1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 25, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 10, Number 2

[ Page 8049 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Today I have the pleasure of introducing Nancy Wooldridge, president and founder of the Canadian Grandparents Rights Association, both provincial and national chapters. Ms. Wooldridge and Eric Turner, who is also a member, are both present. They have been working since 1982, for the past 16 years, to have grandparents' rights to custody of and access to their grandchildren specifically recognized in legislation, and I have the appropriate message from the Lieutenant-Governor today. I want the House to welcome them.

D. Symons: In the House -- or in the precincts, I'm not sure which; I can't see whether they're above me -- are 68 wonderful children, or youths, from James Thompson Elementary School in Richmond. They have several adults and their teacher, Ms. Hallett, with them. I wish the House to make them welcome.

M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, in the gallery today from your riding is Audrey McClellan. She is joined by a friend of hers from Leipzig, Germany: Maike Beier. Would all members please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: Visiting us in the gallery today -- I think he may be on vacation, but we're going to have a meeting later on today -- is the Hon. Lyle Oberg, who is the Minister of Family and Social Services from Alberta and also the minister responsible for representing the province on the social policy framework committee, on which he and I are working together. I'd ask the House to wish him well and make him very welcome.

G. Hogg: In the gallery today is a student of UBC and a resident of the Surrey-White Rock riding who was very active in that area in a number of youth affairs. I'd like the House to please welcome Lisa Dominato.

J. van Dongen: My wife Karen is in the Legislature today. She usually doesn't want to admit to being connected with any politicians, but she's visiting today and she's going to be in Victoria for about three days. I ask the House to make her welcome.

Introduction of Bills

FAMILY RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Family Relations Amendment Act, 1998.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce the Family Relations Amendment Act, 1998. This bill will amend the Family Relations Act to specify that the people who can apply for access to or custody of a child include parents, grandparents and other relatives of the child, as well as other people who have a close relationship with the child. This bill for the first time explicitly recognizes that where it's in their best interests, children should be able to maintain relationships with grandparents and others when their parents separate.

Bill 25 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT ACT

Hon. D. Miller presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Northern Development Act.

Hon. D. Miller: Madam Speaker, I move the bill be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Miller: This bill follows through on a commitment made by this government and the Premier following the Premier's summit on northern development held in Prince George last October. That summit brought together northerners from right across northern British Columbia to canvass a range of issues. At the conclusion of the summit, it was determined by the attending people that a northern commissioner's office would be desirable to bring a focus to northern economic development issues. We're pleased to follow through on that commitment today.

Bill 27 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

B.C. HYDRO AND RAIWIND POWER PROJECT

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, yet another of the Premier's pet projects is now on the rocks. The Premier's disastrous power project in Pakistan is under criminal investigation for corruption and kickbacks and may be near collapse. Brian Smith, the chair of B.C. Hydro, said today that Pakistan has "got far more power coming on line than they can use. They don't have the money to pay for it, and they don't have the infrastructure to receive it." Can the Premier explain why he set up and sent millions of B.C. tax dollars to a country that has more power than it can use, no money to pay for it and no infrastructure to deliver it?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The agreement on the Raiwind power project, which was signed back in 1994, was a result of a proposal call by the Pakistan government at the time and was signed during a trade mission that was led by the Prime Minister of this country -- who, I might add, is a federal Liberal. The Pakistan government had put out calls for power projects throughout Pakistan, of which the Raiwind project was one of many. The current B.C. Hydro position, along with SNC-Lavalin's position, is that the project is proceeding and will come on stream shortly. We will have met all our obligations, and the taxpayers of British Columbia will not be on the hook at all.

[ Page 8050 ]

The Speaker: For a supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: In February of '96 the opposition exposed the scandal at B.C. Hydro with regard to insider trading and Cayman Islands bank accounts. All along, this Premier and this government have been dealing with the mysterious Ali Mahmood in Pakistan, as their Pakistan contact. Mr. Mahmood refused to assist B.C. Hydro in its investigation. Now he has gone underground in Pakistan and, according to some, may have fled the country. Can the Premier tell this House why B.C. continues to deal with a man who refuses what's taken place and refuses to tell us what he's done with over $1 million of B.C. taxpayers' money?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In response to the Leader of the Opposition's question, I'd like to point out a number of things. One, the allegations that he raises were dealt with in the Smith report. I can tell you, from a letter from the firm Considine and Co., that the voluminous report, which covered some 2,500 pages of interview transcripts and 25,000 pages of other documents, completely cleared B.C. Hydro. The fact of the matter is that . . .

[2:15]

The Speaker: Wind up your comments.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . . B.C. Hydro has acted properly at all times. What is taking place, though, hon. Speaker -- it is important for the Leader of the Opposition to realize it and it is what he doesn't seem to understand yet -- is political and economic turmoil in Pakistan. The independent power producers in Pakistan -- not just the one that B.C.

Hydro is being used by but also the companies involved, including National Power of Britain, Midlands Power of Britain, General Electric of the U.S.A., Coastal Power of the U.S.A., Toyota of Japan and Mitsubishi of Japan -- are all under pressure from the Pakistan government because their contracts were signed under the previous regime in Pakistan. They are doing everything they can to discredit the contracts and the companies . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . . from the government of the time.

The Speaker: On his second supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: The reason I am directing my questions to the Premier is that this minister evidently doesn't understand that there has been political turmoil in Pakistan for some time. In fact, in terms of the offering, it was pointed out that there was a great deal of political turmoil and there were millions of dollars at risk. You had to be willing to lose all of your dollars when you were investing. My question to the Premier is: has there been any contact between this government and Ali Mahmood? Where is Ali Mahmood? And what has he done with over $1 million of B.C. tax dollars?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think the question for this House is not, "Where is Ali Mahmood?" but: "Where is the member for Kamloops-North Thompson?"

The Speaker: Minister, that was not the question.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The issue in Pakistan is the economic and political turmoil that is currently taking place there. Instead of the opposition focusing on where Ali Mahmood is, they should be focusing on what Hydro is doing, along with our other partners in nations around the world, where legitimate contracts have been signed and where power projects that are intended to aid in development and to create opportunities for British Columbia are under threat.

The Speaker: Okay. Thank you, minister. Just finish up.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Why aren't they joining . . .

The Speaker: Finish up, hon. minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . . with our government and the governments of the other nations in telling Pakistan to back off?

G. Farrell-Collins: It's interesting that the minister raises the issue of Brian Smith's report. My question is to the Premier. The development costs of this project were handled by Southern Electric Ltd. in Pakistan, and those development costs, according to Mr. Smith, were never audited. In his investigation, Mr. Smith wrote: "The review team is of the view that Hydro should have required an audit of Southern Electric's development costs. This requirement would have eliminated the uncertainty about the validity of some of these costs."

Can the Premier, the man who championed this project through his government, tell us if he or his staff have ever demanded an audit of those startup costs to determine whether or not kickbacks or illegal commissions were paid to grease the skids to get this project through the cabinet in Pakistan?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The agreement to the Raiwind project, as I've said earlier, was covered by the Smith report, which categorically says that B.C. Hydro acted with all due diligence. The project was reviewed by the World Bank. Their report was that the project was in line with all the other projects that were being done, and due diligence was done there. The opposition is making allegations for which it has no evidence.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister is making assertions for which he has no evidence. Mr. Smith himself is clear, and the World Bank was clear when they said that some of our partners were money-launderers. There's another $1 million in this scandal that has gone missing and is unaccounted for. There was a million-dollar loan made by John Laxton to Ali Mahmood in October of 1994, about the time this project was being formed. This $1 million, according to Mr. Smith, has also not been audited and has never been accounted for.

No audit has been done on the million-dollar loan from John Laxton to Ali Mahmood, to determine whether or not that involved kickbacks or illegal commissions. Can the Premier stand up for the project he was so proud to usher through cabinet and tell us why no audit has been done? How can he or his minister possibly assure this House that there are

[ Page 8051 ]

no kickbacks and no illegal commissions, when the RCMP haven't yet concluded their investigation and the people in Pakistan are just beginning theirs?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The issue around the loan was canvassed in the Smith report and was addressed by the Considine letter I quoted from earlier on. Hon. Speaker, my response to the opposition is the same response that the governments of Canada, the United Kingdom, the U.S.A. and Japan said to the government of Pakistan: "If you have any allegations, bring them forward. Put up or shut up."

G. Plant: I have a question for the Premier too. It involves another quotation from the Smith report. He says this: "No conclusions can be drawn about all of the ultimate beneficiaries of the Southern Group's share of any financial returns from the Raiwind project, because the review team has been unable to determine the identities of all of the shareholders of SEL in the Marshall Islands. Mr. Mahmood could provide this information, but he has declined to do so in his responses to the review team."

So my question for the Premier -- and I hope he isn't waiting for the end of question period to stand up and give us the straight goods -- is this: if we don't even know who the other partners or shareholders are, how on earth can we know if there were kickbacks, in cash or share forms or some other consideration, to get this contract?

Hon. M. Farnworth: B.C. Hydro has a 7 percent share in the Raiwind project. They're a minority partner with SNC-Lavalin. This project is caught up -- along with projects from the United Kingdom, the U.S.A. and Japan, involving companies such as Toyota, Mitsubishi, General Electric and National Power -- in internal politics in Pakistan that are of a political and economic nature. That's what's going on here; it has nothing to do with what the hon. member is talking about. The story itself in Pakistan is over a month old.

If you start to see what's happening now, the government of Pakistan is recognizing what the governments of Canada, the United States and Japan have told them, which is to put up or shut up. They can't, so they're having to back off.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: Well, I want to quote from the May 11 issue of the daily Dawn , one of the newspapers in Pakistan, talking about the independent power scandal. This is what the newspaper says: " . . . these are highly sophisticated players. Isle of Man, Bahamas, Cayman Islands, Jersey . . . Channel Islands is where most of [the] commission-taking is consummated." Now, Southern Electric, Pathfinder Enterprises and the other partners are all registered in either the Cayman Islands or the British Virgin Islands.

Given that financial transactions in those jurisdictions are shrouded in secrecy, what assurance can the Premier give us that no commissions or kickbacks were paid through these offshore accounts?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd like to quote from a letter signed by Chris Considine, QC, independent counsel to the Smith inquiry: "Based upon the available evidence, the review inquiry found no secret fees, commissions, procurement fees or other improper payments by B.C. Hydro, BCHIL, IPC or any other companies in which they had an interest, including the project operating company, SEPCOL. In addition, there is no evidence that such fees or commissions were paid by or to any director, officer, employee or agent of any of those companies."

M. de Jong: It's tough to find evidence when the government's own agent refused to cooperate with the investigation, that's for sure.

It wasn't that long ago that the Premier was standing here in this House telling British Columbians what a great deal this was going to be -- how much money they were going to make. Well, if they look at the share price now, they'll find that it's dropped to just below 10 cents a share; the $12 million investment of taxpayers' money that this government committed is now worth somewhere around a million bucks.

Will the Premier confirm that this harebrained scheme that he touted as being the be-all and end-all of B.C. Hydro's new international investment strategy has ended up costing British Columbia taxpayers $11 million, just to start -- $11 million down the drain.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Once again the opposition has missed the ferry on this one -- or do I mean missed the boat? The project in Pakistan has been successfully completed and is undergoing a number of tests. The project will perform in the way it is supposed to. The current issue is the fact that it is caught up in internal politics in Pakistan. The shifting sands of this area, which I'm sure some of these members are very familiar with -- the hon. Opposition House Leader, on a trade mission to Tunisia, must have learned that -- will change.

The Speaker: Hon. minister, wind up your answer, please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The fact is that the people of British Columbia, and Hydro in particular, will not be on the hook for the $11 million, as the hon. member seems to allege.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: It was the Deputy Premier, just a year ago, who stood up and said in this House: "B.C. Hydro will make money out of this. Shareholders will make money out of this. That's the reason we got into it -- to make money for British Columbians."

Well, the question is not a difficult one, to the Premier, to the Deputy Premier, to the minister: on this day, May 25, how much money have we made on these Pakistan projects? How much?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's unfortunate that the opposition seems to want to focus on today as opposed to the long term, which is what this project deals with.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Easy, hon. members, easy.

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is a successful project that's being completed. The fact of the matter is that over the next few months, they will see that their allegations came to naught. The project will be completed, and British Columbia and B.C. Hydro will be in a good position at the end of it all.

Interjections.

[ Page 8052 ]

The Speaker: Hon. members, we need to move on. I want to recognize the hon. member for Peace River South.

Petitions

J. Weisgerber: I rise to present a petition.

The Speaker: Proceed.

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, on behalf of the Chetwynd Hospital Action Committee, I wish to present a petition of 926 letters from residents in that community. They say, in part:

"Chetwynd requests of the Minister of Health an opportunity to discuss our local situation. Our citizens are forced to drive 60 to 90 minutes for emergency health care. We only want the same access to health care as our southern neighbours enjoy."

Orders of the Day

Motions without Notice

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have several motions to move. One is on behalf of me: that the proceedings with respect to vote 32 in

Section A of Committee of Supply and the report thereon be declared null and void, and that the said vote be referred back to

Section A of Committee of Supply with respect to that portion of the vote relating to the British Columbia Ferry Corporation.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I also move that leave be given for the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills to meet while the House is in session today.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines relating to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 20.

[2:30]

STATUTE REVISION CORRECTION AND

MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS ACT, 1998

The House in committee on Bill 20; W. Hartley in the chair.

section 1.

G. Plant: The first

section of this bill identifies four regulations. The explanatory note says that the intention of this

section is to confirm and validate certain corrections which were made by regulation under the Statute Revision Act, and to give those corrections continuing effect. So the general purpose is to ensure that the statute revision project that was undertaken last year is, if you will, perfected to some extent by this

section and by these amendments, generally speaking. Is that a fair

summary?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 20, Statute Revision Correction and Miscellaneous Amendments Act, 1998, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 14.

WORKERS COMPENSATION (OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 14; W. Hartley in the chair.

section 15,

section 106.

Hon. D. Lovick: Before we commence today, let me do what I failed to do in our last gathering -- that is, to introduce the person who is primarily responsible for putting this bill together. Our senior policy adviser within the ministry, Susan McClure, is sitting on my immediate left. Joining Susan with me today is Gary Martin, who is the assistant deputy minister. Between the two of them and myself, I am sure that we will be able to answer any question that one could conceivably raise.

Having said that, we spent the first part of our time together looking entirely at

definitions, and we spent a considerable amount of time on that. I gave some assurances to members opposite that on at least one of their concerns, I would have some discussion with legislative counsel. It had to do with the definition of "union." Though I must confess, even after reviewing the debate, that I'm still not absolutely persuaded that we need to make changes, I nevertheless recognize the point being made by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

What that seems to be, quintessentially, is that there is an ambiguity there and that what we understand union to mean at the beginning of a bill may be problematic when we get into specific regulations. I understand that is also probably a legal opinion; Russell and DuMoulin or somebody offered that. If so, so be it.

In any event, after considering this matter with staff and talking about it and reflecting on it, I am prepared to table an amendment. I think the amendment is fairly straightforward. I don't think we've shared this with the member. Alas, I had to fly out of here on Friday at 1 o'clock and didn't get back until about 1 o'clock today. Therefore I didn't have an opportunity before that time to approve an amendment.

Let me, then, just read into the record what we're doing with the amendment. We're effectively suggesting that we change the definition of union by doing two things. If I might, I'll just refer all members to the

definitions

section of the bill,

section 106. You'll note there that the definition of union contains one short statement. The proposal is to make the

[ Page 8053 ]

definition two statements, (

a) and (b). There will be a new

section (a), to read as follows: " 'union' means (

a) a trade union recognized under the Labour Relations Code, or" -- which I believe is what the member was asking on the one hand . . . . And

section (

b) becomes, using the old language we had here: "(

b) another organization of workers formed for purposes that include the regulation of relations between workers and employers" -- and here's the new part -- "if the organization has given notice to the employer and the board that it is to be considered a union for the purposes of this Part."

In my reading of Hansard , that is essentially what the member and his colleagues are asking. Rather than having a long debate, saying, "We think it doesn't matter, and they think it does matter," for purposes of clarity we are prepared to introduce this amendment, which we think will solve the problem. Accordingly, then, I table this amendment, which I believe the Table has. No? May I give this to the Table now. Could I also give one to my colleague across the way.

C. Hansen: Before I start to respond to the minister's comments about that definition, I just want to clarify with the Chair that we're going to deal with these sections one at a time. So we'll start with

section 106, deal with that and go on to 107?

The Chair: Yes.

On the amendment.

C. Hansen: Certainly the amendment that the minister has put forward goes 95 percent of the way toward what I thought was important. My temptation was to stand up and say that I second the amendment motion, which, of course, is not required under our rules.

But it does leave me with just a couple of concerns, so I'll put these questions to the minister. In fact, over the weekend I drafted an amendment to this. To coin the old phrase, great minds must think alike, because we were looking at this from very similar points of view.

My remaining question to the minister is on the ability that the employer has to dispute a notice that comes from an organization. In the wording that I was going to put forward, I was going to say, in addition to using the definition of "trade union" which you're adopted from the Labour Relations Code, "an organization of workers that has been advised by the employer," so that the onus is on the employer to accept the recognition of that body as a union for the purposes of this act.

The third thing that I was going to suggest in my amendment -- which I will not proceed with, given the one that you've put forward -- was that the board would have the opportunity to designate an organization to be considered a union. My concern with the wording that you've put forward is that there may be a body out there that sends a letter that really should not be considered a union for the purpose of this act. But they put forward a notice in writing to the employer, to say: "We wish to be considered a union for the purposes ofthis act." My question to the minister is: what rights do employers then have to dispute that notice? Is that an appealable notice coming from that organization?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm afraid my response will sound like a rhetorical question: why should they? It seems to me that if the workers decide they want group X to represent them and their interests . . . . Whether the employer agrees with that or not is, frankly, not the employer's choice. It is the workers' right to determine whom they wish to represent them.

C. Hansen: At the risk of splitting hairs on this one, I think it's important that it be on the record for accountability purposes. If we had an organization of workers . . . . I will read from the amendment that you've put forward: " . . . [an] organization of workers formed for purposes that include the regulation of relations between workers and employers." There could be an organization that comes together within a workplace and takes it upon themselves . . . .

You may have some executive members who then decide: "Yeah, we want to have the rights of a union under this act." There's not necessarily accountability back to the workers in that workplace, where they take that initiative. Yet there's no ability on the part of the employer to do other than recognize that body, given this wording -- at least, that's the way I read it.

There's nothing in here that gives the employer the opportunity to go to the board and say: "Wait a second. This group that thinks it should have these rights does not have the support of the workers in the organization for this purpose." At the same time, there doesn't seem to be an avenue for appeal, unless there is some other provision in the act that I'm not thinking about at the moment. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on that.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member's last comment is the most important one. Unless there is some other avenue he is not thinking of -- and that would be the Labour Relations Board, in effect . . . . The Workers Compensation Board adjudicates a lot of things, but it doesn't adjudicate who is and who isn't the union, and who represents people who call themselves a union. That's the avenue, if there is such a one needed.

[2:45]

C. Hansen: As I read the amendment, the definition of a trade union under the Labour Relations Code is something that the LRB would obviously be adjudicating, but in part (

b) of your amendment . . . . This just involves an organization that wants to send a letter to the employer saying: "We're it." I don't see where there's a recourse to the LRB there. I can understand it under (a), but what would be the process for that kind of recourse to the LRB under

section (b)?

Hon. D. Lovick: I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for taking a little time. I am perplexed by the question, as are my staff, in essentially trying to imagine a circumstance in which something like this could happen. If a group of workers say, "We are indeed the people who have been chosen," or "We see ourselves as representing the workers in this workplace to deal with health and safety issues," and they are a group that does not represent the majority within that workplace, then I am sure the employer would very clearly know that that is the case.

The employer would therefore say: "Sorry, there are other people who are making the same claim, so you guys are going to have to sort that out." In other words, it's not just a matter of somebody telling me: "End of story." Obviously, there is still some kind of human interaction in the workplace. I frankly don't think this is an issue. As I say, I can't imagine,

[ Page 8054 ]

unless one had a terribly dysfunctional workplace in the beginning, where people somehow never talked to each other . . . .

C. Hansen: I don't wish to belabour this issue, so I will leave it on the note that this may be something officials can look at in the context of regulations, to give clarification as to how this may be implemented. I certainly applaud the minister for bringing forward the amendment. It goes a long way towards meeting the concerns that I raised on Thursday, and we may wish to dispose of the amendment at this point.

Amendment approved.

section 15,

section 106 as amended.

C. Hansen: The only other area I want to focus on before we leave

section 106 is the definition of "owner." My colleague from Richmond East raised this briefly on Thursday. The definition of owner causes me concern when we get into the sections on responsibilities, because those responsibilities are very broad. I'm wondering if the minister can give us any precedent where the definition of owner has been given as broad latitude as it is in this bill that's before us.

Hon. D. Lovick: Member, we're in the process of searching. I am advised, however, that this isn't some kind of arbitrary designation. Rather, the language we are using here comes from another statute. We're simply searching at the moment to find out which precise one that is.

I take it that having established this one to your satisfaction, we will then move beyond

definitions. Am I correct in that assumption?

C. Hansen: Perhaps while that reference is being sought, I can just elaborate on this so we can make the best use of our time. The responsibilities that are being added to the owner, under the responsibilities section, are really quite severe. Yet you couple that with a definition which is so very broad that it captures a lot of people -- to the point that a lot of individuals who would fall under this definition of owner would probably have very little knowledge or ability to realize that they have some very serious responsibilities under this act.

If we got to those sections of the act and the minister was prepared to accept another motion, which I'll put forward at that time, then that might satisfy a lot of my concerns. But I certainly wish to raise it under the

definitions section, because it is so all-encompassing.

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for that comment. I will advise him that we might indeed. He makes the point, though, that I want to make: simply that it's difficult to argue that the problem is a definition based on something that you might do later which will give life to a definition, as it were. I recognize that that is a systemic problem, if you will, in dealing with legislation. We always start with

definitions, and we say that in contemporary and customary usage, this is what words mean. Above and beyond that, we nail them down in terms of formal

definitions; but ultimately the definition will have meaning insofar as the words are used later in the act. So it's wrong, of course, and it simply doesn't work very well for us to start by saying: "Well, we'll come at the problem in the

definitions

section of the bill rather than in the substantive section."

Accepting the legitimacy of the member's concerns, I will say yes, of course, as we get further into the bill and we look and say: "Well, given that 'owner' means these things, this

section is problematic." That's a debate we can certainly have, and I am quite prepared to listen to the member's concerns at that point.

To answer the first question, the specific one about whence came this particular definition, I am happy to report that this is apparently fairly standard. This is indeed the language used in occupational health and safety workers compensation legislation in the Yukon, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. So it's tried and true usage.

C. Hansen: As I indicated, it's not the definition itself that causes me the concern; it's how it then gets used in later clauses. I do have some concerns about those later clauses where the word owner appears. My concern is made that much more serious by the fact that this definition is as broad as it is. That's why I feel it's important to raise this now. Certainly, if the minister were prepared to amend that to a much more limited definition of owner, my concerns would still be there in those later sections but perhaps not as vociferous as they will be as a result of leaving this definition in place.

What I would like to do when we're talking about amendments is . . . . I do have some amendments that I will be putting forward as we progress. I have not tabled these, but I would like the minister to have a copy of them, because they're certainly in the spirit of trying to make constructive suggestions for improvement of the act. I will send these amendments over to the minister, and he'll see the one that I've suggested pertains to the

section dealing with the responsibility of owners as we get further into the legislation.

With that, unless any of my other colleagues have comments regarding

definitions, I'm prepared to move onward.

Section 15,

section 106 as amended approved.

section 15,

section 107.

C. Hansen: Certainly this

section is well written. As we read through the purposes of this act, it does give us a sense that this is something very noble and something we can support. The concern I have is that what is stated in the purposes of the act doesn't always match with what is in the rest of the act. If we had a bill before us that really was 60 pages of legislation that fulfilled the purposes as set out in

section 107, I think you would have unanimous wholehearted support from this side of the House. But I guess this is where we have our problems. So we will deal with some very specific issues under this section, and we'll deal with some general issues as well.

If I can start with some of the specific issues in terms of the meaning of certain words. In subsection 107(1) it refers to citizens: "The purpose of this

Part is to benefit all citizens of British Columbia by promoting occupational health and safety . . . . " My understanding from people that know an awful lot more about this than I ever will is that the use of the word "citizen" in B.C. legislation is very unusual. I'm wondering if the minister could elaborate on why it's used in this particular context and what its meaning is.

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the terminology is probably used in the same way it is in Julius Caesar . It means everybody.

C. Hansen: In that case there's probably another word that could have been used to more advantage than the word

[ Page 8055 ]

citizen. My understanding is that the word has no meaning in B.C. law but that in federal law it actually pertains to citizenship. A citizen means you're talking about a citizen of Canada, which would exclude a landed immigrant and somebody who is in British Columbia under a worker's visa. I'm wondering if the minister is very sure of himself and whether this word does not take on a legal definition that is very limited in the effect this part may have on protecting the rights of landed immigrants and those working on workers' visas.

Hon. D. Lovick: We are indeed mindful of that, and certainly there is no effort to infringe on the federal government's constitutional turf or anything like that. The last part of the answer is simply that the royal commission uses that particular terminology: it talks about the benefit of citizens.

C. Hansen: But I do think that it's important that we come back . . . . I recognize that given the powers under regulations, which are in the latter part of this bill, there is the power to give

definitions to words through regulations. I think what's in Hansard is also an important factor in giving

definitions to words. Just to clarify, I think the minister is saying that this word is not meant to be restricted to Canadian citizens but that it includes all those in the workplace. I just want him to clarify that this is in fact his definition and that officials, again through

interpretation, can make sure that that's the net effect of this.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes.

C. Hansen: I do have some general concerns about the bill when it comes down to the wording of certain sections. I do feel that this is a piece of legislation that was put together very quickly, and it may not have had some of the fine-tuning it might have required. This is one of those examples that I think a bit more time might have allowed some more precise wording to be used in different sections.

If I can move along to subsection 107(2)(

c) where they talk about encouraging the education of "employers, workers and others regarding occupational health and safety," I'm wondering if the minister could elaborate on whom he sees fulfilling that educational role and what kinds of programs the board might be putting in place to ensure that this educational function is encouraged.

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for the question, Mr. Chairman. The board has a specific mandate to carry out educational activities. Beyond that, however, I think it is safe to say that what this legislation is intended to do is to create what I have referred to before as a culture of prevention.

The process of creating that culture of prevention is to educate all of us that safety matters, that it is indeed everybody's business, and to create partnerships so that everybody in the workplace acknowledges that she or he has some part of that new culture for the workplace that says we are all concerned about one another's safety and are all going to do something to achieve that. That, I think, is the justification for saying that this bill sees as one of its purposes precisely what it says: to encourage the education of employers, workers and others regarding its new culture.

C. Hansen: As we get into other sections of this bill where there are specific references to training, for example, for members of the health and safety committees, I do want to get into more detail on what may constitute that training. I appreciate the fact that I'm zeroing in on what is a very general phrase in the purposes section, but I would like to use the opportunity to get a sense from the minister as to where we might be going with this whole objective of the WCB to encourage education. Does the minister envision any expansion of the kinds of education programs that the WCB is currently offering?

This is a new part. Are these new initiatives that he foresees as a result of this part, or is this really building on some of the very good programs that the WCB has had up until now?

[3:00]

Hon. D. Lovick: The board is doing some good educational safety promotion work right now. The obvious conclusion is that they could be doing more, given B.C.'s rather horrible record of accident, injury and death in the workplace. There's no question of that. I can't say today that yes, the moment this legislation is passed, that will suddenly expand by a factor of 50 percent, because those are obviously budget determination issues and so forth. We do, however, want to send a very clear mandate to the board that prevention and education about occupational health and safety is a very significant priority, as we see it. I'm encouraged, frankly, that the board is doing that.

Let me give you one small example, if I might. This morning I made reference to the fact that I was late getting here. The reason is that I was in Vancouver at Eric Hamber Secondary School, participating in a ceremony to award the young people in a young people's workplace safety program. What the WCB did is encourage young people to come up with a communications package or strategy to encourage workplace safety among their peers, simply because parents and old guys like us saying to young people to be very careful on the job doesn't work as well, perhaps, as their peers doing so.

They have this marvellous program, and I gather it's not a very expensive one, to get all these young people, effectively, to come up with ideas on how you sell workplace safety. That's the kind of exciting innovation that, it seems to me, is going to help grow that culture I talked about, and I'm sure the member would support that.

C. Hansen: I'm wondering if, in anticipation of this legislation passing, the WCB is looking at their education programs. Are there any initiatives being done to put new or different kinds of education programs in place? I guess what I'm trying to get at -- given this new part and the new responsibilities that are being brought into this legislation -- is whether the board is looking at any new initiatives in this area or if they are basically relying on the existing programs they have in place.

Hon. D. Lovick: I would love to engage in a discussion about what the WCB is doing or might be doing, etc., but I think that takes us beyond the mandate of the legislation. That's certainly an appropriate subject for the estimates of the ministry, and I'm sure my colleague across the way and I will have ample opportunity to discuss just those issues. They are important issues. Suffice it to say, a lot has been talked about. Whether there are specific proposals in place at this point I do not know, but I will certainly know by the time we have that discussion during estimates.

C. Hansen: As I mentioned earlier, as we get into later sections, specifically where it talks about training, I do want to get a better sense of who . . . . There are provisions in this act that state that the board has to approve training programs, which gives the board an enormous amount of power that has

[ Page 8056 ]

the potential of being very costly. I think we've talked, in our second reading comments from this side of the House, about the costs that will be imposed on employers around the province with this legislation. In his wrap-up comments, the minister refuted those, saying that those costs would not be that severe. Certainly if you start looking at the power that is being given to the board under this legislation to impose training programs, to specify specific training programs, there's really no indication of what these things cost. But there is an indication that the employers have to pay the costs, regardless of what they are.

So, as I say, I do wish to focus in on those more specifically. It's not something that I will leave until estimates to get some answers on, because I think it's important in the context of this legislation and the responsibilities that are being given to the board as a result of this legislation. Certainly those sections of the bill flow out of this part that we have before us right now, but I will save those until a later point.

I will move on to sub-subsection (e), which states that one of the purposes is "to ensure that employers, workers and others who are in a position to affect the occupational health and safety of workers share that responsibility to the extent of each party's authority and ability to do so . . . . " I think this is one of the key sections in this act. Certainly there is a great deal of concern that while the act purports to say that there is a shared responsibility, the rest of the act doesn't fulfil that purpose.

I think this is one of the key areas where what is said in the purposes is one thing, and what happens in the rest of the bill is something quite different. I ask the minister to comment on that.

Hon. D. Lovick: Purposes sections in legislation are always problematic. They're problematic essentially because what they inevitably do is get you involved in a debate that is essentially a second reading debate -- i.e., the principle and philosophy of a particular measure. The declaration of purposes says what the bill purports to do, what it ideally hopes to accomplish by this particular legislative measure. The test of how well the bill lives up to those purposes will clearly be the sections that follow.

Insofar, however, as we have already accepted the principle of the legislation -- we have passed second reading of this bill -- what we're now doing is clarifying, answering specific questions about the statements in the purposes sections. Beyond that, we aren't talking about the first principles of the bill. Rather, I think that discussion is properly reserved for the particular sections, as the member noted in his earlier comment.

So I don't think I'm going to engage in some long analysis of whether I think this will work or not, but I am certainly prepared to answer questions about each of these particular sections.

C. Hansen: I guess it begs the question: if you've got the purposes of a bill that don't match the rest of the bill, do you amend the purposes to correspond to what's in the bill, or do you amend the rest of the bill to correspond to what the purposes claim the bill is all about? That's probably a discussion to which there is no answer this afternoon.

But I do want to focus in on this section; I don't want to dismiss it in the way that the minister may wish me to. I think that the comments about shared responsibility . . . . Certainly if you go back to the report of the royal commission where they talk about the shared responsibility and accountability of both employers and workers for workplace safety . . . . What was in the royal commission report, which was to have been the basis of this legislation that's before us, is not in the act, is not in this bill, yet the purposes clearly state that it should be.

I can see that these purposes were written with a view to implementing exactly what is in the royal commission report. Then obviously, when it came down to the responsibility of workers and the accountability for workers, it is simply not in this bill. I would like the minister to comment on whether we should amend the purpose to reflect the fact that the rest of the bill doesn't do what this purpose says it's supposed to do or whether we should find appropriate places in the rest of the bill to amend.

Hon. D. Lovick: In my opinion, this bill does indeed do what the purpose is committed to doing. I'll give one small example: joint committees. There are workers and managers working together to promote and encourage issues regarding occupational health and safety. A joint committee, by definition, means you've got both sides, and they're both working to do precisely what

section 107(

e) says. So I don't accept the member's premise.

I know the example he's thinking of, and I know we will discuss that example, because of the one recommendation from the royal commission that the legislation does not mirror precisely. The member sees that specific example as sufficient to show that the purposes statement no longer obtains. I would argue that even that small example is perhaps debatable in terms of whether it has that effect on the total bill. But in my opinion, the bill is in general a very good illustration or enunciation of precisely what the purposes are.

C. Hansen: As the minister says, it is debatable. That's exactly why we are here in this chamber: to debate. What we are talking about are administrative penalties to be imposed on workers who flagrantly violate occupational health and safety regulations. It was a clear recommendation of the royal commission. They went to great lengths and devoted quite a bit of space in the royal commission report to explaining why they felt that was important. This isn't a case of going out and fining workers for the sake of fining workers. This is a case of being able to impose administrative penalties on workers who consistently and blatantly violate occupational health and safety regulations.

I'm fully prepared to debate this in a later

section of this legislation, but the problem is that at the later stages, we talk about the administrative penalties for employers. But later sections do not have the administrative penalties for workers in these very specific cases. My concern is that if we don't fully debate this

section under the purposes section, the Chair might decide that I'm out of order at a later stage. I think it's clearly in order with this section, but it may be ruled out of order at a later

section because I'm debating something that's not here -- and should be here -- as opposed to something that is here. I certainly don't want to let that opportunity slip by, because I think it is an area that we need a full debate on before this legislation completes committee stage. If the minister would like to suggest to me another

section where we can have this debate, I'm prepared to defer it until that section.

Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, you'll notice I leap to my feet with some alacrity, because I am prepared to offer a specific section. We can debate

section 196 to the member's heart's content on the issue of worker penalties. It seem to me that the member is on much more solid ground for being in order on 196 than we are on 107, so I would suggest that 196 is where it should happen.

C. Hansen: I'll be the first one to defer to the hon. member's experience and expertise in that area, so 196 it is. We shall certainly come back to this area under that section.

[ Page 8057 ]

Sub-subsection (

g) is one that caught my eye. Again, it's one of those things that if this is in fact what this legislation does, we on this side of the House would be very happy -- the purpose of the bill being, just to read it, "to minimize the social and economic costs of work related accidents, injuries and illnesses, in order to enhance the quality of life for British Columbians and the competitiveness of British Columbia in the Canadian and world economies." Certainly, hon.

Chair, it can be argued that those things that add unnecessary cost to small business, in particular, are in fact diminishing our competitiveness in the world. I think the small business community in British Columbia sees Bill 14 as having an exact opposite effect to what the minister would claim under this section. I have been surprised how few individuals in British Columbia realize the importance and the ramifications of Bill 14.

But what I found on a daily basis is that as small businesses and other organizations learn what's in Bill 14, they become quite concerned about the effect it's going to have on competitiveness in B.C. I think that even then, individual small companies would be quite pleased to incur extra costs if in fact they were to lead to lower accident rates in workplaces in British Columbia.

But the concern is that throughout this legislation there are provisions that certainly do add costs to small business that diminish our competitiveness in British Columbia. At the same time, they do not add to the health and safety of workers in the workplace, and that is a very real concern. I wonder if the minister could comment on this

section from his perspective, in terms of how he sees that this legislation, bringing in more bureaucracy and more regulatory requirements on employers, is somehow going to enhance our competitiveness.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, first of all, let's challenge just a little bit of some of the assumptions there. First of all, there seems to be this blanket assertion that regulation is somehow going to trammel the creativity and creative energies of small business. Let's put on the record very clearly that small business . . . . For starters, one of the working

definitions of small business used by this province is those with fewer than 20 employees. As you know, joint worker health and safety committees don't kick in for workplaces of fewer than 20 individuals. So that's point one.

[3:15]

Point two is to recognize that the preponderant majority of enterprises in this province, of the so-called small businesses, are probably fewer than five employees -- huge numbers. So to suggest that this phenomenon is happening out there and that they're all terribly worried about this incredible regulatory framework that's going to be imposed is overstating the case, I think. Let me give you a couple of specific examples for the record. We calculate that there are some 153,289 establishments in total in B.C. today. Almost 88 percent of those have fewer than 20 employees.

Of the 134,860 establishments with -- they keep saying "less than," but my grammarian instinct tells me "fewer than" -- fewer than 20 employees, almost 115,000 or 85 percent have fewer than ten employees. That puts it, I think, in context.

Therefore I struggle. The member asked me for my comments, you know -- was I worried about stifling business and business activity? The short answer is no, because the other side of the coin, of course, is simply that injuries and time lost due to work are probably more of an impediment to a successful business operation than will be the regulations that we're talking about here -- as well as those huge other costs to the greater society that we talk about.

It wasn't very long ago that I attended the National Institute of Disability Management and Research inaugural ceremony. The point they made was in terms of the literally billions of dollars that economies in the world are paying out because of workers injured on the job. And we've done nothing, for the most part, to reintegrate those workers into the workforce.

I think it's safe to say that most larger companies with more experience of workplace injuries, accidents and safety problems are very much on board and saying: "Yes, this is precisely the kind of thing we ought to be doing." That is certainly what I've heard. To argue that small business is less concerned about that or thinks that any intervention in terms of imposing a safety regimen is somehow going to be automatically hostile to or incompatible with the growth and development and success of the business, I think, is simply wrong.

The member and I apparently have some disagreement on that, and that's okay; that's what this chamber is all about, especially to have it in this forum. But I am not for a moment persuaded, despite the fact that I know there is a write-in campaign being organized by somebody or other to talk about the perils of Bill 14 . . . . Interestingly, nothing was happening until a few days ago. But suddenly the fax machine has started to burn up. I've been around politics long enough to know that this wasn't spontaneous combustion in action. Somebody is organizing a bit of a campaign.

The reality, of course, is that until that campaign got organized, we didn't hear much about this. We didn't hear much at all. Indeed, when the regulations were introduced -- this incredibly far-reaching statement about making a better and safer workplace for all workers -- the response of the business community was either complimentary or virtually mute. So I disagree with the member's conclusion that this is a terrible, terrible impediment and a disincentive to business, but I certainly respect the fact that he has every right to that opinion.

C. Hansen: Certainly when I first had a chance to read through Bill 14, I did have some real concerns about it. We undertook to try to broadly disseminate some information, so I'm not surprised that the minister is getting some response from the business community around British Columbia. In fact, I'm quite pleased to hear that there is a letter-writing campaign that's caught the minister's attention. It is a real concern, I think, to a lot of organizations in the province.

He mentioned that when the regulations came into effect, there was not a big outpouring of concern from the business community. That clearly was a process of six years, which led to the rewriting of those regulations. In those regulations, which were tabled last fall and which everybody had a good chance to look at before they came into effect on April 15, there are certainly things that some employers would have liked to have seen done differently -- and which I'm sure some worker organizations would have liked to have seen done differently. But that was a process that was very transparent.

Some of the concerns we have are that some of the processes that have led up to this bill have not been as transparent. Certainly this bill has equal if not greater ramifications than the regulations that came into effect. Yet this bill has not been out there for all to see for any significant amount of time before it's passed in this House.

The minister referred to the fact that bigger businesses do not have concerns. I can fully understand that, because the impacts of this legislation are not going to affect the major employers in British Columbia. They already have their health and safety committees set up. They've already got their

[ Page 8058 ]

human resources departments, with dozens of staff that are able to deal with this kind of new regulation. But it is clearly the smaller companies . . . . The minister talks about how the majority of companies have fewer than ten employees, and I accept those facts. But the point is that the group of companies that this legislation will now hit are probably the least able to cope with this new layer of administrative responsibility on those companies.

I also want to come back to some of the specific words in this section, where it's talking about: " . . . to promote a culture of commitment on the part of employers and workers to a high standard of occupational health and safety . . . . " That is something that I think we would all like to see happen: the safety culture, as it's referred to by the minister in other documents. We certainly want to encourage that ourselves.

I note that when we get into division 4, which talks about the health and safety committees, some of the research that the minister was relying on -- which he made available to me -- talks about the fact that where there is that culture in an organization, then the health and safety committees can be effective; but if the culture is not there to start with, then those health and safety committees are not as successful. Yet what I see in this legislation -- as is stated in the purposes -- is that this legislation is to promote that culture of a high standard of occupational health and safety.

And just to find another

section which I think uses similar language here: " . . . to foster cooperative and consultative relationships between employers, workers and others . . . . " You know, if we were successful through a piece of legislation in creating that culture then, yes, things like the health and safety committees would wind up having some possibility of success, as that research shows. But I don't see anything in this legislation that goes towards achieving this cooperative relationship or this culture of commitment that is talked about in the purposes section.

Certainly these are attitudes that have to be instilled, and you can't do that through legislation. I was wondering if, when the minister talks about promoting this culture, is he relying on things like the health and safety committees to create that culture, or are they something that can benefit as a result of the culture already being there?

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer is both. Okay? Or take your pick: is that chicken or is that egg? Let me just make a couple of points. I think the member is coming at the purposes

section of this bill in a fair and reasonable way, and he deserves a similar response.

Just a couple of points. First of all, let's make it very clear that the size of the company has no necessary correlation whatsoever with the number of accidents or the frequency of accidents or indeed even the severity of accidents. That's point one. Point two is that health and safety committees, to be sure, cannot guarantee a culture, but it would seem to me that they're a marvellous vehicle to foster a culture and to make it begin to flourish.

Try this out. Let me speak hypothetically to the House on this, Mr. Chairman, and say that if I am a manager/owner/operator of a firm with 25 employees, and I see that this is the legislation that mandates that we have to have a joint safety committee in my place of employment, what I'm going to do, I think, is say: "Okay, how do we do that so it isn't going to be horribly expensive, horribly problematic, horribly bureaucratic?" I'm going to call in my workers -- with whom I hope I have a decent relationship -- and say: "Look, here's something that's in all of our interests to do, to foster, to encourage. How can we, together, make this better?"

I don't think we should see it as the heavy hand of regulation. I think, rather, we should see it as a stimulus to get going and to do what should have been in place in the beginning. Let me give a specific example, using a larger business, of how you grow a culture. In my constituency, in Nanaimo where I come from, there is a mill -- the famous Harmac, a MacMillan Bloedel operation. It used to be both pulp and a sawmill. It is now two separate and distinct divisions. Harmac Pacific is the pulp mill.

Harmac Pacific used to have one of the absolute worst safety records in the province -- in the industry. Part of the reason they had that bad record was because of a lousy relationship between workers and managers at the mill. It was poisonous; everybody knew it. The PPWC, Local 8, hated MacMillan Bloedel, and MacMillan Bloedel thought that the PPWC, Local 8, were a bunch of irresponsible reprobates, etc. You get my drift. What happened, though, is that workers and management -- together, in committees -- said: "This is a loser. We're getting people who are hurt here unnecessarily.

It's costing us hugely, as workers, in terms of our friends and pain and suffering and all of that." The company said the same thing: "This is a loser. It's costing us money. It's also having a definite negative effect on production, because workers aren't happy and therefore not as productive."

What they did, starting about six years ago, was begin to meet together. As the manager of Harmac Pacific, Doug Eamer, tells me, seconded by the Local 8 representative on the safety committee, Ken Jupe: "We realized we had to learn to like each other. We had to learn to work together. We had to recognize that this is a partnership, and that this is an issue that belongs to both of us. We all have to buy in." In six years, they have turned that around radically. Harmac is now the sixth-best in the province in terms of industrial pulp mills, I think, and that's pretty good.

[3:30]

They're bound and determined they're going to be number one some day. It's making it a better place to work, making it a better community citizen and also making it a more profitable company. It starts with people who are perhaps on opposite sides of the table saying: "Safety is everybody's business. It's about workers being unnecessarily injured or sometimes killed, and we've got to do something about it." And they said -- they admitted it -- that it would cost in the short term; but in the longer term, they're all going to benefit.

I would suggest the same story will be told -- again and again and again, I hope -- by small businesses of 20 to 50 throughout this province -- those who are affected by this legislation. I don't think it's too onerous. I think it's a step in the right direction. I think, indeed, that as we go through the bill and look at all the regulations, we'll discover that they are not quite as onerous or as problematic as people might be inclined to believe. So there is my speech for the afternoon to the member, and I promise I will try to restrain myself hereafter.

C. Hansen: I enjoyed those remarks the minister made, because I think it does show the importance of workers and employers working together for health and safety. The example of Harmac that the minister used is probably replicated all around this province. But I think the key difference in where we come from on this bill is that you can't legislate that kind of cooperative attitude. If we work with the small business community and get them to recognize the importance of health and safety, then it can be successful; but to come in and legislate attitude doesn't work in any area of government, never mind in occupational health and safety.

[ Page 8059 ]

I think it's important to point out at this point that this whole concept of safety committees, for example -- which we will get to -- is something that was promoted by the employee representatives who reviewed the legislation -- and the expansion of those committees. It is not something the small business community felt was going to help. So what good does it do to try to ram it down somebody's throat? As the research that the minister has made available to me shows, and from the other research that I've done, if you're ramming something down somebody's throat in this area, it's not going to work.

Here we have pages of legislation that we're sending out to achieve these wonderful purposes as set out in this section, when there is no track record to show that those are going to be successful. We will deal with that in greater detail when we get to the

section on the safety committees, because we will have lots of questions and points to raise when we get to that point.

Certainly in terms of the purposes of the legislation, I think we've dealt with most of the issues I have. I'm prepared to move on from here, and the sooner we do, the sooner we'll get to some of those later sections.

Section 15, sections 107 and 108 approved.

section 15,

section 109.

C. Hansen: We're making great progress here.

Under

section 109 -- this is the

section that allows for a review -- it says: "The minister may appoint a committee to conduct a review of all or part of this Part and the regulations and to report to the minister concerning its recommendations." Could the minister please elaborate on the form and substance of this review and the timing of these reviews?

Hon. D. Lovick: The members opposite may have noticed that I was saying to the two people with me that here's what I think it's about. I'm just making sure that I'm answering what is indeed in the legislation. I have to restrain myself to not think I know everything.

What we're talking about here is analogous to a

section 7 committee in the Employment Standards Act -- or a

section 3 committee in the Labour Code, for that matter. I think my friend across the way is aware of that. What it does is it works essentially on the proposition that the industry, the workplace or whatever we purport to be regulating is probably dynamic and is changing on a constant basis. There ought to be a mechanism, then, available to us to respond to urgent, pressing circumstances without having to go through some elaborate process like setting up a royal commission or something like that -- in other words, a regular, ongoing mechanism whereby we can fine-tune and improve on things and we can respond to particular concerns.

That's what this provision is about; that's what the intention of

section 15,

section 109 is. It's to enable us to do this. It's largely, I would again emphasize, in recognition of the fact that the workplace is dynamic. I'll give you an example. How many years did people work at the video display terminals, typing with that flat keyboard that most of us grew up with? What you now see in offices are the new, so-called ergonomically designed ones, where your wrists actually flop right down. Personally, I find it awfully difficult to use, but I gather that you get good at it.

I'm told that it's wonderful and has the effect of significantly reducing the likelihood of something like carpal tunnel syndrome. I merely make that point to show the dynamic workplace. Who ever dreamed, 20-odd years ago, that a keyboard like that and exposure to a VDT would even be a problem? It wasn't part of a workplace. Today, of course, it is ubiquitous; it's everywhere, obviously.

The other reason, very briefly, is: look at what happened with workplace regulation. We didn't change the regulations significantly for 20 years. That's why we had that examination and consultation that went on for about six years, and that's why the result of it was that huge document that scared everybody. It caused fear and apprehension everywhere because it was so massive. Surely what we ought to be doing, in terms of a dynamic workplace and responding to concerns of employers as well as workers about the workplace, is something more like an ongoing review before things get too big or get to the boiling point, as it were. That's the intention of this.

My final point would be simply that there is no necessary commitment to say that six months from now we're going to do one of these. It's rather that you are setting up a mechanism whereby you can reply to the appropriate stimulus.

C. Hansen: The minister mentioned

section 7 of the Employment Standards Act. It is much more precise in what the responsibilities are. It clearly states that the

section 7 review under the Employment Standards Act has to take place at least every three years. In this wording that you're asking us to pass today, there is no such requirement. I think we saw, under

section 3 of the Labour Relations Code, where there is a similar requirement for ongoing consultation to take place, that the appointment of the

section 3 committee did not happen. Instead we saw last year, when this government came in with Bill 44, which had significant changes to the Labour Relations Code, that the consultative process that was provided for in the legislation had been totally ignored.

First of all, let me say that I support the idea of this review. I would like some assurance from the minister that this kind of review is going to happen in a timely fashion.

Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer is yes. I would just draw the member's attention, though, to the Employment Standards Act,

section 7. I would note that there is a conditional there. Note that the reference to every three years is within this context: "If a review committee is appointed" -- I underline that -- "it must provide to the minister, at least every 3 years, an evaluation report . . . . " So it's very much a conditional. It isn't the fact that that's a given, automatically, every three years.

But the answer to the member's question is yes.

C. Hansen: What I'm looking for is an undertaking by the minister that this review will go forward within a specific time frame. Are we talking . . . ? The minister said that he's not going to promise me that it's going to happen within six months. My bet is that you're still going to be trying to sort out the regulations from the act within six months, and there are probably major sections of this bill that will not be proclaimed six months from now. I'll wait to be proven right on that one.

But certainly I would like some undertaking from the minister as to when we can expect a review to take place under this section.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, the short answer to the question is: when there is a need. It doesn't mandate that there must be a review. It says: "The minister may appoint a committee to conduct a review on all or part of this Part" -- etc., etc. In

[ Page 8060 ]

other words, it's a reserve power, if you will, if there is a problem. This is issue-driven; this is problem-driven. This isn't driven by the minister or his or her bureaucrats saying: "Hey, I think it's time to create some more work, so let's conduct a review." In that sense, given that, it's impossible for me to then say: "Yes, I promise you that within five months, we're going to have a review." That would be irresponsible in the extreme.

To go back to your question, however, about if it will be timely, if a problem is determined and if it is a very discrete problem -- as in a part of this, as opposed to all of it -- then it would indeed be done in a timely fashion. I think it's rather like the old proposition and maxim about justice: if it is indeed delayed, sometimes it's denied. I think the same would obtain here.

C. Hansen: I think the minister may have contradicted himself when he talked about this review being only issue-driven or problem-driven. Certainly if there's a problem or an issue with the services, the minister's got the capacity to conduct a review of anything he wants. I read this . . . . Going back to the minister's earlier comment, when he talked about the changing workplace . . . . This shouldn't wait for an issue; this should be an ongoing process. If there is an issue or a problem, then fine, go get somebody to review the issue or the problem.

The reasons I support this particular clause in here are that it's not going to wait until we have a problem and there is going to be a process of review of how this act is fulfilling the purposes that it was set out to do. That certainly shouldn't wait until we've got a specific problem. It should be, as I think the minister said earlier, just a reflection of the fact that we do have a changing workforce. I would certainly like to hear an undertaking from the minister that within a period of 18 months -- I'd even give him two years; mind you, we may have an election before then -- there will be a review undertaken under this section.

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is no. No, I won't give that assurance. I think it's irresponsible for us to say: "We haven't passed this legislation yet, but when it's passed, the first thing we're going to do is review it, even if there's no reason to do so." That seems to be what the member is asking. I'm sorry, but I just do not think that's a responsible approach. Rather, it seems to me that what ought to be done is that if we look at it and say, "Oh, we now perceive that there are problems," we should respond to them.

Frankly, it would seem to me that any government that sees there are difficulties with it, that sees that people are, for example, unhappy and are manifesting that in various ways . . . . Government responds to those kinds of things; any government would respond to that kind of stimulus, it seems to me. To offer some kind of arbitrary claim like, "Oh yes, whatever happens, even if everybody loves it, and they're all beating down the door to say, 'Oh please, let us buy into this legislation,' we're going to have a review anyway . . . .

" I do not think that is responsible, and therefore no, I don't think we need to say that 18 months or two years from now there will be a review or that that should ever be written into the legislation. I don't think it should be.

[3:45]

C. Hansen: I certainly wasn't looking for something of that nature to be written into the legislation. But I was looking for an undertaking that the minister would activate this

section in a timely manner.

I will move on to the next clause, where it talks about who should be part of this consultation process: "A review under this

section must include a process of consultations with representatives of employers, workers and other persons effected by this part and the regulations." I'm wondering if the minister could give some elaboration as to who he sees as being part of this review process when and if it ever happens.

Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, it seems to me that logically one ought to try to capture the constituency that is referred to within the measure. Therefore businesses both large and small, all of those who are directly affected by it, as well as their workers -- union and non-union alike -- in addition . . . . I think that would cover the workers and the employers as referred to. The other persons, it seems to me, would be the technical folks.

You would get some people with expertise, say, in other jurisdictions to see how our legislation matches up with the problems we've had or they've had -- those kinds of things. I think those would be the kinds of persons I would envisage being called together under this section.

C. Hansen: We are talking about the appointment of a committee here, which is provided for in subsection (1). In subsection (2) it then talks about the review including a process of consultation with representatives. There has certainly been some criticism in the past of some of these review committees and how they have been structured. If you look at the employer community in British Columbia, it is certainly anything but a homogenous group. We're talking about very diverse interests.

Employer groups that are working within regulated utilities, for example, are very different from large, fiercely competitive corporations. They in turn are very different from the small business community in British Columbia. We're talking about some very, very different groups. We're talking about public sector and private sector employers. Certainly the small private sector employer has a much different outlook on these areas than an employer such as a small municipality, for example.

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

To elaborate on that a little bit more, one of the criticisms that has been made in the area of workers is that whenever there has been a consultative process that included workers -- as set up by this government -- they have usually found somebody out of the trade union movement. The unionized workforce in this province only constitutes about a third of the overall workforce. If you look at the groups that are out there representing these various categories of employers and workers, I can see where the big business community in this province is very well represented.

They take care of themselves, thank you very much. The small business community in British Columbia has become very vocal over these last few years. I think that's something that . . . . It's not new to B.C., but certainly their willingness to get involved in these kinds of issues is new, compared to what it may have been ten or 15 years ago. I know that the small business community is very anxious that they be properly represented at the table -- not just be invited to submit briefs, but that they become part of the committee as it is structured.

If we look at the worker community, clearly it is possible to go to a phone book and find the trade unions in British Columbia that represent the unionized workforce. The non-unionized workforce in this province is very disparate, and there are clearly not organizations that are there to put their point of view forward. I think that means that government has a responsibility. Whether it's a

section 3 committee under the Labour Code or it's employment standards or it's a review committee that is set up pursuant to this legislation that's

[ Page 8061 ]

before us, it is incumbent on government to reach out and make sure that those views are solicited from all of those groups.

In addition, I would ask the minister if he shares with me the importance of having the small business community represented on the committee that may be undertaking such a review in the future.

Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, let me make the point that the makeup of the committee will depend hugely on the purposes of the review. If it is a review of the entire part, obviously we will have to make it a big committee and should try to accommodate every interest within the larger community. If, however, it's a very narrow and specific one, for instance, then clearly one would choose the committee accordingly. So I want to offer that caveat and that condition first of all.

Second, I agree with the member in the general construct that obviously, as I think I said in my first comment about this section, we ought to attempt to bring into any kind of review that might be undertaken all of those persons directly affected by the legislation -- or representatives, at least, of those constituent groups. The predicament we have, as the member knows full well -- and I believe his term was "the disparate and divergent points of view" within even communities that like to think of themselves as being relatively homogeneous . . . . The reality is: where do you find the representatives? "Who speaks for whom" is the old question, of course.

My take essentially is that yes, we ought to do so, and to the specific question about . . . . I'm sorry, I'd better complete that sentence. Yes, we ought to endeavour, to the very best of our abilities, to accommodate all of those disparate interests. The only caveat I would impose when the member says that small business must be part of this process, is, again, back to that problem with definition.

If the member is talking, for example, about microbusinesses -- places with one, two, three or five employees -- then I am not sure, given the nature of this legislation, that there is a place for those people at the table. I don't think they need to be at the table. But certainly with small business as we have defined it -- 20 and above -- the member is absolutely right, in my opinion, that they should indeed have a place at the table. I agree.

C. Hansen: I guess one of the recent examples that brought this to my attention was reading the report of the

section 3 committee on the Labour Code. They made reference to the fact that individual workers did not present briefs. At the risk of putting words into their report that aren't there, it was in the context of: "There can't be much anxiety out there on the part of individual workers, because they didn't come out to the meetings and didn't present briefs."

I think that when it comes to individual workers, it's clearly incumbent on government in these kinds of situations to reach out and solicit those views in a way that is very deliberate. I don't want to belabour the

section 3 committee. I know they went out and did surveys and things like that, but those are hardly good substitutes for getting that kind of specific input. I think it's also important that that kind of input be sought when we go through a consultative process.

Unless any of my colleagues have any questions on this, I don't think I have anything more under

section

Section 15, sections 109 and 110 approved.

section 15,

section 111.

C. Hansen:

Section 111 is the board's mandate under this part. This is an area where I think we are clearly putting the cart before the horse when it comes to the whole process of redefining the role of the WCB, its relationship with government and the services that it provides. In here we have set out the board's mandate.

It includes -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- the authority to make regulations; to undertake inspections; to provide services to the joint committees; to ensure that persons are provided with information to encourage, develop and conduct or participate in conducting programs for promoting occupational health and safety; to promote public awareness; to prepare and maintain statistics; to undertake or support research; to establish programs of grants and awards in relation to its responsibilities; to provide assistance to persons concerned with occupational health and safety; to cooperate and enter into agreements, etc.

To fulfil the mandate of this

part includes, as we'll find out in other areas, the enforcement requirements.

So really, all wrapped up into one body, we've got everything from the body that makes the rules . . . . It's the body that educates the public about the rules; it's the body that provides education services; it's the body that sends out the inspectors. At the same time as giving advice on workplace safety, they're also inspecting and have the power to bring in penalties, which then lead to appeals. All of that's very well and good, except that you're talking about one body. Clearly this is the mandate that is now before the royal commission.

Here we have, in this legislation, the board mandate set out in the same broad, all-encompassing terms that we have come to know as being the beloved WCB, at the same time as we have a royal commission underway to examine what are in fact the best structures to carry out all of these various functions -- whether it should fall under the responsibility of one body or should be the mandate of separate and distinct organizations.

I would like the minister to explain why we should be asked to pass, in this part, such a broad mandate for the board at a time when we're in the middle of a very fundamental and profound review of the overall operations of the board.

Hon. D. Lovick: Two points, if I might. The first one is simply that the mandate, functions, duties and powers of the board are consistent -- the ones outlined here -- with the recommendations of the royal commission. That's point one. Point two is that what we have here is simply a formalization and the spelling out of what was already in place, albeit perhaps in different regulations. All right? In effect, this is a statement of what was, but the codification thereof.

C. Hansen: But certainly if you look at the mandate that is before the royal commission today -- the work that they're doing in looking at the governance of the WCB -- I would contend that it is virtually impossible that we will not be here within the next year or 18 months, implementing the recommendations of the royal commission and making significant amendments to this mandate as it is now set out. Clearly we're going to be back here within a very short period of time to amend exactly what we're being asked to pass today. Can the minister comment on that?

Hon. D. Lovick: It ain't likely. I don't think we will be back in a short while.

Let me just emphasize that what we have here in terms of the WCB having all those duties, which the member quite

[ Page 8062 ]

correctly adumbrates, is in fact what both business and labour agreed to and wanted. They said: "Let the WCB do all of those things; we do not want or need another body."

As well -- I have made the point already -- this is essentially a formalization of what was and is the royal commission recommendation. It's quite true that there may be some minor adjustment necessary. Who's to know? None of us, I suspect, has quite that clear a crystal ball, even if we think otherwise. But broadly, as I say, this essentially represents what's already there: a codification and clarification. We think that's sufficient. One body should be making the rules, should be promoting, should be assisting and should also be responsible for penalizing. We just think that makes sense.

[4:00]

C. Hansen: Is that not prejudging the recommendations of the royal commission? Clearly the royal commission has been asked to look at exactly these things. From the minister's comments, it almost sounds as if their minds are already made up, that there will not be changes to the governance and that there will not be changes to the mandate of the board as a result of the recommendations of the royal commission.

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to quote from page 12 of the royal commission report, lest anybody accuses me of quoting out of context. The question posed by the royal commission in essence is this: "Should the Workers Compensation Board of B.C. be responsible for accident prevention, compensation and rehabilitation?" Business and labour, the two main parties consulted, both said yes.

The question embedded in that question, of course, is: should it be a separate act, or should there be a separate agency responsible for some parts of that? The answer came back: yes. They got, in short, the answer to their question. Why delay, then? Let's carry on and do it.

C. Hansen: I'm tempted to ask the minister to read the next paragraph and then sit down, but I will read it for him -- literally the very next paragraph. I'll start with where the minister left off: "Should the Workers Compensation Board of B.C. be responsible for accident prevention, compensation and rehabilitation?" That's exactly what the minister just said. In the very next paragraph it says, "The answer to this question is beyond the scope of this report" -- meaning the interim report.

"It involves a detailed understanding of the board's current policies and programs in relation to occupational health and safety, compensation, rehabilitation, as well as education and research. These matters will be dealt with in the commission's final report in September 1998."

So what the minister is telling us is that he's already prejudged, based on inputs he's had from employers and worker groups, that that's not necessary now, because that whole part of the royal commission mandate for their final report has just been pre-empted.

Hon. D. Lovick: Quite right. Yes, indeed, government made that decision. We said that if the two principal stakeholders are happy with it, why go through the motions, then? Why spend the extra money carrying out an unnecessary debate? Why have any great deliberations if we already know the conclusion? If the two main stakeholders are happy with it, why give an extra mandate, an extra layer of responsibility, to the commission? It has enough on its plate, guaranteed; it doesn't need any more.

So in this particular instance, we said: "Let's go ahead with occupational health and safety, because it's necessary, and both parties agree that the WCB should be the agency responsible." I make no apology for that; it seems to me a legitimate conclusion for the government to draw.

C. Hansen: Can the minister tell us if the terms of reference of the royal commission have been amended?

Interjection.

C. Hansen: They haven't? Clearly the royal commission is proceeding with fulfilling its terms of reference -- the mandate. They have held extensive public hearings over the past few months all over the province of British Columbia, and they have included in it . . . . People have been basically putting submissions together to address this very issue, yet what the minister is saying is that that's all out the window because the royal commission should no longer be looking at this stuff. Has the minister given specific instructions to the royal commission to not be examining this area that was part of their original responsibilities?

Hon. D. Lovick: The question is a bit of red herring -- with all due deference, Mr. Chairman. We're talking about occupational health and safety here. That's in fact what this legislation addresses. The question posed to the two parties vis-à-vis occupational health and safety was: should the WCB have this mandate, or should it be given to some other agency or to government to make these sorts of decisions and recommendations? The answer vis-à-vis occupational health and safety -- not the other stuff, but occupational health and safety -- was yes, WCB can do that -- end of discussion.

I don't think it changes the mandate and the nature of royal commissions. I see my friend from Shuswap here, who, like me, has a little -- more than a little, in his case -- background in Canadian history. Royal commissions frequently turn out to be something far different from what they were mandated to be. That's the nature of the beast. A royal commission's own commissioners have been known to change their terms of reference in the middle. And frequently it's the case that 50 percent of what royal commissions recommend is never even considered, never even sees the light of day. So this is not a problem.

This is not some horrible breaking of the covenant or some awful and terrible circumstance.

B. Goodacre: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Goodacre: In the gallery today we have a group of young people who are students of St. Joseph's School in Smithers, a school that I attended from 1959 to 1966. They're here with their teachers and parents as chaperons. Could the House please make them welcome.

C. Hansen: The minister was talking about the history of royal commissions. As my colleague the member for Shuswap pointed out to me, rarely, if ever, in Canadian history have we had a process whereby legislation has been enacted on a portion of a mandate of a royal commission while it's still underway. This is clearly unusual. I think it goes back to the point we made before, that we have this whole process backwards. We had a massive rewrite of regulation, then we brought in an interim report, which wasn't the choice of the royal commission, rather, it was a specific directive given to them by this government to come in with the interim report, which has resulted in this legislation.

[ Page 8063 ]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

I think it comes back to beg the original question: what is so urgent about Bill 14 that we've got to somehow crank this thing up and force the royal commission to deal with it before they've completed their final report? Clearly we are putting the cart before the horse, as is set out in this mandate. But I appreciate the fact that we're not going to make progress on that.

Certainly there are a ton of areas under this mandate that we can go into in great detail, but I think what I will do is defer the debate on those specific issues until later in the bill when we can deal with the substance of those rather than the mandate that provides for them. With that, my colleague has some points.

B. Penner: I'd like to comment on the minister's remarks about royal commissions and their by-products, the reports that they generate, in Canadian history. I agree with the minister that all too often the recommendations of those royal commissions receive scant, if any, attention, either from the public or from the government of the day.

I'm concerned about the minister's comments a few minutes ago in response to a question from the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, when he gave some assurance that we won't be back here anytime soon, debating further changes to the Workers Compensation Board. That seems to me that he is, essentially, damning the upcoming final report of the royal commission to gather dust in the Legislative Library, like so many other reports and inquiries and royal commissions previously. I studied government and Canadian history to a certain extent, and that is the general perception.

Certainly when you speak to people on the street, they have a sense that reports are generated that are rarely, if ever, acted upon. Just a few minutes ago I think this minister, perhaps accidentally, reinforced that perception by suggesting that 18 months or two years from now we won't be back here debating further changes to the Workers Compensation Board. If that's true, why do we have the royal commission working on proposals to change the Workers Compensation Board?

Are we telling those people that are working diligently, day in and day out, that no matter what their final conclusions are, the Legislature is going to ignore them? I certainly hope that's not the case.

Hon. D. Lovick: I have no wish to be combative, but I have to say to my friend from Chilliwack that just as a little learning is a dangerous thing, so is a little listening. He didn't quite hear all the points I made. That's perhaps because he arrived a little bit late. The point I was making was that I will not automatically give any guarantee that 18 months or two years from now we will review this legislation. I said, rather, that we will see if there is compelling need to do so. If there is compelling need to do so, we will do so in a timely and responsible fashion. That's the point I'm making.

I appreciate his amusement about royal commission reports. Someday we should compare notes about royal commissions we have known and loved.

Let me just make two quick points, though, about the comments of the member for Chilliwack as well as about the earlier ones of the member for Vancouver-Quilchena. The commission's first report, the interim report, called for legislation. We are introducing that legislation; that's what we're debating. Secondly, the final report of the royal commission will deal with compensation issues. That's its mandate, not to talk about occupational health and safety. I hope that clarifies matters.

Before I take my seat, may I join my friend from Bulkley Valley-Stikine in welcoming these young people from the north and say that I hope you all read as much as the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine. He uses the library more than anybody else in this building, and I think we're all very jealous of that wonderful ability on his part. Welcome.

Section 15,

section 111 approved.

section 15,

section 112.

C. Hansen: I only have one small point to make. This is regarding annual reports. I just want to compliment the WCB, because I think they put out a good annual report. I also think it has the kind of information that's useful. What is even more important is that it comes out in a very timely fashion. We have annual reports from various agencies and ministries that come out three and four years after the fact. By the time they come out, they're virtually useless. I would just like to pass along that compliment.

Section 15,

section 112 approved.

section 15,

section 113.

C. Hansen: This

section gives some very strong powers to the board. To say that "the action or decision of the board is final and conclusive and is not open to question or review in any court . . . . " We come down to subsection (3), which says: "Proceedings by or before the board under this part must not be restrained by injunction, prohibition or other process or proceeding in any court or be removed by certiorari or otherwise into any court." I know that the minister is going to say that this is not a new provision for the WCB; we find similar wording in

section 96(1) of the existing act. But I would like to ask the minister if any other body under the provincial jurisdiction has similar immunization from judicial review.

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't know whether this will provide the member comfort, but I am advised that all Workers Compensation Boards across Canada apparently have a similar power.

C. Hansen: I guess, like a lot of things, that just because they do it somewhere else doesn't mean it's a good idea. I would like the minister to explain why this kind of power is important to put into this particular piece of legislation.

Hon. D. Lovick: The reason is historical precedent, essentially. The nature of workers compensation legislation is that the worker gave up her or his right to sue the employer in exchange for this remedy in legislation called workers compensation. What has gone on with that, then, is this extra protection to the board -- not to be subject to undue influence from parties -- given, as I say, that the worker has already given up something in order to avail herself or himself of the legislation. This becomes, then, I guess, the quid pro quo -- right? The board therefore must have something approaching absolute authority. That seems to be the explanation or justification for it.

[4:15]

C. Hansen: Clearly, I understand the rationale initially. But is this one of these cases where a power has been given for a historical reason, and over time that power grows and

[ Page 8064 ]

expands and nobody calls it into question: "Is this still valid?" Or has this power become something that is far too expansive in 1998, compared to what it may have meant 50 years ago, for example? I'm just wondering if the minister could comment on that.

Hon. D. Lovick: Happily. I would draw the member's attention to the fact that this

section refers specifically to the board's jurisdiction. That's the part that gives it that huge residual power, if you like. Remember, though, that in other parts of the board's operation, there are appeal mechanisms and appeal structures built in. So it isn't the case that the board's word is final on every single thing under the sun. Rather, it's talking specifically here about its jurisdiction. Okay?

C. Hansen: But I think that's where the concern is; that's where my concern comes from. It's because the jurisdiction of the board is very broad. If you look at the jurisdiction of the board today compared to what it may have been 70 years ago -- and I don't pretend to be an expert on what the board was like 70 years ago -- clearly, with the complexities of the workplace and the growing importance of health and safety issues in the workplace, the board's jurisdiction is huge, as we have just seen in its mandate.

You know, we have a body that, under one roof and under the direction of one group of administrators, has powers to write the regulations, to educate, to investigate, to enforce and to penalize. Yet none of that is open to judicial review.

I'm wondering if the minister could explain for the House this issue of the protection that is given to the board. Is that an issue, perhaps, that is possibly reviewed in the report of the royal commission, for example? Is this something that has just evolved over the years, and we've accepted it because it's always been there? Or is this something that is being challenged -- and in what form?

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't know whether it's being challenged. But what I can say to the member is that I think his question is bang on. What I can say to him is that this matter of that historical power and the precedent for it may well be something that could change as a result of the royal commission's final report. That's quite conceivable. One of the things is that they may well look at it and say that it is indeed time to look at the operation of the board and its historical power, and ask: "Should it indeed be standing out there uniquely apart from all other boards in creation, apparently?" So that's quite conceivable.

B. Penner: This

section caught my attention, as well. I think that all members of this Legislative Assembly, all 75 of us, hear on a regular basis from injured workers who question the ultimate authority of the Workers Compensation Board to make crucial decisions affecting the rest of their lives. One of the things that increases the amount of fear and trepidation on the part of injured workers is the fact that the Workers Compensation Board seems to be a complete entity unto itself.

On occasions such as today, we get legislation before us where we can hopefully have some input into what decisions are made by the WCB and how they're made. However, most of the time, day in and day out throughout the year, the Workers Compensation Board operates as a power unto itself, beyond reproach. This

section makes it very clear, in case anybody didn't understand it, that even where there are gross errors in fact-finding or in application of the law, even the Supreme Court of British Columbia is rendered helpless. It is not able to help the workers who are helpless.

That's where I think a lot of concern arises. I had a gentleman in my office today who has been there numerous times, and he came back again today. He's dealing with a problem that's been going on for seven years, and every so often the Workers Compensation Board officials he deals with will just change their minds and give him a completely different answer than they'd been giving a week previous. None of these decisions, no matter how valid or invalid, are subject to judicial review.

As my colleague the member for Vancouver-Quilchena was pointing out, I don't think there are any other boards or commissions or agencies in the province that enjoy that kind of immunity from judicial review. Generally speaking, boards and agencies are entitled to make decisions, but if the Supreme Court of British Columbia is satisfied that they've made a gross error in fact or in process, or have grossly misapplied the law, then the Supreme Court is entitled to review that decision and recommend ways in which the decision should be changed and perhaps send it back to that board or agency to rehear the matter, subject to changes in their approach.

That's where we have some concern, and I had similar thoughts to those of the member for Vancouver-Quilchena: this is probably something the royal commission dealing with the Workers Compensation Board would like to make comments on. I don't know that, but I suspect that it's a matter of some discussion in the royal commission. I say that because we hear about it on a daily basis as MLAs, dealing with constituents who have been injured in our communities and who don't feel that their issues are being properly addressed by the WCB.

Even if they are being properly addressed, they don't have confidence because they feel that no matter what is decided, it is beyond anybody else's power to challenge that decision. That's where some concern is coming from.

Hon. D. Lovick: I appreciate the comments made by the member for Chilliwack, and I think every MLA in this chamber has probably had similar views at one time or other when dealing with constituents who've come up against that monolithic creature called WCB. Two points, however. The first is that the points the member makes refer to compensation and what the WCB does, and that's not what this bill is about, let alone this section. That's the first point. The second point is that that is what the royal commission may well be addressing in its final report. Indeed, we hope so.

To this particular

section of the act --

section 15,

section 113 -- I would just make one brief comment. It's true that the jurisdiction as stipulated here may send tremors and trembles across the way and indeed through all of us, but I would note that what this legislation does is bring accountability for occupational health and safety precisely to where it belongs -- i.e., to government, as opposed to a non-elected body. That's what this legislation is about. This legislation is an enabling mechanism for the WCB. It's the statutory framework.

Ironically, given what we've been discussing for the last couple of minutes, this is the effort, in fact, to fix that problem and to bring accountability, as I say, into the process of occupational health and safety.

Section 15,

section 113 approved.

section 15,

section 114.

C. Hansen: This was an issue we raised at the technical briefing with officials from the ministry, and I'm very grateful

[ Page 8065 ]

for the response they subsequently sent to me regarding the various questions we had raised. I want to take the opportunity to have the minister put something on the record in Hansard as to the significance of this area. I gather that under

section 114, we are breaking some new ground in terms of interprovincial and federal-provincial agreements. If the minister could comment on that.

Hon. D. Lovick: Much as I would like to take credit for breaking new ground, I'm advised that it isn't the case. Indeed, the mechanism was available to us in the past, but it simply has not been invoked before this time. So it's good legislation; it's a good measure. But, as I say, I don't think there is anything strikingly new in here.

Section 15,

section 114 approved.

section 15,

section 115.

G. Abbott: I have a question for the minister with respect to

section 115(1), which reads: "Every employer must (

a) ensure the health and safety of (

i) all workers working for that employer, and (ii) any other workers present at a workplace at which the employer's work is being carried out . . . . " Perhaps the minister can advise or reassure me here. This seems to me to be a very expansive view of the responsibilities of the employer in the workplace. I guess the reason I have concerns is that in the two workplaces that I'm somewhat familiar with, the second portion -- namely, other workers -- could become quite an onerous consideration from a liability perspective, in this case. I'll give you the two examples.

In the case of a farm, as a farmer one might be responsible not only for the agricultural workers -- the pickers and so on -- that one would naturally assume would be the responsibility of the employer but also for independent truckers coming and going on a farm at any given time, particularly during harvest, who are taking the crop off to sale. Also, typically during the growing season, there are a lot of contractors around, doing work with herbicides or whatever for the farmer.

There may be some concern that in this apparently expansive outline of the duties of the employer, the farmer may be responsible for a lot more than those people whom one would certainly expect him to be responsible for under WCB regulations.

As well, I'll give a second example. In a logging operation, certainly the employer would be expected to be responsible for the loggers working under his employment, care and supervision, but there are also logging trucks coming and going in the workplace which may be to some extent independent of the direction of the employer. Also, again within what might be broadly viewed as the workplace, there may be independent contractors -- roadbuilders and so on -- that are going about their work.

So the concern I have is that the apparently expansive view of the employer's responsibilities may make the employer responsible for a whole lot of people who are not directly under his supervision but who, under the terms of this legislation, may become his responsibility. I'd appreciate the minister's advice and comments around that concern.

Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, I would note that this

section -- the member's quite right -- is indeed an expansion. But it is consistent with the royal commission's recommendations. Those people who sat and looked at this stuff and heard submissions from various people and presumably also from some of the individuals referred to by the member for Shuswap nevertheless came to this conclusion.

The kind of thing they were attempting to capture, I gather, is the delivery person, say, who would come to a construction site and have to walk across an area where there is all kinds of activity going on and who says: "Look, I'm just the guy delivering pizza or whatever, so I don't need to put a hardhat on." At any sensible and safety-conscious worksite I've ever been familiar with, there is no way you would get inside that construction zone without being told: "Sorry, you're not allowed in here until you do this." That's the paradigm case, if you like.

The other example would be the logging show the member referred to. Now, it's a long time since I logged -- you know, back to steel-spar days -- but I remember very well that for any truck that came on that site, there was a very big sign that said, "Ten miles an hour," I think it was at that time. Anybody who brought a loaded or empty logging truck in there who was going too fast had to watch out. You'd probably have a chaser or a hook-tender threatening your windshield with a chunk of two-inch cable. That was just a given.

As I read the legislation and look at it, it seems to me what we're talking about is essentially reasonable requirements. They say that obviously the employer must ensure . . . . But then what happens, as

section 15,

section 115(2) says: "Without limiting subsection (1), an employer must (

a) remedy any workplace conditions that are hazardous to the health or safety . . . ensure that the employer's workers (

i) are made aware of all known or . . . foreseeable health or safety hazards . . . . " That means putting up a sign on a farm, saying: "We are spraying pesticides here, thank you very much." If you're doing that, it would seem to me that you don't want some delivery person walking in and saying: "Hi, how are you doing? Here I am, and I want to talk to you about your manure spread." Most of that's common sense, and I wouldn't think it would be too onerous. I don't have personal experience of a farm, like the member for Shuswap, but what I detect here is that this is not terribly problematic.

Finally, members might like to know that subsection (ii), regarding other workers present at the workplace, is in fact mirrored in the Alberta legislation, which some argue ought, of course, to be our model for all things.

[4:30]

G. Abbott: I'm not sure that I've gained the reassurance I had hoped to achieve from that answer. Again, I understand from the examples . . . . When you put forward the examples, as the minister has, the case seems a more reasonable one.

But let me go back to the farm example -- and this is typical of farms during harvest -- especially where there are a lot of people running around: pickers, agricultural workers and so on. Frequently there are also members of the public coming in to buy food directly from the farm. This is a typical scene at a British Columbia farm on a summer day when produce is moving. Let me use my example. Thrust into the middle of that hive of activity -- not mayhem -- is a delivery person who is coming to pick up some fruit to sell at the farmers' market in Vancouver.

As a result of the carelessness of the delivery truck driver -- in this case, backing up without adequately checking behind him -- he runs over one of the workers there. Am I to understand from the terms of this legislation that the liability and responsibility for that accident will rest with the farmer in this case, rather than with the delivery driver who made an error in terms of the safe operation of his vehicle?

[ Page 8066 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: My apology for the delay; you can see that we're struggling a little bit with the example, and therefore it's a good one. Intuitively, let me just say that I can't comprehend how in a circumstance such as the one you describe, where it looks suspiciously like willful negligence or negligence or carelessness on the part of somebody who comes onto a worksite, that that could suddenly become the farmer's responsibility.

If somebody did that, probably even with the most rigorous reading of this legislation, the worst you could come up with, would be something like: the person driving that van, if she or he was not terribly responsible, ultimately being responsible to that individual's employer, who perhaps had not done sufficient safety training or something like that. That's as far as it goes in terms of an employer's responsibility.

It seems to me that what we're really talking about here is an individual's carelessness, an individual's responsibility. I think that as long as the operator of the workplace was indeed living up to what's stated here in terms of advising of risks and hazards and so forth, she or he would not have to worry about a circumstance such as the one you describe. Because we're dealing with legislation, however, I'm wondering whether we ought to perhaps take that under advisement, rather than simply take my word for it, because I don't think that's good enough in a case such as this where we're talking legal liability.

So if the members are willing, we can either put that piece on hold and look at other parts of the

section or stand down this

section at some point -- whatever members wish; at your request.

C. Hansen: I greatly appreciate the minister's willingness to be cautious in how we approach that, because if the words the minister just spoke were something that we could take to court, they would have a very different significance than if it's just an opinion that he's expressing. Certainly if the minister's words were in fact a legally binding

interpretation of this section, then I would be quite happy to say aye and move on, but I do have some other . . . . We may well wish to stand this down, once we go through it. Let's see how far we can get with it.

I would like to ask the minister a question pertaining to this section. I will preface that by saying that I'm going to ask him this identical question for each of the sections under this division. I don't want him to think, after we get halfway through this section, that somehow I'm trying to trap him down the line, so I will tell him that I'm going to ask the same questions with regard to each of these sections.

How are these responsibilities of an employer enforced, and what are the penalties that an employer faces for violating this particular section?

Hon. D. Lovick: The potential penalty assigned to the employer is entirely what is spelled out in this legislation. The comparable penalty, of course, is to the worker in terms of what she or he is subject to. Both of them in fact have certain obligations conferred on them by this statute, and for offending that statute, both can be penalized. The board's duty is to enforce. For a flagrant violation, of course, there can be penalties, and for something more flagrant than that, which is wilful and repeated and so forth, then there can indeed be legal prosecution. I hope that answers it.

C. Hansen: I want to address the issue that was raised by my colleague the member for Shuswap which led to the minister's offer to stand down this section. I have a suggestion in terms of an amendment that may well address that very area. This was an amendment that I sent over to the minister maybe an hour ago, so I appreciate that he hasn't had much time to consider it. But I would like to move an amendment: to add the after words "every employer must" the words "as far as is reasonably practicable." I would appreciate it if I could have this delivered to the Clerk.

On the amendment.

C. Hansen: If I can just speak to this . . . . I'm not a lawyer, but I understand from the legal advice I've been given that the words that we currently have in

section 115 -- "Every employer must (

a) ensure the health and safety . . . " -- are very, very powerful and have some very serious legal connotations. The word "ensure" is in itself one of the most powerful words in terms of an obligation that is put on an individual. This isn't a question of discretion that the board can show. It's not a case of the board trying to determine whether or not the employer was faulty in allowing, say, that delivery truck to back up. This doesn't leave that kind of discretion, because it says that the employer "must ensure." Then you can say that it happened, and there was no way of preventing it. Well, it doesn't give that discretion. It says that the employer "must ensure."

As I understand it, one of the other phrases in law that has very specific meaning to the courts is "as far as is reasonably practicable." It doesn't diminish the responsibility of the employer, but what it does is allow for those situations which are just clearly not preventable. The employer still has to make sure that he has taken every possible action to prevent a workplace injury, but at least it doesn't put the onus -- one that is totally unreasonable -- on an individual.

As the minister will know from the proposed amendments that I put forward, I'm not just trying to put this phrase in as it applies to employers, but I want to see that phrase added to each of these sections. With that, I in