Hansard -- Thursday, May 16, 2002 p.m. -- Vol. 8, No. 3 (HTML)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		3533

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		3534
	Gang activity in Indo-Canadian community R. Nijjar Protection of drinking water supply J. Kwan Canada-U.S. relations and U.S. softwood lumber duty K. Johnston

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

Petitions		3538
	J. Bray Hon. R. Coleman B. Suffredine A. Hamilton

Tabling Documents		3538
	B.C. Human Rights Commission, annual report, 2001-02

Second Reading of Bills		3538
	Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002 (Bill Pr401) T. Christensen

Committee of the Whole House		3539
	Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002 (Bill Pr401)

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

Second Reading of Bills		3539
	Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 42) (continued) J. MacPhail K. Krueger Hon. G. Bruce Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 49) Hon. G. Bruce J. Kwan

Tributes		3560
	Kate Ryan-Lloyd Hon. C. Richmond J. MacPhail

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

P. Nettleton: I'd like to introduce two very sweet ladies to the House today: sisters, seniors and Victoria residents Pauline and Joy Cowper-Smith.

Hon. C. Clark: We are joined in the gallery today by many of our constituency assistants. I think I can say, on behalf of all the members in this House, that our constituency assistants are amongst the most important individuals in all of our lives. I know that today all of the members in this House will take the opportunity to thank them for the work they've done.

I just want to add this: thanks to all of you for the work that you've done. Thank you for being our public face in the communities when we're over here in Victoria, because it's something that we aren't able to do as often as we'd like. Thank you for weathering on our behalf what are sometimes difficult days in those offices. Thank you for serving our communities as well and as diligently as you do.

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

I'd like to introduce them to you: Dana Brynelsen, provincial adviser of the Infant Development Program of British Columbia; Carolyn Graves, chair of the Provincial Steering Committee, Infant Development Program of British Columbia; Mary Stewart, regional adviser of the Infant Development Program for the north region, Valemount; Marie Watts, policy analyst, Ministry of Children and Family Development, Victoria; Karen Isaac, executive director, B.C. Aboriginal Child Care Society, North Vancouver; Annie Wolverton, regional adviser, Infant Development Program, lower mainland region, Burnaby; Maryanne Robinson, B.C. Association of Infant Development Consultants, Coquitlam; Valerie Massy, executive director of the Nanaimo Child Development Centre; Dr. Michael Whitfield, Centre of Community Health and Health Evaluation Research, B.C. Research Institute for Children's and Women's Health; and Sue Khazaie, Ministry of Children and Family Development, Abbotsford.

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

The students won the right to come here and visit with us because of good attendance, a model for all of us to follow. They are accompanied today by their teacher, Terry Johnston. Again, would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. R. Coleman: Visiting the precinct today is Sharleen Verhulst, who from May 6 to May 16, after leaving Mission, has been driving a slow vehicle that has a maximum speed of about 30 kilometres an hour, which is the first electric and slow-pledged vehicle in the province.

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

At noon Sharleen gave me 10,000 of these from 10,000 people from Mission all the way across the lower mainland and Vancouver Island. It's a commitment of a young person who believes she can make a difference. I would ask the House to please make her welcome and congratulate her on her efforts.

Hon. K. Whittred: In the gallery today is a group of people who represent the Nicola Native Lodge Society. This society is a non-profit organization made up of five first nations bands in the Merritt area. They were formed in 1974 to develop a residential care facility for aboriginal elders. I would like the House to please welcome Peter Vlahos, Johnny Joe, Madaline Lanaro, Mary Archacham and Josie Saddleman. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. G. Bruce: The other day I introduced two of the ten friends that I have. Today there are six others that I've found who were prepared to come here. I would like to….

I'd like to introduce them to you. They're here for a very special reason. It's time once again to reinstitute that great tennis match between the Members of the Legislative Assembly and the press gallery. We're in the throes of organizing this particular tennis tournament under, of course, the watchful and respectful eye

of the Clerk of this House, who does such a fantastic job in organizing something like this. In fact, the Clerk of this House is so well organized that the trophies are already engraved. Of course, you might want to ask whose names are on those trophies.

It's unfortunate that press are unable to attend this afternoon for this little bit, but it's not actually a surprise that they aren't here. You might ask me. This will be the thirteenth annual tennis tournament. I'm sure one of you would like to ask me how many times the press have….

Hon. G. Bruce: The press have won it only once in 13 years — only once. They are striving diligently to put together a better team this year than what they've had at any time in the past. Of course, with the Clerk and the guidance of the Speaker, we'll make sure that our team is just that much better than their team.

Some of you have asked me if you can participate on the legislative team. I'd like to say there is still room on our team, although first you would have to check with the Clerk to make sure that you have the proper credentials. You have to have whites to be able to play on this very auspicious occasion. Of course, for the few spots that are left, we need….

J. MacPhail: It's not because you're boring that you have no friends — eh? [Laughter.]

Hon. G. Bruce: I'd like to make sure…. We have room yet for a ballgirl and a ballboy, if you'd like to let the Clerk know.

Now, if I could just have one last quiet moment here. Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, this tennis match was first to have been a fundraiser for Providence Farm. CNN was prepared to cover this match, but only if we could find better opposition than what we actually have. Here today to help us put this whole event together….

Here today to help us put this whole event together is the sponsor of the tournament, the Cambridge Corporate Group, Lois Cartlege. With her are Jude Cahoon, president of the South Cowichan Lawn Tennis Club, which is 115 years old, and Allan Case, treasurer of the South Cowichan Lawn Tennis Club.

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

Mr. Speaker: The time will be deducted from your second reading speech. [Laughter.]

Hon. members, I would like to bring to your attention that on Monday, May 27, the summer schedule for the tour office commences, and six new summer guides will start working with the Legislative Assembly. The tour guides are post-secondary students who will work throughout the summer months, including weekends and statutory holidays. In total, the tour office will be able to offer tours in English, French, German, Mandarin, Japanese, Cantonese, Spanish, Italian, basic Scandinavian and Korean.

I would like to introduce in the gallery today Cynthia Cheung, Carla Willock, Roy Tanner, Claudia Russ, Deborah Cooper and Celine Anderson.

R. Nijjar: I rise today to raise an issue of great importance. I rise to address the issue of the many gang-style killings within the South Asian community, also referred to as the Indo-Canadian community. We have been forced to accept the fiftieth killing in the community since the 1994 slaying of the Dosanjh brothers. What is the purpose of raising the issue in this House? Clearly, this issue is not going to be resolved here — or by the government, for that matter.

While I am working with many people in the community to address the issue, such as Justice Wally Oppal, and have a lengthy article in this week's Indo-Canadian Voice newspaper on the particulars of the issue, this is symbolic. This is symbolic because I believe members of the community must stop hiding from the fact that this problem exists for all of us. We should deal with the issue unashamedly and collectively.

As an elected official, it is very easy to ignore difficult issues on the grounds that we may upset some people and champion a losing cause. However, I'm not here for easy paths, nor do I seek easy, superficial solutions. For those who say negative community issues should be kept in-house and MLAs should not bring shame to community but rather only promote the positives of the community, I see that everyone in this House and across British Columbia knows of the great contributions the Indo-Canadian community has made to British Columbia. In business, social life and politics, the community has made many contributions and has a great reputation for hard work and family support values. We should not have a complex regarding this.

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

J. Kwan: Two years ago this week marks the beginning of the events that led to the tragedy in Walkerton, Ontario. On May 22, 2002, the first of seven people lost their lives, while more than 2,000 became ill. The deaths ranged from two-and-a-half-year-old Mary Rose Raymond to 82-year-old Edith Pearson, representing the most vulnerable in our society. It's now been a year since the change of government and five months since the report of this government's drinking water review panel, and B.C. still does not have a drinking water protection act.

The inquiry into the tragedy, led by Justice O'Connor, found the Ontario government and its Ministry of Environment at fault. Ontario's Premier himself said: "I, as Premier, must ultimately accept the responsibility for any shortcomings of the government of Ontario as identified by Mr. Justice O'Connor." He also said: "Walkerton was a wake-up call not only for Ontario but for municipal governments, other provinces and countries around the world."

The Walkerton inquiry found the provincial government's budget reductions made it less likely that the Ministry of Environment would have identified the improper operating practices of the Walkerton utility. Also, the decision to proceed with the budget reductions was taken without either an assessment of the risks or the preparation of a risk management plan. I'm very concerned that the deregulation and budget cuts for environmental and other issues of public safety, like health care or transportation, have not been put through intensive studies on the risks and their management. B.C., under this government, is on the same path Ontario took.

The budget for the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is being slashed by over 20 percent. Ontario, having learned from the tragedy, has recently increased its Ministry of Environment budget by over 50 percent. The people of this province deserve to see that this government has undertaken a thorough analysis of the risk to public safety as a result of these budget cuts and the deregulation process. The Walkerton tragedy and Justice O'Connor's report cannot be ignored.

Mr. Speaker: I would ask the SergeantatArms to please take a look in the gallery. Someone is using a floodlight and should not be doing so. Please attend to that.

K. Johnston: I rise today to speak directly to our American cousins. Since that unfortunate spat between us in 1812, we have been family. In 1861 your Civil War saw 50,000 Canadians fighting for American freedom. We worked together in World War I, World War II and the Korean War, when our nations stood side by side. In Vietnam 10,000 young Canadian men fought in the U.S. armed services. In recent times we have supported you in Operation Desert Storm in the gulf, and our elite special services were the first on the ground in the latest confrontation.

The people of Canada responded immediately in response to the September 11 attacks. Within 45 minutes we accepted 224 diverted planes and 33,000 passengers to airports across our nation. We are each other's largest trading partners, with about $700 billion a year in goods and services crossing the border. The Free Trade Agreement of 1989 and NAFTA in 1994 were agreements signed in good faith to support both of us.

Well, cousins, something has happened to our relationship. There is a squabble going on over softwood lumber. Thousands of people in British Columbia have lost their jobs because of the punishing duties being proposed by your trade commission. You will be punished yourself by these duties, as you will be paying $2,500 more for a home.

At this point in our history we are asking for your help in solving this economic feud. We are asking you to support your own American Consumers for Affordable Homes organization that's calling for fairness and free trade in softwood lumber.

Although it is too late for many workers, including the 600 people at the White Pine mill in Vancouver-Fraserview, your intervention can help tens of thousands of Canadians regain stability in their lives. Please contact your American politicians and ask them to treat us like the family we are. Respectfully, your Canadian cousins.

J. MacPhail: A year ago the Liberals ran on an election platform that said wait-lists were too long and British Columbians deserved better. I'm wondering whether we can see whether the Minister of Health Services thinks patients are getting what they deserve from this government. To the Minister of Health Services: do patients spend more or less time on wait-lists now than they did a year ago today?

Hon. C. Hansen: In the election campaign last year we clearly flagged that wait-lists were a problem. It was something that we heard from British Columbians throughout the province. We have taken the actions necessary to deal with wait-lists. Part of that is something that doesn't happen overnight. What is required is a reorganization of the way health care is delivered in the province. We are doing that.

We have put an additional $1.1 billion into the health budget to make sure that British Columbians get the care they need. These things do not happen overnight. I am pleased that if you look back to the stats on the number of people waiting as of May 31 last year, there were 66,126. By the latest numbers posted on the website earlier this month, which are as of March 31, that number is now down to 65,446. It's not enough. Clearly, the wait-lists have to go down further.

J. MacPhail: Actually, it's about wait times, because wait-lists can go on and on, as the minister raised when he was in opposition. Really, it's the wait times that the government guaranteed would go down.

The government's own figures from their own website show that in virtually every category, wait times have increased significantly for patients over the last year. Cancer treatment is up 44 percent. Orthopedic surgery wait times are up 22 percent. Gynecological surgery wait times are up 23 percent.

Can the minister explain to British Columbians who believed his party's promise to reduce surgery wait times why his government's own figures show that he broke that promise?

Hon. C. Hansen: Clearly, these are issues that do not have quick and instant answers. We are working on them. We are redesigning the health care system so it will work for British Columbians in the future in a way that it has not worked for them in the past.

The member will know that with the nurses' job action last year, not only did wait times go up, but the wait-lists went up. Quite frankly, the system has not been able to make up for that loss of operating room time from that stage. We are working on it. We are making some progress, but clearly we have a long way to go.

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

J. MacPhail: What a difference a year makes, because when that minister was in opposition, he said: "Wait times were solely the fault of the government and couldn't be blamed on any job action." That's what he said when he was in opposition. Here's what the Minister of Health Planning said when she was in opposition.

J. MacPhail: Here's what the Minister of Health Planning said when she was in opposition: "The facts are simple," she said. "The longer patients wait for cardiac surgery…"

J. MacPhail: "…the higher their risk of dying." She was right. Wait times for cardiac surgery are going up under this government, and people's lives are at risk. Just last week it was reported in the media that in the minister's own community in Kelowna a man died of a heart attack while waiting for urgent cardiac surgery.

The Health Services minister refuses to acknowledge a broken promise. Maybe the Minister of Health Planning would like to explain to her constituents why wait times for cardiac surgery are on the rise under her government, when she promised they would go down.

Hon. S. Hawkins: You know, for ten years we had a government that didn't act to put patients first. For the last year we've been working very hard. We have committed…

Hon. S. Hawkins: …to redesigning the health care system so that patients are put first. We are setting up a system that's going to deliver safe, reliable, high-quality services to patients when they need them, where they live.

Mr. Speaker, we have invested $1.1 billion over last year's budget. We have made sure that we now have a population-based funding formula that's applied to the health authorities. We've reduced the number of health authorities from 52 to six so that we can make sure the health authorities actually take the savings from that and redirect them back to patient care. We're working to fix the problems they created over the last ten years, Mr. Speaker.

J. Kwan: When the Liberals were in opposition, they went ballistic over the wait times that patients had to endure. What a difference a year makes. It's been 365 days of decline in the health care system, but I'll give the minister a shot at redemption. Will the Minister of Health Services promise British Columbians that this time next year patients will spend less time waiting for surgery than they do today?

Hon. C. Hansen: We are restructuring the health care system in a way that will deliver more timely care for British Columbians in all parts of British Columbia. We wound up with what the Minister of Health Planning was referring to: ten years of a disjointed health care system that was not working for patients.

We are reorganizing that system. I know there's lots of people fearful of change, but we're going through the change. We're fixing the problems we inherited, and there will be a much better health care system for British Columbians in the future.

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

J. Kwan: If the Minister of Health Services is confident about his plan, then all he has to do is say: "Yes, I will commit. Next year at this time the wait time for patients will reduce." Longer surgery wait times are just one of the many Liberal broken health care promises. They broke their promise on mental health. They broke their promise on long-term care beds. They have broken contracts.

J. Kwan: They have closed hospitals. They have delisted services. None of this was even hinted at in the New Era document. A vast majority of British Columbians think the health care system is worse today, and they blame this government.

My final question to the minister: one year ago, did the minister know the New Era document was nothing more than political spin, or did the Premier wait until after November 16 to tell him?

Hon. C. Hansen: I find it a little bit amusing that this member would stand up in this House and talk about broken promises. We brought in a New Era document in the election last year, and we have already today…. Here we are not even a year from taking office, and already…

Hon. C. Hansen: …we have implemented over 60 percent of the commitments in that New Era document.

B. Suffredine: My question is for the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care. With the recent announcement of intended closures of long-term care facilities, some of my constituents are worried that seniors who need extended care will be moved to assisted-living facilities. People think there won't be sufficient care in those facilities for those that have extended care needs. Can the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care clarify what is being offered to seniors?

Hon. K. Whittred: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be a member of a government that has had the courage to actually put a plan in place to deal with this rapidly growing segment of our population. The residents of this province who are over the age of 75 are currently the fastest-growing segment of any population. They are a population that we know requires care, and we know this is something we need to plan for the future. Our plan will ensure that they have appropriate care. Extended care will be available for those who need extended care. Intermediate care will be there for those who need immediate care.

B. Suffredine: I understand that at Nelson the Mount St. Francis residential care facility is being phased out. Can the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care tell us what options residents of Mount St. Francis will have when that facility is phased out?

Hon. K. Whittred: The Mount St. Francis facility in Nelson is, in fact, a very good example of a facility that is no longer adequate to meet the needs of today's seniors. It is not appropriate for extended care, and it is not appropriate for lower levels of care. The information I have from the interior health authority is that an RFP is going to be issued very shortly for a replacement facility, and the residents of Nelson can feel assured that they will receive the appropriate care in the most appropriate setting.

S. Orr: My question is to the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development. In September of 2000 the federal government announced a $2.2 billion federal-provincial-territorial early childhood development agreement to give young children in our communities the best possible start to life. Some have suggested that the province is not directing these dollars to where they are needed most. Can the minister tell us how much funding her ministry currently receives, both federally and provincially, and where those dollars are being spent?

Hon. L. Reid: I'm delighted to give the House the background information to the federal-provincial-territorial agreement on early childhood development. The agreement began in the year 2000, when $39 million came to this province. In the year following it was $51 million, and $66 million will come in each of the succeeding three years. Those dollars will be spent on programs across this government. The Premier has challenged us as a government to come to the table with a cross-government, integrated, coordinated strategy, and I believe we have done that. Over the course of the five years you will see $291 million flow to this province.

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

these dollars are being spent effectively. Can the minister explain what accountability measures are in place to ensure that these programs are effective and that the children who are receiving them are actually benefiting?

Hon. L. Reid: Our baseline report, which each province and each territory is required to provide to the federal government, is now up on the ministry website. I would invite my colleagues to advance that information to their constituents. In terms of basic evaluation processes, we have taken on the work of Dr. Clyde Hertzman at the University of British Columbia in the human early learning partnership, which is a consortium of probably 40 researchers across British Columbia who will, in fact, support communities that wish to build capacity and will provide them the answers to research questions which would be most important to them. All in all, we have programs around evaluation for children with autism, we have the early childhood development pieces, and we certainly have ongoing discussions as we go forward.

H. Bloy: My question is to the Minister of Education. In the New Era document, the government committed to providing both students and parents with more choice in education. The government has recently passed legislation that enables parents to have more involvement with their children's school.

Can the Minister of Education tell us how increased parental involvement will benefit student achievement?

Hon. C. Clark: I don't think there is any question that increased parental involvement benefits every child in school.

Hon. C. Clark: And we know further that it doesn't just benefit the children of the parents who are involved; it benefits all the children in a school where parents are involved.

We as a government have done a great deal, I think, to throw open the doors to schools to welcome parents into them. We have created school planning councils at every school in the province that will guarantee parental involvement in those schools. We were the first jurisdiction in the country to legislate in statute the right of every parent to volunteer in their children's schools. We have recognized in legislation district parent advisory councils for the first time. We have sent out a survey to every parent in British Columbia to ask them how they feel about their children's education. We have exempted purchases made by parent advisory councils from the PST, and we have given every parent the choice to decide where they want to send their child to school in British Columbia, because they have the right to decide. They know what's best for their kids, not the government.

J. Bray: I wish to table a petition with 1,600 signatures concerned about reductions in legal aid funding and related programs.

Hon. R. Coleman: I present a petition from STRIDE, Strategy to Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere, from thousands of British Columbians requesting that May 15 be made…

B. Suffredine: I wish to present a petition on behalf of approximately 1,000 residents of the Kootenays urging the government to make preservation of medicare a top priority.

A. Hamilton: I have a petition signed by 76 concerned parents and students at John Stubbs elementary school concerning the learning disabled and teachers' compensation.

Hon. G. Plant: I have the honour to table the annual report of the B.C. Human Rights Commission for the year 2001-02.

The purpose of the bill is to restore Spring Enterprises Inc. to the register of companies. As the House heard either yesterday or the day before, the bill was referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills. They've approved the bill and reported that back to the House.

Bill Pr401, Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill Pr401; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

T. Christensen: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill Pr401, Spring Enterprises Inc. (Corporation Restoration) Act, 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

J. MacPhail: Yesterday I adjourned debate on this legislation, so I rise to continue my comments in opposition to Bill 42, the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act.

I was discussing at the time the former colleague of mine, Fred Randall, who was the MLA for Burnaby-Edmonds, and the very great comfort he had in front of an audience of business people, labour people, community people, the medical profession and lawyers who were all there to honour Fred a couple of weeks ago.

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

There was Fred, who had spent his life working on behalf of people both as a union worker and then as a union organizer and finally as the senior business agent in the Operating Engineers. Fred had himself brought about huge change on behalf of working people and continued to lobby for that as part of the government of the day from 1991 to 2001.

I put that before us today so that all other remarks of mine can flow from that context, because the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act is an attack on unions. It's shifting the fulcrum so far out of whack that employers…. There was an editorial cartoon that showed a rather corpulent person labelled "Employer," and they had the fulcrum, the teeter-totter right down to the ground, with a couple of small working people flying up into the air. The comment was that the Minister of Labour brought "balance" to our labour relations law.

From 1991 to 2001 the ten-year record of labour disruption in this province was at an all-time low. Over the course of the 1990s up until this past year, 2001, the economic growth in the province was, by the Business Council's own documentation, on an upward swing.

It's an interesting graph that the Business Council put in the newspaper a couple of weeks ago. It showed economic growth throughout the tenure of the time where the Labour Relations Code was in place. That probably was due to the fact that there was labour stability in the province, but all of that's changed. The Liberal government, in order to pay off their corporate friends, had to bring in changes to the Labour Relations Code.

In fact, Phil Hochstein, one of the most verbose anti-union employers in this province, got his way. He was the biggest single donor to the Liberal Party in the year 2001, and now he's got his legislation. It was so amusing to hear Mr. Hochstein say in the newspapers that, oh yes, it was a good first start, but perhaps it didn't go far enough. Balderdash. The combination of everything that this government is doing to change employment law in this province more than pays Mr.

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

Mr. Hochstein is the head of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of B.C. They don't like unions, they don't want unions in the workforce, and today with this legislation, they get their way. I'm sure Mr. Hochstein was told: "Listen, Phil, the best thing you could do is say that this doesn't go far enough, because then people will actually believe that we didn't do what you wanted to do." It was, I guess, one of the communications strategies that may have actually been thought about by this government before they did it. It gets reported as if Mr. Hochstein is unhappy that it didn't go far enough.

Then, we also have the organization of small businesses saying exactly the same thing. People reading the newspaper….

Oh, I know, the other people that have a very strong anti-union policy is the CanWest Global Corp. They don't like unions either. They were major donors — I think something like 30,000 bucks last year that the CanWest Global Corp. donated to the Liberal government. Isn't that interesting? Hmm. A media conglomerate donating to a Liberal party. Hmm. Anyway, they're very pleased with this being a first step, too, and of course, it gets reported as if the government could have done much more but backed off.

Well, I'm here to tell you that there are thousands of British Columbians that see exactly what this agenda of this government is. There are tens of thousands of British Columbians who understand that you have to look at the entire group of changes that this government is making to radically alter the rights of working people to just earn a decent living, radically altering those rights to actually erode them and in many cases deny them.

We have to look at all the legislation that this minister has already brought in to break contracts, to deny whole sectors of workers in this province any right to take their collective agreement with them when their employer changes. We have to look at the legislation that this Minister of Labour brought in, which says to teachers: "You're an essential service now. We don't actually understand how it's going to work, but you're an essential service." Even then, when the Labour Relations Board, an independent tribunal, ruled that the teachers could take some action in defence of their own wages and working conditions under that legislation, that wasn't enough for this government. The Minister of Labour had to bring in legislation imposing a contract ordering them back to work — oh, and then not paying for the contract either. This government doesn't like to bring down the heavy hand of legislation against working people and actually pay for their heavy hand. They like to leave that up to others.

The government, under this minister, brought in legislation ordering transit workers — bus drivers — back to work and ordering nurses and health sciences professionals back to work, so this is just the next step.

Of course, we have to look at this legislation in the context of the other ugly stepsisters, which would be the Workers Compensation Act changes and the Employment Standards Act changes.

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

Here's what's happening. The changes to the Labour Relations Code say that an employer has the right to communicate to workers when they organize a union now. Those who, through no fault of their own, don't understand the history of labour law in this province know full well that anytime an employer has the right to interfere in an organizing campaign, it is always to stop the organizing campaign. If that right is unfettered, it means the organizing campaign to join a union fails. Unquestionably, that's the history in this province. It's the history in this country. It's the history in this continent. Today we have legislation introduced that allows the employer to do just that.

I'm sure the Minister of Labour will rise up and say: "Why can't the employer have the right to talk about joining a union?" Maybe the employer just wants to encourage workers to join a certain union. I'm sure that's what this minister has in mind. Let's pick certain unions. I used to call them rat unions, and then I was told that wasn't appropriate when I became a member of the government. We were told to call them alternative unions. Alternative unions are unions that like to work with the employer to undercut benefits for the workers they represent and to maximize the profits for employers. They like to go even lower than the Employment Standards Act. That's what they like to do, and they've got over 100 certifications in the province today. I can bet my bottom dollar that those same unions are going to get more certifications, because not only is it now in the employer's interest to encourage people to join those kinds of unions with these changes to the Labour Relations Code, but they also now, because of the changes to the Employment Standards Act, have the right to collude with an employer to negotiate even less than what's in the Employment Standards Act — even less.

This government is so desperate to deliver for their corporate donors and their personal friends who hate unions that they've gone to extreme lengths to allow virtually no floor below which an employer can sink in taking away decent working conditions and pay for working people in this province.

Why is it that I join with Fred Randall, my former colleague, and say that I love unions? Here's why: because as a woman, if I join a union, I earn about $3 per hour more. That is such wonderful news for working women in this province. No other initiative is better at

bringing about equal pay for work of equal value for a woman than joining a union. It's so wonderful that we have organizations in this province that understand how good it is to bring about equality, both economic and social, for women. Women earn $3 an hour more, on average, in a unionized workplace than in a non-union workplace.

Why do I love unions? Because unions are the avenue to solve our looming skills shortage. All of a sudden the Business Council of British Columbia is tearing their hair out because there's going to be a skills shortage. That's imminent; it is upon us now. Really, Business Council of British Columbia, where were you when the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission was dealing with exactly this issue? You didn't show up to the meetings, and you didn't show up to work on putting a plan in place to deal with the skills shortage as the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission was doing.

Instead of this government saying to employers, "Get working with unions and educational institutions to solve the skills shortage," what does this government do? It disbands; it outlaws the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission. That's their answer.

Well, I'll tell you something. The best avenue for dealing with our skills shortage is to work with unionized employers, with unions themselves, to put in place solid apprenticeship programs that will address our skills shortage, solid programs that encourage women into non-traditional work. But that's all gone.

Why do I love unions? It was because of unions that working people like my dad have a pension. I'll never forget the day my dad, who belonged to the operating engineers, came home and…. I was 18 years old, so he had been in the workforce for a long time. His union was negotiating a pension for the construction workers and a dental plan. That was all they were negotiating. They weren't negotiating a wage increase. Well, I was the last one in the house, so he didn't need a dental plan for his kids, and a pension plan…. He was a frugal man — he is a frugal man — and a pension wasn't high on his priority list, either, but the young men in the workforce that worked with him needed those desperately. It was because of the union that his young worker colleagues, all men, got a pension and a dental plan.

Now, because of the unions negotiating pension plans as a top priority, we also have a wealth of investment opportunities through the use of those pension plans — investment opportunities in our province, all because unions saw the importance of saying to their members: "We need to have savings so that you can look after your family after you stop working."

Well, how's it working? How is it working with what this government probably thinks is an agenda that they're getting away with in terms of radically altering the benefits for working people, radically altering the playing field about who gets the opportunity to join a union or not?

Let me just read an article. Actually, it was a column from yesterday in the Globe and Mail. I'm sure Mr. Paul Sullivan will be horrified that I'm using his words, because he's a person who has a particular anathema for the NDP, and, Mr. Sullivan, I accept that. We shouldn't attribute any of the comments I read into the record as Mr. Sullivan suggesting, just because he thinks the Liberals are awful, that he likes the NDP. I want to make that very clear. I understand that, Mr. Sullivan.

Here's what he has to say about this extreme agenda that this Liberal government is bringing forward:

Today is a perfect example of legislation by exhaustion or legislation to exhaust the public. The government is ramming through bills. They're going to invoke closure. They're going to shut down debate. The Government House Leader says: "Oh. Well, you agreed to that." Oh, really? Seventy-six to two — like we agree to anything.

Nevertheless, that's exactly the agenda of this Minister of Labour. He's probably completely energized himself with the thrill of altering people's lives with the stroke of a pen. He's done it month after month, introducing legislation, changing people's lives forever, taking away rights that people have had for decades, lessening those rights, refusing opportunities to ordinary working people because he has to deliver for his own friends.

Not only are people exhausted, but they have absolutely no confidence in this government that the government's even telling them their full agenda. They have no confidence in this government that the government even knows what it's doing. I know what the government's doing. It's delivering for its friends: "Mr. Phil Hochstein made a big donation. We've got to give him the labour law."

You know what? People who actually want to grow businesses in this province don't think this is good legislation. People who understand that the economy needs a vital, strong, capable, well-paid workforce know that this legislation isn't the right way to go.

People who want to invest in this province from outside this province know that you need laws that are fair and balanced and that treat people with equality. This legislation does exactly the opposite. They know that's not good to encourage investment in this province.

I predict that investment in this province not only will not go up; it will go down. Staying flat would be a victory for British Columbians, but because of the reckless, extreme agenda of this government, I predict business investment, private sector investment, will decline this year, next year and the year after.

So far on my predictions I've been 100 percent correct about what this government's doing. Despite the denials of the government, it turns out that the opposition's predictions actually have been correct. Then the various ministers have to sheepishly get up and say: "Well, I didn't know at the time the opposition predicted it that that was exactly what was going to happen."

I say that this legislation — the legislation that takes away the simple right of working people to decide amongst themselves, without interference from the employer, about whether they should join a union or not — is imposing conditions of close to oppression on working people in this province. Now when people sit around the lunchroom or are on the job or are outside the plant talking about whether or not it's time to collectively take their issues to the employer, because of this government's new commitment to the business community the employer will be able to stand dead-centre in that group and discuss amongst the group the inadvisability of joining a union.

I just want to say for the record that when employers communicate about joining unions, 99 percent of the time it's to discourage people from joining a union. That's by academic studies, not by my word. The workplace isn't a democracy. We know that. It's not designed to be a democracy. So if the minister stands up and says, "Oh well, the employer's just one voice amongst many" — wrong. It is exactly the opposite. The employer carries a weighted vote equal to the sum total of each and every worker, because that employer has the right to continue the employment relationship or not.

I know the minister, along with his colleagues the Liberal MLAs on the back bench, wants to suggest that somehow, by my standing up and saying unions are wonderful, that carries on the commitment to friends and insiders. I'll say this: nothing could be more wrong. Our laws that were brought in throughout the 1990s, which worked, were the basis of independent, neutral consultation that was balanced and reached conclusions of consensus, and then changes were made.

Not so with this government. How quickly can we deliver for our corporate friends? How quickly can we get that labour law through? How quickly can we ram it through the Legislature? It isn't about balance. It isn't about consultation. It isn't about consensus. It's about serving their friends, their corporate donors. British Columbia is worse off for it.

K. Krueger: Just a few words in support of this legislation and in response to the Leader of the Opposition, who just spoke. This debate, of course, is not at all about whether or not unions are a good thing.

Many members of the B.C. Liberal caucus have had very active roles in unions, strong union backgrounds. Take, for example, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, a strong background in the policemen's union; the member for Peace River South, 17 years in the Telecommunications Workers Union. A number of

members were educators or are educators on leave — strong backgrounds in the B.C. Teachers Federation.

I myself spent half of my previous life not only in union jobs but in positions of union leadership. I was elected as a shop steward many times and as an executive councillor and a board member of an 8,000-member local union.

We're proud of our union background. I don't think the member said that she had any union background. I don't think she did, as far as elected union positions at least. This government holds its head high with regard to its support of the rights of working people and with regard to the initiatives this government has undertaken to benefit all working people in British Columbia, everything from keeping the promise to deliver the lowest personal income tax rates in Canada up to the first $60,000 of income, to our many efforts to allow the economy of British Columbia once again to become proud and strong, where it was always meant to be — number one in Canada. It slipped to number ten under the Leader of the Opposition's watch and languished there for years.

Nobody is attacking workers' opportunities in British Columbia — quite the contrary. The minister and this government have done yeoman's service to rapidly expand the workers' opportunities here. That's what we're doing. When we move to put patients first in every health care decision and students first in every education decision, we're moving to help the workers of British Columbia and their families.

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

Lo and behold, things get done, and they get done a lot more efficiently, effectively and quicker than when you have a competition between unions over turf or when you have old-fashioned unions that say: "No, no, a plumber can't handle a 2-by-4, and a carpenter can't handle a wire. You've got to have all the guys standing by to do their little piece of the work." Not only that, but you have the occasional wildcat walkout and jurisdictional dispute, so that employers' jobs get shut down and delayed. Really, productivity is the big issue between those two approaches rather than any question of whether people have a right to join a union or not, because clearly they do.

The fact that the ICBA members were working with unions that were so much keener on helping them be competitive in the marketplace than the other companies — the ones that have an umbrella known as the CLRA, Construction Labour Relations Association — brought things to such a pass that the CLRA companies lost market share tremendously under the NDP watch. Under those ten years they shrunk to less than 20 percent, as I understand it, of the construction business in British Columbia, and most of that was provided by the government itself. This was not in the interests of those companies, not in the interests of their workers and not even in the interests of those unions, many of which have fallen upon hard times even trying to fund their pension plans.

The government was misguided over the ten NDP years. That has been the workers' problem. Everything from its flawed sectoral bargaining legislation to its approach to the Labour Code to the Employment Standards Act to the pension suspension bill — which was a real attack on workers rights — demonstrated an inability to deliver on what was best for workers. Nothing crystallized the source of that problem more for me than seeing Glen Clark, when he was Premier, standing up at the Order of B.C. ceremony, presenting the medal — the highest honour of British Columbia — to Mr. Ken Georgetti because he was president of the B.C. Federation of Labour and referring to him as his, Mr. Clark's, friend and the nineteenth cabinet minister.

Of course, he wasn't elected as an MLA, let alone as a cabinet minister. He wasn't a cabinet minister, but he was treated like one — not as nineteenth of 19 but as first. I don't think anything happened under the NDP watch that the B.C. Federation of Labour didn't approve of. Many things happened under the NDP watch because the B.C. Federation of Labour did approve of them. The result was economic devastation for union members and non–union members alike. It extended also to many other things outside of legislation, such as who ran the WCB. Mr. George Heyman was on the five-person panel of administrators who ran the WCB with decisions such as who got to sit on the Labour Relations Board and the decisions they made. We had some tremendously incompetent decisions made under the NDP's watch.

To hear the bleating of Mr. Jim Sinclair, the B.C. Federation of Labour, or even the Leader of the Opposition, you'd think we brought down some massive piece of legislation totally eviscerating the Labour Code. The fact is that after a whole year — just about a year — in office and careful consideration and a ton of input to the Labour minister, there are three pages of text in this piece of legislation. It's not some massive change. It's smart legislation; it's careful legislation. It lays the groundwork for further change if and when that's deemed advisable, but it's very, very careful in what it does.

Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition is going through the motions of doing what she thinks she has to do, which is oppose any change brought on by a B.C. Liberal government. Or perhaps she's acting as a spokesperson for her particular support group. The NDP are always throwing out this theory that because people donate to a campaign, elected people have to be

in the pocket of those donors. That isn't true at all for B.C. Liberals. We are elected to represent 100 percent of the electorate, and that's what we do. I submit that there's lots of evidence to believe that the NDP operated on that premise, because so much of what they did was geared to providing the B.C. Federation of Labour the things it thought were good ideas, even though they didn't turn out to be good for the membership.

That's not a motivator to a B.C. Liberal at all. What we want to do is restore the opportunity that workers of British Columbia should have and would have always had if we hadn't languished under an NDP government for those ten terrible lost years.

While I'm speaking, I want to speak a little bit about some things this legislation doesn't do. So far, it really doesn't respond to the fact that the public sector unions of this province have taken a terribly irresponsible tack over the past year. When we have teachers presuming to bring their political opinions into the classroom and try and enlist the support of the young minds they are there to cultivate, that is wrong. When we have the HEU and the BCGEU coaching their members, training them to engage in behaviours that border on anarchy, that is wrong.

A government could easily respond legislatively to problems like that. I get input from constituents, many constituents, who think it's time to rein in the public sector unions. Perhaps it's time for government to stop being so cooperative with them. Perhaps it's wrong that government does an electronic transfer of funds every paycheque to the public sector unions, which generally rake off about 2 percent of the payroll that this government meets every two weeks. It's millions of dollars intended, ostensibly, to benefit those unions' members but channelled, we know, into political pots, war chests for the NDP — $4 million set aside, for example, to attack this government in very false, misleading advertising that is geared to frighten seniors and create false news. That is wrong.

I was in a restaurant one day some weeks ago here in Victoria, and Mr. Chris Allnutt of the Health Employees Union came in and sat down with his assistant and began berating me about the changes to the public sector policy accords, those secret, behind-the-veil, under-the-table deals the NDP cooked up with the public sector unions. He said to me: "People have died for those collective agreements, and they will again." That very week I got a death threat in my constituency office. I don't know if that was a coincidence or not.

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

This government could and I actually think should respond legislatively to some of that. I don't know that we need to be a part of helping them collect their dues. I don't think the public sector unions, in particular, and some other unions in this province are particularly accountable to their members. I think they cook their constitutions up so they only need a very small quorum at meetings to fulfil the agenda of the union leadership itself. Once a person hires on at these workplaces, they're obliged to be a part of all that process, whether they like it or not. When they have a beef with their union, when they feel that the union is not serving them well or not spending their money well, there's precious little they can do about it. They're overruled very readily by these unions.

There is a lot of bullying behaviour in unions, and it's very tough for a member to do anything about it. There is a provision under the code, but it's the little person — the single member or perhaps a couple of members — up against the gigantic union with all of its money, the money that rolls into the pot every two weeks from the obliging employers, paying the best lawyers that the union can hire, the best accountants that the union can hire, and it's all stacked against the members. I don't think workers have been very well served by some of the unions, particularly the big public sector unions. I know that workers were very poorly served by the NDP in their ten years in office.

I commend the minister for a very balanced, very careful approach to the Labour Code changes, focusing the board on the things that it needs to focus on: restoring rights and balance in the workplace. It's been wrong that a union can say anything it wants when it comes to certify members, and the employer, if it tried to speak to the union membership about its concerns, could face automatic certification and often did. An employer was completely muzzled.

The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has an introduction that she would like to make. I will just give her a moment to get back to her seat and give her that opportunity.

J. Kwan: Thank you to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson for yielding the floor to me to make this introduction.

Visiting the Legislature and in the gallery right now are approximately 50 newcomers to Canada. They're here to learn about the government. They're here to learn about parliamentary tradition and its rich history.

These newcomers are students at the Vancouver Community College in the interpreters program. They're eager to learn. They're eager to be newcomers and participants in our political process, our cultural process and our economic process. They are, of course, accompanied by their instructor and also by an individual from the Immigrant Services Society. I ask the House to please make them very welcome.

K. Krueger: Just for the record, for those few members of the public who may actually be watching this debate on TV — or the even fewer who may read it later — I'd like to read a little bit of that section on the right to communicate: "A person has the freedom to express his or her views on any matter, including matters relating to an employer, a trade union or the representation of employees by a trade union, provided that the person does not use intimidation or coercion." What could possibly be wrong with that? Who could legitimately argue against that right for both sides of the equation?

There were some very unfair situations in labour relations law in this province up until this government came to power. For a union to sneak around and sign up the right number of people — and often it really didn't turn out to be the right number of people, and the LRB had to overturn some certifications because of jiggery-pokery with membership cards…. For a union to be able to do that and suddenly be certified in a workplace without the employer ever having had the right to speak its mind on the issues and without, for that matter, the employees ever having had the opportunity to have a vote on certification — a free vote, a secret ballot — was wrong. The government corrected that quite some time ago. Now the government's moving a little bit further.

I submit to this House and to the people of British Columbia that this is very balanced, reasoned and reasonable legislation after, as I said, a full year of careful deliberation and consultation. I commend the minister. I urge every member of this House, including the two opposition members, to support this legislation, and I commend the government for it.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further debate, the Minister of Labour with concluding remarks to Bill 42.

Hon. G. Bruce: I very much appreciate those comments from my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson and the comments that have been made in the House. I'd just like to speak to a few of them.

The Leader of the Opposition, in her comments earlier on, was talking about being exhausted, that the cabinet and members of caucus are exhausted. Well, quite frankly, we're not.

We were given a task to undertake a year ago today, actually. The people of British Columbia had said they'd had enough of ten years of wrack and ruin in this province. They gave us a mandate to go to work to rebuild this province step by step, brick by brick. Ladies and gentlemen, we are doing that. We are doing it one brick at a time. There is a plan that we are following through in all aspects, whether it's health care, education or in this instance labour, for how we get this province rebuilt after ten years of being decimated by the NDP government, now the opposition.

It's going to take us more than one year to be able to just put it right back on track. It's bit by bit in how we go about doing that. What we've done here in respect of this Labour Code is that we've taken the code and put some improvements into it, so that will help inspire this economy and get things turned around. I'd like it that people would take a look at what we've done here.

The Leader of the Opposition in her comments was talking about looking at all parts. She was looking in respect to the issues around workers compensation, employment standards — those two acts that we will come to deal with later today, I hope, and this particular bill. One must take into account the entire context of these pieces of legislation. If you do, Mr. Speaker, and you take a look at what we've brought to the House today in this legislation, you will see that it is balanced and that it is measured.

As a native son of this great province of British Columbia and of this country of Canada, I understand the importance of the union movement. I understand the importance of good viable businesses, and I understand the importance of the rights of employees in the workforce. What we're attempting to do in this legislation is find that middle ground — it's not easy, of course, in that people will see it from their own particular perch as to whether you're going too far one way or the other — to try and establish and maintain a level of balance and to be prudent in the decision-making process so that people feel confident in the labour laws in British Columbia.

They'd feel confident from the aspect that they are protected as employees, and they also feel confident from the aspect that it's a good place to invest and to do business. I think that bill as we've presented it here and the changes we've brought into the House do just that. As my colleague the member for Kamloops–North Thompson mentioned, the board must pay attention to the aspects of what we were doing in regards to looking at the purposes section, the very principles, when they bring in their adjudication on decision-making.

As a Labour Relations Board, they must pay attention to those eight principles, not just due regard. These are the labour laws of this province. They must pay attention to all eight of those principles as they are set out and defined in the code. How can one argue about the aspect of the right to communicate?

You know, from the members of the opposition I hear the sky is falling in regards to the ability, or lack of it, for people to be able to talk to one another if it came through a certification process. This is not about certification or decertification. This is about allowing people, the employees, the opportunity to get the facts as they apply to their workplace relative to whether or not they ought to go and certify.

Let's just go through this a moment. What, in fact, would happen in this particular process? I mentioned this in my earlier remarks, but I think it's important to

say it again. If there is a majority — that's 55 percent of those in the workforce — that have signed cards for certification and they're presented to the board, the board then has to make a ruling on whether a vote is to be held. That's usually what follows suit.

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

This is so that there are not a lot of unfair labour practices that would take place, so that there isn't coercion or intimidation on either's part and so that the employee — the very people we're talking about giving the right information to be able to be either represented by union or not, or whatever the issue may be — can understand the facts of it.

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

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

Ultimately, what we're attempting to do by changing this legislation and moving ahead with this is to find a way to rekindle that entrepreneurial spirit in British Columbia, to get this economy going again, to have people have the confidence to invest in the province. With that investment and the expansion of this economy come jobs — good, well-paying jobs with benefits for the people of British Columbia. Quite frankly, many of those jobs will be good union jobs.

This is not about the sky falling. This is not about one running out there, chasing one's tail and getting all excited that there is a huge labour swing from one side to the other. This is balanced and measured. When one takes into account all three pieces of legislation as to what we are attempting to do here and studies them without the emotional challenge that others would like to present to the general public — if you look at it carefully in the quiet — you'll see that it is just that.

With that, I am pleased that this legislation has been brought before the House. I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Hon. G. Bruce: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

Bill 42, Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2002, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2002, Bill 49, be read a second time now.

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

the future. The goals of this bill are to restore the system to financial sustainability by bringing costs under control, to make the system more responsive and to maintain benefits for injured workers, which are among the highest and best in Canada, while ensuring fairness for workers and employers. This bill will make it possible for the Workers Compensation Board to maintain employer rates at levels comparable to other provinces, to clarify coverage of conditions related to mental stress and to improve management of the system by providing a new permanent structure for directing WCB.

This bill furthers the government's new-era commitment to make the Workers Compensation Board more responsive to the needs of workers and employers alike. It also follows through on our January 2002 strategic plan, which calls for a more accountable, responsive and cost-effective workers compensation system.

This legislation is a result of careful consideration after several reviews of our workers compensation system that have been carried out in recent years. That began with the 1999 Royal Commission on Workers Compensation. That was under the former NDP administration and was followed by two recent expert reports: one on WCB policy and the legislation by Allan Winter and a second on WCB service delivery by Allan Hunt. These reviews, particularly the royal commission, involved extensive consultation with individuals and groups concerned about the future of the system. That royal commission had over 3,000 public submissions and was a cost by the former government of $7 million. It was then left on a shelf.

This legislation strikes a balance between many diverse views that were expressed during that consultation and is consistent with the recommendations of the resulting reports. The bill is concrete action to address serious problems facing our workers compensation system. Its primary goal is to protect workers' benefits into the future by returning the system to financial health. Where previous governments failed to act, we are acting today to protect the system for the future.

The changes introduced through this legislation will make the system sustainable by bringing costs under control, allowing for employer premiums that are comparable with other western provinces and making it possible for the system to avoid falling into a huge deficit in the accident fund, which has been predicted if no action is to be taken. In making these changes, we've been careful to maintain our province's WCB benefits as among the most generous rates in Canada.

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

The current forecast calls for an accumulated deficit of more than $900 million by the year 2005. This is due primarily to the system's rapidly increasing costs. If we do not act now, the future of our workers compensation system could be at risk, and benefits for injured workers could be threatened. In recent years Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba have been forced by economic realities to renew their systems, but previous B.C. governments did not act.

Concern about financial sustainability was crystal clear. It was crystal clear in the 1999 royal commission report back to the previous NDP government. It stated this out of the royal commission: "Clearly, the core goals of a sustainable structure for funding the workers compensation system must include the assurance that sufficient and stable financial resources are available to secure benefit payments to injured workers over the long run." They failed to act.

The recent review of the WCB carried out by Allan Winter repeated this point to me, in his report back to the ministry. Mr. Winter's report, which we released at the same time as introducing this bill, says — and this is a quote of Mr. Winter: "I have been convinced that the current workers compensation system in B.C. is becoming unsustainable."

We cannot afford to allow our workers compensation system to slide into crisis. The system is at risk, and we must act. The system is unaffordable, yet with a balanced set of changes, if we take those steps today, it could be made sustainable for the future while still maintaining benefits among the best in Canada.

We saw the WCB face serious problems, and there was an opportunity to renew the system when we came into office last year. We appointed Allan Winter to bring forward recommendations, taking into account the 1997 royal commission report.

A person receiving benefits today will not receive less when this is passed. Workers injured after this legislation has come into force will receive benefits at the rate of 90 percent of their net pay at work, instead of the previous system which paid them 75 percent of their gross pay. No other province calculates benefits using a rate higher than 90 percent of net pay.

In order to control costs and ensure fairness, workers who receive federal disability benefits for the same injury will have their WCB benefits reduced by half the amount of their federal disability benefit, representing the employers' share of the cost, to reduce the effect of stacking, which is sometimes also known as double-dipping. Also, under the new system permanently disabled recipients will receive wage-loss benefits until the age of 65. Then they will receive a lump sum retirement benefit which they can use to buy an annuity, much as what happens with many employers' pension plans.

This lump sum retirement benefit is funded by WCB through a further award. It's equal to 5 percent of

the recipient's monthly WCB benefit, which is deposited into a retirement account for the recipient. The recipient can also choose to match that payment to double the amount that's deposited into the retirement account.

In addition, this bill requires that at age 65 every recipient who has a permanent total disability will receive a special needs review. This is in order to make sure that they have all the support services they need. The WCB will provide any needed services for life.

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

This bill also provides for an annual inflation adjustment rather than the twice-a-year adjustment that has been the case under the old system. It limits the increases to 1 percent less than inflation to a maximum of 4 percent in a year. These limits have been set to help return the system to financial health.

This particular aspect of things is much like one would find across Canada in a comparable situation. Other provinces are a little more or a little less. There's quite a potpourri of them all. This is a measured response to a challenging financial solution. As a result of these changes, British Columbia will still have, I believe, the best workers compensation benefits in Canada while overall costs will be reduced and the system's long-term sustainability will be protected.

Currently, British Columbia's projected average assessment rate for 2002 is $2.03 per $100 of wages here as compared to $1.68 in Alberta, $1.75 in Saskatchewan and $1.56 in Manitoba. As I mentioned earlier, if we didn't take this action today, the only way to avoid a $900 million WCB deficit would be to jack up rates another 25 percent over the next three years, resulting in an annual cost of some $300 million for the employers in the province.

This bill allows the WCB to get costs under control and keep rates comparable with other provinces while still providing benefits among the best in Canada.

This bill also addresses the difficult issue of mental stress claims. The bill clarifies WCB coverage for mental stress by clearly establishing that compensation will be provided in cases of mental stress due to a sudden and unexpected traumatic event such as the post-traumatic stress that a bank teller may experience after a bank robbery. Coverage will also be provided in cases of mental stress that result from a compensable injury such as the loss of a leg.

Coverage will not be provided in other situations such as chronic stress conditions resulting from the sort of ongoing stress that everyone experiences in their everyday personal and workday lives. This clarification provides greater certainty for workers and brings British Columbia's coverage into line with most other provinces.

Finally, this bill addresses the serious governance problems that have plagued the WCB in the past. As hon. members may know, a temporary panel of administrators has run the WCB since 1995 because a previous board structure, which was based on stakeholder representation on the board, resulted in a stalemate on many issues.

This bill establishes a new governance structure with a board of directors composed of a chair; one worker representative; one employer representative; one director who is a professional, who provides health care and rehabilitation services to people with disabilities; one director who is an actuary; and two directors appointed to represent the public interest.

This modest-sized board will allow for balanced, well-informed decision-making. Every member of the board will be focused on the best interests of the system overall, which is good for workers compensation and good for our province.

This bill does not address all the issues that surround our workers compensation system, but we are also intending to act on the remaining issues. First, I will be passing the Hunt report on — this one on the service delivery — to the new WCB board for it to act on those recommendations and reflect this in the WCB service plan.

Second, legislation regarding the WCB appeals system, based on the recommendation in Allan Winter's report, will also be dealt with this fall.

Third, several remaining outstanding issues require additional work before legislative change can be made. These include occupational disease compensation, survivor benefits, compensation for chronic pain, and regulation of occupational health and safety. Additional measures on these key issues will continue the important progress that this bill begins and will have a similar focus, protecting and improving the system so that we'll be there and be effective for workers and employers in the future.

These changes are vital to making workers compensation sustainable for the future. They're an important part of our overall strategy for encouraging the development of healthy workplace relationships. The result will be Canada's best workers compensation system providing benefits that compare favourably with other provinces, charging reasonable rates to employers and fulfilling a vital role in protecting workers and employers. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Deputy Speaker: Continuing second reading debate on Bill 49, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan: Bill 49 represents the first stage of a three-stage attack on the compensation that injured workers and their families receive. Changes to the appeals structure are expected in the near future, and compensation benefits for occupational disease, survivor bene-

fits and chronic pain are expected to be introduced in the fall or in the next spring session.

Let me just review for one moment the history around the establishment of WCB. Before 1917 in British Columbia, if a worker was injured on the job, the only option for compensation was to bring a lawsuit against the employer. To eliminate expensive and time-consuming trials, workers compensation laws were introduced. The laws gave workers the right to compensation and required employers to absorb the costs of the system through regular payments known as premiums. In exchange, employers were granted immunity from lawsuits.

While the 1910 Meredith Commission report, the philosophical foundation to our current workers compensation system, stated that compensation for workers was the first goal of the system, the proposed legislation suggests that the financial viability of employers and the workers compensation system itself is the first and paramount goal. Now with Bill 49, the whole tone and purpose of the Workers Compensation Act has changed from the protection of workers and their wages to the protection of employer rights and their right to a competitive edge in the free market, whatever the costs to workers.

Bill 49 changes the way compensation benefits are calculated, resulting in a substantial loss in compensation for workers who are injured in the twenty-first century. Injured workers are entitled to pensions if they have suffered a permanent disability. Under Bill 49, workers will see a 20 percent reduction in their pension amounts. Not only does Bill 49 target pensions, but injured workers over the age of 65 will no longer be entitled to ongoing support. Once an injured worker reaches the age of 65, they will receive a one-time lump-sum payment. It has been estimated by the B.C. Federation of Labour that this change will mean that injured workers will see a 79 percent reduction in the compensation they receive. Through Bill 49 the province is abandoning its most vulnerable citizens: injured workers and their families.

I quote from the B.C. Federation of Labour's April 18, 2002, submission to the Legislature entitled A Job to Die For?

Just to give it some perspective, the total number of work injuries reported and the total number of short-term disability, long-term disability and fatal claims first paid during each of the years from 1992 to the year 2000 consistently show a steady decline in the total work injuries reported since 1992. In 1992 the total work injuries reported were 197,793. In the year 2001 it had declined to 172,103. In the area of short-term disability, long-term disability and fatal claims, in 1992 it was reported at 81,003, and in the year 2001 it declined to 68,334.

I share this statistic with the House because the numbers have been steadily declining. As such, the rates have also been steadily declining.

I want to say this as well. Even though the numbers are declining, I think the numbers are still too high. One death in the workplace is one too many. Workplace injuries can be prevented if people are conscientious about it and if there's education and good prevention in place. Perhaps instead of taking away benefits for injured workers and their families, maybe the better place to invest government's energy and resources from the employers is to look and see how we can further reduce the injury rate in the community.

That will benefit all concerned — the individuals, the employers, everyone. It's bad enough for a person to suffer a workplace injury. In the midst of trying to cope with the trauma of an injury, especially injuries that are severe and have long-lasting, debilitating effects — aside from dealing with the trauma of seeking medical attention, rehabilitation, retraining and so on — the family and the individual are also burdened with financial pressures because the paycheque is no longer being brought home.

For many workers, of course, their insurance is workers compensation. That's the insurance for injured workers, but now we have a situation where government is saying they want to reduce the amount of benefits for injured workers. That's what the government is saying. Make no mistake about that. That is what's going to happen with Bill 49.

Individuals who suffer injuries in the workplace after the bill passes will have to not only deal with the traumas around that injury, the debilitating effects of that disability, the attempts at retraining if that's at all possible for the individual, depending on the severity

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

For the government to make the suggestion that WCB can't afford to compensate workers is simply wrong. It is simply wrong based on the evidence we have before us. At the end of the year 2000, WCB's annual report indicates that their liability fund was funded at 109 percent. That's 9 percent more than what is required to meet future liabilities.

Not only that, employers got a rebate. They got a rebate in the amount of $720 million in the form of rate adjustments over five years and debt forgiveness. Employers are getting moneys returned to them, so who is paying for the reductions the government is now saying they can't afford? The government is asking injured workers and their families to pay for it. That's what is going on with Bill 49.

WCB is efficient. It is effective, and it is financially healthy. I would say that if there's a need to improve and overhaul WCB, if you will, then the focus has got to be around how to make that system better for the injured workers and their families, not worse. As an MLA, I don't get a lot of cases on WCB, I must admit, but I do get some. Most of my cases centre around income assistance and the like, but I do get some.

Usually, the problems that people are faced with at WCB are around how difficult it is for them to get the compensation they need and to go through that process. Those are primarily the problems that people are faced with, so if I were to advocate a change in our system around WCB, then it's got to be focused on how to make the system easier and better for the people who have suffered injuries, for the families of injured workers and for the families of workers who have died on the job.

That's the direction that I think government should go, not in the direction of taking away benefits for injured workers and their families and making it more difficult for them to access the WCB.

As I mentioned, in 1917 workers and employers in British Columbia established the historical compromise, the beginning of the workers compensation system. Injured workers and their families won the right to compensation for lost wages. In exchange, they gave up the right to sue their employers for workplace injuries and fatalities. Employers accepted the responsibility to pay for workers compensation 85 years ago so that they would save the time and expense of legal action arising from workplace injuries and deaths. We ask the government to respect the working people of British Columbia and leave the principles underlying the historical compromise intact.

We ask the government to make a commitment to the workers of British Columbia and pledge that the government will not make any reductions in health and safety regulations, to injured workers' benefits and services or to services required to prevent workplace injuries, illnesses and deaths.

Let me just go into a little bit more detail around changes to compensation benefits. This information was derived from the B.C. Federation of Labour's response to the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation in British Columbia. I quote from their submission:

This will, in fact, mean compensation will now be based on 90 percent of the average net earnings of an injured worker, instead of 75 percent of the average gross earnings. That is now what is in Bill 49.

The Workers Compensation Advocacy Group submitted some thoughts on the proposal made in the report of the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation to determine compensation based on net, as opposed to gross earnings.

This was taken from the submission from the Workers Compensation Advocacy Group. Their request makes a lot of sense. It's very logical, very commonsensical.

If you have an injury when you are single, the taxes that you pay as a single person are higher. I know that.

I got married only last year. I know that the rates are different versus somebody who has a family, who has dependents, a spouse and so on. It would make sense, then, in later years if that person should develop a family for the rates to be adjusted accordingly. That is just fair play, but somehow that was not the perspective of the commission. I don't know for what reason, but it was not a recommendation made to government.

Bill 49 proposes to deduct 50 percent of any CPP disability benefit received or provided to an injured worker from the compensation benefits provided by the WCB. The B.C. Federation of Labour is opposed to the changes recommended by the commission to integrate CPP benefits into workers compensation benefits.

Currently, an individual is eligible for CPP disability benefits four months after CPP finds them disabled. The average amount received on CPP is $673.22 per month; the maximum amount is $895.36 per month. The commission recommends that the CPP benefits be deducted from the workers compensation benefits. For injured workers this means a substantial decrease in benefits, and the B.C. Federation of Labour is opposed to this for several reasons.

One is that it is compulsory for workers to participate in the Canada Pension Plan. Therefore, workers should realize the benefits when necessary. That is to say, if you pay into the plan, when you need to benefit from that plan which you have paid for, you should receive the full benefits you paid for, not a reduced amount of benefits. That's what Bill 49 is proposing.

Deducting the Canada Pension Plan benefits from the workers compensation benefits is off-loading the responsibility of workers compensation onto the public system. Reducing the amount of workers compensation benefits is directly a subsidy to the employers. Coming from a government that says they do not want to subsidize employers…. What the government is doing is finding different ways of subsidizing the employers. Here we have, in this instance, a subsidy to the employer by way of reducing the amount of workers compensation benefits to injured workers, taking that money directly away from them and giving it to the employers. That is a subsidy to the employers — the same thing, I would argue, with the tax issue, but I won't go into that today.

A submission from the Workers Compensation Advocacy Group in response to the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation expresses many of the same concerns as the B.C. Federation of Labour, and I quote from their submission, the submission from the Workers Compensation Advocacy Group:

I agree with the Workers Compensation Advocacy Group and the B.C. Federation of Labour 100 percent on this issue. People are required by law to pay into their CPP. Nobody at the worksite wants to be injured. Let's make no mistake about it. Nobody wants to be injured, but when they are injured they should benefit from the insurance which they are required by law to pay for. They should benefit from that, and those moneys should not be clawed back by government as is being proposed under Bill 49.

It should not be clawed back by government, yet government is doing exactly that. When they're clawing it back, who are they giving it to? Not to the injured workers. They're taking it away from the injured workers, and they're giving it to the employers — the place where the worker got hurt to begin with. The person should not lose that financial support that I know many desperately need, because they are unable to enter into the workforce anymore. It is their last measure of insurance, if you will, for some financial independence.

Why would government want to claw that back? I think it's just mean-spiritedness. I really do. I really do, and I think that is an obscure kind of priority that government has in viewing that somehow injured workers should receive less financial support, which they're due, which they paid for, which they have invested in.

If they weren't going to get that return, then why make them pay it by law? Why would you then make a person pay, invest in an insurance scheme in which they're not going to yield the benefits they should yield from it? It makes no sense; it makes no sense whatsoever.

From the B.C. Federation of Labour's summary of changes to the Workers Compensation Act document, another change that's been highlighted under Bill 49 is that compensation will also be affected by changes to the consumer price index. I'll quote from it:

I know a lot of injured workers and their families suffer gravely after a serious injury. Many, particularly those who have been deemed to be disabled and unable to return to the workforce because the injuries are so severe, suffer greatly. In the process of trying to

manage and deal with the trauma of their injury, the financial pressures on their families are enormous. As it was, the compensation, even if there wasn't a change, is already a reduction from what they normally earn.

Most people, as I say, don't count on being injured and don't want to get injured. Those accidents when they happen in the workforce do throw your life for a loop. All of a sudden the money that you were counting on earning from your job is reduced. Now it's going to be further reduced, and each year that reduction is escalated by the rate of inflation adjustment. The act says they will no longer receive the rate of inflation as it is. It is going to be less by 1 percent.

Year after year, you will find yourself in a position to fall further and further behind on the basis of your standard of living because your support from workers compensation that you're due and entitled to receive is no longer going to match the inflation rate.

Another area in terms of big changes in this legislation on the compensation side deals with the pension component. Again, I quote from the B.C. Federation of Labour's response to the Royal Commission on Workers Compensation in British Columbia:

The maximum amount compensated in the form of a pension is $85,000 for 15 years and under. Receiving a lump sum payment of 5 percent of that $85,000 would mean that they would only receive $4,250. That is a substantive change.

From the B.C. Federation of Labour's document on the summary of changes to the Workers Compensation Act, the Federation of Labour has provided an example of what a permanently disabled worker will receive under the proposed changes to the pension system. Let me just cite that example:

A worker who earned $40,000 gross annually would currently receive $41,221, thanks to receiving their full Canada Pension Plan benefit. However, with the changes proposed in Bill 49, a worker who earned $40,000 gross annually will now only receive $32,686.44. That's a nearly $10,000 reduction — $10,000 less than they would have previously received. For this worker the new changes mean a 20 percent cut to his or her pension. As well, this worker would not have been contributing to a work pension or to CPP and would, therefore, have a reduced retirement pension. There are ripple effects not just for the immediate but also for the future.

Bill 49 introduces a section that allows for mental stress to be compensated if it is as a result of an event that occurred in the workplace. The Workers Compensation Advocacy Group expressed some concern over the recommendation made by the royal commission to include this under the WCB legislation. Here's what they had to say.

On the psychological front…. It actually is the case in other physical injuries, as the Workers Compensation Advisory Group has identified. Oftentimes when you suffer stress, if you will, that may well cause and lead into anxiety, further anxiety, depression, a variety of different psychological impacts. Those injuries do not necessarily come through one incident. You can't pinpoint: "Today this happened; therefore, the person is feeling enormous anxiety arising from their work." It's often ongoing and compounding. It builds up to the point where the person is under so much pressure and, yes, so much stress that then has led into perhaps depression, as one example. It doesn't happen overnight. You can't necessarily pinpoint it to say it's this one incident that's caused that. That may be the case from time to time, but generally speaking, I would suspect that is not the case. There's usually a period of time where things build up and escalate and where the pressures mount. Then, perhaps, there is a workplace injury. The only difference is that you can't actually see it, because it's a psychological injury.

It's the same difference with the person who does heavy manual work. You may strain a muscle — a back muscle, whatever the case may be — but sometimes that strain may not be by one incident but several over time. Your body is sustaining more and more pressure physically, and then boom, all of a sudden you have a major workplace injury. It's the same analogy, and that ought to be understood by government. Yet in this legislation, Bill 49, it does not recognize that.

The Liberal government has introduced amendments to the Workers Compensation Act in Bill 49 that reduce injured workers' benefits significantly and at the same time give employers a one-time savings of $430 million and $117 million annually. The Liberals will be making further changes to the act in the fall of this year and in the spring of next year, giving employers a total savings of $300 million, moneys taken away from injured workers.

The members of the community, some of them, have responded to the introduction of Bill 49. In fact, there's a letter to the editor that was sent in yesterday, and it's from a fellow called Terry Tate in Williams Lake.

Let me just read the letter into the record. It's headlined: "Injured Workers Get Shafted."

As I mentioned — I'm just going to pause for one moment here — the trend since 1992 is a reduction, a steady decline in total work injuries from 1992 to 2001. If government doubles its effort to educate to prevent work injuries, along with employers, I expect that decline will continue. That's actually what I think the government should do, as opposed to amending the act by taking money away from injured workers and giving it to the employer.

A letter to the editor. Terry makes good points around this issue. In researching the information in preparation for debate in this House for the WCB bill, the opposition didn't have a lot of time as the bill was only just introduced — not yesterday but the day before. Here we are doing second reading debate with substantive changes on these fronts. I know the government is trying to rush through, because in my view they've mismanaged the time in the House in terms of the debate and so on.

Having said that, let me just look at the statistics around injured workers and what's been going on in the broader community, as we know, in the last number of years. These stats, I think, are important. They point to information that we can learn from. I think they highlight the idea and the notion that the concentration of government ought to be on the area of prevention. If you can prevent a worker from being injured in the first place, then you actually save money. You save money in a more substantial way. It also saves the employers money.

J. Kwan: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson agrees with me. I would urge the member to urge his government to work on preventative strategies and not take money away from injured workers, because that is not the solution. When people are hurt and injured and they've been traumatized because of it, some of them may have severe disabilities as a result and may never have their lives back — may never have their lives back. That is not the time to say to people: "Guess what. We're going to compound the suffering that you are now going through by giving you and your family less money to survive on." That's not the right approach. That's not the right approach at all.

When people get injured, we ought to be there to support them, to help them, to make sure that they're not going to be faced with financial difficulties. Instead, what the government is doing is actually taking money away from injured workers. That's what Bill 49 does. Let's not pretend it is anything else. It is reducing benefits. Let's not make any mistake about it.

If you want to pretend and live in a little shell and say, "I see no evil and hear no evil," and so somehow the injured workers and their families would not be impacted by reduced benefits, then you're wrong. Get out of your shell and look at reality. Go and talk to some of the injured workers and their families, and then you might have a different perspective.

Don't just pay lip service to say that prevention is the way to go. Act on it. Get the government to invest in that. Get the employers to invest in that. Get educational materials out. Then, in the long term, we can reduce WCB costs. That's how I think we can do that.

Let me then just go to the stats. For the years from 1997 to 2001, this is the information that's been compiled and broken down on a sector-by-sector basis under different categories. Let me just share the information with the members of the House on days lost from work.

There were 3,370,562 days lost from work during the year 2001 due to occupational injuries and diseases. The days lost in 2001 are the days paid in 2001 on current-year and prior-year injuries. Of the 3,370,562 days paid in 2001, 49.6 percent resulted from injuries and diseases that occurred in the year 2001, 27.6 percent resulted from injuries and diseases that occurred in the year 2000, and 22.8 percent resulted from injuries and diseases that occurred in 1999 and prior years.

Cumulatively, looking at the sectors of work in the primary resources sector for the years 1997 to 2001, the days lost from work in aquaculture were 238,000; the fishing industry, 157,000 days; the forestry industry, 785,800 days.

In all of those sectors added together for the years 1997 to 2001, the days lost were 1,392,200. Just imagine for one moment that we could reduce these numbers by even 10 percent. The amount of savings that could be had for WCB and for the employer would be substantial — substantial. I'll go into the actual dollar figures in a moment. I just want to put in perspective the different ways of looking at the impacts of injured workers in our community, broken down in different ways.

The manufacturing industry. In food and beverage products 524,300 days were lost in the years 1997 to 2001; metal and non-metallic mineral products, 770,000 days lost; in the petroleum, coal, rubber, plastic and chemical products area, 177,100 days lost; wood and paper products, 1,156,100 days lost; coalmining, 212,200 days lost.

Construction. In general construction 1,778,700 days were lost in the years from 1997 to 2001; heavy construction, 52,400; road construction or maintenance, 179,900.

Transportation and warehousing. Warehousing first, 100,800; transportation and related services, 1,567,200.

The trades sector. Retail, 1,195,600 days lost in the years 1997 to 2001; wholesale, 301,000 days lost.

Public service sector. Accommodation, food and leisure services, 1,053,600 days lost; in the professional, scientific and technical services, 174,300 days lost; in other services, 1,063,800 days lost.

Education, 375,900; health care and social assistance, 1,999,200 days lost. In the utilities area, 90,800. There is a small area called "Others," which is 1,600. The total amount is 16,770,008 days lost.

Just imagine for one moment what it could mean if we could reduce those numbers, even by a small fraction. Instead of taking money from the injured workers, maybe we should get some money to invest in prevention strategies. How to reduce these numbers of days lost? They're lost in productivity for the employer and the employee and for British Columbia and the entire B.C. economy.

When days of productivity are lost as a result of injured workers, then it is a loss for everyone. The concentration should be not on finding ways how we can penalize those who have been injured but rather how we can prevent it from happening to begin with. In case you think these injuries take place only in certain areas, that's the reason I shared with you the sector-by-sector breakdown.

The injuries take place in every single sector, whether it be in the primary resources sector, the manufacturing sector, the construction sector, the transportation and warehousing sector, the trade sector, the public sector or the service sector. All these sectors suffered tremendous losses as a result of injuries in the workplace. Therefore, the investment and the education needs to go far and wide.

It's not just the traditional industries that you think are typical as a result of workplace injuries. It's every area we must concentrate on. It is also not in just in some communities, because workplace injuries take place in every community, and I also have the statistics to show that. Just look at the year 2001 and the number of short-term disability, long-term disability and fatal claims that took place in 2001 and that people were paid and compensated for.

In the East Kootenay area, 860 cases; in the Central Kootenay area, 700 cases; in the Kootenay-Boundary area, 430 cases; in the Okanagan-Similkameen, 110; the Columbia-Shuswap area, 660; North Okanagan, 1,160 cases; Central Okanagan area, 2,260; Thompson-Nicola, 1,690 cases; Cariboo, 730; the Squamish-Lillooet area, 850 cases; Fraser and Central Fraser area, 4,970 cases.

The greater Vancouver area, 34,750; Sunshine Coast, 300; Powell River, 310; Mount Waddington, 400; Ocean Falls, 40; Skeena–Queen Charlotte, 450 cases; Kitimat-Stikine, 540; Bulkley-Nechako, 490 cases; Fraser–Fort George, 1,530 cases; the Peace River–Liard area, 840 cases; Stikine, 10; Capital, 5,790; Cowichan Valley, 980; Nanaimo, 1,840; Alberni-Clayoquot, 580; Comox-Strathcona, 1,520.

Adding all of these up, it totals 68,334 cases. These are the number of short-term and long-term disabilities and fatal claims that were first paid in the year 2001. These cases are substantive — close to 70,000. Those are individuals who have been injured in the workplace and, as a result of it, have suffered either short- or long-term disabilities or might even have died.

In terms of costs these are short-term disability costs, vocational rehabilitation costs, long-term disability costs and survivor benefits that were charged in the year 2001. They exclude the health care costs. The amount is staggering. In total it amounts to $807,686,996 for all of these different communities. Broken down into the different provincial regional districts, starting with the East Kootenay area, $21.336 million; Central Kootenay, $10.808 million; the Kootenay-Boundary area, $3.751 million; Okanagan-

Similkameen, $11.933 million; Columbia-Shuswap, $10.810 million; North Okanagan, $14.039 million; Central Okanagan, $20.598 million; Thompson-Nicola, $20.521 million; the Cariboo, $17.303 million; Squamish-Lillooet, $8.536 million; central Fraser Valley, $57.133 million; greater Vancouver, $356.152 million; the Sunshine Coast, $6.167 million; Powell River, $8.19 million; Mount Waddington, $6.194 million; Ocean Falls, $1.623 million; the Skeena–Queen Charlotte area, $8.304 million; the Kitimat-Stikine area, $19.386 million; Bulkley-Nechako, $17.798 million; the Fraser–Fort George area, $22.698 million; the Peace River–Liard area, $19.383 million; the Stikine area, $96,000; the capital, $48.878 million; the Cowichan Valley, $20,568,000; Nanaimo, $26.607 million; Alberni-Clayoquot, $14.632 million; Comox-Strathcona, $32,470. Total: $807,686,996.

That's a lot of money. There's no mistake about it; it's a lot of money to be paid for people who have been injured in the workplace and for survivor benefits. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be paid. I'm saying that they should be paid, and they should not be penalized with a reduction in their benefits. That's what the government is proposing — that there should be a reduction in the benefits under Bill 49.

What I'm saying is that if you put this into the perspective of taking a percentage — let's just say 10 percent — of this amount and for government to invest a percentage or small amount into prevention and education, I suspect that the return for the community would yield in a substantive way, both for the injured workers and their families and for the employer. That makes sense. It makes a lot of sense for the government to do that.

I want to highlight the statistics that I brought to this House because there are injured workers in every community. No matter which MLA in British Columbia, you have injured workers in your community. No matter what sector of work, there are injured workers in all sectors of work. The impacts for them are huge.

Just one more statistic that I want to point out. In the oil and gas and mineral resources area, which are the primary resources, in the year 2001 the number of health care–only claims made was 1,148. There were 306 short-term disability claims and 140 long-term disability claims. Then there were eight fatal claims. The overall total was 1,602.

I wanted to highlight this statistic because much of the advancement, if you will, in the oil and gas or mineral resources is taking place in Fort St. John in British Columbia. There was an article written in the Nanaimo Daily News. It's headlined "Laws Could Hurt Oil Patch Employees." I'll quote the article:

The point here, of course, is that I want to highlight the impacts of the changes, the labour bills that the government has introduced — whether it be the Labour Code legislation, the WCB legislation or the employment standards bill that will be debated after this bill. They all impact individuals across the board. Union workers will be impacted; so, too, will non-union workers. With the government's hope to expand the oil and gas sector, these workers are going to be negatively impacted by this piece of legislation.

The stats that I provided had broken it down by the number of cases, by the sector, by the dollars that it costs the system as a result of injured workers. Again, I want to say that the issue here is about investing money to prevent the injuries from taking place to begin with, not to take moneys away from the people who suffer.

In British Columbia last year some 180 workers died because of the work they did. Six were young workers between 15 and 24 years old who had been on the job less than six months. There were 140 workers who received compensation for work-related injuries or diseases, and 4,000 workers became disabled for life.

In March 2002 — and some of you might have heard this story — a 36-year-old construction worker working for a non-union construction company, Bayside Forming Ltd., fell to his death when the flyform he was cleaning dropped 16 floors. In the months leading up to the accident the company was found guilty of violating many WCB safety regulations at a number of its Vancouver worksites, including requiring workers to buy their own safety harnesses.

The government's plan to cut red tape is not what would have saved these workers' lives. Strict enforcement of already existing regulations, however, would have. That's the other piece that needs to be added to education and prevention: enforcement, making sure that there is good regulation around worker safety and then making sure that those regulations are enforced. Research studies clearly show that written prescriptive health and safety regulations and vigorous enforcement of regulations are the only ways to reduce workplace injuries and diseases and save workers' lives.

The Federation of Labour, of course, is very concerned about workplace injuries and deaths that take place at the worksite. They have strong feelings about this. Here's what they have to say about the govern-

And that's what needs to be done. That's where government should concentrate their efforts, not on taking away benefits from individuals.

I want to just turn for a moment now…. So far, the information that I've shared with this House is based on research, information and statistics that the opposition had been able to gather, and it seems kind of dry. I recognize that. It seems kind of dry, and maybe it's not that interesting because it doesn't actually put a face to the injured workers, and it doesn't put it all together for people so they understand more comprehensively what these changes mean.

Let me just take a moment to share some stories of injured workers and their families that they shared with all members of the House, I believe, when they were here for the occupational safety awareness week. They came to the Legislature and met with MLAs who wanted to meet with them and took the time to meet with them, and they shared their stories with us. It was a good educational process for me, and it was a good educational process for my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings. These stories, I think, will also help all of us. For those MLAs who did not have the opportunity to meet with these individuals, let me just put some of their stories on record now.

First, this story basically talks about why WCB is good and why WCB is needed. It's a story from a woman named Jacquie Adams. Jacquie Adams is an HEU member. She was a tractor operator in the health care system at the time of her injury. Her job involved transporting biohazardous goods, regular garbage bins and recyclable materials. She writes as follows:

Those are not my words but words directly from an injured worker who lives out in Maple Ridge. This is her direct experience. In her own experience, it wasn't that WCB didn't provide the benefits she needed. The employer tried to claw back the amount that she was entitled to and kept portions of the amount.

This is a reality. Here we have Bill 49 that weakens the rights of injured workers, benefiting the employer. How does that make sense at all for this government? It makes perfect sense, because perhaps those are their

corporate backers. Those are the people who backed them during the election, who financially supported them and who are calling on the government to make these changes now, and the government is listening.

You know what? The government said during the election that they were going to protect the people who are vulnerable and marginalized. One would have thought that injured workers were among that group — vulnerable people, marginalized people.

What the government is doing with Bill 49 is taking money away from injured workers and their families and giving it to the employers, the backers of the Liberal government.

Let me just put into the record another case around the importance of WCB, and this time in the area of retraining.

This is from a woman named Janet Cambrey, a member of the BCGEU. She was a community health worker when she was injured in the year 2000. She has been retrained but cannot find work. Here's what she writes:

Wise words from a woman who's been injured on numerous occasions and, as a result of her injury, has lost her profession — a profession that she loves and enjoys. She's picked herself up, and she's gained retraining in the computer area. She's looking for work and keeping her spirits up.

In this sense WCB again shows that it does work. It is a system that can work and does work. In this instance it is around the area of retraining. It would be worth it for government to note that in the area of retraining, it's worth that investment — retraining injured workers where they can be retrained as opposed to perhaps looking at eliminating dollars in the retraining and rehab areas. That, again, doesn't help the people who have been injured. It doesn't help the government's overall goal of assisting individuals to get back into the workforce.

That's a positive story from a woman who's gotten retraining and is working hard to rebuild her life.

A more fundamental issue which is central to the changes under Bill 49 is the change to the WCB pay rate. Here's the story of Tom Cullen. Tom Cullen's occupation is a cement pump truck operator. His left foot was crushed in an industrial accident. The left foot was amputated just below the mid bones. He writes:

Here's another situation with a worker who's been severely injured in the workplace. As a result of it, part of his leg has been amputated. Through retraining, with the assistance of WCB, he is now gainfully employed. But there are still a lot of question marks. The central piece around it would be, of course, the compensation component that is being introduced in Bill 49. That is the reduction in the compensation.

We understand that there will be further changes to the WCB area — bills that may be introduced in the fall and another one the following year. This is really the first set of the three subsets. Those changes are cumulative — make no mistake about it — and the impacts for people are huge. There are a lot of stresses, because there are unanswered questions as yet, that are caused by the changes in Bill 49 and the changes that are yet to come.

I do want to just pause for one moment, because as I put these individual stories on the record, we have to remember and maybe just try to imagine for one moment for ourselves, if we were that individual, how it would feel and what that would be like and — if that life circumstance were impacting us now, immediately — what our reaction would be. Then maybe by doing that, we might have a better sense of what changes in WCB mean to injured workers and their families. Maybe then the government will pause for one moment and say: "Gee, these changes are not so good for the people."

I certainly wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that, let me tell you. I can tell you that. If I was in-

jured in the worksite and had to lose my job as a result of it, and the financial support was reduced as a result of it, I can tell you I would lose my house. There would be huge, tremendous pressures. I have a huge mortgage and all of those kinds of things, like many British Columbians do. If you have children, that compounds it even greater.

I want people to take one moment just to imagine, if you were in that position, what you would think needs to be done around WCB. Is it taking away benefits from injured workers and their families, or is it looking at prevention, improving the system, making it easier for people to access compensation that they've paid into and that they deserve? Then say to the employer: "I'm sorry, employer. There is not going to be a huge rebate for you, because we want to invest that money into prevention, education and enforcement so we can reduce the overall number of injured workers in the workplace for all British Columbians." Then by doing that, over time the benefit for the employers would very likely be greater, and the result would be magnified even further by this short-term gain that the government is proposing now.

But that's too forward-thinking, maybe, for this government, because we have Bill 49 in front of us, and that's not the direction the government is taking. The government is going the other way around.

Let me just wrap with this one last story. It really speaks to the future a little bit. It ties into the bill that we're debating in the House right now, Bill 49. It speaks, really, to the fear of changes to WCB and what's to come. As I mentioned, this, I believe, is the first of a subset of three in legislation that will be coming forward in the area of changes to WCB. The other two sets are yet to come.

This individual is a widow and survivor of a worker who died as a result of workplace injury. She writes:

J. Kwan: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson goes: "Who was the government?" It's true: it wasn't this administration, and I do want to say this on record. I do want to say this on record. Yes, WCB needs changes, and it needs to be improved. It's been highlighted by this woman's story. No doubt about it. There is no dispute about that from myself or my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings.

If the member listens to the story of this woman, which I'm reading into the record, then he will understand the point. The point is that changes are definitely needed but not the proposed changes. Those are not the answers. Taking away benefits and support and compensation from injured workers and their families is what this government, this member for Kamloops–North Thompson, will support, I anticipate, when the vote is called. I anticipate he will support what is being put forward by way of changes — not in a positive manner that would support the people who need it now.

It is punitive to say the least, and it takes away money, quite frankly — money — from injured workers and their families for the employers, the people who backed this government during the election. That's what this government is doing, and they are playing politics with the lives of the people. They're being shortsighted, because they do not understand the pain that people have to go through when they suffer a fatality or a workplace injury that will render them disabled for life.

The changes that I'm advocating for and this woman is advocating for are changes to make the system easier for people to access WCB benefits, to make the process more humane, to make the process better and to better compensate the people, not the changes that are being proposed under Bill 49 right now.

J. Kwan: The members for Vancouver-Kingsway and Kamloops–North Thompson are heckling me as I make this statement. You know what? They say: "Well,

why didn't you make the changes?" You know what? I take criticism for not having done more; I do. I accept that, but you know what? We're not turning back the clock. That's what this government is doing. They are turning back the clock to take more benefits away from people. That's what this government is doing. Make no mistake about it.

Maybe they're proud of that, because they don't deem these injured workers to be their constituency base. You know what? We live in a society where everybody deserves to be treated fairly and equitably. The benefits of this government with all of their policies, whether it be WCB, employment standards, welfare or disability benefits for people on income assistance, for students, for single moms, for seniors, for child care…. The list goes on, and the benefits are taken away from the people who need the services the most. You know what? The worst part of it all is that this government is taking the benefits away from the people who need it the most and giving those benefits to the wealthiest British Columbians and the biggest corporations. That's what they're doing.

In the instance of WCB, make no mistake about it. Money is being taken away from injured workers and their families and given to employers. That's what this legislation is about. That is what this government is doing. It's just absolutely disgusting.

J. Kwan: The member for Vancouver-Kingsway, I think, is very proud of his government's record.

J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that the member for Vancouver-Kingsway is very proud of his government record, and he brags about it as though it's the greatest thing. You know what? His constituents think otherwise.

Just the other day in my constituency office there were two constituents that came into my office from the member for Vancouver-Kingsway's riding, seeking assistance, seeking advice. You know what? They weren't my constituents. They were from Vancouver-Kingsway. They advised my office they went to the member for Vancouver-Kingsway's office, asking for help. You know what they told them? "Oh, I'm sorry. You're not my constituents. You should go to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant."

They came, and we sat down. My staff sat down with them to look at their issues. You know what? As we're doing up a case sheet and we're taking the information down, we found out that they're not in our riding at all. The member and the staff that are working there don't even know where their boundaries lie.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. Hon. member, let us stick to second reading of Bill 49, please.

J. Kwan: It stuns me in terms of the MLAs in this House, the Liberal MLAs, in terms of their blindness on issues that the government is grappling with and how they're injuring people. They do not see it at all. They think that somehow Bill 49 helps people. It does not help people. It hurts injured workers and their families. Make no mistake about it.

Maybe the member for Vancouver-Kingsway is very proud of that. He ought to be ashamed of himself. If he wants to be an advocate for the people who have suffered injuries in the workplace, he ought to be saying: "These changes are not beneficial for those individuals and their families who suffer injuries and fatalities in the workplace. We've got to be moving in the other direction." I'll see whether or not the member for Vancouver-Kingsway will rise up in this House to speak. I doubt it, because so far he's been silent on every issue when it's needed for him to stand up to advocate on behalf of his constituents.

Returning, I just want to complete this story from this individual, from before I was interrupted by the various hecklings of people in this House. Let me just return to the story.

I left off by citing and quoting from this document written by this woman. She was stating that changes are definitely needed but not the proposed changes. The proposed changes are not the answer. She goes on to say:

I want to be very clear. WCB is not a perfect system — I want to acknowledge that — but on the economic front it is an efficient system. It is a better system, as studies that have been done show, in comparison to others in North America.

In the areas where we need to improve WCB…. That's not what Bill 49 is proposing and not what this government is trying to push through in this House. If people think I'm only saying that because I'm in opposition, don't just listen to my words. Listen to the words of the people who are survivors of injured workers, people's families who had fatalities as a result of an injury in the workplace. Take their word for it; take their experience for it; take their wisdom for it.

The changes this woman, Patti MacAhonic, has identified, the changes that the government is proposing, will not make the system better. They will not make the system better. They will make it worse. There is no mistake about it.

What the government is doing is transferring financial support from injured workers to the employers — the same thing in the same way that they have done by way of the tax cuts, taking away from the poor, the vulnerable and the most marginalized and giving to the wealthiest British Columbians, the biggest corporations, the backers of the B.C. Liberal Party. For that, shame on them. I say shame on all the Liberal MLAs who would vote for this draconian change of reverting the time-honoured agreement and tradition of making sure that injured workers are compensated fairly.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, just before we proceed, it's a pleasure for me to announce to the House that our latest table officer and the Committee Clerk, Kate Ryan-Lloyd, gave birth this afternoon to a daughter, Megan Elisabeth. Both mother and daughter are doing well, and I would ask the members to join me, which you already have, in congratulating the Ryan-Lloyd family on their latest addition.

J. MacPhail: My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant just noted that Kate was here yesterday. She is clearly a modern woman and will be a modern mother as well. I join with all of my colleagues….

J. MacPhail: The member for Nelson-Creston suggests that she may be back tomorrow. No one can live up to that. Anyway, congratulations from all of us.

J. MacPhail: I want to begin at a different point in this debate around changes to workers compensation, a different point than some people may expect.

My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has done an excellent job outlining the current circumstances under which injured workers and their families find themselves in this province, current circumstances in terms of looking over the past decade and examining the changes that are occurring under this legislation.

I want to start from the point of view of young people just entering the workforce — brand-new workers. I wanted to talk a little bit about them in the context of all the other changes that are being made. Earlier on in the debate, for instance, under the changes being made to the Labour Relations Code, I suggested that all of these pieces of legislation have to be examined together.

Young people in this province, until employment standards changes are put through, can start work at 16. We'll now be reintroducing child labour with the upcoming changes to the Employment Standards Act.

Young workers at 16 leave our homes and go to work for the first time. When my kid left home for the first time to go to school in kindergarten, I was actually with him, so it's not exactly on point that this occurred with him. But lots of young kids leave home at a very early age to go to school, and they're street-proofed. They're instructed, educated about what the consequences are of entering a new world, a new world of being in school. When they get to school, they're bully-proofed. We teach them how to make sure they stay safe in the school environment.

When our children go to work for the first time, many of us send them off without any caution about being safe on the job. I know of dozens of my friends who, when I raised the issue with them…. I said: "So what do you tell your kid when he gets his first job?" They looked at me and were horrified, as was I, because I hadn't thought about this. They were horrified to say: "Yikes. We just assumed that would be taken care of by someone else."

Well, in the last few years, in the last five or six years, the Workers Compensation Board has really taken on this issue of work-proofing our children —

the youngest entering the workforce, the newest workers — to make sure that they're safe on the job. That's a huge investment that the WCB has made in the last few years.

The other investment the WCB has made in the last few years is to ensure that new Canadians are kept safe on the job with huge outreach to the multicultural community about the work rules that apply, the health and safety rules that apply in British Columbia, which were amongst the most rigorous in North America.

There was a real change in new workers and the level of injuries and fatalities that they experienced — only recently, but it was because of the education program the Workers Compensation Board did directly to prevent injuries and accidents from ever happening. Why do I start at that point, Mr. Speaker? Because that's an example of investing in worker safety that leads to lower costs. Not only is it the most appropriate way to help families who rely on the wage of that worker, but it makes perfect sense about reducing costs.

What's different about this government, when faced with the necessity to reduce costs around workers compensation? Well, let's look. I heard the Minister of Labour say: "My gosh, if we don't do something, the WCB is going to face an annual deficit of $300 million." Now their annual budget is about $1.3 billion.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. The Minister of Labour corrects me. It's $1.6 billion.

The issue of a deficit is a serious one. There's no question about it. In fact, the WCB has faced impending deficits in the past. Workers compensation boards across the country have deficits now. British Columbia had a sterling record throughout the 1990s of getting themselves out of deficit and into a surplus situation.

Now under this new regime we have a WCB that's facing, according to the minister's statistics, the potential for a $300 million deficit. So what does this government do? Let me see. This employer-friendly or business…. This government theoretically is known for its business acumen. Facing cost pressures, this government says: "Well, let's see. How can we reduce costs? Hmm. Let's reduce the benefits to those who are injured. Let's cut off their pensions."

They don't look around to say: "How do we prevent injuries, accidents and deaths from occurring in the future?" Not one mention of that. Instead, they say to employers: "We're going to hand you back, every year, $100 million, and do with it what you have to." Not once did this government say to employers: "And we expect you to reduce injuries and fatalities." Not once. All of the savings, all of the cost pressures that the WCB is facing, will be borne by the worker herself, will be borne by the young person, will be borne by the new Canadian.

That's what this government is all about. What business acumen. Boy, that's a business-friendly government — not one efficiency to demand of the employer, not one cost-saving out of the employer. Take it out of the pockets of the injured worker.

Maybe that is the business attitude of this Liberal government. Don't become more cost-effective. Don't become more efficient. Don't maximize one of your inputs, which is the worker, himself or herself. Just reduce the cost of that input.

The reason why this is important is because when the WCB was doing their incredibly successful outreach to new workers, they did it through the high schools, colleges and universities. They had a very good part of that outreach that explained the history of workers compensation. A lot of the young people and the new Canadians didn't know the history, that there had been a compromise around the effects of on-the-job injuries and fatalities.

The compromise had occurred at the beginning of the last century in the early 1900s. With the effects of the industrial revolution and the movement of people from the farms into the cities and into industry, there had been a huge increase in fatalities. There was a huge outcry by the community — across the industrialized world, frankly. There was such pressure on companies — which were facing huge, huge lawsuits, outrage and shareholder withdrawal — that governments intervened and said: "There must be a better way of protecting one of the inputs into production, the worker."

A compromise was reached where employers would fully fund out of their own pockets a compensation system that paid for injuries created by workers in their employ. As a trade-off, the injured worker gave up her right to sue the employer because the injury took place on the job, while in the employ of the employer.

Young people found that fascinating because they were taken aback about the fact that they wouldn't be able to sue. Young people these days, my kid included, think you can sue for anything. He's actually at times thought that he could sue me if I made him do his homework. It's a culture. It was very important that young people understand that trade-off between their lack of ability to sue the employer and that the employer has a legal obligation to protect them from harm due to injury or, in terrible cases, death.

I actually want to make more remarks on this matter to link the fact that that pact made and approved by the society of the day back in the early 1900s by the governments in charge is being threatened right now. That pact is being threatened.

Let's not forget this. It began with the early actions of the Minister of Labour when he completely overruled the WCB, which was to impose a smoking ban to protect workers from secondary smoke in bars and restaurants. He completely overruled, for the first time

ever in British Columbia, and imposed harmful working conditions directly on workers. At the same time, he still said the worker had to be subject to the rules of that century-old pact that didn't permit the worker to sue.

It's important that we review this kind of history to understand the serious consequences of what's taking place in this legislation, with further erosion of the rights and benefits to workers; yet they still have to live with that pact of not being able to sue their employer.

Mr. Speaker, I note the hour with disappointment, I must say, but I will adjourn debate on second reading.

Hon. G. Bruce: I move that this House do now adjourn and that everybody have a happy weekend.


	YEAS — 40

Coell	L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt
Hawkins	Whittred	Cheema
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
Nettleton	Roddick	Masi
Thorpe	Plant	Collins
Clark	Bond	Stephens
Neufeld	Coleman	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Harris
Brenzinger	Mayencourt	Trumper
Christensen	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Nijjar	Bhullar
Bloy	Suffredine	Cobb
Sultan	Hamilton	Kerr
	Manhas

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan