2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

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

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

J. Bray

Hon. R. Coleman

B. Suffredine

A. Hamilton

Tabling Documents

B.C. Human Rights Commission, annual report, 2001-02

Second Reading of Bills

Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002 (Bill Pr401)

T. Christensen

Committee of the Whole House

Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002 (Bill Pr401)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002 (Bill Pr401)

Second Reading of Bills

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

Kate Ryan-Lloyd

Hon. C. Richmond

J. MacPhail

Second Reading of Bills

Workers Compensation Amendment Act,

2002 (Bill 49) (continued)

J. MacPhail

[ Page 3533 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2002

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

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 important individuals in all of

our lives. I know that today all of the members in this House will take the

opportunity 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 Victoria,

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

offices. 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 programs 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 Provincial

Steering Committee, Infant Development Program of British Columbia; Mary

Stewart, regional adviser of the Infant Development Program for the north

region, Valemount; Marie Watts, policy analyst, Ministry of Children and Family

Development, Victoria; Karen Isaac, executive director, B.C. Aboriginal Child

Care Society, North Vancouver; Annie Wolverton, regional adviser, Infant

Development Program, lower mainland region, Burnaby; Maryanne Robinson, B.C.

Association of Infant Development Consultants, Coquitlam; 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 Children'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.

MacPhail: On behalf of my colleague from Vancouver–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 Outreach 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 commitment 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 welcome 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 that I've found who were prepared to come here. 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 tournament under, of course, the watchful and respectful

eye

[ Page 3534 ]

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 surprise 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….

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….

MacPhail: It's not because you're boring that you have no friends — eh?

[Laughter.]

Hon. G.

Bruce: I'd like to make sure…. We have 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 Providence

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 Corporate Group, Lois Cartlege. With her are Jude Cahoon, 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 fantastic

facility in our community. If you would like to come, you're welcome. Ladies and

gentlemen, representing 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 attention 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

Scandinavian and Korean.

I would

like to introduce in the gallery today Cynthia Cheung, Carla Willock, Roy

Tanner, Claudia Russ, Deborah Cooper and Celine Anderson.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) GANG ACTIVITY IN

INDO-CANADIAN COMMUNITY

Nijjar: I rise today to raise an issue of great importance. 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 community 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 community 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 believe 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

collectively.

As an

elected official, it is very easy to ignore difficult 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 solutions. 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 regarding 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 community has

no choice but to deal with the matter. And if

[ Page 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 beginning 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,

representing 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'Connor, 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 countries around the world."

The

Walkerton inquiry found the provincial government'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 reductions 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 management. 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 increased 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 SergeantatArms 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

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 latest confrontation.

The people

of Canada responded immediately in response to the September 11 attacks. Within

45 minutes we accepted 224 diverted planes and 33,000 passengers 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 relationship. 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 punished 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 Affordable 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 thousands 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

MacPhail: A year ago the Liberals ran on an election 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

Services: 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 something 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.

[ Page 3536 ]

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 overnight. 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.

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 website 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 been able to

make up for that loss of operating room time from that stage. We are working on

it. We are making some progress, but clearly we have a long way to go.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: What a difference a year makes, because 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

opposition.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: Here's what the Minister of Health Planning said when she was in

opposition: "The facts are simple," she said. "The longer

patients wait for cardiac surgery…"

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order

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 acknowledge 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:

When the Liberals were in opposition, 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 Planning 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.

[ Page 3537 ]

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

If the Minister of Health Services is confident 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 promises. 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 Columbians

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 already today…. Here we are

not even a year from taking 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

Suffredine: My question is for the Minister of 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.

Suffredine: I understand that at Nelson the Mount St. Francis residential

care facility is being phased out. Can the Minister of State for Intermediate,

Long Term and Home Care tell us what options residents 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

seniors. It is not appropriate for extended care, and it is not appropriate for

lower levels of care. The information I have from the interior health authority

is that an RFP is going to be issued very shortly for a replacement facility,

and the residents of Nelson can feel assured that they will receive the

appropriate care in the most appropriate setting.

FUNDING FOR

EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT

S. Orr:

My question is to the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development. In

September of 2000 the federal government announced a $2.2 billion

federal-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 million 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 strategy, 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

[ Page 3538 ]

these dollars are being spent effectively. Can the minister 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 answers to research questions which would be

most important 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:

My question is to the Minister of Education. In the New Era document, the

government committed 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 involved; 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 parental involvement in those

schools. We were the first jurisdiction 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 advisory councils for the first time.

We have sent out a survey 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 signatures concerned about reductions in

legal aid funding and related programs.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I present a petition from STRIDE, Strategy to Reduce Impaired

Driving Everywhere, from thousands of British Columbians requesting that May 15

be made…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. R.

Coleman: …a provincial day against dangerous driving.

Suffredine: I wish to present a petition on behalf of approximately 1,000

residents of the Kootenays urging the government to make preservation of

medicare a top priority.

Hamilton: I have a petition signed by 76 concerned 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 annual 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

Christensen: This is second reading on Bill Pr401.

The purpose

of the bill is to restore Spring Enterprises 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 Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing

Orders and Private Bills. They've approved the bill and reported that back to

the House.

I would

therefore move that the bill be now read a second time.

[ Page 3539 ]

Motion

approved.

Bill Pr401,

Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

[1440]

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.

Christensen: I move the committee rise and report 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?

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)

MacPhail: Yesterday I adjourned debate on this legislation, so I rise to

continue my comments in opposition to Bill 42, the Labour Relations Code

Amendment 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, community 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 province 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 important

was because Fred Randall was talking about himself 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 progressive 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 people and continued to lobby for that as part of the government 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 employers…. 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 Minister 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 stability 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 employment law in this province more than pays Mr.

[ Page 3540 ]

Hochstein back for his donation of over $150,000 in one year to the Liberal

government.

Mr.

Hochstein is the head of the Independent Contractors 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 they did it.

It gets reported as if Mr. Hochstein is unhappy that it didn't go far enough.

Then, we

also have the organization of small businesses 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 government. Isn't that interesting? Hmm. A media conglomerate

donating to a Liberal party. Hmm. Anyway, they're very pleased with this being a

first step, too, and of course, it gets reported as if the government 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 British

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

to just earn a decent living, radically altering those rights to actually erode

them and in many cases deny them.

We have to

look at all the legislation that this minister 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 employer changes. We have to

look at the legislation 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 Relations 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 contract 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

Employment Standards Act changes.

colleague and I took our lunch hour today to meet with a group of people who are

directly and extremely negatively affected by the changes to the Employment

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 understand 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 Labour Relations Code say that an employer

has the right to communicate to workers when they organize a union now. Those

who, through no fault of their own, don't understand the history of labour law

in this province know full well that anytime an employer has the right to

interfere in an organizing campaign, it is always 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 alternative 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 Employment 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 unions 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, because 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: because 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

[ Page 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 avenue to solve our looming skills shortage.

All of a sudden the Business Council of British Columbia is tearing their hair

out because there's going to be a skills shortage. That's imminent; it is upon

us now. Really, Business Council of British Columbia, where were you when the

Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission 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 unionized 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 operating

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 construction

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 pension 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 pension and a dental plan.

Now,

because of the unions negotiating pension plans as a top priority, we also have

a wealth of investment opportunities through the use of those pension 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 altering 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,

because 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 Liberals 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

forward:

"'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 —

it's hard to keep 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

[ Page 3542 ]

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 exhaustion or legislation to exhaust the

public. The government is ramming through bills. They're going to invoke

closure. They're going to shut down debate. The Government 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 Minister 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, introducing legislation, changing

people's lives forever, taking away rights that people have had for decades,

lessening those rights, refusing opportunities to ordinary working people

because he has to deliver for his own friends.

Not only

are people exhausted, but they have absolutely no confidence in this government

that the government's even telling them their full agenda. They have no

confidence in this government that the government 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 legislation. 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 province.

[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

reckless, 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 correct about what this government's doing.

Despite the denials of the government, it turns out that the opposition'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

predicted it that that was exactly what was going to happen."

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 collectively 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 employers communicate about joining unions, 99

percent of the time it's to discourage people from joining a union. That's by

academic studies, not by my word. The workplace isn't a democracy. We know that.

It's not designed to be a democracy. So if the minister stands 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.

Krueger: Just a few words in support of this legislation and in response to

the Leader of the Opposition, 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

[ Page 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 executive

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 undertaken

to benefit all working people in British Columbia, 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 British 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 — perhaps not the ones the leader

or the NDP favour, but they have a union. It's a very reasonable one, one that

is sensible 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 jurisdictional dispute, so that

employers' jobs get shut down and delayed. Really, productivity is the big issue

between those two approaches rather than any question 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 unions that were so much keener on

helping them be competitive in the marketplace than the other companies — the

ones that have an umbrella known as the 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 percent, 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 Standards 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. Nothing 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 approve 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 Opposition, 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

[ Page 3544 ]

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 operated 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 membership.

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 always

had if we hadn't languished under an NDP government 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 irresponsible 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.

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 that government does an electronic transfer of

funds 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 example, to attack this government in very false, misleading

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 Employees 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 passengers 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 quorum at meetings to

fulfil the agenda of the union leadership itself. Once a person hires on at

these workplaces, 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 serving 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 — the single member or perhaps a couple of 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 public 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: restoring

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 individual from

the Immigrant Services Society. I ask the House to please make them very

welcome.

[ Page 3545 ]

Debated Continued

Krueger: Just for the record, for those few members 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 matters relating to an employer, a trade union or the

representation 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 opportunity 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 moving a little bit further.

I submit to

this House and to the people of British Columbia that this is very balanced,

reasoned and reasonable 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 comments 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.

Krueger: We're exhilarated.

[1525]

Hon. G.

Bruce: We are.

We were

given a task to undertake a year ago today, 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. Ladies and gentlemen, we are doing that. We are doing it

one brick at a time. There is a plan that we are following through in all

aspects, whether it's health care, education 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 we go about doing that. What we've done here in respect

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 particular 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 Columbia and of this country of Canada, I

understand the importance of the union movement. I understand the importance of

good viable businesses, and I understand the importance of the rights of

employees in the workforce. What we're attempting to do in this legislation 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 looking at the purposes section, the very

principles, when they bring in their adjudication on decision-making.

As a Labour

Relations Board, they must pay attention 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

[ Page 3546 ]

say it again. If there is a majority — that's 55 percent of those in the

workforce — that have signed cards for 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 employer can

request the Labour Relations Board to have an industrial relations officer

attend and to hold a supervised 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 coercion 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 direction 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 movement, 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 understand the aspect of how one

goes about the union certification 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 changing 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 province. 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 carefully 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 following 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 Workers 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 government's goal of encouraging employees and employers 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

[ Page 3547 ]

the future. The goals of this bill are to restore the system 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 system by

providing a new permanent structure for directing WCB.

This bill

furthers the government's new-era commitment to make the Workers Compensation

Board more responsive to the needs of workers and employers alike. It also

follows through on our January 2002 strategic plan, which calls for a more

accountable, responsive and cost-effective workers compensation system.

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 administration 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 individuals 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 consultation and is consistent with the recommendations of the

resulting reports. The bill is concrete action to address serious problems

facing our workers compensation system. Its primary goal is to protect workers'

benefits into the future by returning the system to financial 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 making it possible for the system to avoid falling

into a huge deficit in the accident fund, which has been predicted if no action

is to be taken. In making these 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. Although 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 compensation 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 previous 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 compensation 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, workers 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 disabled recipients will

receive wage-loss benefits until the age of 65. Then they will receive a lump

sum retirement 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

[ Page 3548 ]

the recipient's monthly WCB benefit, which is deposited 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.

addition, this bill requires that at age 65 every recipient who has a permanent

total disability will receive 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 reduce 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 calculating benefits applies only to those benefits

awarded after this legislation comes into force.

This bill

also provides for an annual inflation adjustment 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 quite a potpourri of them all. This is a measured response to a

challenging financial solution. As a result of these changes, British Columbia

will still have, I believe, the best workers compensation benefits in Canada

while overall costs will be reduced and the system'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 employers 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 mental 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 British 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 administrators has run

the WCB since 1995 because a previous 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 disabilities; 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 system overall,

which is good for workers compensation and good for our province.

This bill

does not address all the issues that surround 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 system, 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, survivor

benefits, compensation for chronic pain, and regulation of occupational health

and safety. Additional 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 compensation sustainable for the future.

They're an important 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 employers and fulfilling a vital

role in protecting workers and employers. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Deputy

Speaker: Continuing second reading debate 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 compensation benefits for

occupational disease, survivor bene-

[ Page 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 British 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 compensation and required employers to absorb the

costs of the system through regular payments known as premiums. In exchange,

employers were granted immunity from lawsuits.

While the

1910 Meredith Commission report, the philosophical foundation to our current

workers compensation system, stated that compensation for workers was the first

goal of the system, the proposed legislation 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, whatever the costs to workers.

[1600]

Bill 49

changes the way compensation benefits are calculated, resulting in a substantial

loss in compensation 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

pension 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 province 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.

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 billion. Some of the surplus

was allocated to fund the board's future liability costs. At the end of the

year 2000 the WCB liability fund was funded 109 percent. That is 9 percent

more than is required to meet future liabilities. Also, $720 million was

rebated to employers in the form of rate adjustments over five years and

debt forgiveness. WCB rates have declined 22 percent since 1996 and are at

the lowest average rate since 1991."

Just to

give it some perspective, the total number of work injuries reported and the

total number of short-term disability, long-term disability and fatal claims

first paid during each of the years from 1992 to the year 2000 consistently show

a steady decline in the total work injuries reported since 1992. In 1992 the

total work injuries reported were 197,793. In the year 2001 it had declined to

172,103. In the area of short-term disability, long-term disability and fatal

claims, in 1992 it was reported at 81,003, and in the year 2001 it declined to

68,334.

[1605]

I share

this statistic with the House because the numbers have been steadily declining.

As such, the rates have also been steadily declining.

I want to

say this as well. Even though the numbers are declining, I think the numbers are

still too high. One death in the workplace is one too many. Workplace injuries

can be prevented if people are conscientious about it and if there's education

and good prevention in place. Perhaps instead of taking away benefits for

injured workers and their families, maybe the better place to invest

government's energy and resources from the employers is to look and see how we

can further reduce the injury rate in the community.

That will

benefit all concerned — the individuals, the employers, everyone. It's bad

enough for a person to suffer a workplace injury. In the midst of trying to cope

with the trauma of an injury, especially injuries that are severe and have

long-lasting, debilitating effects — aside from dealing with the trauma of

seeking medical attention, rehabilitation, retraining and so on — the family

and the individual are also burdened with financial pressures because the

paycheque is no longer being brought home.

For many

workers, of course, their insurance is workers compensation. That's the

insurance for injured workers, but now we have a situation where government is

saying they want to reduce the amount of benefits for injured workers. That's

what the government is saying. Make no mistake about that. That is what's going

to happen with Bill 49.

Individuals

who suffer injuries in the workplace after the bill passes will have to not only

deal with the traumas around that injury, the debilitating effects of that

disability, the attempts at retraining if that's at all possible for the

individual, depending on the severity

[ Page 3550 ]

of their injury, but they now have to worry, furthermore, even more about

financial support.

For the

government to make the suggestion that WCB can't afford to compensate workers is

simply wrong. It is simply wrong based on the evidence we have before us. At the

end of the year 2000, WCB's annual report indicates that their liability fund

was funded at 109 percent. That's 9 percent more than what is required to meet

future liabilities.

Not only

that, employers got a rebate. They got a rebate in the amount of $720 million in

the form of rate adjustments over five years and debt forgiveness. Employers are

getting moneys returned to them, so who is paying for the reductions the

government is now saying they can't afford? The government is asking injured

workers and their families to pay for it. That's what is going on with Bill 49.

WCB is

efficient. It is effective, and it is financially healthy. I would say that if

there's a need to improve and overhaul WCB, if you will, then the focus has got

to be around how to make that system better for the injured workers and their

families, not worse. As an MLA, I don't get a lot of cases on WCB, I must admit,

but I do get some. Most of my cases centre around income assistance and the

like, but I do get some.

[1610]

Usually,

the problems that people are faced with at WCB are around how difficult it is

for them to get the compensation they need and to go through that process. Those

are primarily the problems that people are faced with, so if I were to advocate

a change in our system around WCB, then it's got to be focused on how to make

the system easier and better for the people who have suffered injuries, for the

families of injured workers and for the families of workers who have died on the

job.

That's the

direction that I think government should go, not in the direction of taking away

benefits for injured workers and their families and making it more difficult for

them to access the WCB.

As I

mentioned, in 1917 workers and employers in British Columbia established the

historical compromise, the beginning of the workers compensation system. Injured

workers and their families won the right to compensation for lost wages. In

exchange, they gave up the right to sue their employers for workplace injuries

and fatalities. Employers accepted the responsibility to pay for workers

compensation 85 years ago so that they would save the time and expense of legal

action arising from workplace injuries and deaths. We ask the government to

respect the working people of British Columbia and leave the principles

underlying the historical compromise intact.

We ask the

government to make a commitment to the workers of British Columbia and pledge

that the government will not make any reductions in health and safety

regulations, to injured workers' benefits and services or to services required

to prevent workplace injuries, illnesses and deaths.

Let me just

go into a little bit more detail around changes to compensation benefits. This

information was derived from the B.C. Federation of Labour's response to the

Royal Commission on Workers Compensation in British Columbia. I quote from their

submission:

"Compensation

benefits are currently based on a worker's gross average earnings. Permanent

total disability and temporary total disability benefits are equal to 75

percent of gross earnings. Permanent partial disability and temporary

partial disability benefits are equal to 75 percent of the difference of

earnings pre- and post-injury. The commission recommends that this be

changed so that the benefits would be calculated at 90 percent of net

earnings."

This will, in fact, mean compensation will now be based on 90 percent of the

average net earnings of an injured worker, instead of 75 percent of the average

gross earnings. That is now what is in Bill 49.

"This

recommendation, if implemented, would have a dramatic economic effect on

injured workers."

Let me just give an example.

worker earning $39,000, who is married and has a non-working spouse or is

single with one child, would receive $3,149 less in benefits. A single

worker without dependents earning $39,000 would receive $4,467 less in

benefits.

"This

recommendation moves the board away from the original intent of the workers'

compensation system — to compensate injured workers for their work-related

injuries. In our view, this penalizes workers for their work-related

injuries while appeasing employers by decreasing injured workers' benefits.

Workers should not receive less money on compensation than when they're

working. The Federation is totally opposed to 90 percent net. We do accept

the concept of 100 percent net, but only if there is no maximum right of

compensation."

[1615]

The Workers

Compensation Advocacy Group submitted some thoughts on the proposal made in the

report of the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation to determine compensation

based on net, as opposed to gross earnings.

"If

calculated on a net basis, benefits should be paid at 100 percent of net

rather than 90 percent as recommended. We pointed out to the royal

commission, without success, that a fair scheme of net benefits at whatever

rate would require that the board periodically review the worker's

circumstances that would affect the percentage of net tax which the worker

would have to pay. For example, a worker injured in his early twenties when

he is single would be taxed at a relatively high rate, resulting in a lower

net benefit rate than a worker of exactly the same age who already has a

family. If the first worker were later to marry and start a family, it would

be highly unfair to maintain his compensation at the single-worker rate

simply because he was not married at the time of the injury. The employer

would have paid the same assessment for both workers, and the benefits

should be the same. Calculation of benefits on a gross basis has many

practical advantages, administratively and in terms of equity, which the

commission appears to have overlooked."

This was taken from the submission from the Workers Compensation Advocacy

Group. Their request makes a lot of sense. It's very logical, very

commonsensical.

If you have

an injury when you are single, the taxes that you pay as a single person are

higher. I know that.

[ Page 3551 ]

I got married only last year. I know that the rates are different versus

somebody who has a family, who has dependents, a spouse and so on. It would make

sense, then, in later years if that person should develop a family for the rates

to be adjusted accordingly. That is just fair play, but somehow that was not the

perspective of the commission. I don't know for what reason, but it was not a

recommendation made to government.

Bill 49

proposes to deduct 50 percent of any CPP disability benefit received or provided

to an injured worker from the compensation benefits provided by the WCB. The

B.C. Federation of Labour is opposed to the changes recommended by the

commission to integrate CPP benefits into workers compensation benefits.

Currently,

an individual is eligible for CPP disability benefits four months after CPP

finds them disabled. The average amount received on CPP is $673.22 per month;

the maximum amount is $895.36 per month. The commission recommends that the CPP

benefits be deducted from the workers compensation benefits. For injured workers

this means a substantial decrease in benefits, and the B.C. Federation of Labour

is opposed to this for several reasons.

One is that

it is compulsory for workers to participate in the Canada Pension Plan.

Therefore, workers should realize the benefits when necessary. That is to say,

if you pay into the plan, when you need to benefit from that plan which you have

paid for, you should receive the full benefits you paid for, not a reduced

amount of benefits. That's what Bill 49 is proposing.

[1620]

Deducting

the Canada Pension Plan benefits from the workers compensation benefits is

off-loading the responsibility of workers compensation onto the public system.

Reducing the amount of workers compensation benefits is directly a subsidy to

the employers. Coming from a government that says they do not want to subsidize

employers…. What the government is doing is finding different ways of

subsidizing the employers. Here we have, in this instance, a subsidy to the

employer by way of reducing the amount of workers compensation benefits to

injured workers, taking that money directly away from them and giving it to the

employers. That is a subsidy to the employers — the same thing, I would argue,

with the tax issue, but I won't go into that today.

submission from the Workers Compensation Advocacy Group in response to the Royal

Commission on Workers Compensation expresses many of the same concerns as the

B.C. Federation of Labour, and I quote from their submission, the submission

from the Workers Compensation Advocacy Group:

"We

agree with the federation that the recommendation to deduct CPP benefits

from workers compensation benefits would be a great injustice to injured

workers. As pointed out, workers pay for the CPP benefits through their

contributions, which they are required to make by law. In fact, CPP can be

thought of as a kind of statutory disability insurance scheme as well as a

retirement and life insurance scheme.

"In

most cases there is no overcompensation for workers receiving both types of

benefits because of the limited nature of CPP benefits and the deficiencies

in the way Workers Compensation determines wage rates, etc. Even if there

were an overlap in isolated cases, Workers Compensation should continue to

be the primary payer, since the work injury is the reason for the worker's

disability."

I agree with the Workers Compensation Advocacy Group and the B.C. Federation

of Labour 100 percent on this issue. People are required by law to pay into

their CPP. Nobody at the worksite wants to be injured. Let's make no mistake

about it. Nobody wants to be injured, but when they are injured they should

benefit from the insurance which they are required by law to pay for. They

should benefit from that, and those moneys should not be clawed back by

government as is being proposed under Bill 49.

It should

not be clawed back by government, yet government is doing exactly that. When

they're clawing it back, who are they giving it to? Not to the injured workers.

They're taking it away from the injured workers, and they're giving it to the

employers — the place where the worker got hurt to begin with. The person

should not lose that financial support that I know many desperately need,

because they are unable to enter into the workforce anymore. It is their last

measure of insurance, if you will, for some financial independence.

Why would

government want to claw that back? I think it's just mean-spiritedness. I really

do. I really do, and I think that is an obscure kind of priority that government

has in viewing that somehow injured workers should receive less financial

support, which they're due, which they paid for, which they have invested in.

If they

weren't going to get that return, then why make them pay it by law? Why would

you then make a person pay, invest in an insurance scheme in which they're not

going to yield the benefits they should yield from it? It makes no sense; it

makes no sense whatsoever.

[1625]

From the

B.C. Federation of Labour's

summary of changes to the Workers Compensation Act

document, another change that's been highlighted under Bill 49 is that

compensation will also be affected by changes to the consumer price index. I'll

quote from it:

"Currently,

compensation benefits are adjusted twice yearly, January and July, to

reflect changes in the CPI" — consumer price index. "This is to

protect workers' benefits from the effects of inflation.

"The

amendment to the act changes the adjustment from twice yearly to once

yearly. As well, the amount paid out to the workers is CPI, minus 1 percent.

Thus, if the inflation rate is 4 percent, injured workers will only receive

a 3 percent adjustment.

"The

inflation rate in British Columbia is currently 2.2 percent. Under the new

system injured workers' benefits will be adjusted to 1.2 percent. Again,

money out of disabled workers' pockets"

I know a

lot of injured workers and their families suffer gravely after a serious injury.

Many, particularly those who have been deemed to be disabled and unable to

return to the workforce because the injuries are so severe, suffer greatly. In

the process of trying to

[ Page 3552 ]

manage and deal with the trauma of their injury, the financial pressures on

their families are enormous. As it was, the compensation, even if there wasn't a

change, is already a reduction from what they normally earn.

Most

people, as I say, don't count on being injured and don't want to get injured.

Those accidents when they happen in the workforce do throw your life for a loop.

All of a sudden the money that you were counting on earning from your job is

reduced. Now it's going to be further reduced, and each year that reduction is

escalated by the rate of inflation adjustment. The act says they will no longer

receive the rate of inflation as it is. It is going to be less by 1 percent.

Year after

year, you will find yourself in a position to fall further and further behind on

the basis of your standard of living because your support from workers

compensation that you're due and entitled to receive is no longer going to match

the inflation rate.

Another

area in terms of big changes in this legislation on the compensation side deals

with the pension component. Again, I quote from the B.C. Federation of Labour's

response to the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation in British Columbia:

"Changing

the non-economic loss awards from a pension to a lump-sum payment system is

a tremendous cost savings for employers. For the injured worker it is unfair

and inadequate compensation for the loss incurred.

"We

feel that this recommendation is penalizing workers for their injuries and

is not in keeping with the original intent of the workers' compensation

system; that is, compensating workers for work-related injuries, illnesses

and diseases."

The maximum

amount compensated in the form of a pension is $85,000 for 15 years and under.

Receiving a lump sum payment of 5 percent of that $85,000 would mean that they

would only receive $4,250. That is a substantive change.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

From the

B.C. Federation of Labour's document on the

summary of changes to the Workers

Compensation Act, the Federation of Labour has provided an example of what a

permanently disabled worker will receive under the proposed changes to the

pension system. Let me just cite that example:

[1630]

A worker

who earned $40,000 gross annually would currently receive $41,221, thanks to

receiving their full Canada Pension Plan benefit. However, with the changes

proposed in Bill 49, a worker who earned $40,000 gross annually will now only

receive $32,686.44. That's a nearly $10,000 reduction — $10,000 less than they

would have previously received. For this worker the new changes mean a 20

percent cut to his or her pension. As well, this worker would not have been

contributing to a work pension or to CPP and would, therefore, have a reduced

retirement pension. There are ripple effects not just for the immediate but also

for the future.

Bill 49

introduces a

section that allows for mental stress to be compensated if it is as

a result of an event that occurred in the workplace. The Workers Compensation

Advocacy Group expressed some concern over the recommendation made by the royal

commission to include this under the WCB legislation. Here's what they had to

say.

"The

very term 'stress' is a misnomer. We do not know any advocate who believes

that workers should receive compensation simply because they're exhausted or

need a rest or a vacation. The claims (universally rejected by WCB) which

are referred to as stress are actually claims for diagnosed psychological

disabilities such as anxiety syndromes, clinical depression, etc. These are

conditions which arise partly or entirely out of and in the course of the

worker's employment and, in principle, should be compensated on the same

basis as a back injury, repetitive strain injury or industrial disease. We

agree with the federation that the commission's recommendations would still

result in unequal and unfair compensation for workers suffering from such

psychological disabilities caused by their work."

On the

psychological front…. It actually is the case in other physical injuries, as

the Workers Compensation Advisory Group has identified. Oftentimes when you

suffer stress, if you will, that may well cause and lead into anxiety, further

anxiety, depression, a variety of different psychological impacts. Those

injuries do not necessarily come through one incident. You can't pinpoint:

"Today this happened; therefore, the person is feeling enormous anxiety

arising from their work." It's often ongoing and compounding. It builds up

to the point where the person is under so much pressure and, yes, so much stress

that then has led into perhaps depression, as one example. It doesn't happen

overnight. You can't necessarily pinpoint it to say it's this one incident

that's caused that. That may be the case from time to time, but generally

speaking, I would suspect that is not the case. There's usually a period of time

where things build up and escalate and where the pressures mount. Then, perhaps,

there is a workplace injury. The only difference is that you can't actually see

it, because it's a psychological injury.

[1635]

It's the

same difference with the person who does heavy manual work. You may strain a

muscle — a back muscle, whatever the case may be — but sometimes that strain

may not be by one incident but several over time. Your body is sustaining more

and more pressure physically, and then boom, all of a sudden you have a major

workplace injury. It's the same analogy, and that ought to be understood by

government. Yet in this legislation, Bill 49, it does not recognize that.

The Liberal

government has introduced amendments to the Workers Compensation Act in Bill 49

that reduce injured workers' benefits significantly and at the same time give

employers a one-time savings of $430 million and $117 million annually. The

Liberals will be making further changes to the act in the fall of this year and

in the spring of next year, giving employers a total savings of $300 million,

moneys taken away from injured workers.

[ Page 3553 ]

The members

of the community, some of them, have responded to the introduction of Bill 49.

In fact, there's a letter to the editor that was sent in yesterday, and it's

from a fellow called Terry Tate in Williams Lake.

Let me just

read the letter into the record. It's headlined: "Injured Workers Get

Shafted."

"The

government talks about protection for workers with major cuts to benefits.

Under their cuts, injured workers will receive much less and with all the

other problems they and their families face. It's disgusting for this

government and MLAs to state it's a benefit. A mid-income earner working in

mining or forestry earning $23.78 an hour will receive $364.96 less per

month if they're injured on the job. The real benefit ends up in the hands

of employers. This is about WCB rate cuts to employers at the expense of

injured workers. The government predicts Workers Compensation Board will

have a $900 million deficit in three years. If you read WCB's 2001 annual

report, the only way that could happen is for hundreds more workers to be

killed on the job and tens of thousands more injured on the job with lost

time."

As I

mentioned — I'm just going to pause for one moment here — the trend since

1992 is a reduction, a steady decline in total work injuries from 1992 to 2001.

If government doubles its effort to educate to prevent work injuries, along with

employers, I expect that decline will continue. That's actually what I think the

government should do, as opposed to amending the act by taking money away from

injured workers and giving it to the employer.

[1640]

Continuing

with the letter:

"The

only loss WCB faced was in their investment. Their investment income was

$785 million in the year 2000. It was $586 million in the year 2001 as

everyone took a hit in the markets after the September 11 attack. WCB

rebated back to employers $144 million in the year 2000. They rebated $90

million in 2001. Now at the expense of injured workers WCB will have $300

million more to pass on to the employers. There is no deficit as government

claims. Even the rate employers pay is less than the government states. They

claim WCB rates for employers is at $2.03. In fact, the WCB 2001 annual

report states that the rate is $1.98.

"The

government does not have the guts to tell injured workers that it's payback

time for employers. If government was really concerned about WCB or injured

workers, they would insist that more money go into prevention. Stop killing

and injuring workers on the job. You then rake in the benefits. Prevention

is really the best solution. They should not take it from the pockets of

injured workers.

"The

annual WCB report states that deaths and injuries on the job have dropped.

In the B.C. forest industry alone, 42 workers lost their lives, with 1,000

injuries. It is an improvement over the years. We should continue to work

harder on education and prevention. That's the right way to go about it, not

by ripping off injured workers.

"Terry Tate from Williams Lake."

A letter to

the editor. Terry makes good points around this issue. In researching the

information in preparation for debate in this House for the WCB bill, the

opposition didn't have a lot of time as the bill was only just introduced —

not yesterday but the day before. Here we are doing second reading debate with

substantive changes on these fronts. I know the government is trying to rush

through, because in my view they've mismanaged the time in the House in terms of

the debate and so on.

Having said

that, let me just look at the statistics around injured workers and what's been

going on in the broader community, as we know, in the last number of years.

These stats, I think, are important. They point to information that we can learn

from. I think they highlight the idea and the notion that the concentration of

government ought to be on the area of prevention. If you can prevent a worker

from being injured in the first place, then you actually save money. You save

money in a more substantial way. It also saves the employers money.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The member for Kamloops–North Thompson agrees with me. I would urge the member

to urge his government to work on preventative strategies and not take money

away from injured workers, because that is not the solution. When people are

hurt and injured and they've been traumatized because of it, some of them may

have severe disabilities as a result and may never have their l