farm here today are Hans Walbom, Lorern Stubbs and, of course, the quiet worker behind all this, Chuck Johnstone. Would you please make them all feel very, very welcome. Mr.

Speaker: The time will be deducted from your second reading speech. [Laughter.] Hon. members, I would like to bring to your atten- tion that on Monday, May 27, the summer

schedule for the tour office commences, and six new summer guides will start working with the Legislative Assembly. The tour guides are post-secondary students who will work throughout the summer months, including weekends and statutory holidays. In total, the tour office will be able to offer tours in English, French, German, Manda- rin, Japanese, Cantonese, Spanish, Italian, basic Scan- dinavian and Korean. I would like to introduce in the gallery today Cyn- thia Cheung, Carla Willock, Roy Tanner, Claudia Russ, Deborah Cooper and Celine Anderson. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) GANG ACTIVITY IN INDO-CANADIAN COMMUNITY R. Nijjar: I rise today to raise an issue of great im- portance. I rise to address the issue of the many gang- style killings within the South Asian community, also referred to as the Indo-Canadian community. We have been forced to accept the fiftieth killing in the commu- nity since the 1994 slaying of the Dosanjh brothers. What is the purpose of raising the issue in this House? Clearly, this issue is not going to be resolved here — or by the government, for that matter. [1415] While I am working with many people in the com- munity to address the issue, such as Justice Wally Oppal, and have a lengthy

article in this week's Indo- Canadian Voice newspaper on the particulars of the issue, this is symbolic. This is symbolic because I be- lieve members of the community must stop hiding from the fact that this problem exists for all of us. We should deal with the issue unashamedly and collec- tively. As an elected official, it is very easy to ignore diffi- cult issues on the grounds that we may upset some people and champion a losing cause. However, I'm not here for easy paths, nor do I seek easy, superficial so- lutions.

For those who say negative community issues should be kept in-house and MLAs should not bring shame to community but rather only promote the positives of the community, I see that everyone in this House and across British Columbia knows of the great contributions the Indo-Canadian community has made to British Columbia. In business, social life and politics, the community has made many contributions and has a great reputation for hard work and family support values. We should not have a complex regard- ing this.

There is a great opportunity to meet the challenge with this youth issue, raising and working admittedly and collectively. Let there be no mistake: the commu- nity has no choice but to deal with the matter. And if

THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3535 the community is waiting for leaders to show the way, then this will be done. PROTECTION OF DRINKING WATER SUPPLY J. Kwan: Two years ago this week marks the begin- ning of the events that led to the tragedy in Walkerton, Ontario. On May 22, 2002, the first of seven people lost their lives, while more than 2,000 became ill. The deaths ranged from two-and-a-half-year-old Mary Rose Raymond to 82-year-old Edith Pearson, represent- ing the most vulnerable in our society.

It's now been a year since the change of government and five months since the report of this government's drinking water review panel, and B.C. still does not have a drinking water protection act. The inquiry into the tragedy, led by Justice O'Con- nor, found the Ontario government and its Ministry of Environment at fault. Ontario's Premier himself said: "I, as Premier, must ultimately accept the responsibility for any shortcomings of the government of Ontario as identified by Mr.

Justice O'Connor." He also said: "Walkerton was a wake-up call not only for Ontario but for municipal governments, other provinces and coun- tries around the world." The Walkerton inquiry found the provincial gov- ernment's budget reductions made it less likely that the Ministry of Environment would have identified the improper operating practices of the Walkerton utility. Also, the decision to proceed with the budget reduc- tions was taken without either an assessment of the risks or the preparation of a risk management plan.

I'm very concerned that the deregulation and budget cuts for environmental and other issues of public safety, like health care or transportation, have not been put through intensive studies on the risks and their man- agement. B.C., under this government, is on the same path Ontario took. The budget for the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is being slashed by over 20 percent. Ontario, having learned from the tragedy, has recently in- creased its Ministry of Environment budget by over 50 percent.

The people of this province deserve to see that this government has undertaken a thorough analysis of the risk to public safety as a result of these budget cuts and the deregulation process. The Walkerton tragedy and Justice O'Connor's report cannot be ignored. Mr. Speaker: I would ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to please take a look in the gallery. Someone is using a floodlight and should not be doing so. Please attend to that. CANADA-U.S. RELATIONS AND U.S. SOFTWOOD LUMBER DUTY K. Johnston: I rise today to speak directly to our American cousins. Since that unfortunate spat between us in 1812, we have been family.

In 1861 your Civil War saw 50,000 Canadians fighting for American freedom. We worked together in World War I, World War II and the Korean War, when our nations stood side by side. In Vietnam 10,000 young Canadian men fought in the U.S. armed services. In recent times we have supported you in Operation Desert Storm in the gulf, and our elite special services were the first on the ground in the lat- est confrontation. The people of Canada responded immediately in response to the September 11 attacks. Within 45 min- utes we accepted 224 diverted planes and 33,000 pas- sengers to airports across our nation.

We are each other's largest trading partners, with about $700 billion a year in goods and services crossing the border. The Free Trade Agreement of 1989 and NAFTA in 1994 were agreements signed in good faith to support both of us. [1420] Well, cousins, something has happened to our rela- tionship. There is a squabble going on over softwood lumber. Thousands of people in British Columbia have lost their jobs because of the punishing duties being proposed by your trade commission. You will be pun- ished yourself by these duties, as you will be paying $2,500 more for a home.

At this point in our history we are asking for your help in solving this economic feud. We are asking you to support your own American Consumers for Afford- able Homes organization that's calling for fairness and free trade in softwood lumber. Although it is too late for many workers, including the 600 people at the White Pine mill in Vancouver- Fraserview, your intervention can help tens of thou- sands of Canadians regain stability in their lives. Please contact your American politicians and ask them to treat us like the family we are. Respectfully, your Canadian cousins. Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions HEALTH CARE WAIT-LISTS AND WAITING TIMES J. MacPhail: A year ago the Liberals ran on an elec- tion platform that said wait-lists were too long and British Columbians deserved better. I'm wondering whether we can see whether the Minister of Health Services thinks patients are getting what they deserve from this government. To the Minister of Health Ser- vices: do patients spend more or less time on wait-lists now than they did a year ago today? Hon. C. Hansen: In the election campaign last year we clearly flagged that wait-lists were a problem.

It was something that we heard from British Columbians throughout the province. We have taken the actions necessary to deal with wait-lists. Part of that is some- thing that doesn't happen overnight. What is required is a reorganization of the way health care is delivered in the province. We are doing that.

3536 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 16, 2002 We have put an additional $1.1 billion into the health budget to make sure that British Columbians get the care they need. These things do not happen over- night. I am pleased that if you look back to the stats on the number of people waiting as of May 31 last year, there were 66,126. By the latest numbers posted on the website earlier this month, which are as of March 31, that number is now down to 65,446. It's not enough. Clearly, the wait-lists have to go down further. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J.

MacPhail: Actually, it's about wait times, because wait-lists can go on and on, as the minister raised when he was in opposition. Really, it's the wait times that the government guaranteed would go down. The government's own figures from their own web- site show that in virtually every category, wait times have increased significantly for patients over the last year. Cancer treatment is up 44 percent. Orthopedic surgery wait times are up 22 percent. Gynecological surgery wait times are up 23 percent.

Can the minister explain to British Columbians who believed his party's promise to reduce surgery wait times why his government's own figures show that he broke that promise? Hon. C. Hansen: Clearly, these are issues that do not have quick and instant answers. We are working on them. We are redesigning the health care system so it will work for British Columbians in the future in a way that it has not worked for them in the past. The member will know that with the nurses' job action last year, not only did wait times go up, but the wait-lists went up.

Quite frankly, the system has not b e e n a b l e t o m a k e u p f o r t h a t l o s s o f o p e r a t i n g r o o m t i m e f r o m t h a t s t a g e . W e a r e w o r k i n g o n i t . W e a r e making some progress, but clearly we have a long way to go. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary question. J. MacPhail: What a difference a year makes, be- cause when that minister was in opposition, he said: "Wait times were solely the fault of the government and couldn't be blamed on any job action." That's what he said when he was in opposition.

Here's what the Minister of Health Planning said when she was in op- position. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. MacPhail: H e r e ' s w h a t t h e M i n i s t e r o f H e a l t h Planning said when she was in opposition: "The facts are simple," she said. "The longer patients wait for car- diac surgery…" Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order J. MacPhail: "…the higher their risk of dying." She was right. Wait times for cardiac surgery are going up under this government, and people's lives are at risk.

Just last week it was reported in the media that in the minister's own community in Kelowna a man died of a heart attack while waiting for urgent cardiac surgery. [1425] The Health Services minister refuses to acknowl- edge a broken promise. Maybe the Minister of Health Planning would like to explain to her constituents why wait times for cardiac surgery are on the rise under her government, when she promised they would go down. Hon. S. Hawkins: You know, for ten years we had a government that didn't act to put patients first. For the last year we've been working very hard. We have committed… Interjection. Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Hon. S. Hawkins: …to redesigning the health care system so that patients are put first. We are setting up a system that's going to deliver safe, reliable, high- quality services to patients when they need them, where they live. Mr. Speaker, we have invested $1.1 billion over last year's budget. We have made sure that we now have a population-based funding formula that's applied to the health authorities. We've reduced the number of health authorities from 52 to six so that we can make sure the health authorities actually take the savings from that and redirect them back to patient care.

We're working to fix the problems they created over the last ten years, Mr. Speaker. J. Kwan: W h e n t h e L i b e r a l s w e r e i n o p p o s i t i o n , they went ballistic over the wait times that patients had to endure. What a difference a year makes. It's been 365 days of decline in the health care system, but I'll give the minister a shot at redemption. Will the Minister of Health Services promise British Columbians that this time next year patients will spend less time waiting for surgery than they do today? Hon. C.

Hansen: We are restructuring the health care system in a way that will deliver more timely care for British Columbians in all parts of British Columbia. We wound up with what the Minister of Health Plan- ning was referring to: ten years of a disjointed health care system that was not working for patients. We are reorganizing that system. I know there's lots of people fearful of change, but we're going through the change. We're fixing the problems we inherited, and there will be a much better health care system for British Columbians in the future.

THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3537 Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: If the Minister of Health Services is confi- dent about his plan, then all he has to do is say: "Yes, I will commit. Next year at this time the wait time for patients will reduce." Longer surgery wait times are just one of the many Liberal broken health care prom- ises. They broke their promise on mental health. They broke their promise on long-term care beds. They have broken contracts. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. Kwan: They have closed hospitals.

They have delisted services. None of this was even hinted at in the New Era document. A vast majority of British Columbi- ans think the health care system is worse today, and they blame this government. My final question to the minister: one year ago, did the minister know the New Era document was nothing more than political spin, or did the Premier wait until after November 16 to tell him? Hon. C. Hansen: I find it a little bit amusing that this member would stand up in this House and talk about broken promises. We brought in a New Era document in the election last year, and we have al- ready today….

Here we are not even a year from tak- ing office, and already… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. C. Hansen: …we have implemented over 60 percent of the commitments in that New Era document. CARE FACILITIES FOR SENIORS B. Suffredine: M y q u e s t i o n i s f o r t h e M i n i s t e r o f State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care. With the recent announcement of intended closures of long-term care facilities, some of my constituents are worried that seniors who need extended care will be moved to assisted-living facilities.

People think there won't be sufficient care in those facilities for those that have extended care needs. Can the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care clarify what is being offered to seniors? [1430] Hon. K. Whittred: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be a member of a government that has had the courage to actually put a plan in place to deal with this rapidly growing segment of our population. The residents of this province who are over the age of 75 are currently the fastest-growing segment of any population.

They are a population that we know requires care, and we know this is something we need to plan for the future. Our plan will ensure that they have appropriate care. Extended care will be available for those who need extended care. Intermediate care will be there for those who need immediate care. Mr. Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston has a supplementary question. B. Suffredine: I understand that at Nelson the Mount St. Francis residential care facility is being phased out.

Can the Minister of State for Intermediate, L o n g T e r m a n d H o m e C a r e t e l l u s w h a t o p t i o n s r e s i - dents of Mount St. Francis will have when that facility is phased out? Hon. K. Whittred: The Mount St. Francis facility in Nelson is, in fact, a very good example of a facility that is no longer adequate to meet the needs of today's sen- iors. It is not appropriate for extended care, and it is not appropriate for lower levels of care.

The informa- tion I have from the interior health authority is that an RFP is going to be issued very shortly for a replace- ment facility, and the residents of Nelson can feel as- sured that they will receive the appropriate care in the most appropriate setting. FUNDING FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT S. Orr: M y q u e s t i o n i s t o t h e M i n i s t e r o f S t a t e f o r Early Childhood Development.

In September of 2000 the federal government announced a $2.2 billion fed- eral-provincial-territorial early childhood development agreement to give young children in our communities the best possible start to life. Some have suggested that the province is not directing these dollars to where they are needed most. Can the minister tell us how much funding her ministry currently receives, both federally and provincially, and where those dollars are being spent? Hon. L. Reid: I'm delighted to give the House the background information to the federal-provincial- territorial agreement on early childhood development.

The agreement began in the year 2000, when $39 mil- lion came to this province. In the year following it was $51 million, and $66 million will come in each of the succeeding three years. Those dollars will be spent on programs across this government. The Premier has challenged us as a government to come to the table with a cross-government, integrated, coordinated strat- egy, and I believe we have done that. Over the course of the five years you will see $291 million flow to this province. Mr. Speaker: The member for Victoria-Hillside has a supplementary question. S.

Orr: While funding is very important, it's also critical that there are measures in place to ensure that

3538 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 16, 2002 these dollars are being spent effectively. Can the minis- ter explain what accountability measures are in place to ensure that these programs are effective and that the children who are receiving them are actually benefiting? Hon. L. Reid: Our baseline report, which each province and each territory is required to provide to the federal government, is now up on the ministry website. I would invite my colleagues to advance that information to their constituents. In terms of basic evaluation processes, we have taken on the work of Dr.

Clyde Hertzman at the University of British Columbia in the human early learning partnership, which is a consortium of probably 40 researchers across British Columbia who will, in fact, support communities that wish to build capacity and will provide them the an- swers to research questions which would be most im- portant to them. All in all, we have programs around evaluation for children with autism, we have the early childhood development pieces, and we certainly have ongoing discussions as we go forward. [1435] PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN CHILDREN'S EDUCATION H.

Bloy: M y q u e s t i o n i s t o t h e M i n i s t e r o f E d u c a - tion. In the New Era document, the government com- mitted to providing both students and parents with more choice in education. The government has recently passed legislation that enables parents to have more involvement with their children's school. Can the Minister of Education tell us how increased parental involvement will benefit student achievement? Hon. C. Clark: I don't think there is any question that increased parental involvement benefits every child in school. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. C.

Clark: And we know further that it doesn't just benefit the children of the parents who are in- volved; it benefits all the children in a school where parents are involved. We as a government have done a great deal, I think, to throw open the doors to schools to welcome parents into them. We have created school planning councils at every school in the province that will guarantee paren- tal involvement in those schools. We were the first ju- risdiction in the country to legislate in statute the right of every parent to volunteer in their children's schools.

We have recognized in legislation district parent advi- sory councils for the first time. We have sent out a sur- vey to every parent in British Columbia to ask them how they feel about their children's education. We have exempted purchases made by parent advisory councils from the PST, and we have given every parent the choice to decide where they want to send their child to school in British Columbia, because they have the right to decide. They know what's best for their kids, not the government. [End of question period.] Petitions J.

Bray: I wish to table a petition with 1,600 signa- tures concerned about reductions in legal aid funding and related programs. Hon. R. Coleman: I present a petition from STRIDE, Strategy to Reduce Impaired Driving Every- where, from thousands of British Columbians request- ing that May 15 be made… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. R. Coleman: …a provincial day against dan- gerous driving. B. Suffredine: I wish to present a petition on behalf of approximately 1,000 residents of the Kootenays urg- ing the government to make preservation of medicare a top priority. A.

Hamilton: I h a v e a p e t i t i o n s i g n e d b y 7 6 c o n - cerned parents and students at John Stubbs elementary school concerning the learning disabled and teachers' compensation. Tabling Documents Hon. G. Plant: I have the honour to table the an- nual report of the B.C. Human Rights Commission for the year 2001-02. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call Bill Pr401. Second Reading of Bills SPRING ENTERPRISES INC. (CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2002 T. Christensen: This is second reading on Bill Pr401. The purpose of the bill is to restore Spring Enter- prises Inc. to the register of companies.

As the House heard either yesterday or the day before, the bill was referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parlia- mentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills. They've approved the bill and re- ported that back to the House. I would therefore move that the bill be now read a second time.

THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3539 Motion approved. Bill Pr401, Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporate Resto- ration) Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith. [1440] T. Christensen: I call committee on Bill Pr401. Committee of the Whole House SPRING ENTERPRISES INC. (CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2002 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill Pr401; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2.39 p.m. Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved. Title approved. T. Christensen: I move the committee rise and re- port the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 2:40 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time? T. Christensen: With leave of the House, now, Mr. Speaker. Leave granted. Bill Pr401, Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporation Restoration) Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 42.

Second Reading of Bills LABOUR RELATIONS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 (continued) J. MacPhail: Yesterday I adjourned debate on this legislation, so I rise to continue my comments in oppo- sition to Bill 42, the Labour Relations Code Amend- ment Act. I was discussing at the time the former colleague of mine, Fred Randall, who was the MLA for Burnaby- Edmonds, and the very great comfort he had in front of an audience of business people, labour people, com- munity people, the medical profession and lawyers who were all there to honour Fred a couple of weeks ago.

Fred was extremely comfortable getting up and saying: "I love unions. Unions have served this prov- ince very well." In his own very understated way, he said: "I can't understand people who want to attack unions and who think unions are special interest groups." The reason why the comments were so impor- tant was because Fred Randall was talking about him- self being honoured for his role in the community that was leading to the creation of the Fred Randall House, which was part of the Burnaby association for progres- sive community living.

There was Fred, who had spent his life working on behalf of people both as a union worker and then as a union organizer and finally as the senior business agent in the Operating Engineers. Fred had himself brought about huge change on behalf of working peo- ple and continued to lobby for that as part of the gov- ernment of the day from 1991 to 2001. I put that before us today so that all other remarks of mine can flow from that context, because the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act is an attack on unions. It's shifting the fulcrum so far out of whack that em- ployers….

There was an editorial cartoon that showed a rather corpulent person labelled "Employer," and they had the fulcrum, the teeter-totter right down to the ground, with a couple of small working people flying up into the air. The comment was that the Minis- ter of Labour brought "balance" to our labour relations law. [1445] From 1991 to 2001 the ten-year record of labour disruption in this province was at an all-time low. Over the course of the 1990s up until this past year, 2001, the economic growth in the province was, by the Business Council's own documentation, on an upward swing.

It's an interesting graph that the Business Council put in the newspaper a couple of weeks ago. It showed economic growth throughout the tenure of the time where the Labour Relations Code was in place. That probably was due to the fact that there was labour sta- bility in the province, but all of that's changed. The Liberal government, in order to pay off their corporate friends, had to bring in changes to the Labour Relations Code. In fact, Phil Hochstein, one of the most verbose anti-union employers in this province, got his way.

He was the biggest single donor to the Liberal Party in the year 2001, and now he's got his legislation. It was so amusing to hear Mr. Hochstein say in the newspapers that, oh yes, it was a good first start, but perhaps it didn't go far enough. Balderdash. The combination of everything that this government is doing to change e m p l o y m e nt l aw i n t hi s p ro v i nc e m o re t han p ay s M r.

3540 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 16, 2002 Hochstein back for his donation of over $150,000 in one year to the Liberal government. Mr. Hochstein is the head of the Independent Con- tractors and Businesses Association of B.C. They don't like unions, they don't want unions in the workforce, and today with this legislation, they get their way. I'm sure Mr.

Hochstein was told: "Listen, Phil, the best thing you could do is say that this doesn't go far enough, because then people will actually believe that we didn't do what you wanted to do." It was, I guess, one of the communications strategies that may have actually been thought about by this government before t he y d i d i t . I t g e t s re p o rt e d a s i f M r. H o c hs t e i n i s u n- happy that it didn't go far enough. Then, we also have the organization of small busi- nesses saying exactly the same thing. People reading the newspaper….

Oh, I know, the other people that have a very strong anti-union policy is the CanWest Global Corp. They don't like unions either. They were major donors — I think something like 30,000 bucks last year that the CanWest Global Corp. donated to the Liberal govern- ment. Isn't that interesting? Hmm. A media conglom- erate donating to a Liberal party. Hmm. Anyway, they're very pleased with this being a first step, too, a n d o f c o u r s e , i t g e t s r e p o r t e d a s i f t h e g o v e r n m e n t could have done much more but backed off.

Well, I'm here to tell you that there are thousands of British Columbians that see exactly what this agenda of this government is. There are tens of thousands of Brit- ish Columbians who understand that you have to look at the entire group of changes that this government is making to radically alter the rights of working people t o j u s t e a r n a d e c e n t l i v i n g , r a d i c a l l y a l t e r i n g t h o s e rights to actually erode them and in many cases deny them.

We have to look at all the legislation that this minis- ter has already brought in to break contracts, to deny whole sectors of workers in this province any right to take their collective agreement with them when their e m p l o y e r c h a n g e s . W e h a v e t o l o o k a t t h e l e g i s l a t i o n that this Minister of Labour brought in, which says to teachers: "You're an essential service now.

We don't actually understand how it's going to work, but you're an essential service." Even then, when the Labour Rela- tions Board, an independent tribunal, ruled that the teachers could take some action in defence of their own wages and working conditions under that legislation, that wasn't enough for this government. The Minister of Labour had to bring in legislation imposing a con- tract ordering them back to work — oh, and then not paying for the contract either. This government doesn't like to bring down the heavy hand of legislation against working people and actually pay for their heavy hand.

They like to leave that up to others. [1450] The government, under this minister, brought in legislation ordering transit workers — bus drivers — back to work and ordering nurses and health sciences professionals back to work, so this is just the next step. Of course, we have to look at this legislation in the context of the other ugly stepsisters, which would be the Workers Compensation Act changes and the Em- ployment Standards Act changes.

My colleague and I took our lunch hour today to meet with a group of people who are directly and ex- tremely negatively affected by the changes to the Em- ployment Standards Act. We had a good, thorough briefing from people who actually used to work with the employment standards law, and we were all left pretty devastated by those changes. We also under- stand how important it is to read the Employment Standards Act changes in the context of this Labour Relations Code change. Here's what's happening.

The changes to the La- bour Relations Code say that an employer has the right to communicate to workers when they organize a un- ion now. Those who, through no fault of their own, don't understand the history of labour law in this prov- ince know full well that anytime an employer has the right to interfere in an organizing campaign, it is al- ways to stop the organizing campaign. If that right is unfettered, it means the organizing campaign to join a union fails. Unquestionably, that's the history in this province. It's the history in this country. It's the history in this continent.

Today we have legislation introduced that allows the employer to do just that. I'm sure the Minister of Labour will rise up and say: "Why can't the employer have the right to talk about joining a union?" Maybe the employer just wants to encourage workers to join a certain union. I'm sure that's what this minister has in mind. Let's pick certain unions. I used to call them rat unions, and then I was told that wasn't appropriate when I became a member of the government. We were told to call them alterna- tive unions.

Alternative unions are unions that like to work with the employer to undercut benefits for the workers they represent and to maximize the profits for employers. They like to go even lower than the Em- ployment Standards Act. That's what they like to do, and they've got over 100 certifications in the province today.

I can bet my bottom dollar that those same un- ions are going to get more certifications, because not only is it now in the employer's interest to encourage people to join those kinds of unions with these changes to the Labour Relations Code, but they also now, be- cause of the changes to the Employment Standards Act, have the right to collude with an employer to negotiate even less than what's in the Employment Standards Act — even less.

This government is so desperate to deliver for their corporate donors and their personal friends who hate unions that they've gone to extreme lengths to allow virtually no floor below which an employer can sink in taking away decent working conditions and pay for working people in this province. Why is it that I join with Fred Randall, my former colleague, and say that I love unions? Here's why: be- cause as a woman, if I join a union, I earn about $3 per hour more. That is such wonderful news for working women in this province. No other initiative is better at

THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3541 bringing about equal pay for work of equal value for a woman than joining a union. It's so wonderful that we have organizations in this province that understand how good it is to bring about equality, both economic and social, for women. Women earn $3 an hour more, on average, in a unionized workplace than in a non- union workplace. Why do I love unions? Because unions are the ave- nue to solve our looming skills shortage. All of a sud- den the Business Council of British Columbia is tearing their hair out because there's going to be a skills short- ag e .

T h at 's i m m i ne nt ; i t i s u p o n u s no w. R e al l y , B u s i - ness Council of British Columbia, where were you when the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Com- mission was dealing with exactly this issue? You didn't show up to the meetings, and you didn't show up to work on putting a plan in place to deal with the skills shortage as the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission was doing. [1455] Instead of this government saying to employers, "Get working with unions and educational institutions to solve the skills shortage," what does this government do?

It disbands; it outlaws the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission. That's their answer. Well, I'll tell you something. The best avenue for dealing with our skills shortage is to work with union- ized employers, with unions themselves, to put in place solid apprenticeship programs that will address our skills shortage, solid programs that encourage women into non-traditional work. But that's all gone. Why do I love unions? It was because of unions that working people like my dad have a pension. I'll never forget the day my dad, who belonged to the op- erating engineers, came home and….

I was 18 years old, so he had been in the workforce for a long time. His union was negotiating a pension for the construc- tion workers and a dental plan. That was all they were negotiating. They weren't negotiating a wage increase. Well, I was the last one in the house, so he didn't need a dental plan for his kids, and a pension plan…. He was a frugal man — he is a frugal man — and a pen- sion wasn't high on his priority list, either, but the young men in the workforce that worked with him needed those desperately.

It was because of the union that his young worker colleagues, all men, got a pen- sion and a dental plan. Now, because of the unions negotiating pension plans as a top priority, we also have a wealth of in- vestment opportunities through the use of those pen- sion plans — investment opportunities in our province, all because unions saw the importance of saying to their members: "We need to have savings so that you can look after your family after you stop working." Well, how's it working?

How is it working with what this government probably thinks is an agenda that they're getting away with in terms of radically altering the benefits for working people, radically alter- ing the playing field about who gets the opportunity to join a union or not? Let me just read an article. Actually, it was a column from yesterday in the Globe and Mail. I'm sure Mr. Paul Sullivan will be horrified that I'm using his words, be- cause he's a person who has a particular anathema for the NDP, and, Mr. Sullivan, I accept that. We shouldn't attribute any of the comments I read into the record as Mr.

Sullivan suggesting, just because he thinks the Lib- erals are awful, that he likes the NDP. I want to make that very clear. I understand that, Mr. Sullivan. Here's what he has to say about this extreme agenda that this Liberal government is bringing for- ward: "'A Year of Living Hurriedly.' "It's the eve of the anniversary of the B.C. Liberals' stunning election victory of one year ago, and everybody's exhausted.

"Premier Gordon Campbell and his cabinet are exhausted after authoring 54 or 55 — i t ' s h a r d t o k e e p track; they sprout faster than dandelions — pieces of legislation that will irrevocably alter life in British Columbia. And if they weren't tired enough, they've launched a universally unpopular referendum on aboriginal treaty rights just for something to do. "The people Premier Campbell likes to call 'special interest groups' — mostly public sector unions whose members' jobs are in peril — are exhausted.

They've been rushing to nail sound bites within seconds of the release of each of the above pieces of legislation. B.C. Federation of Labour president Jim Sinclair is still recovering from his triumphant assessment of the government's recent rewrites of three key labour laws. Workers in Mexico now have more protection than workers in B.C. "The media are exhausted from trying to find out if indeed this is the case, or if it's merely another turn in the dizzying spin cycle that serves as public discourse in this overheated domain.

It doesn't help that the government has shut down an important traditional source of news: naïve or clumsy government communications people who try to speak on behalf of their government. Now you have to talk to the minister, and the minister is too busy or exhausted to talk to you. [1500] "The Premier has recently declared his government's communication program broken and promises to fix it by launching an advertising campaign. Oh, that will fix it. Better he should clone Andy Orr, his communication director who controls the trickle of real information that does flow from the government.

The poor guy must be exhausted from keeping his finger stuck in the dike. "The Premier should also be exhausted because he's hounded by lunatics who still seem to have plenty of energy, like the health union members who braced the Premier on a flight from Vancouver to Kelowna earlier this month, exposing an alarming breach of airport security, or the midnight bombers who have struck both the Premier's constituency office and even his wife's office at the school where she's vice-principal. They should be exhausted or at least ashamed. "But the people who are most exhausted are — the people.

How can they tell if Mr. Campbell's ambition to reform every little thing is helping or harming them? "The government says it's making government services more effective, responsive, efficient, modern, etc. But if you're a little old lady who lives in a nursing home and has just been told you have 30 days to find somewhere else to live, as you get shifted from long-term care into 'assisted living,' you might get terminally

3542 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 16, 2002 exhausted. Or if you're a single mother on welfare who now has to find a job at six bucks an hour and find a place to stash the kids while you're working the all-night shift, you might experience some fatigue. [J.

Weisbeck in the chair.] "The Premier, who claims he's not exhausted, loves the pace, works hard, works long and always has, says we have to trust him. 'I do think everyone knows we had a mess to clean up,' he told the Vancouver Province. 'We're working our tails off to clean it up as quickly as we can.' "But for people already exhausted by the feverish schemes of the legendary Glen Clark, Liberal chaos theory comes as a rude surprise.

Unless the Premier schedules a midterm nap, we'll never make it to May 17, 2005, when we can only hope to elect a nice, quiet government that will just leave us alone." Today is a perfect example of legislation by exhaus- tion or legislation to exhaust the public. The govern- ment is ramming through bills. They're going to invoke closure. They're going to shut down debate. The Gov- ernment House Leader says: "Oh. Well, you agreed to that." Oh, really? Seventy-six to two — like we agree to anything. Nevertheless, that's exactly the agenda of this Min- ister of Labour.

He's probably completely energized himself with the thrill of altering people's lives with the stroke of a pen. He's done it month after month, intro- ducing legislation, changing people's lives forever, taking away rights that people have had for decades, lessening those rights, refusing opportunities to ordi- nary working people because he has to deliver for his own friends. Not only are people exhausted, but they have abso- lutely no confidence in this government that the gov- ernment's even telling them their full agenda.

They have no confidence in this government that the gov- ernment even knows what it's doing. I know what the government's doing. It's delivering for its friends: "Mr. Phil Hochstein made a big donation. We've got to give him the labour law." You know what? People who actually want to grow businesses in this province don't think this is good leg- islation. People who understand that the economy needs a vital, strong, capable, well-paid workforce know that this legislation isn't the right way to go.

People who want to invest in this province from outside this province know that you need laws that are fair and balanced and that treat people with equality. This legislation does exactly the opposite. They know that's not good to encourage investment in this prov- ince. [1505] I predict that investment in this province not only will not go up; it will go down. Staying flat would be a victory for British Columbians, but because of the reck- less, extreme agenda of this government, I predict business investment, private sector investment, will decline this year, next year and the year after.

So far on my predictions I've been 100 percent cor- rect about what this government's doing. Despite the denials of the government, it turns out that the opposi- tion's predictions actually have been correct.

Then the various ministers have to sheepishly get up and say: "Well, I didn't know at the time the opposition pre- dicted it that that was exactly what was going to hap- pen." I say that this legislation — the legislation that takes away the simple right of working people to decide amongst themselves, without interference from the employer, about whether they should join a union or not — is imposing conditions of close to oppression on working people in this province.

Now when people sit around the lunchroom or are on the job or are outside the plant talking about whether or not it's time to col- lectively take their issues to the employer, because of this government's new commitment to the business community the employer will be able to stand dead- centre in that group and discuss amongst the group the inadvisability of joining a union. I just want to say for the record that when employ- ers communicate about joining unions, 99 percent of the time it's to discourage people from joining a union. T h a t ' s b y a c a d e m i c s t u d i e s , n o t b y m y w o r d .

T h e workplace isn't a democracy. We know that. It's not d e s i g n e d t o b e a d e m o c r a c y . S o i f t h e m i n i s t e r s t a n d s up and says, "Oh well, the employer's just one voice amongst many" — wrong. It is exactly the opposite. The employer carries a weighted vote equal to the sum total of each and every worker, because that employer has the right to continue the employment relationship or not.

I know the minister, along with his colleagues the Liberal MLAs on the back bench, wants to suggest that somehow, by my standing up and saying unions are wonderful, that carries on the commitment to friends and insiders. I'll say this: nothing could be more wrong. Our laws that were brought in throughout the 1990s, which worked, were the basis of independent, neutral consultation that was balanced and reached conclusions of consensus, and then changes were made. Not so with this government. How quickly can we deliver for our corporate friends? How quickly can we get that labour law through?

How quickly can we ram it through the Legislature? It isn't about balance. It isn't about consultation. It isn't about consensus. It's about serving their friends, their corporate donors. British Columbia is worse off for it. K. Krueger: Just a few words in support of this legislation and in response to the Leader of the Opposi- tion, who just spoke. This debate, of course, is not at all about whether or not unions are a good thing. Many members of the B.C. Liberal caucus have had very active roles in unions, strong union backgrounds.

Take, for example, the member for Esquimalt- Metchosin, a strong background in the policemen's union; the member for Peace River South, 17 years in the Telecommunications Workers Union. A number of

THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3543 members were educators or are educators on leave — strong backgrounds in the B.C. Teachers Federation. [1510] I myself spent half of my previous life not only in union jobs but in positions of union leadership. I was elected as a shop steward many times and as an execu- tive councillor and a board member of an 8,000- member local union. We're proud of our union background. I don't think the member said that she had any union background. I don't think she did, as far as elected union positions at least.

This government holds its head high with regard to its support of the rights of working people and with regard to the initiatives this government has under- taken to benefit all working people in British Colum- bia, everything from keeping the promise to deliver the lowest personal income tax rates in Canada up to the first $60,000 of income, to our many efforts to allow the economy of British Columbia once again to become proud and strong, where it was always meant to be — number one in Canada. It slipped to number ten under the Leader of the Opposition's watch and languished there for years.

Nobody is attacking workers' opportunities in Brit- ish Columbia — quite the contrary. The minister and this government have done yeoman's service to rapidly expand the workers' opportunities here. That's what we're doing. When we move to put patients first in every health care decision and students first in every education decision, we're moving to help the workers of British Columbia and their families. The problem that the workers of B.C. have had is the same problem that everybody in British Columbia has had over the last ten years, and that was the NDP.

The Leader of the Opposition devoted some time to unfairly slagging Mr. Phil Hochstein of the ICBA in her remarks. That was very unfair. The fact is that Mr. Hochstein and his group of companies also work with unions — per- haps not the ones the leader or the NDP favour, but they have a union. It's a very reasonable one, one that is sen- sible and knows how to make both its members and the employers prosper in the marketplace. It's what the workers themselves refer to as a wall-to-wall union that represents everybody at the worksite.

Lo and behold, things get done, and they get done a lot more efficiently, effectively and quicker than when you have a competition between unions over turf or when you have old-fashioned unions that say: "No, no, a plumber can't handle a 2-by-4, and a carpenter can't handle a wire. You've got to have all the guys standing by to do their little piece of the work." Not only that, but you have the occasional wildcat walkout and juris- dictional dispute, so that employers' jobs get shut down and delayed.

Really, productivity is the big issue between those two approaches rather than any ques- tion of whether people have a right to join a union or not, because clearly they do. The fact that the ICBA members were working with u ni o ns t hat we re s o m u c h k e e ne r o n he l p i ng t he m b e competitive in the marketplace than the other compa- nies — t h e o n e s t h a t h a v e a n u m b r e l l a k n o w n a s t h e CLRA, Construction Labour Relations Association — brought things to such a pass that the CLRA companies lost market share tremendously under the NDP watch.

Under those ten years they shrunk to less than 20 per- cent, as I understand it, of the construction business in British Columbia, and most of that was provided by the government itself. This was not in the interests of those companies, not in the interests of their workers and not even in the interests of those unions, many of which have fallen upon hard times even trying to fund their pension plans. The government was misguided over the ten NDP years. That has been the workers' problem.

Everything from its flawed sectoral bargaining legislation to its approach to the Labour Code to the Employment Stan- dards Act to the pension suspension bill — which was a real attack on workers rights — demonstrated an inability to deliver on what was best for workers. Noth- ing crystallized the source of that problem more for me than seeing Glen Clark, when he was Premier, standing up at the Order of B.C. ceremony, presenting the medal — the highest honour of British Columbia — to Mr. Ken Georgetti because he was president of the B.C. Federation of Labour and referring to him as his, Mr.

Clark's, friend and the nineteenth cabinet minister. [1515] Of course, he wasn't elected as an MLA, let alone as a cabinet minister. He wasn't a cabinet minister, but he was treated like one — not as nineteenth of 19 but as first. I don't think anything happened under the NDP watch that the B.C. Federation of Labour didn't ap- prove of. Many things happened under the NDP watch because the B.C. Federation of Labour did approve of them. The result was economic devastation for union members and non–union members alike. It extended also to many other things outside of legislation, such as who ran the WCB. Mr.

George Heyman was on the five-person panel of administrators who ran the WCB with decisions such as who got to sit on the Labour Relations Board and the decisions they made. We had some tremendously incompetent decisions made under the NDP's watch. To hear the bleating of Mr. Jim Sinclair, the B.C. Federation of Labour, or even the Leader of the Oppo- sition, you'd think we brought down some massive piece of legislation totally eviscerating the Labour Code.

The fact is that after a whole year — just about a year — in office and careful consideration and a ton of input to the Labour minister, there are three pages of text in this piece of legislation. It's not some massive change. It's smart legislation; it's careful legislation. It lays the groundwork for further change if and when that's deemed advisable, but it's very, very careful in what it does. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition is going through the motions of doing what she thinks she has to do, which is oppose any change brought on by a B.C. Liberal government.

Or perhaps she's acting as a spokesperson for her particular support group. The NDP are always throwing out this theory that because people donate to a campaign, elected people have to be

3544 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 16, 2002 in the pocket of those donors. That isn't true at all for B.C. Liberals. We are elected to represent 100 percent of the electorate, and that's what we do. I submit that there's lots of evidence to believe that the NDP oper- ated on that premise, because so much of what they did was geared to providing the B.C. Federation of Labour the things it thought were good ideas, even though they didn't turn out to be good for the member- ship. That's not a motivator to a B.C. Liberal at all.

What we want to do is restore the opportunity that workers of British Columbia should have and would have al- ways had if we hadn't languished under an NDP gov- ernment for those ten terrible lost years. While I'm speaking, I want to speak a little bit about some things this legislation doesn't do. So far, it really doesn't respond to the fact that the public sector unions of this province have taken a terribly irrespon- sible tack over the past year.

When we have teachers presuming to bring their political opinions into the classroom and try and enlist the support of the young minds they are there to cultivate, that is wrong. When we have the HEU and the BCGEU coaching their members, training them to engage in behaviours that border on anarchy, that is wrong. A government could easily respond legislatively to problems like that. I get input from constituents, many constituents, who think it's time to rein in the public sector unions. Perhaps it's time for government to stop being so cooperative with them.

Perhaps it's wrong t h a t g o v e r n m e n t d o e s a n e l e c t r o n i c t r a n s f e r o f f u n d s every paycheque to the public sector unions, which generally rake off about 2 percent of the payroll that this government meets every two weeks. It's millions of dollars intended, ostensibly, to benefit those unions' members but channelled, we know, into political pots, war chests for the NDP — $4 million set aside, for ex- ample, to attack this government in very false, mislead- ing advertising that is geared to frighten seniors and create false news. That is wrong.

I was in a restaurant one day some weeks ago here in Victoria, and Mr. Chris Allnutt of the Health Em- ployees Union came in and sat down with his assistant and began berating me about the changes to the public sector policy accords, those secret, behind-the-veil, under-the-table deals the NDP cooked up with the public sector unions. He said to me: "People have died for those collective agreements, and they will again." That very week I got a death threat in my constituency office.

I don't know if that was a coincidence or not. [1520] I do know that when they go out fomenting hatred against elected people, when their organizers — and I don't believe they were just HEU members; I think they were HEU staff — get on a plane and frighten passen- gers and engage in civil disobedience and attack the duly elected Premier of this province, the man who is Premier to four million people, and harass him through the airport and block his car and involve all sorts of other people in their preposterous behaviours, that is wrong.

This government could and I actually think should respond legislatively to some of that. I don't know that we need to be a part of helping them collect their dues. I don't think the public sector unions, in particular, and some other unions in this province are particularly accountable to their members. I think they cook their constitutions up so they only need a very small quo- rum at meetings to fulfil the agenda of the union lead- ership itself. Once a person hires on at these work- places, they're obliged to be a part of all that process, whether they like it or not.

When they have a beef with their union, when they feel that the union is not serv- ing them well or not spending their money well, there's precious little they can do about it. They're overruled very readily by these unions. There is a lot of bullying behaviour in unions, and it's very tough for a member to do anything about it.

There is a provision under the code, but it's the little person — t h e s i n g l e m e m b e r o r p e r h a p s a c o u p l e o f members — up against the gigantic union with all of its money, the money that rolls into the pot every two weeks from the obliging employers, paying the best lawyers that the union can hire, the best accountants that the union can hire, and it's all stacked against the members. I don't think workers have been very well served by some of the unions, particularly the big pub- lic sector unions. I know that workers were very poorly served by the NDP in their ten years in office.

I commend the minister for a very balanced, very careful approach to the Labour Code changes, focusing the board on the things that it needs to focus on: restor- ing rights and balance in the workplace. It's been wrong that a union can say anything it wants when it comes to certify members, and the employer, if it tried to speak to the union membership about its concerns, could face automatic certification and often did. An employer was completely muzzled. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has an introduction that she would like to make.

I will just give her a moment to get back to her seat and give her that opportunity. Introductions by Members J. Kwan: Thank you to the member for Kamloops– North Thompson for yielding the floor to me to make this introduction. Visiting the Legislature and in the gallery right now are approximately 50 newcomers to Canada. They're here to learn about the government. They're here to learn about parliamentary tradition and its rich history. These newcomers are students at the Vancouver Community College in the interpreters program. They're eager to learn.

They're eager to be newcomers and participants in our political process, our cultural process and our economic process. They are, of course, accompanied by their instructor and also by an indi- vidual from the Immigrant Services Society. I ask the House to please make them very welcome.

THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3545 Debated Continued K. Krueger: Just for the record, for those few mem- bers of the public who may actually be watching this debate on TV — or the even fewer who may read it later — I'd like to read a little bit of that

section on the right to communicate: "A person has the freedom to express his or her views on any matter, including mat- ters relating to an employer, a trade union or the repre- sentation of employees by a trade union, provided that the person does not use intimidation or coercion." What could possibly be wrong with that? Who could legitimately argue against that right for both sides of the equation? There were some very unfair situations in labour relations law in this province up until this government came to power.

For a union to sneak around and sign up the right number of people — and often it really didn't turn out to be the right number of people, and the LRB had to overturn some certifications because of jiggery-pokery with membership cards…. For a union to be able to do that and suddenly be certified in a workplace without the employer ever having had the right to speak its mind on the issues and without, for that matter, the employees ever having had the oppor- tunity to have a vote on certification — a free vote, a secret ballot — was wrong. The government corrected that quite some time ago.

Now the government's mov- ing a little bit further. I submit to this House and to the people of British Columbia that this is very balanced, reasoned and rea- sonable legislation after, as I said, a full year of careful deliberation and consultation. I commend the minister. I urge every member of this House, including the two opposition members, to support this legislation, and I commend the government for it. Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further debate, the Minister of Labour with concluding remarks to Bill 42. Hon. G.

Bruce: I very much appreciate those com- ments from my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson and the comments that have been made in the House. I'd just like to speak to a few of them. The Leader of the Opposition, in her comments earlier on, was talking about being exhausted, that the cabinet and members of caucus are exhausted. Well, quite frankly, we're not. K. Krueger: We're exhilarated. [1525] Hon. G. Bruce: We are. We were given a task to undertake a year ago to- day, actually. The people of British Columbia had said they'd had enough of ten years of wrack and ruin in this province.

They gave us a mandate to go to work to rebuild this province step by step, brick by brick. La- dies and gentlemen, we are doing that. We are doing it one brick at a time. There is a plan that we are follow- ing through in all aspects, whether it's health care, edu- cation or in this instance labour, for how we get this province rebuilt after ten years of being decimated by the NDP government, now the opposition. It's going to take us more than one year to be able to just put it right back on track. It's bit by bit in how w e g o a b o u t d o i n g t h a t .

W h a t w e ' v e d o n e h e r e i n r e - spect of this Labour Code is that we've taken the code and put some improvements into it, so that will help inspire this economy and get things turned around. I'd like it that people would take a look at what we've done here. The Leader of the Opposition in her comments was talking about looking at all parts. She was looking in respect to the issues around workers compensation, employment standards — those two acts that we will come to deal with later today, I hope, and this particu- lar bill. One must take into account the entire context of these pieces of legislation.

If you do, Mr. Speaker, and you take a look at what we've brought to the House today in this legislation, you will see that it is balanced and that it is measured. As a native son of this great province of British Co- lumbia and of this country of Canada, I understand the importance of the union movement. I understand the importance of good viable businesses, and I under- stand the importance of the rights of employees in the workforce.

What we're attempting to do in this legisla- tion is find that middle ground — it's not easy, of course, in that people will see it from their own particular perch as to whether you're going too far one way or the other — to try and establish and maintain a level of balance and to be prudent in the decision- making process so that people feel confident in the labour laws in British Columbia. They'd feel confident from the aspect that they are protected as employees, and they also feel confident from the aspect that it's a good place to invest and to do business.

I think that bill as we've presented it here and the changes we've brought into the House do just that. As my colleague the member for Kamloops–North Thompson mentioned, the board must pay attention to the aspects of what we were doing in regards to look- ing at the purposes section, the very principles, when they bring in their adjudication on decision-making. As a Labour Relations Board, they must pay atten- tion to those eight principles, not just due regard. These are the labour laws of this province. They must pay attention to all eight of those principles as they are set out and defined in the code.

How can one argue about the aspect of the right to communicate? You know, from the members of the opposition I hear the sky is falling in regards to the ability, or lack of it, for people to be able to talk to one another if it came through a certification process. This is not about certification or decertification. This is about allowing people, the employees, the opportunity to get the facts as they apply to their workplace relative to whether or not they ought to go and certify. Let's just go through this a moment. What, in fact, would happen in this particular process?

I mentioned this in my earlier remarks, but I think it's important to

3546 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 16, 2002 say it again. If there is a majority — that's 55 percent of those in the workforce — t h a t h a v e s i g n e d c a r d s f o r certification and they're presented to the board, the board then has to make a ruling on whether a vote is to be held. That's usually what follows suit. There then has to be a vote within ten days of that order.

During that period of time, during that ten-day window, then either the union organizer or the em- ployer can request the Labour Relations Board to have an industrial relations officer attend and to hold a su- pervised meeting, done in such a manner that both the employer and the union representative understand how that meeting will be conducted.

This is so that there are not a lot of unfair labour practices that would take place, so that there isn't coer- cion or intimidation on either's part and so that the employee — the very people we're talking about giving the right information to be able to be either represented by union or not, or whatever the issue may be — can understand the facts of it. [1530] Once that discussion is held…. It's not a debate. It's an opportunity for the union to present its case. It's an opportunity for the employer to present its case.

Then they leave, and thereafter the employees as a body will decide whether or not they certify. Do you know what's quite incredible, Mr. Speaker? It's that, in fact, that very phrase of the right to communicate — that no person shall be denied the right to communicate in speaking to their employees — is in the code today, but it hasn't been adhered to in the way it was meant. We've changed that to give it clarity and to give direc- tion to the Labour Relations Board in their adjudication of this process. Then we're putting regulation to it so that one understands how that meeting ought to take place.

I want to be clear. It's extremely important to me as the Minister of Labour that those in the labour move- ment, those as individual employees and those in the business community in the province understand that I know my responsibilities. I take seriously the statutory responsibility of making sure that those individuals in the workplace are looked after and protected. I under- stand the aspect of how one goes about the union certi- fication process and the necessity of balance in all of these particular issues that come to play in the issue of labour relations.

Ultimately, what we're attempting to do by chang- ing this legislation and moving ahead with this is to find a way to rekindle that entrepreneurial spirit in British Columbia, to get this economy going again, to have people have the confidence to invest in the prov- ince. With that investment and the expansion of this economy come jobs — good, well-paying jobs with benefits for the people of British Columbia. Quite frankly, many of those jobs will be good union jobs. This is not about the sky falling.

This is not about one running out there, chasing one's tail and getting all excited that there is a huge labour swing from one side to the other. This is balanced and measured. When one takes into account all three pieces of legislation as to what we are attempting to do here and studies them without the emotional challenge that others would like to present to the general public — if you look at it care- fully in the quiet — you'll see that it is just that. With that, I am pleased that this legislation has been brought before the House. I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Second reading of Bill 42 approved on the follow- ing division: [1535-1540] YEAS — 40 Coell L. Reid Halsey-Brandt Hawkins Whittred Cheema J. Reid Bruce Santori Nettleton Roddick Masi Thorpe Plant Collins Clark Bond Stephens Neufeld Coleman Jarvis Anderson Orr Harris Brenzinger Mayencourt Trumper Christensen Krueger McMahon Bray Nijjar Bhullar Bloy Suffredine Cobb Sultan Hamilton Kerr Manhas NAYS — 2 MacPhail Kwan Hon. G. Bruce: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

Bill 42, Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. G. Bruce: I call second reading of Bill 49. WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Work- ers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002, Bill 49, be read a second time now.

This bill, like the other two I have introduced this week, is an important step towards achieving our gov- ernment's goal of encouraging employees and employ- ers to develop healthy workplace relationships that lead to good, sustainable jobs. This bill is designed to make British Columbia's workers compensation system sustainable, so it can protect workers and employers in

THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3547 the future. The goals of this bill are to restore the sys- tem to financial sustainability by bringing costs under control, to make the system more responsive and to maintain benefits for injured workers, which are among the highest and best in Canada, while ensuring fairness for workers and employers.

This bill will make it possible for the Workers Compensation Board to maintain employer rates at levels comparable to other provinces, to clarify coverage of conditions related to mental stress and to improve management of the sys- tem by providing a new permanent structure for directing WCB. This bill furthers the government's new-era com- mitment to make the Workers Compensation Board more responsive to the needs of workers and employ- ers alike. It also follows through on our January 2002 strategic plan, which calls for a more accountable, re- sponsive and cost-effective workers compensation sys- tem.

This legislation is a result of careful consideration after several reviews of our workers compensation system that have been carried out in recent years. That began with the 1999 Royal Commission on Workers Compensation. That was under the former NDP ad- ministration and was followed by two recent expert reports: one on WCB policy and the legislation by Allan Winter and a second on WCB service delivery by Allan Hunt. These reviews, particularly the royal commission, involved extensive consultation with in- dividuals and groups concerned about the future of the system.

That royal commission had over 3,000 public submissions and was a cost by the former government of $7 million. It was then left on a shelf. [1545] This legislation strikes a balance between many diverse views that were expressed during that consul- tation and is consistent with the recommendations of the resulting reports. The bill is concrete action to ad- dress serious problems facing our workers compensa- tion system. Its primary goal is to protect workers' benefits into the future by returning the system to fi- nancial health.

Where previous governments failed to act, we are acting today to protect the system for the future. The changes introduced through this legislation will make the system sustainable by bringing costs under control, allowing for employer premiums that are comparable with other western provinces and mak- ing it possible for the system to avoid falling into a huge deficit in the accident fund, which has been pre- d i c t e d i f n o a c t i o n i s t o b e t a k e n . I n m a k i n g t h e s e changes, we've been careful to maintain our province's WCB benefits as among the most generous rates in Canada.

This bill is a balanced and responsible response to disturbing trends within the workers compensation system in British Columbia. Our WCB board, which is funded by premiums charged to employers, is headed towards huge deficits in the accident fund. This is what's used to pay benefits to injured workers. Al- though the system had a surplus in the year 2000, and that was mainly due to unusually large gains in the funds investment portfolio, it ran a deficit in 2001 of nearly $287 million. The current forecast calls for an accumulated deficit of more than $900 million by the year 2005.

This is due primarily to the system's rapidly increasing costs. If we do not act now, the future of our workers compensa- tion system could be at risk, and benefits for injured workers could be threatened. In recent years Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba have been forced by economic realities to renew their systems, but pre- vious B.C. governments did not act. Concern about financial sustainability was crystal clear. It was crystal clear in the 1999 royal commission report back to the previous NDP government.

It stated this out of the royal commission: "Clearly, the core goals of a sustainable structure for funding the workers compensation system must include the assurance that sufficient and stable financial resources are available to secure benefit payments to injured workers over the long run." They failed to act. The recent review of the WCB carried out by Allan Winter repeated this point to me, in his report back to the ministry. Mr. Winter's report, which we released at the same time as introducing this bill, says — and this is a quote of Mr.

Winter: "I have been convinced that the current workers compensation system in B.C. is becoming unsustainable." We cannot afford to allow our workers compensa- tion system to slide into crisis. The system is at risk, and we must act. The system is unaffordable, yet with a balanced set of changes, if we take those steps today, it could be made sustainable for the future while still maintaining benefits among the best in Canada. We saw the WCB face serious problems, and there was an opportunity to renew the system when we came into office last year.

We appointed Allan Winter to bring forward recommendations, taking into account the 1997 royal commission report. A person receiving benefits today will not receive less when this is passed. Workers injured after this legislation has come into force will receive benefits at the rate of 90 percent of their net pay at work, instead of the previous system which paid them 75 percent of their gross pay.

No other province calculates benefits using a rate higher than 90 percent of net pay. [1550] In order to control costs and ensure fairness, work- ers who receive federal disability benefits for the same injury will have their WCB benefits reduced by half the amount of their federal disability benefit, representing the employers' share of the cost, to reduce the effect of stacking, which is sometimes also known as double- dipping. Also, under the new system permanently dis- abled recipients will receive wage-loss benefits until the age of 65.

Then they will receive a lump sum re- tirement benefit which they can use to buy an annuity, much as what happens with many employers' pension plans. This lump sum retirement benefit is funded by WCB through a further award. It's equal to 5 percent of

3548 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 16, 2002 the recipient's monthly WCB benefit, which is depos- ited into a retirement account for the recipient. The recipient can also choose to match that payment to double the amount that's deposited into the retirement account. In addition, this bill requires that at age 65 every recipient who has a permanent total disability will re- ceive a special needs review. This is in order to make sure that they have all the support services they need. The WCB will provide any needed services for life.

Let me emphasize again that this bill does not re- duce any benefits already awarded to injured workers. I just want to say that again for people to understand, because there could be people who are fearful that these changes relative to the benefit they're receiving today will be changed. That is not correct. I will say it again. This bill does not reduce any benefits already awarded to injured workers. The new method of calcu- lating benefits applies only to those benefits awarded after this legislation comes into force.

This bill also provides for an annual inflation ad- justment rather than the twice-a-year adjustment that has been the case under the old system. It limits the increases to 1 percent less than inflation to a maximum of 4 percent in a year. These limits have been set to help return the system to financial health. This particular aspect of things is much like one would find across Canada in a comparable situation. Other provinces are a little more or a little less. There's q u i t e a p o t p o u r r i o f t h e m a l l . T h i s i s a m e a s u r e d r e - sponse to a challenging financial solution.

As a result of these changes, British Columbia will still have, I be- lieve, the best workers compensation benefits in Can- ada while overall costs will be reduced and the sys- tem's long-term sustainability will be protected. Currently, British Columbia's projected average assessment rate for 2002 is $2.03 per $100 of wages here as compared to $1.68 in Alberta, $1.75 in Saskatchewan and $1.56 in Manitoba.

As I mentioned earlier, if we didn't take this action today, the only way to avoid a $900 million WCB deficit would be to jack up rates another 25 percent over the next three years, resulting in an annual cost of some $300 million for the employ- ers in the province. This bill allows the WCB to get costs under control and keep rates comparable with other provinces while still providing benefits among the best in Canada. This bill also addresses the difficult issue of mental stress claims.

The bill clarifies WCB coverage for men- tal stress by clearly establishing that compensation will be provided in cases of mental stress due to a sudden and unexpected traumatic event such as the post- traumatic stress that a bank teller may experience after a bank robbery. Coverage will also be provided in cases of mental stress that result from a compensable injury such as the loss of a leg. Coverage will not be provided in other situations such as chronic stress conditions resulting from the sort of ongoing stress that everyone experiences in their everyday personal and workday lives.

This clarification provides greater certainty for workers and brings Brit- ish Columbia's coverage into line with most other provinces. Finally, this bill addresses the serious governance problems that have plagued the WCB in the past.

As hon. members may know, a temporary panel of admin- istrators has run the WCB since 1995 because a previ- ous board structure, which was based on stakeholder representation on the board, resulted in a stalemate on many issues. [1555] This bill establishes a new governance structure with a board of directors composed of a chair; one worker representative; one employer representative; one director who is a professional, who provides health care and rehabilitation services to people with disabili- ties; one director who is an actuary; and two directors appointed to represent the public interest.

This modest-sized board will allow for balanced, well-informed decision-making. Every member of the board will be focused on the best interests of the sys- tem overall, which is good for workers compensation and good for our province. This bill does not address all the issues that sur- round our workers compensation system, but we are also intending to act on the remaining issues. First, I will be passing the Hunt report on — this one on the service delivery — to the new WCB board for it to act on those recommendations and reflect this in the WCB service plan.

Second, legislation regarding the WCB appeals sys- tem, based on the recommendation in Allan Winter's report, will also be dealt with this fall. Third, several remaining outstanding issues require additional work before legislative change can be made. These include occupational disease compensation, sur- vivor benefits, compensation for chronic pain, and regulation of occupational health and safety.

Addi- tional measures on these key issues will continue the important progress that this bill begins and will have a similar focus, protecting and improving the system so that we'll be there and be effective for workers and employers in the future. These changes are vital to making workers com- pensation sustainable for the future. They're an impor- tant part of our overall strategy for encouraging the development of healthy workplace relationships.

The result will be Canada's best workers compensation system providing benefits that compare favourably with other provinces, charging reasonable rates to em- ployers and fulfilling a vital role in protecting workers and employers. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading. Deputy Speaker: Continuing second reading de- bate on Bill 49, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. J. Kwan: Bill 49 represents the first stage of a three- stage attack on the compensation that injured workers and their families receive.

Changes to the appeals structure are expected in the near future, and compen- sation benefits for occupational disease, survivor bene-

THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 3549 fits and chronic pain are expected to be introduced in the fall or in the next spring session. Let me just review for one moment the history around the establishment of WCB. Before 1917 in Brit- ish Columbia, if a worker was injured on the job, the only option for compensation was to bring a lawsuit against the employer. To eliminate expensive and time- consuming trials, workers compensation laws were introduced.

The laws gave workers the right to com- pensation and required employers to absorb the costs of the system through regular payments known as premiums. In exchange, employers were granted im- munity from lawsuits. While the 1910 Meredith Commission report, the philosophical foundation to our current workers com- pensation system, stated that compensation for work- ers was the first goal of the system, the proposed legis- lation suggests that the financial viability of employers and the workers compensation system itself is the first and paramount goal.

Now with Bill 49, the whole tone and purpose of the Workers Compensation Act has changed from the protection of workers and their wages to the protection of employer rights and their right to a competitive edge in the free market, what- ever the costs to workers. [1600] Bill 49 changes the way compensation benefits are calculated, resulting in a substantial loss in compensa- tion for workers who are injured in the twenty-first century. Injured workers are entitled to pensions if they have suffered a permanent disability. Under Bill 49, workers will see a 20 percent reduction in their pen- sion amounts.

Not only does Bill 49 target pensions, but injured workers over the age of 65 will no longer be entitled to ongoing support. Once an injured worker reaches the age of 65, they will receive a one-time lump-sum payment. It has been estimated by the B.C. Federation of Labour that this change will mean that injured workers will see a 79 percent reduction in the compensation they receive. Through Bill 49 the prov- ince is abandoning its most vulnerable citizens: injured workers and their families. I quote from the B.C. Federation of Labour's April 18, 2002, submission to the Legislature entitled A Job to Die For?

"Employers in British Columbia claim that health and safety and workers compensation costs are killing their 'competitive advantage' and are demanding lower costs. Evidence from a number of research studies, however, indicates that cuts to the workers compensation system are not warranted, nor are they financially necessary. "A study comparing the British Columbia WCB with workers compensation systems in Ontario and in seven different states in the United States showed that the BC WCB is one of the most efficient and cost-effective systems in North America.

Benefits for injured workers in British Columbia, for example, are five times higher than the U.S. average, yet the net costs per worker are 49 percent lower for employers in B.C. than in the U.S. "As well, studies indicate that privatized workers compensation systems cost employers considerably more than public systems. Marketing costs and the need to make a profit take money out of the private system — money that could be spent on injury and illness prevention and injured workers' benefits. "The WCB's financial situation also indicates that cuts to the system are not necessary.

For the past six consecutive years the WCB has realized an operating surplus totalling the amount of $1.5 billio

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0516pm-03
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0516pm 03
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6bd4d1cd7cc7706748314b0bf0387e28c897c75d

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).