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)

TUESDAY, MAY 5, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 9, Number 11

[ Page 7491 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

L. Reid: I have three groups to introduce today. The first are individuals from my riding, from the Richmond Chamber of Commerce: Shelley Leonhardt, who is the executive director, and Mr. Ron Docherty, who is the brand-new president. I know that they're awaiting a visit from this government, and I trust that it will happen in the near future. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Also in the gallery today are Mr. Allison and Mr. Sellitti, both teachers at Mitchell Elementary School. They have with them 50 grade 6 and 7 students. I would also ask the House to make those individuals welcome.

My final introduction is someone in the gallery whom we all know and love: "Red." I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

S. Hawkins: In the gallery today is a very good friend of mine, a very dedicated supporter and volunteer. He's the president of my riding association. Would the House please make welcome Mr. Fred Kaiser.

B. McKinnon: We have visiting the Legislature today a class of grade 5 students, along with their teachers and parents. These students attend Pacific Academy in the Fraser Heights area of my riding. I ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Present in the gallery are three distinguished visitors from India. They're part of an exchange between Canada and India. We have team leader Mr. M.K. Murthy, Mr. Sanjay Lulla and Mrs. Sesha Padma. As well, accompanying them are Mr. Varma and John Banks; both are Rotarians. Would the House please make them welcome.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today are two very special members of my family. I'm sure all members recognize that without the support of our families we wouldn't be able to carry on and do the jobs that we do on behalf of our constituents. It's very important to have that support. Joining us in the gallery are my mother, Ruth Davis, and my very special dad, Fred Davis. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

P. Nettleton: I'm especially privileged today, as I have here in the gallery not only friends all the way from Fort St. James but people who are neighbours of mine. It's certainly my privilege to have them here today. In fact, I think it was Gabby Grondin who alerted my wife to the fact that there was a moose crossing our driveway onto his, roughly two months ago. Please join me in welcoming Gabby and Gert Grondin and their daughter Jocelyn.

J. Smallwood: I'd like to introduce to the House visitors from Surrey-Whalley: Tom Lalonde, Rosalyn Drescher and Agda Neuman, all from Métis Family Services. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

V. Anderson: In the House today we have 45 grade 11 and 12 students from Churchill Secondary School in the Vancouver-Langara riding, who are here to visit and to see how we conduct government. I'd ask the House to help me make them welcome, along with Mr. Picard, their teacher.

Hon. H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, visiting us in the precinct today -- and I think he may be in the galleries by now -- is my newly hired executive assistant, Mr. Keith Simmonds, who is a former steelworker and also pulp worker. He's here today as part of our staff meeting today. Would the House please make my executive assistant welcome.

Introduction of Bills

LEGAL PROFESSION ACT

Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Legal Profession Act.

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

I am pleased to introduce Bill 15, the Legal Profession Act. This act will double the number of non-lawyers on the governing board of the Law Society from three to six. This will help to ensure that decisions of the Law Society better reflect public concerns.

The amendments contained in this act will reduce the need for frequent minor amendments to the Legal Profession Act, by giving the benchers of the Law Society more authority over some areas which pertain to the internal workings and administration of the Law Society, where legislative supervision is not required and where the public interest remains protected.

This act ensures that appropriate legislative authority is maintained with respect to all matters subject to legislative supervision, as the public interest requires, such as the right to make complaints against lawyers and the requirement to maintain professional liability insurance.

Bill 15 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

ADEQUACY OF RESOURCES FOR

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES MINISTRY

G. Campbell: On May 1, 1997, I stood in this House and offered help to the government in terms of finding support to protect our children in British Columbia. We in this House are all committed to providing the support that our children need, so that children in care can have safe and secure places to live in.

My question is to the Minister for Children and Families: will the minister admit today that much more, in terms of resources, is required to protect children in need and children in care? Or does the minister believe that the resources she has available are adequate?

Hon. L. Boone: It's nice that the members opposite finally get a question with regard to children -- the first question with regard to children in this House. I recognize that the members opposite are talking about the report that was just tabled by the children's advocate today, where she is advocating that we have more money for the system. I also recognize that we could probably all use more money. There are many services out there that are required. There are many children out there. We could put a lot more money into the services that we need here.

[ Page 7492 ]

However, I also recognize that the members opposite constantly tell us that we have to reduce our budget, that we can't have a deficit, that we have to reduce, reduce, reduce. The members opposite go to their convention . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.

Hon. L. Boone: . . . and talk about the need to reduce.

The Speaker: Hon. minister, thank you very much.

Hon. L. Boone: You can't have it both ways -- you can't do that.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on his first supplementary.

G. Campbell: The child, youth and family advocate is an officer of the entire Legislature. We all share responsibilities to read that report and to pay attention to what she says, to heed the advice that we receive from the child, youth and family advocate. She says very explicitly . . . . I'll read this for the minister, in case she didn't read it: "Things did not get [any] better for . . . children, youth and families . . . in 1997."

Again I ask the Minister for Children and Families: do you think you have adequate resources to care for children in need and children in the government's care in British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: The member opposite may have missed that we have actually had an increase in this budget. We have had an increase of $60 million in this budget this year. We have recently announced that we are hiring more staff to address the workload problem that we now recognize is out there. We are doing everything that we can with the dollars and the budget that we have.

If the member opposite thinks that we need more money in our budget, then I would suggest that he is probably not going to question me very much with regard to estimates and just pass my budget outright, so that we can get on with the job that we have to do. But you can't . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. L. Boone: . . . have it both ways. You can't demand that we cut and then at the same time demand that we increase spending every time we stand in this House.

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

[2:15]

G. Campbell: The fact is that everyone in this House has to make priorities. Our priorities, on this side of the House, are to care for children in need and to make sure that children in the government's care are protected. Our legislative officer -- the child, youth and family advocate -- has said quite clearly: "We need to challenge the 'too bad we can't afford it' attitude about essential services for children and youth, knowing that if we don't pay now we will pay more dearly later." This is a government that can come up with a third of a billion dollars to bail out one company in British Columbia.

The Speaker: Hon. member, your question.

G. Campbell: Is this minister willing to say that she has enough resources to care for the children in need and children that are her responsibility in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: I can promise the members opposite that we are doing the best that we can, that we will provide for the children within our mandate. I can tell the members opposite that we will not be putting the money that you want to put into the doctors' pockets in this province . . .

The Speaker: Through the Chair.

Hon. L. Boone: . . . and that is what we want to do. We want to make sure that the services go into children and that the services are there to provide . . . . And I want to tell you, hon. Speaker, that we will not be doing what the members opposite are doing, which is condemning our workers, in areas throughout this province, who are doing an excellent job. We will not be going in and one time demanding that we protect children and, on the other hand, demanding that we return children and saying that we're taking them without adequate cause.

The Speaker: Minister, thank you.

Hon. L. Boone: Our workers are doing a tremendous job out there, and the members ought to recognize that.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

IMPACT OF FORESTS POLICY ON TAHSIS

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Forests. Is the minister trying to completely kill the community of Tahsis?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I'll take that question on notice.

ADEQUACY OF RESOURCES FOR

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES MINISTRY

C. Clark: My question is also for the Minister for Children and Families. The child and family advocate says in her report that waiting lists continue to be a very serious problem in this ministry. She says, in particular, that wait-lists for psychiatric care for children under 12 are up to nine months. How can this minister say that she has enough resources, that she is spending her money properly and that she's doing the best that she can when children wait nine months to get psychiatric care in British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, how can this member stand here when they, over and over and over, demand that we cut services, that we reduce the number of government employees? Every single member opposite has stood in this House during estimates debates demanding that we cut -- that we eliminate the deficit, that we cut civil servants -- and then this member has the audacity to stand there and demand that we provide more money for services here. This is a joke -- an absolute joke. You cannot have it on both sides.

We have provided $60 million more in this year's budget to provide services -- $60 million. That's not a drop in the bucket. Those things are going into providing new workers so

[ Page 7493 ]

that our wait-lists are down, so that our workers are not as overtaxed as they have been. Yes, I recognize that there is a workload problem. I recognize that we have many things that we have to address out there. But we are doing the best we can. This ministry has been in existence for one year.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.

Hon. L. Boone: One year, hon. Speaker. We have made tremendous progress . . .

The Speaker: Hon. minister.

Hon. L. Boone: . . . in implementing the Gove recommendations. Read some of the reports . . .

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon. L. Boone: . . . that have been out that have indicated that . . .

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon. L. Boone: . . . we have done so.

The Speaker: Thank you.

The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain on her first supplementary.

C. Clark: On this side of the House we have never said that we should cut the budget for the Ministry for Children and Families. This minister knows that children are a priority for the members on this side of the House.

It has been three years since the Gove report came out, and my question to the minister is this. With this situation, which has gone on for so long, there is a fine line between negligence and neglect. At what point does this situation cross that line for the minister? At what point does this minister start taking responsibility for the children who are in her government's care?

Hon. L. Boone: We are taking responsibility for the children in our care, hon. Speaker, but you have to draw the line between neglect and irresponsibility, such as the member opposite . . . . When you go into communities and say, "You too could be next; your children can be apprehended," as they did in the community of Williams Lake after being in Quesnel, that's irresponsible action -- from the member opposite, inflicting fear upon people.

We are acting in this ministry. We have implemented tremendous recommendations in the past year. We are still moving to implement tremendous recommendations, and there's a lot of progress that's taking place.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. L. Boone: The children's advocate indicated to us that there are many programs that she knows we are working on, but she would sooner see us move slowly on them and implement them in a rational and planned way . . .

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon. L. Boone: . . . rather than implement them in a haphazard way.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to quote from the advocate. As the Leader of the Opposition said, the advocate works for all of us. We on this side of the House have a responsibility to respond to the advocate's report. In the report and in the press release that accompanies it, the advocate states: "At present there are not sufficient resources to provide proper training, supervision or staff time to implement changes such as the development and use of risk-assessment tools to make tough child-protection decisions."

That relates directly to what happened in Quesnel. The former minister stood up in this House time and again and talked about those risk-assessment tools and how they'd implemented them and how everything was going to be fine from now on with risk assessment. But now the child advocate tells us that there aren't even resources to train people to use those. So if we have one priority in this House, before the Skeena Celluloses and before the other things that this government spends money on -- before the advertising -- it's to put money into making sure that the children in this province are protected.

I ask the minister the question: will she work with members of the opposition, as the Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly offered, to find the dollars within the government's budget and transfer them to make sure that that training takes place and that children are protected?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, if the members opposite want to put forth their wish list as to where they would like to see the cuts coming, I'd be happy to take them to the Minister of Finance. Do you want to see the cuts come out of the medicare system?

The Speaker: Through the Chair, hon. minister.

Hon. L. Boone: Do they want the cuts to come out of our road system? Do you want them to come out of . . .

The Speaker: Through the Chair, hon. minister.

Hon. L. Boone: . . . any other areas that we have? Hon. Speaker, the members opposite have in fact demanded more and more money. I have not heard the members opposite say that they want less money for anything; it's more. "I want more money for everything around." Now they're telling me that they want more money "for us, and we're going to try and find the money . . .

The Speaker: Hon. minister, thank you very much.

Hon. L. Boone: . . . for us here." Hon. Speaker, thank you.

The Speaker: Hon. minister, thank you.

The Opposition House Leader on his first supplementary.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll ask the minister now: can we please have less money on Skeena Cellulose? Can we please have less money on government advertising? Can we please have less money on cost overruns at B.C. Ferries? Will the minister take those dollars and put them into training child protection workers and put that money into protecting children? I ask her now.

Hon. L. Boone: Can we please have back the $800 million that you spent on your mailers? Can we please have that money back?

[ Page 7494 ]

The Speaker: Hon. minister.

Hon. L. Boone: I'd very much like to have that money back here.

The Speaker: Minister, through the Chair.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. L. Boone: It's $800,000 -- excuse me.

We have put $60 million more into this ministry -- $60 million more. We are hiring 225 new social workers. We are currently implementing programs. We are currently training, and we have in place some training programs to do things, such as the training of the supervisors that you're talking about. These are things that cannot be done haphazardly; they are things that cannot be done quickly. The child advocate actually recognized with me yesterday that those are things that we have to do right. We have to do them slowly, but we have to do them right. And we are working on those things.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: Maybe the minister didn't get the comments from the advocate correctly. She doesn't say that they should be doing them more slowly. What she says is: " . . . there are not sufficient resources to provide proper training, supervision or staff time to implement changes such as the risk-assessment tools" that the previous minister talked about.

I've just given the minister three examples of where some money can be found. If she wants to talk about the mailers, there's the $4 million that her caucus spent. But that's aside from this. There is lots of money within the ministries if we make the right decisions and the right priorities.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: Will the minister talk to the minister responsible for Skeena Cellulose, to the Premier about his advertising budget, to the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries and the cost overruns? Please, hon. minister, will you spend that money on training the workers so they can do the job properly and effectively and protect the children? Will you do that?

Hon. L. Boone: In case the members don't recognize it, this is the 1997 annual report. She is reporting on last year's budget; she is reporting on actions that we took last year. I have told you that we have $60 million more in this ministry; that we are implementing programs, which we are currently putting in place; and that we are developing programs to address many of the concerns. The child advocate's office recognized that we have come a long way.

But she also gave us a warning, and that warning was that the media may only pick up on the negative -- which is true -- and that we may lose some of the positive things. But she recognizes that we've come a long way in this past year and that we've done a lot of things. And yes, we have a lot of things that we have to work on. We all know that, and we are working on those things.

The Speaker: The member for Matsqui was on his feet, and I recognize him. A brief question, then, and a brief answer, even though the time limit has passed.

M. de Jong: I was on the committee that selected the advocate. This House came together in a brief, shining moment of non-partisanship and selected an individual that we said we would entrust to go out and advocate on behalf of children.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

M. de Jong: We've made the offer in the House . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member.

M. de Jong: . . . we've made the offer in the past, we've made the offer today. All we're asking, hon. Speaker, is for this minister to avail herself of the non-partisan offer that we have repeated over and over and over again: tell us what you need, and we'll give it to you. We'll help you. Will she accept that offer today, at last, in the face of what is written in this book?

The Speaker: Minister for Children and Families -- a brief response, please.

Hon. L. Boone: You've heard it all today. This member said to tell him what I want and he'd give it to me. I'd like you to lower your rhetoric a little bit, hon. member.

The Speaker: It is perhaps timely, then, given that we've just finished this question period, for the Chair to make several observations relating to oral question period.

In order to refresh my memory and be of assistance to hon. members, I have examined question period Blues from Thursday, April 2, 1998, to today. I have also examined several Speakers' statements dealing with the conduct of question period over the last six years, and it has become abundantly clear that today's problems are not new.

The rules applicable to oral question period are not complicated, and perhaps the best

summary is outlined in our standing order 47A(b): "Questions and answers shall be brief and precise, and stated without argument or opinion." Any objective analysis of the current questions and answers leads to the conclusion that the quoted guidelines have been judiciously ignored by both sides of the House.

A slightly expanded guideline for questions and answers is as follows: "The question must be brief. A

preamble need not exceed one carefully drawn sentence. A long

preamble on a long question takes an unfair share of time and provokes the same sort of reply. A supplementary question should need no

preamble. An answer should be confined to the points contained in the question, with such explanation only as renders the answer intelligible, though a certain latitude is permitted to ministers of the Crown." The above quotes may be found in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , third edition, at pages 110 and 111.

[2:30]

The dilemma facing the Chair is that neither the government nor the opposition seem prepared to confine themselves within the standing orders or the guidelines quoted. The Chair can only presume it is the general will of the House to continue with a practice that is clearly in breach of the guidelines. Hon. members will appreciate that the Speaker, as a servant of this House, is faced with formidable difficulties when the House is unwilling to comply with the rules.

[ Page 7495 ]

If the Speaker is advised that the government and the opposition are willing to make a serious effort in this regard, the Chair will welcome the opportunity to discuss the conduct of question period privately with House Leaders or their representatives. Failing that, the Chair will do its utmost to ensure that time allocations are equitable and acceptable parliamentary language is used by all sides during question period.

There is a further matter with which the Chair is concerned. During the course of question period, several members on both sides of the House are offering gratuitous advice from their seats related to the conduct of question period. Their interjections, varying between a call for order, a call for a question and a call for time, show a lack of respect for the Chair and add nothing to the conduct of question period.

If members have a legitimate point of order they wish to raise, they may be aware that, on the conclusion of question period, they are entitled to rise on a point of order and state the matter. But it is unacceptable for these interjections to continue in their present form. I would ask both sides of the House to assist the Chair in improving the quality of our 15-minute daily question period.

Reports from Committees

F. Gingell: I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the second session of the thirty-sixth parliament. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

F. Gingell: I move that the report be adopted.

But first, if I may, I'd like to say a few words. The Public Accounts Committee in this past year has worked extremely hard and extremely well. We've looked in some depth into issues surrounding B.C. Transit, travel expenses and organization of travel within government. We had an extended period of time dealing with issues surrounding forestry revenues.

We have also concerned ourselves with the issues of the year 2000 bug and the consequences of that, and the committee intends to further pursue those issues in the coming year. We've spent a great deal of time dealing with the entity issue. I'm sorry that we didn't get it finished in time for the Minister of Finance at the time. I thought we would have it completed, but we will finish that shortly.

I would like to thank members of the committee for their commitment this past year. I would particularly like to make note of the contribution in both commitment and support to myself from the member for Surrey-Whalley, who was my Deputy Chair. I would like the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who will be my Deputy Chair in this coming year, to know that she has set a very high standard and that I expect it to be maintained.

With that, I would ask that my report be accepted.

Motion approved.

Ministerial Statement

CHILD CARE MONTH

Hon. L. Boone: It is a great privilege to stand before you to officially proclaim that May is Child Care Month in British Columbia. Throughout this month across the province, families, child care workers, communities, businesses and governments join together to acknowledge and, most of all, to celebrate child care and to celebrate also the many dedicated and highly skilled people who care for our children.

Here in B.C., we have one of the most comprehensive child care strategies in the country. I firmly believe that we have that strategy not only because British Columbians recognize child care's basic importance to society but also because they recognize that good-quality child care is a long-term investment in our children, our families and our communities. Quality child care offers children a warm, nurturing environment and a safe place in which to play, to develop and practise new skills, to make friends, to learn and to grow. Good-quality child care creates lasting, lifetime friendships.

It benefits children by encouraging their natural enthusiasm for discovery and learning, and it helps them build the solid foundations so necessary in today's diverse and complex world.

Quality child care supports the development of healthy families and offers parents the help and support they need to maintain the sometimes difficult balance of family and life. Every child -- whether special needs, wealthy or poor, urban or rural -- deserves the best possible start in life. It is up to each and every one of us to see that B.C.'s children get the healthy beginning they so deserve. We owe them that. Today I invite all British Columbians to join me in supporting and promoting good-quality child care this month and all year round.

C. Clark: From this side of the House I'd like to join the minister in celebrating Child Care Month this month. She's certainly correct in saying that every child in British Columbia deserves the best start they can get. Whether that's through quality child care or quality early intervention programs, every dollar that government devotes to a child is an investment in our future. Every child deserves the best start, because they deserve to grow up healthy and happy and to be able to fulfil their potential, which is the right of every citizen in British Columbia.

We must not forget the special needs children in British Columbia: the children with autism, the children whose services are frequently at risk because they are so vulnerable in our society. Those are the children to whom we need to pay special attention when we celebrate Child Care Month, because they need our help the most and deserve our attention the most. I'll join the minister in celebrating Child Care Month and offer from our side of the House the hope that thousands of British Columbians will join us in this celebration.

Orders of the Day

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

[ Page 7496 ]

WORKERS COMPENSATION

(OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

(second reading continued)

K. Krueger: Madam Speaker, continuing with some remarks on the amendment by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena . . . . It calls upon the government to temporarily hoist Bill 14 and give the employer-and-employee community around the province six months' opportunity to analyze the bill and how it will affect them and to give input to the government in order that we can come back to this House and debate any amendments that seem logical and pleasing to the government and the opposition as a result of that input.

I reaffirm at the commencement of these remarks the absolute commitment of the official opposition -- the people on this side of the House -- to worker safety and to ensuring that there are safe workplaces throughout British Columbia. That's something that is a clear goal shared by both sides of this House.

But we believe that this bill in its present form would kill jobs in British Columbia and would eliminate places of employment . . . .

I thank you, Madam Speaker, for attempting to intervene over there. Shall I sit down for a moment?

The Speaker: Hon. members, I would like the House to come to a little more order. There are too many conversations going on, and that makes it difficult to hear.

K. Krueger: The minister said at the opening of his remarks introducing second reading of this bill that he intended to be completely open, and I accept him at his word. Even though he was relying on the authority of a horoscope when he said that, nevertheless I believe that he intends to be completely open. We're honestly asking that the minister be open to this request to allow the people of the province, the job-generating employers and the investors of this province to have some real input into the matters raised by this bill before the bill proceeds.

We don't want to keep the House here until Christmas working on this bill alone. There's so much in it that we probably could. Surely we can take a wiser tack and a more reasonable approach and genuinely consult, listen and accept the input we receive from the people who will have to deal with these measures on the ground. That's what we're asking him to do, because in its present form this bill, unfortunately, does continue that triple attack on our economy of overregulation, overtaxation and interference in labour-management relations, which has hurt our economy so badly.

The bill says some noble things. In

section 107 it sets out a desire to promote a culture of commitment, and that's what we're proffering here: a commitment to work with the government to make sure that the stated goals of the legislation are met to ensure worker safety, while those other goals of getting the economy back on the rails, which we've all been talking about every day since this House convened, are also met. So let's practise that culture of commitment; let's demonstrate today in this House by adopting this amendment and hoisting the bill temporarily and being willing to amend it that we really mean what that part of the bill is saying.

One of the concerns we have -- and certainly that employers we're hearing from have -- is the concern I alluded to earlier that workers aren't obliged by this legislation to step up to the plate in the same way as employers are. Referring specifically to

section 107(e), it says: " . . . 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." That's well said, but the rest of the bill doesn't back it up in that there are extremely severe and substantial penalties to employers who fail to live up to that, and nothing but escape clauses for employees who deliberately flout the rules and put themselves and others at risk. That just isn't right, and it's not enforceable in its present form. It needs to be worked on.

Another aspect, of course, is the almost absolute power of . . . .

Interjection.

K. Krueger: Well, it is absolute power that this government proposes to hand over to the Workers Compensation Board, which has proven itself to be so inadequate in delivering its mandate to protect and care for injured workers. For the moment, I refer to

section 113, which says: "The board has exclusive jurisdiction to inquire into, hear and determine . . . . " It goes on to use words like "final" and "conclusive" with regard to the board's powers, and that it "is not open to question or review in any court." That reminds me of the law of the Medes and the Persians in the Bible, where even the king couldn't alter his decisions once they were pronounced. That's how Daniel ended up in the lions' den. Of course, he ended up getting out of there because he responded to a higher authority. But the people who put him in there didn't fare as well.

Our economy has sort of been a victim of the lions' den for the last seven years, and we want to do something about turning that around. That's what we're proposing with this amendment. Let's get it right this time. Let's not have it hold-harmless for workers while putting such a tremendous onus and, worse than that, such unnecessary regulation and constraints upon employers. Let's not give the Workers Compensation Board such an incredibly sweeping mandate -- these powers to intrude and harass and interpret and judge and bewilder employers with their behaviour.

[2:45]

There's probably no more stark illustration of how far that goes than at the end of

section 111.

Section 111(2) sets out a whole list of duties and responsibilities and opportunities that the Workers Compensation Board will be given. It's pretty far-reaching; a lot of this regulation is when it comes to the poor old employers. It casts the net really wide. Here, obviously, the legislative draftspersons reached into the farthest corners of their imaginations to come up with all these different powers. But just in case they missed anything, they put in item O. Item O is "to do other things . . . . " In other words, whatever you didn't think of, you can do that to employers too.

I tell you, Madam Speaker, that's very much the way employers feel in this province: that it's a hostile environment for them -- an environment that's full of pitfalls and traps and land mines -- and that it's literally impossible to negotiate it without getting in trouble. As we travel around the province talking to employers and employees, we hear more and more ludicrous examples of how provincial government regulation is destroying jobs in this province. For example, we had one logging contractor who said that he and his crew were working through the area they had been allowed to log, and they came upon a snag with an eagle's nest in it. They said to each

[ Page 7497 ]

other: "Oh, no. We're really hooped this time. If we cut down that snag with an eagle's nest in it, the Ministry of Environment is going to fine us. If we don't cut it down, the Workers Compensation Board is going to fine us because it's a snag and it might fall down on our workers." They actually had to determine which fine would be larger, and they left the snag standing.

Interjection.

K. Krueger: The minister is protesting that he's changed the code.

I'm giving this as an example of the absurdities that happen to people who are trying to create jobs and employ people in this province. The upshot was that they didn't cut the snag down, and they did get fined by Workers Compensation.

I'm saying let's not give that board any more authority than it already has to destroy employment in this province and to hassle employers. Let's be very, very sure of ourselves before we make any such moves as are contemplated by this legislation. That proviso that the Workers Compensation Board will be able to do other things -- essentially whatever is dreamt up from here on out -- is almost comical, except that it is so dangerous to employment in this province. I don't think that people who write things like this have the foggiest clue what the real world is like.

I'm running into that more and more as I work on constituents' files -- people like my constituents Al and June Bush in Barrière, who have essentially been bankrupted by this government. I hear from ministry employees that employers will have to get used to some of these regulations they have to work around, these shortages of fibre supply. I think that those government employees who speak that way would be absolutely enraged, furious, if their paycheque got skipped one time.

If they ever went for a two-week pay period and there was no deposit to their bank, no cheque in the pay envelope, they'd be screaming blue murder; they'd want to know what went wrong. But they think it's perfectly all right for their boards and commissions and ministries to interrupt the flow of earnings to employers and employees.

Indeed, this regulation sets out all kinds of responsibilities for the employer to pay in the event of a work disruption that arises as a result of provisions of this act. Here, there and everywhere, employers are told that they're going to have to pay for training; they're going to have to allow people to book off work and investigate things. I accept that there's a good intent here. Absolutely, if a worker identifies a genuinely unsafe situation, he should never feel obliged to go in there and risk his life.

Frankly, the worst examples I've seen of that in this province are the railways, which are curiously exempted by this act. We asked in our briefing meeting why they were exempted. The answer was that it's pretty complicated to try and include them, but that that is a long-term goal. Well, we ask: "What's the rush?" Why don't we just do it right? Why don't we take this six months that we're advocating and do that at the same time?

I've heard of the railways asking young people to crawl into culverts that have been plugged by beavers and to work at unplugging them. Of course, when they succeed, the result is going to be water flushing the worker and all through the culvert. Recently we had a disaster up near Terrace, where the railway company was dismantling part of a bridge. Eventually, sure enough, the crane that was doing it fell through into the river, and a worker was killed.

And there were two workers in the Fraser Canyon who were killed when their train went out on a track that no longer had a roadbed under it, because the railway wasn't properly maintaining culverts. So we have these examples of genuinely unsafe workplaces, but those employers are for some reason exempted.

If it's a matter of needing the time to do it right, we're offering this government the opportunity to take that time -- while getting other things right, as well. I beseech the minister to allow the amendment and to do what we're asking here.

The type of paper-pushing that's imposed by this act is horrendous for small business people. It's pretty intimidating even for large business people and for government itself. I look at

section 112 where the government imposes on itself and the Workers Compensation Board the responsibility to do an assessment of the occupational health and safety record of workplaces in British Columbia on an ongoing basis. Is that every workplace in British Columbia? Obviously, we'll be dealing with these things in committee, if we have to. But we're hoping that we won't go to committee on this, because we don't want to take up more of the House's time than we have to, to deal with this. We think that the proper way to deal with it is the way advocated by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena in this amendment.

Our thrust is a plea to this government to change its way of approaching issues like this one and to show that it can do so with this act. Let's not take one-size-fits-all approaches to perceived problems in British Columbia; let's focus our solutions on the problems that actually exist. Let's identify problem employers where there are unsafe workplaces and deal with those companies, individuals, managers and owners -- not with all businesses. Let's not do anything more to give the impression to business and to investment that they are unwelcome in British Columbia.

Let's demonstrate that we are listening and that we're willing to humble ourselves. If we've tabled something that doesn't completely make sense to people, let's have a second look at it.

Let's set out the goals -- I think the minister was doing that when he spoke this morning in introducing second reading -- and let people work to deliver those results. Those who fail or, perhaps through random auditing and inspections by WCB, are demonstrated to not be showing the spirit that's sought by government, by workers, by all of us in protecting employers . . . . When those people are identified, let's deal with them as the exceptions they are rather than unnecessarily causing businesses all over British Columbia to be tied up even further in red tape, regulation and expense.

And when we do that -- in six months when we debate the revised legislation -- let's make sure that we do it even-handedly, so that there is a penalty to those workers who deliberately put themselves and others at risk. Let's make sure that this isn't such a one-sided deal.

Madam Speaker, I see the minister frowning at me. I'm talking here about people who just don't obey the rules -- people who won't wear their seatbelts when they're driving industrial equipment, people who exhibit a bad attitude for whatever reason. I've been on both sides of the labour-management relations coin. I was a shop steward, an executive councillor, a member of the board of OTEU 378; I spent ten years in positions like that. I went to B.C. Federation of Labour and Canadian Labour Congress conventions, and I met a lot of great people who are very active in the union movement.

Many of them are still friends of mine. But I also met some people who just had bad attitudes. I met employees in my own workplaces and from other workplaces who just really enjoy flouting the rules. They're an annoyance and a

[ Page 7498 ]

danger to colleagues around them -- other union members. They put everybody in danger; they slow down everybody's productivity; they do things that are destructive to the best interests of everyone in the workplace. Those people need to be dealt with.

The royal commission recommended ways that they be dealt with, and somebody caused the government to delete those provisions. We believe it was Mr. Georgetti, but whoever it was, we would like to see balance in the legislation when it comes back. I'm operating on the presumption that the minister is actually considering the validity of what's suggested in this amendment. There have to be consequences for problem workers. I hope that the minister is listening to the input he's getting from business all over this province -- that this is unworkable.

Does everyone on that side of the House realize what something like this will do to employers around the province -- how intimidating it is? A small business man looks at things like this, and he's looking at Mount Everest. He just doesn't have the resources to pay for what's required of him here and to deal with the hassles that will flow to him as a result.

So there again, people are saying to us: "Read our lips, government." They say that to us on the opposition side as well. They don't want us fooling around in here, exchanging barbs, wasting our time on nonsensical things. One businessman said to one of my colleagues that business throughout British Columbia would be a lot better off if government did absolutely nothing, if they at least were left to live within the rules that they presently have, rather than constantly bringing on more regulation, more change that they have to adapt to and spend money on.

Of course, none of us go along with that or we wouldn't have stood for office. But we should listen to the warning in those words; it's very tough on the economy, very tough on business and employment when we impose things like this.

Overregulation kills the economy. We've seen that with the Forest Practices Code. The Minister of Forests stood up before the province recently and talked about taking a chainsaw to the Forest Practices Code because there was far too much regulation there, in his opinion -- and ours. But in our opinion, there's still far too much regulation in the Forest Practices Code. It needs to shift, as this legislation needs to shift, to being results-based rather than process-driven.

This legislation is a bureaucrat's dream and an investor's and job creator's nightmare. It must not be allowed to go forward in its present form. I sincerely hope, as I conclude my remarks, that the minister will listen, will accept this amendment in the spirit with which it's proffered and take the opportunity to allow the people -- the investors, the job creators of this province -- to have a say, incorporate what they say, show them we're listening, show them the oil tanker is changing direction. Perhaps we can begin to build the confidence that's necessary in our economy to bring British Columbia back from worst to first in terms of economic performance.

H. Giesbrecht: I rise to speak against the six-month hoist motion. I'd like to speak for a few minutes to just provide some of the reasons. This legislation is about saving lives and preventing workplace injuries. I think that point was made in the introductory comments. It does four things. It sends a clear message that occupational health and safety is important to all of us. It provides that focus that's necessary. It makes the government clearly responsible for the broad area of workplace safety. We recognize, of course, that there are union workplaces where much of this has been in effect for years.

But we're also talking about the non-union workplace where those kinds of protections are not necessarily part of the collective agreement. It establishes an appropriate legal basis for the health and safety work of the WCB.

I might interject here, hon. Speaker, that many of us have dealt with the WCB in the past. It's one of those institutions that we love to hate. That's probably because we are always dealing with injuries after the fact. Here's an initiative which involves the WCB in prevention, in enforcing those kinds of initiatives that lead to preventive measures. That's a whole lot better than trying to deal with injury claims after that fact -- and that should be noted. It establishes a legal requirement that employers create and maintain workplace health and safety programs.

If it works -- and I'm convinced that it will -- then there will be fewer injuries to workers, fewer fatalities and lower costs to employers. That's certainly preferable to doing nothing for six months. It should be pointed out that the people that have the most to lose in terms of accidents in the workplace are workers -- not employers, but workers. They're the ones that have their lives and their bodies on the line, and I think that should never be forgotten in this debate.

The member refers to a six-month hoist as a way of getting some input. I want to point out exactly what a six-month hoist would do. We heard in the opening statements that each week three workers die from workplace injuries in B.C., that every day 16 workers are permanently disabled and that there are more than 700 injuries on the job. So if you wait and do nothing for six months, you are looking at 72 workers dying, about 384 workers being permanently disabled and thousands more being injured. That's during the six-month hoist period.

[3:00]

It seems interesting to me that the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, who is vociferously advocating this six-month hoist . . . . It would be interesting to know what he would say to the families whose lives would be touched by some kind of workplace injury or a fatality. Would he say to them: "Well, we were worried about a 'smothering blanket on all business' "? It seems to me that if we remember what this legislation is intended to do, the issue of a six-month hoist is nothing more than pure politics.

We are in a province with a large workforce in the resource extraction sector. Those are high-risk occupations, and some of them are in remote areas of the province. And yes, many of them have health and safety committees that deal with issues on the job; many have committees that actually keep their members or their colleagues in line. History should have taught us something: where profits and occupational health and safety are conflicting goals, the only protection the worker has is his or her union.

If there's no union, then the only protection you've got is some kind of government legislation that protects workers' health and safety. Yes, it would be nice if all employers and workers could get together and deal with these issues -- and sometimes it works. But often it doesn't, and then we ask the WCB to pick up the slack, or we ask the government to step in after it's too late.

The member for Kamloops-North Thompson is fond of using the phrase: "This legislation will kill jobs." Well, it might. We might have to employ fewer coroners; we might have to employ fewer undertakers. But in the end, if we can prevent injury and fatalities to workers, then that's a whole lot better than worrying about some of the jobs -- like funeral directors -- that we aren't going to have.

[ Page 7499 ]

I wonder if the member has any idea of what a workplace accident actually costs an employer. If you have a fatality on the job, what sort of cost does an employer go through to deal with that? It's not that anybody would want to do that, but there are certainly costs in terms of production, and there are a lot more costs beyond that. So while one may claim and one may plead for the management rights of the employer, it seems to me that there's a larger issue at stake here and that we should attempt to deal with that.

I was touched by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson's pleading for a delay, and I was even touched by his call for humility. But I was certainly unimpressed with the amount of exaggeration in his comments. Aside from the periodic warm, fuzzy feeling that I got, I must focus on the issues. The reality is that this is legislation that saves lives and saves injury, and therefore it's good legislation.

There have been two previous speakers on this. One speaker, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, said that everything was so rosy in the workplace that we didn't need this legislation; that managers or employers always treat workers with respect and that everything is fine -- don't interfere. And then, of course, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson pleaded the case for the employer groups, and he read off a whole long list of employer groups that supposedly object to this piece of legislation. Heaven knows why, but there certainly weren't any worker groups represented in that list, so one can clearly see where his focus comes from or what his orientation is.

In the workplace, I guess one would start by saying that prevention always comes in the form of some education prior to getting on the job. Certainly training is a factor. There are places in the resource sector and in industry where not enough training takes place to prevent injuries, and that's being addressed by some of the employers. But they still happen in daily practice, and what happens at the workplace is important. Occasionally, direction is required; you sort of have to regulate that relationship.

If the government has to say that there has to be a health and safety committee on the job, then yes, that requires some cooperation by the employer and the employees, and it requires some trust. In the end everybody benefits from fewer accidents in the workplace, and both sides benefit from fewer fatalities.

The employer may often wish to get a job done in a certain length of time, but the employer must have some faith that workers will exercise safe practices and, if necessary, stop work when the risks are too great. You would expect that to happen in a good management-worker relationship, but it doesn't always. I've met very good employers; I've also met some who were not that good. I've also met some for whom you need some regulation to keep in line, to prevent them from driving too hard and risking the lives of the workers.

There is a need for at least a structure in terms of how one deals with occupational safety on the job site. You can rant and rave about the image or the spectre of Big Brother, but clearly, if you set down the mechanism for health and safety committees, there is nothing to fear from that. I would suggest that far from this killing jobs, as the member for Kamloops-North Thompson tries to suggest, it is simply a matter of sparing workers a lot of injuries and fatalities that affect the lives of people right across this province. Just remember the numbers.

In terms of the numbers, if we delay for six months, if we sit here and twiddle our thumbs as has been suggested, then I think the results are pretty clear.

An Hon. Member: Is that what consultation is -- twiddling thumbs?

H. Giesbrecht: Hon. Speaker, the member keeps talking about consultation. There has been extensive consultation on this. We have in the past had many discussions about what can be done to encourage and enhance safety on the job site, and quite frankly, even if you had a small business, I fail to see why an employer wouldn't get together with his employees from time to time to talk about workplace safety issues. Frequently . . . .

Interjection.

H. Giesbrecht: The member says that that's what they do; that's their point. I used to be in a union, and every time somebody said to me, "Well, take our word for it; we'll do that," I'd say, "If you love us that much, put it in writing," because it doesn't always work that way. You don't leave health and safety in the workplace to the whim of the employer. There has to be some structure in place to deal with it.

All of the rhetoric over there -- and we've heard this quite frequently . . . . Every time an issue comes up that deals with workers in the province, we hear the same kind of anti-worker rhetoric coming from over there.

When I was listening to the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, he was talking about measuring the success of this venture. He was suggesting that we were trying to measure success in terms of the volume of regulation. Well, hon. Speaker, I would really object to that. The success of any program is measured in terms of the number of people that are injured on the job site. If we look at this program six months from now, once it's in place, and there's a reduction in the number, that will be the measure of success, and that will make it all worthwhile.

If, in the course, we save . . . . As I said, in six months 72 workers lose their lives in this province. If we could save half that number, it would be more than worth it. If we could save a quarter of that number, it would be worth it. So when the members opposite decide to vote on this bill or on a six-month hoist motion, they might well remember that what we're talking about here is the lives of workers and their health. That should be more of a consideration than whether there's a slight inconvenience to a few employers that see it as their management right not to have workplace safety committees.

I might repeat that at the workplace, for example, if an employer decides, for whatever reason, that finishing the job or the profit margin is of more concern than workplace safety, it isn't the employer who currently pays the cost or pays the penalty; it's the worker. If the worker engages in unsafe work practices, then it's the worker who pays -- or his or her colleagues will pay.

Regardless of how you slice it, there is an interest here in providing safe working places, because it is the worker who eventually pays the price. If you look at the other side and some of their rhetoric, maybe they have just a little less concern for the workers and a little bit too much for employers.

In any working relationship, obviously it would be nice if the two sides could get together and deal with those kinds of issues in a harmonious fashion. The reality is that sometimes that doesn't take place, and the reality is that sometimes you need, in legislation, a structure for that to take place. In the end most employers will recognize that and go on and do the right thing.

So I can't get too concerned about the hon. member's complaints about this killing jobs. It isn't going to kill jobs --

[ Page 7500 ]

far from it. The hon. member is probably prone to exaggeration. I recall his view of the workplace, back in July of 1996. I quote the member for Kamloops-North Thompson: "The way good managers deal with conduct problems is called progressive discipline. You whack them once. If they do it again, you whack them again. Eventually you turf them right out." That being the case, it's rather difficult to stand here and take seriously anything from the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. I'll conclude my remarks with that point.

E. Gillespie: I rise today to speak in support of Bill 14 and against the motion to hoist this bill for six months. Employers, employees and particularly injured workers and those who advocate on their behalf have already waited too long. There has been a lot of concern and interest around making workplaces safer and ensuring that employees can go to and from their workplaces safely.

My constituency office is, I'm sure, not unique, in that far and away the greatest number of individuals I see come to me with individual concerns as a result of workplace injuries. Workers who have encountered injuries in the course of their work -- whether they be debilitating injuries, permanent injuries or short-term injuries -- can be very difficult to assist because of the regulations about workplace injuries and compensation. These workers are people whose lives are changed. They are changed because they have suffered either an injury which requires them to change the kind of work that they are currently doing or the kind of injury that puts them out of the workforce for good.

Every week in British Columbia, three British Columbians die because of workplace accidents. Every week 751 workers are injured, and every day 16 workers are permanently disabled. These injuries and accidents impose tragic costs on British Columbia families and communities.

We may believe that these injuries and deaths occur largely in resource industries, but this is not the case. Resource industries do have high risk levels, and a large percentage of the workplace fatalities occur in heavy industry. But the highest rates of injury are actually in health care and the retail and grocery sectors. These kinds of injuries are back injuries, repetitive stress injuries, chemical or pharmaceutical injuries, tendonitis, bursitis and carpal tunnel syndrome.

Employers have raised the issue of cost, with respect to workers compensation. Promoting safety is an investment. The reduction of injuries will result in the reduction of WCB premiums. Last year alone WCB premiums dropped by an average of 6 percent. Our annual accident rate in British Columbia is more than twice as high as that in Alberta or Ontario. If we could cut our accident rate to the level of Ontario or Alberta, employers could save $500 million in costs. This would result in improved productivity and competitiveness and lower compensation premiums for employers.

The legislation we're debating today reflects the key recommendations of the interim report of the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation. The legislation does four things. It sends a clear message that occupational health and safety is important to all of us. It makes the government clearly responsible for the broad area of workplace safety. It establishes an appropriate legal basis for the health and safety work of the WCB, and it establishes a legal requirement that employers create and maintain workplace-based health and safety programs.

The member for Kamloops-North Thompson speaks of the need to address the issue of workers who disregard safety in the workplace. This law is already in place. There are laws allowing the employer to discipline such workers and the Workers Compensation Board to prosecute workers who cause accidents. There is no need for further penalties. Everyone is responsible for workplace safety. However, the employer has the responsibility for managing the workplace. This legislation recognizes the primary role employers play in workplace safety.

Every employer, large or small, has a responsibility to promote safe working conditions, and every worker has a strong incentive to work safely. Their bodies and their lives are on the line.

[3:15]

Experience shows that the safest workplace is one where employers and employees work together. Joint health and safety committees in the workplace will ensure that this happens. This is not bureaucracy, but is a forum for bringing employers and employees together to address issues of workplace safety. Promoting safety is an investment -- an investment which benefits employers; an investment which benefits employees, their families and their communities.

G. Wilson: In speaking to Bill 14 and the motion that is now before us to essentially hoist this for six months, there are three things I'd like to comment on. I'm going to try to keep my remarks fairly concise and brief.

I don't think there is anybody in this chamber who is more committed to changing the WCB than I. I'm certainly as committed as most, and I think most of us here recognize that the way the Workers Compensation Act is currently constituted and the way the Workers Compensation Board currently operates is just outrageous. In all of the time I've spent as an MLA, the most heartwrenching, the most difficult and the most exasperating times, from the point of view of trying to get a practical solution, have come about as a result of trying to deal with injured workers.

I have to say that I was somewhat heartened when Judge Gill took on his task. I was a little bit suspicious that when Judge Gill did take on that task, he was going to find that it was a lot bigger than had originally been mandated and would take a lot more time. In fact, in my first conversation with Judge Gill, when he had indicated he'd taken it on, I said by way of friendly wager: "My guess is that you're not going to get it done in the time that's been set; it's going to take a lot more time to do this job properly." So I wasn't surprised at all when more time was needed. This is an enormously complicated, very difficult task ahead of us.

What we've done -- or what the government is attempting to do -- in this bill is really look at, to address, only one aspect of the whole gamut of issues surrounding the compensation of injured workers -- namely, to try and put in place some mechanisms that would help prevent workplace injury. Certainly I can support that, because much of what is included in this bill does seek to address some of the concerns that Judge Gill heard. I know, having read his interim report, they are outlined within that document.

Certainly there are many aspects of worker safety that can be addressed through the establishment of some of these workplace-based committees that are being suggested in this bill. In principle, I don't think it's a bad idea. I think that it might be, in fact, somewhat of a good idea.

The question, however -- and this gets to my second point -- is that in establishing them and in looking at the wording of this bill, it tends to raise many more questions than it answers. For example, I am curious to know what the onus upon this committee is going to be in the event that this

[ Page 7501 ]

committee does address or seek to deal with an issue, fails to deal with that issue, whatever it may be -- an issue or item of workplace safety -- and, as a result of its failure to adequately address that question, a worker is injured. Where are the liabilities? I know there is a

section here that deals with that.

It seems to me that in almost all instances, the liability falls squarely on the employer. I'm not sure that it's a good way to go, to be honest. I think that what this does is tend to put the onus back on the employer. What we have to try to do . . . . I don't quite fully have the answer, I must say, as to how we're going to do it. But I think what we have to do is share that responsibility, because I think that employees must recognize that they must, first of all, come fit for work.

There are a number of injuries that occur in the workplace as a result of employees showing up unfit for work, for a variety of different reasons. I think the employer has an obligation or responsibility to make sure that there is a safe workplace. It doesn't mean that accidents aren't going to happen; it doesn't mean that these committees aren't going to have to address some ways in which we can mitigate that. But there is a liability issue here, and a legal issue on liability, that I am not sure is clearly worded in there.

Maybe some time to consult a little more broadly on this is not a bad idea. After all, we have waited many years to try and get this right. I don't know that we should necessarily have to move on this particular aspect that swiftly, when in my judgment, it isn't this kind of proactive workplace safety issue that requires urgent attention.

The urgent attention is required on the other end, the end where people have physicians who turn around and proclaim people unfit for work, with long-term disabilities, and give a medical reason for why they are unfit for work, only to have a board of WCB doctors completely overturn the recommendations of general practitioners and specialists and argue that they have a different set of opinions. That's where we run into difficulties.

Where we really need urgency is in the right of an injured worker to sue. We just went through a long, protracted debate yesterday about people who become infected with hepatitis C, and their right to compensation. You know, there are many more people who go through injuries and have to deal with WCB who will never, ever have the opportunity to get justice for their claim, because the law is written in such a way that it makes it almost impossible for them to have that.

The law also is written in a way that tends to put the onus -- the cost -- on the employer. All through this bill, when you read this Bill 14, wherever there is a cost implication to whatever it is that we're asking be put in, the employer picks it up. Almost exclusively, the employer picks it up. I don't necessarily think that's the way to go, although I have to be quite honest: I'm not sure how we redistribute that cost. But I don't think it's fair, necessarily, in this instance that all of those costs should be assigned.

What it does, when you make those assignments of cost, is put the employer in an adversarial position against the claim of somebody who was injured at their workplace, at their worksite, because the employer recognizes that when that person goes to the WCB, there is a cost implication. It strikes me that we want to try to get away from that, because we don't want the WCB and the employer in an advocacy position against people who require legitimate compensation.

So it seems to me that there are a number of issues. The whole division 5 in this bill really needs some careful thinking, because when you read it carefully, I think, there are a lot more problems in here than this bill would lead us to believe: the right to refuse unsafe work, and how unsafe work is defined, and who gets to put the

definitions before us, and the obligation that falls upon the employer to reassign and, in reassigning, how the employer is forced to pay comparable wage rates for the position in which they are working and the position that they are reassigned to. That begs the question: if they are reassigned to do work for which a lower wage is generally paid, one would argue that the employer would have to pay a higher wage. My guess is that if you're reassigned to do work for which a higher wage is paid, there is no way the employee is going to take the lower wage. Either way, you're in a tough spot here. These are the kinds of technical questions that need to be addressed.

The minister may argue that we can thoroughly vet this at committee stage and that committee stage is the appropriate place to do it. I'm not so sure, because I think there needs to be some time. I suppose that if we were to say, "Look, we have broadly consulted with employers, we generally understand where their concerns and their issues are, and we are therefore able to incorporate all these issues into a thorough, good, committee-stage debate, where clarifications and amendments will be entertained," then perhaps, okay, we should move ahead -- and let's do that.

But I don't know that that happens in this House. It certainly hasn't been my experience on many occasions, so I am quite reluctant to buy into this 100 percent until we get some of those questions answered.

It 's not that the principle isn't a good idea; I don't have a problem with it. You know, little things like the assignment of these training dollars within the committee -- should you really be able to give them to any other employee? I mean, do we really want to be able to say: "Well, we can collect the payments of all the people on these committees and off they can go"? I'm not sure that's a good idea.

Let me conclude my brief remarks on this bill with respect to the hoist motion by saying that if we were to truly reconsider this in six months -- and I don't know how we would do that, because this House sits so infrequently -- then I think that wouldn't be a bad idea. Certainly, broad consultation and a broad buy-in by all parties who are affected by this is essential if we are to try and make these amendments mean anything at all.

We know that ergonomics was a big thing a few years back. There were bills brought into this House to make workplaces ergonomically safe. I would say that the difficulty with all these rules and regulations is that somebody has to go and inspect to see that they're being done, and somebody has to enforce them if they are not. There are costs associated with all those things, and I'm not sure that the cost benefit has really been measured too carefully.

Those are my concerns. I would say that tinkering with the Workers Compensation Act generally isn't going to do the job in the final analysis. What we need to do is repeal the Workers Compensation Act and redraft it. In the redrafting of the Workers Compensation Act, we need to build in some safeguards to protect people who are on claim, to allow the right of litigation and to bring some accountability to this Workers Compensation Board, which is accountable to no one but itself.

I'm not sure that this kind of tinkering does the trick. This bill, in principle, does address some issues around workplace safety, which I think is a good idea. If a broader set of consultations would facilitate everybody buying into this bill, then perhaps that would be a good idea.

J. Dalton: I rise to speak in favour of the hoist motion. The last speaker, the MLA for Powell River-Sunshine Coast,

[ Page 7502 ]

made a comment that we meet so infrequently that he couldn't quite see how even a six-month hoist might be workable, given that we'd have to bring this thing back to the House after that six-month period. I would suggest to the government that they implement what we've been pushing for for a long time: having a fall sitting. That would fit in perfectly. Number one, we could submit this to a committee. Wouldn't it be refreshing to finally have a standing committee do something in this House? So that's the first solution. Secondly, with a fall sitting, we're back here with a recommendations from the standing committee, and we can then address the many serious issues that Bill 14 raises.

No one in this House will quarrel with one stated purpose -- I assume it's in here; it's in the title: that is, the promotion of health and safety. I don't think any government member -- hopefully not -- would seriously think that the opposition rises in opposition to safety factors, because, of course, that is not true. As a starting point, I think we can all agree that safety is paramount in the workplace, and that includes the work that we do in this Legislature. We could have accidents here of a work-related nature -- not of a political nature, of course. Safety is obviously a stated concept in the bill.

But, quite frankly, I think there's another aspect of this bill that has to be seriously addressed. My colleagues have done so already, and I'm sure some of them will do so after I'm finished. So we do agree on safety.

[3:30]

One other thing the government and the opposition share -- at least, nominally speaking -- is the concept that we need less red tape in government and less regulation. The Minister of Finance, who is here to share these thoughts, told us in her budget presentation -- it's on page 8 of her budget speech -- that the government will be cutting red tape. It's right there. She says: " . . . legislation will be introduced to streamline filing and registration requirements . . . .

" Well, we haven't seen that legislation yet -- I'll be commenting in a moment on the task force that the Finance minister put together on this issue -- but we understand that perhaps later in this session, we will see such legislation.

What do we see in the meantime? Well, of course, we see Bill 14. In a moment, we'll have to get to some of the content of Bill 14, as to whether it's reached the objective that the Finance minister told us about in her budget presentation: that she will be cutting red tape. But at least the government is at the starting point; they acknowledge they must do so. It's also been admitted in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks memo to the Treasury Board. I see the Minister of Environment is also in the House, so she can share in these words and observations.

We all remember that memo that was submitted last November to Treasury Board which acknowledged that because of government overregulation and the inability to process Crown land applications, we were losing 20,000 jobs and $1.3 billion out of our economy. So the government obviously recognizes, from that acknowledgement, that red tape and regulation must be reduced.

Further -- and I already made reference to it; it comes out of the Minister of Finance's budget speech -- on April 27 the business task force to cut red tape was formulated. The Minister of Finance, in her news release, stated: " . . . this task force, announced in my budget, will make recommendations on how to streamline and eliminate unnecessary regulations and procedures." That sounds good. The announcement was also a co-announcement with the Minister of Small Business, who is also, by good fortune, in the House to hear these remarks.

The Minister of Small Business stated: "We consulted with the business community and found they want government to develop a more efficient regulatory framework to cut costs and improve B.C.'s competitive position."

Interjection.

J. Dalton: The minister is acknowledging that indeed those are his words, and he endorses them today as he stated on April 27. So more agreement from the government side to cut red tape. So far, we've acknowledged . . . . On both sides we agree on health and safety; on both sides we agree on cutting red tape. But the day after the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Small Business put the business red tape committee together, April 28 -- somebody at a meeting earlier today commented that a committee of 16 may not actually accomplish that purpose, but we'll have to see -- Bill 14 hit the floor of this House for first reading, one day later.

Now, does Bill 14 fit the picture of reducing government red tape? Well, let's see. There are 57 pages in Bill 14.

Part 3, which is the essence of the bill, contains 124 sections. I'm getting a little nervous about whether this is going to accomplish the government's objectives, but that is the reality of this bill. More importantly, I think we have to ask ourselves -- putting aside the content of the bill and the numerous sections and the amendments it introduces to the Workers Compensation Act -- the very serious question: has it replaced regulations? Has it met the government's own stated objective of reducing regulation and red tape?

I submit, and I think the evidence is quite clear, that it has not. The evidence is quite to the contrary. This bill will only further add to the woes of small and medium-sized business in particular, the very business that we hear the government is wooing and hoping to keep and to attract to this province. I believe the Premier is off somewhere else today trying to attract even more business.

The message is coming out of Bill 14 that we are not cutting red tape; we are going in the opposite direction. In fact, even before I get into the content of the bill itself, on April 15, just two weeks prior to the tabling of this bill we're debating, there were occupational health and safety regulations submitted that . . . . When somebody ran them off on the Internet, they came out two inches thick, page by page. That's not a reduction of red tape by any stretch; that seems to be adding a great deal of red tape when you just picture the actual volume of those occupational health and safety regulations.

Has this bill done anything to perhaps replace or supplant those regulations of two weeks ago? Well, no, it has not. When we look at

section 25 of Bill 14, we see that the current regulations are continued. It says that all regulations of the board made under

part 1 of the Workers Compensation Act are still in force. Of course, it's also possible for the board to amend and replace over time, but that's another story. So

section 25 of government Bill 14 certainly reinforces the fact that the myriad of regulations, such as the ones just introduced on April 15, will continue.

The next

section in the bill,

section 26, allows for the amendment of continued regulations. So they're not only saying that regulations will continue, but there's even the prospect that they could carry on and amend those same regulations. I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that if the small and medium-sized business person is not confused at this point . . . . Then, of course, there are more pitfalls and dangers that lie ahead in the same bill.

The message is very clear from small and medium-sized business that they are buried in regulations and paperwork

[ Page 7503 ]

and bureaucracy. It's difficult enough in this day and age for a small business person to make a go of it in this province because of the economic climate and the government climate and every other climate, except for the weather. What we do then is add another layer of bureaucratic nightmares on top of the many other bureaucratic nightmares that business people face.

What else do we see in this bill? There are numerous references to the board's authority to make regulations -- division 8 of the bill, for example. So we haven't reduced the capability of the Workers Compensation Board to actually add another layer to the already too many other layers. Many of these things, of course -- I believe the previous speaker also alluded to this -- would be appropriate to bring up specifically at committee stage. I think we certainly have to alert the government and the sponsoring minister to some of the major concerns we see in this bill.

Division 8 allows for miscellaneous authority, and that part of the bill -- in particular,

section 158(2) of division 8 -- lists in items (

a) through (

p) all the various miscellaneous regulatory authority that's granted by Bill 14. That list in itself has to be very imposing to a business person. If somebody who hasn't had any direct workings with the Workers Compensation Act looked at those various amendments contained in

section 158, I think they would be ready to take the bus to Alberta that the opposition leader talked about the other day and join the many other people who are hopping on that bus.

What we have to do, hon. Speaker, is to stop that bus and tell them that British Columbia is a friendly place to do business and to raise our families. Unfortunately, right now the evidence is to the contrary. Bill 14 is another indictment -- a damning indictment, if I may say -- of this government. The contradiction that it presents when it tells us that we're going to reduce red tape and then brings in Bill 14 . . . . We have a very imposing list in division 8 of other regulatory authority. We were told in a briefing that one of the intentions of the bill was to reduce red tape. The contrary seems to be the evidence.

In division 17 . . . . Hon. Speaker, the more you go through this bill, the more horror stories you come across. It's not an easy bill to read because of its length and, of course, because of some of the complexity that is introduced in it. But in division 17, we see that under

section 224 there can be cabinet regulations: items (

a) through (l) -- that would be 12, I believe, in my recollection of numbering. The following

section allows for board regulations. That lists (

a) through (i), which would be something less than the 12 that I just referred to. Also noteworthy is the catchphrase at the end of each of these sections: "respecting any other matter for which regulations . . . are contemplated by this act." So if they happen to miss something in the previous 12, then, of course, they'll catch it in that general phrase.

Anything that's contemplated by the act could also be the subject matter of a regulation. Not only would a person have to try to understand the

interpretation and the application of these various listed items, but you also have that ghost-like creature out there -- you don't even know what the target is. You know that there's something looming out there that could be dangerous to people who are struggling on a day-to-day basis to keep their businesses open, let alone to comply with the bureaucracy.

In that same division, division 17,

section 229 allows the minister to direct the Workers Compensation Board to consider amendments to regulations. Here we could have the minister sitting in his office in Victoria, thinking: "Well, I wonder what I could do today to further mess up the lives of small and medium-sized business." He could direct the board to further add another layer upon the many other layers that business people are facing.

What do we have in division 17? We have cabinet regulations, we have Workers Compensation Board regulations, and we have the spectre of the minister saying: "If that isn't enough, I think I'll throw in a few myself and order the board to consider those." Of course, I referred previously to division 8, which gave miscellaneous authority to the board to regulate. When we start combining all of these various divisions and sections within Bill 14, I think we get a clearer and clearer picture that what the government promised us in the budget speech and in some of the remarks made in this House since then does not in fact seem to be coming true -- in fact, quite the opposite.

[3:45]

Has the government accomplished what it said it would do and what we on this side agree that it should do -- which is reduce regulation and red tape? Let's summarize whether they have in fact accomplished that. We have a bill that's 57 pages long. We have a bill that contains, in the essential part, about 124 sections. We have a bill that two weeks previously was accompanied by two inches of occupational health and safety regulations. We have a bill that allows those continuing regulations to exist even though this bill has been brought in. It allows amendment to those continuing regulations.

Of course, there are various and numerous references in the bill to where the board itself can regulate. I've already made reference to the division 17, where you can have cabinet regulations, board regulations and minister regulations. Although the minister doesn't quite have the authority to regulate, he can strongly suggest that others may do so.

Layer after layer after layer -- it's like peeling an onion; all you can do is cry. I'm afraid there might not be anyone left in this province to cry. The business people will not be here to cry; they're on their way to Alberta or Washington State. They're going back to Hong Kong or wherever it may be. It's so ironic to think that the Premier is off on another junket down south this week, trying to attract business to this province.

Yet we're in this House debating Bill 14, which I think, quite frankly, is going to detract from any opportunity the Premier may have to try and convince business to come to this province. I don't need to comment on the overtaxed burden of this province and the other factors: the environmental standards that many, many people are confused by. We've seen that through questions put to the Minister of Environment over the last few weeks. Those are very mixed messages that are not helpful to the economic climate in this province.

I submit that health and safety objectives are certainly not met by this bill. In fact, I think it's quite the opposite. When you throw in such a mishmash of regulatory authority, I think people -- both workers and employers -- would be totally confused as to what the health and safety standards in this province are. When you have regulations introduced on April 15 that are two inches thick, I defy anyone, including the Minister of Labour, to tell us what is contained in those. As well, we have to mention the joint committees and the safety representatives that this bill contains, which is another layer of bureaucracy and authority.

The Minister of Finance asks: "What would we do?" Well, we would do what the minister herself told us in her budget speech should be happening: cut red tape. That's what we would do. I know I'm not allowed to use props, hon. Speaker, but there it is -- highlighted for the minister's own reference.

[ Page 7504 ]

Let me carry on, because after all, we are debating the hoist motion. We're not debating the Minister of Finance's committee or vague promise to cut red tape.

Hon. D. Lovick: So far you haven't spoken to the hoist motion.

J. Dalton: Bill 14 also does not serve the health and safety of the business community. The government brings it in, telling us this will promote health and safety for workers. We certainly have to question that.

When the Minister of Labour comments that we're not speaking to the hoist motion . . . . The very comments we are making and the many pitfalls in this bill strongly demonstrate the need to put this to a committee, hoist it for six months and then bring it back.

Interjection.

J. Dalton: It's like that California wine ad, with that echo that goes on and on and on and on. I'm hearing an echo from across the floor.

Another aspect of this bill -- and some of my colleagues have already commented on it -- is that there's a punitive nature to this bill that also sends the wrong message to business. By that, I mean in particular the administrative penalty of up to half a million dollars that can be imposed on an employer -- on an employer only -- even though the interim royal commission recommendation was that if they're going to bring in an administrative penalty, it should be imposed on both employer and worker if needed.

But this pro-labour government, of course, predictably dumped the worker aspect and only kept the administrative penalty on employers. I do admit there's still the possibility of prosecuting workers under a separate provision of the act. However, that is only a half measure. If you're going to do one aspect -- potentially whack an employer for up to a half a million dollars in penalty -- why should you not make that same statement to workers such as the one my colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson referred to. The worker deliberately and repeatedly refused to wear a seatbelt.

If that isn't a bad message to send out to supposedly enhance safety, I don't know what is. There is a punitive nature to the bill.

I would also submit that there's far too much power placed with the Workers Compensation Board itself, which, as we on both sides all know, is a monolithic nightmare, anyway. Now we're granting it far more regulatory power than it already has, far more red tape that all business people will have to struggle with, far more paperwork and far more bureaucracy. I can tell you, when the cabinet minister's office are asking what we would do, the one thing we certainly would not do is create more bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is a needed aspect of government if government does what it's elected to do.

If government would attend to a good public education system and a good health system, make our streets safer and allow for the Workers Compensation Board to get on with what it should be doing, which is to protect workers when injured and provide realistic health and safety standards, we would all be the better.

The problem is that this government knows nothing other than the approach of: "If it's bigger, it has to be better. If there's more of a union aspect, it has to be better." They don't understand the concept of why business is so worked up, why business people collectively and individually stated to the government that bills such as Bill 14 -- no doubt there'll be other creatures coming down the pipeline before we finish this session -- are harmful to the business community and to the business climate of British Columbia.

The evidence is there. I invite the members opposite, when they go home for the weekend, to walk through their local shopping malls and come back and report to us how many closed businesses they see. I can tell you that I see them at Park Royal, at Capilano Mall, at the Lonsdale Quay and at all sorts of other places on the North Shore. That's not unique. And the North Shore has a reputation for being a reasonably economically viable community. But boy, I'll tell you, the people of North and West Vancouver are getting hit just as hard as anyone else in this province -- no question.

If I took Bill 14 to the merchants of Park Royal, Capilano Mall or Lonsdale Quay, I think they'd say: "What? They're doing what to us? Not more! Where's that bus to Alberta? I want a ticket." And they'd be on it. We have to turn that bus.

The Premier claims to be business-friendly, and we see his photo ops and his front-page opportunities from time to time. This week he's off somewhere south of the border. We've been promised red tape by the Finance minister, who asks what we would do. I would just ask her to live up to what she promised. That's simple enough. Bill 14 doesn't measure up. There are far too many things in this bill that not only subject are to criticism but also must be subjected to further scrutiny.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

So the hoist motion that the member for Vancouver-Quilchena submitted is more than worthy of more than discussion. I invite government members to do the right thing -- maybe for the first time in their political careers -- and to effectively consult with the people who will be impacted by this bill -- not with the hollow exercise they go through, but with true consultation. Put this bill on the hoist to the appropriate standing committee and come back. And, if need be, a fall sitting to deal with the bill and any others that may be at loose ends would be more than appropriate. Do the right thing.

If this government truly means anything of what it says, or at least what we read -- to "enhance the business and economic and investment climate in British Columbia" -- then I submit that the hoist to Bill 14 would be a great message for them to send out. However, I don't know if this government is capable of listening to such advice. They certainly won't take it from us, anyway. That would, of course, be the last thing the government would do.

When you factor in all of the other negatives, such as high taxation, difficult regulations and other areas such as the environment protection field, and then you factor in a workers' compensation act of this nature, with the many layers of further bureaucracy that it invites -- and that I predict, without question, will be added -- I think there is no question whatsoever: this bill must be hoisted. It must go back for further review and effective consultation.

Allow the royal commission's final report of September 30 -- when it's due -- to be filed, and we can take all of those factors into place and do the right thing with occupational health and safety and not have this typical big government, big regulation, big union approach that the government of the day takes.

With those words, I conclude. I invite the Minister of Labour to seriously contemplate what's been stated and will continue to be stated on this side, and allow this bill to go to that standing committee.

G. Robertson: It's with great pleasure that I stand in this House this afternoon and speak to Bill 14. This legislation is

[ Page 7505 ]

about saving the lives of the workers in this province. We're committed to improving our safety standards and working with employers and workers to improve this province's safety record. As we all know, in its interim report last fall, the Royal Commission on Workers' Compensation made more than 60 recommendations to improve occupational health and safety in British Columbia. This legislation adopts a number of those recommendations, and I heartily support them.

Here's a little bit about British Columbia's safety record. B.C. has the second-worst workplace health and safety record in this nation. I think that's a sad day for workers in this province. As I said, I fully support this legislation.

Getting back to workplace safety in British Columbia, the accident rate is five accidents for every 100 employees, which is twice as high as Alberta. When the opposition talks about possibly going to Alberta, they say they want to go to Alberta because they have a safer workplace -- twice as safe as British Columbia's. We're making steps to rectify this problem for our workers in British Columbia.

One hundred and fifty British Columbians die every year. It's a tragedy -- for the fellow workers who witness these tragedies, for their families, for their loved ones, for their communities and indeed for the province of British Columbia. There's nothing more important than our workers in this province and their families and their kids.

[4:00]

The member for Kamloops-North Thompson suggested this morning that we shouldn't talk about something we don't know a whole lot about. Well, I do know a little bit about the industrial workplace. I worked in the forest industry for 23 years. I've seen a few things in that 23 years. The same member for Kamloops-North Thompson suggests that this legislation will kill jobs. This legislation will not kill jobs. It will save workers' lives; it will prevent injuries.

It will prevent fatalities and offer opportunities to cut accidents and cut compensation claims for corporations -- the same corporations that the Liberal opposition talks about many times, who complain about their WCB rates. This will afford them opportunities to work with their employees, bring their rates down and have a lot safer workplace, which is something that I know everyone in this House supports -- safety and efficiencies. And most imperative is the safety of the worker. The integrity of industry in British Columbia today is dependent on a productive, safe workplace.

Keeping accidents down and being productive; the two of them go hand in hand.

We heard this morning that the forest industry is being killed by legislation, and that it's onerous. Bill 14, which will eventually bring workers together in a cooperative effort with employers to look at some of the issues surrounding the workplace, is onerous, and safety committees are destructive.

T. Nebbeling: What has that got to do with the forest industry?

G. Robertson: Well, I'll tell you a little bit. I've heard that this is big-labour legislation. I worked in that industry for 23 years, and I know a lot of the vice-presidents and CEOs of these major corporations as well. They'll tell you that they're committed to safety. And you know what? They are. They are committed to safety. You talk to people such as Peter Bentley . . . .

Interjections.

G. Robertson: Hon. Speaker, you notice the opposition over there jimmering and jabbering. They're not interested in listening to what's going on. They're interested in listening to themselves -- the same thing that goes on day after day. Listen, you might as well get up on a perch!

T. Nebbeling: The forest industry . . . .

G. Robertson: Yeah, we'll talk about the forest industry. I know Peter Bentley; I've known Peter for 25 years, and his most important thing is to have a safe environment for his workers. He knows that when his workers go out in the woods and work every day, if they've got a safe, productive work environment, if they know their job inside and out and if they've received proper training, they're going to be productive and they're going to come home at night and go back to their families.

Interjection.

G. Robertson: We see the former opposition Forests critic still jibbering and jammering about safety. Possibly he'd like to listen instead of talk. When Tom Stephens came to British Columbia, the first thing he did was take a look at his company. He looked at efficiencies that, in his words, should have been realized years ago within his company. At the same time, he took a look at the safety issues surrounding MacMillan Bloedel. He has dedicated personnel to bring down the accident rate and up the safety rate within his organization. It's a priority for him. He recognizes that it's a major, major problem in his company, and he's doing something about it. I'm really pleased about that.

Canadian Forest Products is another company. I chaired Canfor's safety committee for a number of years, and we had an excellent working relationship with management there. Everyone really enjoyed it when we got together and talked cooperatively about some of the problems that we were having in the workplace, about ways to rectify these situations and ways to make more productive and safer -- because the two really go hand in hand. If you don't know your job and you don't know the hazards associated with your job, then how can you be productive? You can't do it.

Safety committees give management and employees an opportunity to come together in a cooperative way to discuss issues on how to make the job place safer. It's a great working relationship and a great opportunity. I know I've enjoyed it for a number of years.

The member for Kamloops-North Thompson . . . . Earlier I was in my office making a call, and I heard him talking about a gyppo contractor -- they were known as gyppos on the coast. He talked about an eagle's nest and the fact that they cut it down. Well, we've been working on multiple use in forestry on the coast for 15 or 20 years. I mean, eagles come back year after year and land in the trees and nest -- year after year. It surprises me.

I mean, our contractors and major corporations in the north Island had been managing for values such as eagles' nests, goshawks and all sorts of things for a long time before the Forest Practices Code. Apparently, the same person that was talking about workplace safety is the person that would inadvertently go out and foul an eagle's nest. I know loggers who would cry. When they go out into the bush, they look around at the values they have in the bush and look for eagles' nests and hawks' nests and owls' nests and habitat -- and protect them and save them. You know what? They're real proud of doing that too.

They'd been doing it a long time before the Forest Practices Code.

I guess my point is that this contractor that the member for Kamloops-North Thompson was talking about felled a

[ Page 7506 ]

tree, and down went the eagle's nest -- and this is the same contractor who's talking about red tape and safety . . . . Well, I covered off some of that earlier. The same thing I'm reading here . . . . The hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson talked about the Employment Standards Act a little while ago. What he said was: "Think of the disruptions to business because of the Employment Standards Act changes. We're not all sure that it's just a performance problem. We see a lot of indication that it's a conduct problem.

The way good managers deal with conduct problems is called 'progressive discipline.' You whack them once. If they do it again, you whack 'em again and eventually, you turf them right out."

An Hon. Member: He actually said that. Amazing!

G. Robertson: He said that. Generally, when you talk about the Employment Standards Act, you talk about a safe work environment. You talk about a person walking into an environment in the morning; he's familiar with the machinery and the environment around him -- or she is. He knows how to do his job, or she knows how to do her job, and they're productive. That's what happens. Too many times, employers will put employees into a situation where they know absolutely nothing about what they're doing: "Oh, gee, I'm looking over the yard this morning and we're short two guys. Oh, by the way, I need a truck driver.

I need this or I need that. Oh yeah, you just go over here and go over there." Pretty soon an employee is in a situation that he knows nothing about. And guess what. He gets whacked. That's really, really concerning. Safety committees on the coast and the work of unions such as the IWA have done a lot to address issues like that. Actually, I'm going to talk a little bit about what they've done. They've done some outstanding things.

I look at Bill 14 and I see some pretty good things. Under "General Duties of Employers, Workers and Others," the general duties of employers are:

"

(1) 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 that employer's work is being carried out, and

(

b) comply with this Part, the regulations and any applicable orders.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), an employer must

(

a) remedy any workplace conditions that are hazardous to the health or safety of the employer's workers, and

(

b) ensure that the employer's workers are made aware of all known or reasonably foreseeable health or safety hazards to which they are likely to be exposed by their work . . . . "

That makes good sense. An employer must also ensure that the employer's workers:

(iii) " . . . are made aware of their rights and duties under this Part and the regulations,

(

c) establish occupational health and safety policies and programs in accordance with the regulations,

(

d) provide and maintain in good condition protective equipment . . . . "

That's important stuff.

An Hon. Member: So is being there.

G. Robertson: I know. I agree -- and I think the opposition's agreeing too that these are good things.

It also says: " . . . (

f) make a copy of this Act and the regulations readily available" -- so that workers can actually know what's going on. And maybe they take a look around and say: "Hey, maybe we should find out a little more about this." I think that's all good.

The member for Kamloops-North Thompson also said that Bill 14 will kill jobs. Well, I've got some interesting statistics here, and I'd like to read them for the House. These statistics have been compiled by the IWA. Between 1920 and '29 there were 1,629 fatalities in the forest industry; from 1930 to '39 there were 385; from 1940 to '49, 515 fatalities; and from 1950 to 1959 there were 1,157 fatalities in the forest industry. From 1960 to '69 there were 447 fatalities, from 1970 to '79 there were 414, and from 1980 to '89 there were 338.

Between 1962 and 1989 there were 1,167 logging fatalities, including 370 fallers, 120 truck drivers, 170 skidder operators and 101 chokermen. I knew people and worked with people that were part of these statistics.

In 1995 the forest sector made up about 7.5 percent of all of the employees in British Columbia. During the same year WCB recorded a provincewide total of 134 fatal work injuries. Twenty-nine -- 22.5 percent, or over three times the average -- were in the forest industry. Obviously workplace safety, working together cooperatively with management and providing a venue to get together and deal with some of these problems, has had a significant positive impact not only on the forest industry but on lots of other industries throughout this province and throughout this nation.

In the same year just under 30 percent of all forest sector workers worked in logging, but fully 19 of those 29 forest sector fatalities were in logging. From 1984 to 1993, 290 fatal claims happened in the forest industry.

In a WCB survey of 70 fatal logging accidents between 1993 and '95, six of those workers were on the job less than one week -- six of them. They were probably young kids that went out to work for a logging contractor somewhere, weren't fully educated in the problems associated with their jobs and did not have a good understanding of the hazards in the workplace. Probably they weren't very well supervised.

These regulations for small companies that work in the industry will provide a venue for them to sit down and train the workers and make sure that they have some sort of an idea of the hazards -- and also of their job. Hopefully, it will work well. Out of 70 fatal logging accidents between '93 and '95, six of those workers were on the job less than a week, 16 less than one month and 30 less than a year. That's 52 of those 70 who were on the job less than a year.

I think that says a lot about training and about working cooperatively with your fellow workers and management to make sure that you're well trained, know what the issues are in the job and are well supervised.

By contrast, the results of a major study done by Dr. R. Brubaker and others at the UBC department of health care and epidemiology indicates that union loggers are about ten times less likely to be killed at work than non-union loggers. That has nothing to do with work production; it has to do with the fact that unionized logging operations have good occupational health and safety committees. They have programs where workers are oriented, they have programs where workers are trained, and they work cooperatively and have meetings at least once a month to discuss safety issues on the job. This legislation will provide that, and I'm very, very pleased about it.

[4:15]

These fatality figures that I've read off are absolutely concerning and appalling. The opposition was saying earlier: "Business will be crying." Well, I'll tell you, after the thou-

[ Page 7507 ]

sands of logging fatalities I've read of here and in our history in British Columbia, I guess I'd have to ask the opposition if they've ever had to walk up to a door at night and knock on the door and have the wife of a logger come to the door to hear, "Your husband is not going to come home tonight," and then explain why, when she has little kids. I see the member nodding; it's a tough thing to do. I don't think there's anything more difficult, whether it's in industry or whether it's a car accident or whatever.

But clearly, the figures speak for themselves. We have work to do in British Columbia. We need a safer work environment for our workers. That means making sure that they are aware of the issues surrounding their work and their environment, working cooperatively together -- the employer and the employees -- and finding solutions to sometimes very difficult problems. I believe that Bill 14 is a good start.

In summation, I'm very supportive of Bill 14. I believe that one of the things that workers deserve in this province is a safe work environment. Safety is more than a word. Safety is something that . . . . If you go out into the industrialized workplace in British Columbia -- whether it's mining, logging, gas, oil, farming or whatever -- you have to wake up in the morning and make sure that your safety is your primary consideration.

I can well remember a sign we used to have at Canfor. We used to drive around Atluck Lake, where a number of people drowned one night in an accident, actually. There was a sign up there that said: "Remember, somebody's waiting for you at home at night." I can well remember that when I drove around Atluck Lake every morning, I'd look at that sign and think of my little boy Nolan and my daughter Kimberley and my wife.

When I got out of the crummy in the morning and started work, I'd remember to talk to my crew about safety on the job and say: "Hey, always make sure it's the number one thought in your mind, because if you're not safe, you're not going to be around in this industry." We worked on that for many, many years.

I fully support Bill 14. I think it's a good bill. I think it's going to provide a lot of opportunities for a better workplace. I think it's going to provide a lot of opportunities for a very cooperative venture between both employees and employers. Hopefully, a year or two down the road, we can look at our safety statistics in this province and see that this bill has made a difference and provided better employment safety for our workers in British Columbia.

B. Penner: It's a privilege for me to take

part in this debate. To dispel any sense of suspense, I'll say at the outset that I am also speaking in favour of the hoist motion put forward by my colleague the member for Vancouver-Quilchena and the opposition Labour critic. There are a number of very good reasons why I think more time is needed to examine this bill. I'll say again, though, at the outset that I'm sure all of us in this House are committed to making workplaces safer.

I listened carefully to the previous speaker's comments regarding worker safety and the things that he encountered in the forest industry. However, I think perhaps his comments highlight some of the problems inherent in this legislation that has been drafted for us. The reason I say that is that I think the people who were drafting this legislation had in mind some of the most hazardous and dangerous worksites in the province and tried to apply remedies to all workplaces based on the worst case and most dangerous workplaces.

Prior to becoming elected, I worked in a small law firm in Chilliwack. They are now going to be bound by the same rules that are going to apply to a logging camp or the mining industry and other industries that are obviously much more inherently dangerous due to the work . . . .

An Hon. Member: How many people in the office?

B. Penner: About ten people work in the law office I'm referring to. So they're now required, according to this legislation, to set up a workplace safety committee and have a designated representative. That's according to

section 139 of the act.

This morning a member opposite indicated complete ignorance of this legislation when he said that it would only apply to firms with 20 employees or more. That was the member for Skeena. Again, that supports the opposition's view that more time is needed to study this legislation. Even the government members, obviously, are unaware of the impact of this legislation.

Section 139 of Bill 14 very clearly states that nine employees or more will require a designated safety representative who is entitled to eight hours of pay per year to attend safety meetings, and furthermore, that that eight hours may be increased by regulation. The government is not content with the number of new rules and regulations that they provided in this 57-page statute. They've left it open to continually increase the obligations of employers in terms of paying for safety courses and meetings, and for workers to attend those meetings.

Some of that, no doubt, is required and salutary in dangerous industries such as forestry, mining and various other forms of industrial activity in manufacturing and other sectors. But in the service sector, and things like dentists' offices, accountants' offices, law offices, architects' offices or engineers' offices . . . . I'm not sure why those kinds of industries should be treated exactly the same in terms of the way it's thought that they're going to be dangerous to workers.

The same type of physical harm is simply not present when you're pushing paper as opposed to pushing dirt with a bulldozer or pushing logs in a loading zone in the forest industry. That's the situation, Mr. Speaker.

There's a person that works in the press gallery here in Victoria who is pretty well respected, I think, by all members of the House. His name is Vaughn Palmer, and he's a columnist with the Vancouver Sun . Sometime last year he wrote a column entitled "A Fixed Calendar Could Fix Some of the Legislature's Faults," and in that column, he advocates a fall sitting of the Legislature for a number of reasons. I think that our motion to hoist this bill and suspend its passage for six months to allow for more discussion dovetails nicely with Mr. Palmer's proposal for a fall sitting.

I think this is the classic type of bill that would be very well suited to a fall sitting, so that we could have committee meetings over the summer and solicit information, comments and feedback from those people that are going to be affected and that are going to be expected to implement this legislation.

We need to hear from the people who have to make this legislation work. Clearly the members opposite aren't familiar with all of the provisions in the act, and I dare say that the people in British Columbia who will have to put this legislation into practice aren't very familiar with it either. It was only week ago today that this bill was tabled in this House. It's a comprehensive bill; it's very detailed and 50-some pages long. There have only been about five working days -- not counting the weekend -- for British Columbians to have a chance to look at this bill.

An Hon. Member: You work nine to five, do you?

[ Page 7508 ]

B. Penner: Are you counting Saturday and Sunday? I don't count Saturday and Sunday as working days.

Hon. D. Lovick: In session, most of us work 60 to 70 hours.

B. Penner: I'm talking about the business people in British Columbia who are busy with other things. They have not had a chance to adequately address this. Clearly the Minister of Labour should take up this issue with members of his back bench, because they've indicated today an ignorance of the provisions of this bill. They clearly haven't seen the impact of

section 139, and the minister can read it if he likes. Perhaps he hasn't had a chance to look at it, either.

Moving along, I'm going to quote what Mr. Palmer had to say in recommending a fall sitting, and I'll begin partway through his column:

"So B.C. would begin following the practice of other major Canadian jurisdictions, inaugurating a fall sitting as well, running from mid-September to mid-November, again with some leeway for emergencies. With the spring being taken up mainly by spending debates, the fall would be given over to legislation, though bills tied directly to the budget would still need to be put through before the House adjourned at the end of June."

And further:

"Any proposed law that is introduced later than April 15 would be automatically deferred to the fall session."

I note that this bill was tabled on April 28. So according to the proposal and the idea of Mr. Palmer, a bill like this, which is major in its scope, would be deferred to the fall sitting. Further in his column:

"To encourage consultation, major bills would be subject to hearings before a legislative committee, which would have the power to call witnesses and conduct hearings, again subject to time restrictions."

And then the column closes further on:

"For government, these changes would mean giving up some -- but not all -- of its ability to ramrod the House into submission. For opposition, they would involve surrendering some -- but not all -- of its opportunities to obstruct government business. In return, both would gain a measure of predictability and stability, plus that most elusive of qualities in B.C.'s legislative zoo: dignity."

The official opposition endorses the idea of having a fixed legislative calendar, having a precise date when the budget has to be brought before this House, before the elected representatives of British Columbia, and having a fall sitting to consider legislation such as Bill 14. That would enable legislative committees, these parliamentary standing committees . . . . Firstly, they never meet. The vast majority never meet and in my time here as an MLA since 1996, only a handful have ever met.

That would give them a chance to do some real work and to work better for the people who elect us and pay our bills here: the taxpayers and workers of British Columbia. I don't know why any government would be afraid of that proposal, unless there is something in this bill that they know can't stand the light of day or cannot withstand the scrutiny.

We haven't had a whole lot of time to examine this bill. I'm sure that as time goes on we will be made aware of an increasing number of defects in the legislation. Think back to last year, when there was a bill tabled in this House by the member for North Coast, I think it was. It proposed significant amendments to the way that builders' liens were enforced in British Columbia. That bill went through this House, and it wasn't until the fall that serious difficulties came to light.

Throughout British Columbia there was concern expressed by the housing sector, which creates a lot of jobs for British Columbians, that this new legislation was simply untenable and unworkable and was going to prevent the creation of jobs in the construction and housing industry. That's an example of hurrying too quickly with complicated and detailed legislation.

I submit that Bill 14 is very much in the same light as that legislation we saw last year, which was probably passed too speedily a