Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading, in this chamber, on Bill 41, Workers Compensation Amendment Act.

In Committee A, I call committee stage for Bill 36, Health Professions and Occupations Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 41 — WORKERS COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2022

(continued)

G. Kyllo: It is indeed a great privilege to be able to rise in this House today to respond to Bill 41, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022. By notice, I am the designated speaker.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

It definitely gives me a great amount of pleasure to stand today and respond in second reading to Bill 41. Significant changes to the B.C. Workers Compensation Act.

I think it’s important, at the outset, to just give thanks and recognition to the many workers from across this province that provide all of the benefits that provide for the society that we all enjoy. Workers from both the private sector and the public sector, unionized and non-unionized. Workers, in general, definitely have the right to a healthy work environment, the right to be able to go to work and for their families to have confidence that those workers are going to be able to safely return home at the end of each and every day.

There’s a fine line that needs to be approached and to be achieved with respect to the balance of the costs borne by employers in providing funding for the workers compensation that all workers enjoy in this province and then, also, in ensuring that workers are protected — those who might be injured on the worksite or, sadly, who may not return home at the end of the day — and that their families are actually well looked after.

I think it is, to that point, really important that we have a look at the context of the Workers Compensation Amendment Act and the amendments that are being brought forward by this government and that we are able to strike that balance.

[1:35 p.m.]

We have gone through some pretty significant crises here in B.C. in the last number of years, specifically the COVID pandemic, which is still upon us, and the opioid crisis, which is having a significant effect, as I shared earlier in this House today, with 80 percent of opioid deaths affecting men, many of whom are in the construction and transportation sectors.

Again, at this particular juncture in time, B.C. is faced with a number of health care crises that are actually having a significant impact on our workforce. So as we look to the amendments that are coming forward, I think it is important to have a look at the context of where the economy is at, what the position, financial strengths of businesses are and their ability to potentially undertake and take on just further cost impacts in light of the pandemic.

It’s no surprise to me and many of our members on this side of the House — and, I’m sure, even members on the government side — that businesses are still finding a lot of financial stress. We found from the different surveys that have been done by CFIB recently that business confidence levels are at an all-time low. Businesses are very concerned about the outlook. We’ve had significant increases in the interest rates with yet further increases before us.

I think businesses are really feeling the struggle. So as we have a look at some of the amendments that are being brought forward…. Although they’re definitely valid and many are even much needed, we also have to take into context the ability of businesses to actually shoulder some of that financial burden.

With that, it’s important to note that the New Directions report, a.k.a. the Patterson report, which was launched in April of 2019 and released again in August of 2020, has largely inspired and directed the changes that are before the House with this particular piece of legislation. The legislation implements some recommendations from the report by Janet Patterson. This report, sadly, was tainted by the fact that many of the employer associations actually withdrew from the process over the apprehension and concerns of bias of the former adviser at the B.C. Federation of Labour.

I will be, in my commentary, speaking a bit about the consultation that was undertaken with the business associations, those that are largely representing employers from across this province, and the concerns that they had with respect to the bias and concerns they had with the consultation that was or was not undertaken. I’ll note that this was actually extremely controversial. We’ll have many questions about the lack of consultation and the bias, again, that was reflected in the Patterson report, in the consultation process for this legislation as a whole.

Later yesterday afternoon I was speaking with a representative of a fairly large business organization who expressed extreme concern on the lack of access to this government. Three formal requests last spring and absolute silence in the response from the minister. It took a fourth inquiry directly to the Premier’s office to heighten the level of concern on the lack of attention before there was finally a response from the minister.

We have a look at a government that needs to provide consultation and representation both of workers but also of business associations and business owners across the province. It’s important that businesses have confidence in this government.

Just before the lunch hour break, the minister spoke about confidence in our WorkSafeBC system. Confidence is absolutely imperative, confidence by workers and also confidence by the business community so that they actually feel that their concerns are being heard.

Sadly, that confidence does not exist with many of the private sector business associations and organizations, who seem to not be able to attract the attention of the minister, who feel sidelined and ignored and who do not really feel that they’re at the table with this government in consultation around the drafting of very important pieces of legislation like that that is in front of us here today.

[1:40 p.m.]

Bill 41 also attempts to bring aspects of the act in line with other jurisdictions. I think that it’s definitely worthwhile to do a scan of other jurisdictions across Canada. I don’t know that we necessarily want to be leading the pack. We certainly don’t want to be at the bottom of the pack.

But it is important for us to do a bit of a navel-gazing exercise to determine the workers compensation supports in our province and how that stacks up and meets with other jurisdictions around Canada. In some instances, the minister has indicated that B.C. is actually behind. And in some of the more expensive costs that are associated with the changes that are before us today…. In some of those instances, B.C. is, indeed, slightly behind other jurisdictions in Canada.

As we have a look at those jurisdictions that we might want to have a look at, I think it’s also imperative that we give consideration to the provinces that are most like B.C. in size, demographics and the economies that actually drive our province. So I think that as we’re looking at doing comparisons across other jurisdictions, the prov­inces of Alberta, Ontario and Quebec are probably the three largest jurisdictions that we actually should be giving consideration to as we give consideration to how the program is offered to workers in British Columbia and how that stacks up against other provinces in Canada.

Unfortunately, the NDP have repeatedly shown a lack of balance regarding labour issues, with everything from the discriminatory union benefit agreement — the community benefits agreement, as they call it — to the removal of the secret ballot for union certification, to the role of big unions — as recently as the recent leadership process undertaken by the NDP.

The Balance, Stability, Improvement report and the Restoring the Balance report have also inspired some elements of this bill which have been integrated into the legislation that’s before this House. The bill implements several of the recommendations from the report, especially regarding interest paid on overdue wage loss and permanent disability benefits greater than 180 days, based on a number of different factors. Notably, the bill provides protection for workers who may face retaliation for filing compensation claims.

That particular piece is something that is definitely worthy of consideration and implementing. I have heard stories of workers who are encouraged by their employers, attending the emergency department or going to see a family doctor…. I have heard stories of employers that have encouraged them to not indicate that it was a workplace-related injury. As the minister shared in his comments, that is absolutely inappropriate.

Although the minister was not able to share just how rampant the numbers are, I’ve heard of a number of different instances where that has occurred, but I don’t know that it’s necessarily systemic throughout British Columbia. No matter how stringent the regulations may or may not be, there will always be some bad actors. But I certainly am in support of this particular piece of the legislation that provides a bit more rigour and also the opportunity for administrative penalties for businesses that work towards suppressing worker injury claims.

I think, too, from the workers’ standpoint, it’s also incredibly important that it is actually noted as a workplace injury. A worker may stress their back, and although they may be able to return to work in a day or two, it’s hard to determine, at that particular point in time, what challenges they may face ten or 20 or 30 or 40 years down the line.

[1:45 p.m.]

So it’s important not just for employers to understand that any behaviour to suppress workers from making claims is going to be the recipient of administrative penalties; it’s also important that workers really, fully understand the necessity of making sure that if they do have an injury or an accident that occurs on the worksite, they actually make sure that those complaints are lodged. And if they are seeking medical advice, again, make sure that that is duly noted on their medical report, because one never knows what future health concerns may arise in their later years.

As well, the bill provides protection for workers who may face retaliation for filing claims. Again, I think this is an area where we, as the official opposition, certainly are in support of that and want to see that all employers are fair and honest with their employees and that they’re treated appropriately.

Similarly, clause 4 helps to guide the relationship between the worker and employer in situations where injury or other cases might cause a disturbance. The bill proposes the establishment of a fair practices commissioner, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, independent from Workers Compensation Board’s administration and reporting directly to the board of directors.

Establishing a new agency and expanding government does come with some risks, and we’d like to ensure that the minister has considered these risks, especially regarding the execution of this particular launch. Sadly, we have seen this government fail to consult, at times, with relevant stakeholders, regarding changes to the industry, and I’d like to verify that this bill has been subject to a robust consultation effort that includes both workers and employers. We do know that during the creation of the Patterson report, employer groups dropped out of the consultation phase due to dissatisfaction with the report’s scope and how it impacted operations.

Now, I do believe that this bill does strike a balance, or at least it aspires to. However, although I was provided a briefing yesterday from the minister’s office, there are a number of concerns we have with respect to the costing and the financial impacts of various pieces of this legislation.

I am hoping that in committee stage, we’ll be able to further identify and determine what those cost impacts are, again striking that balance between providing adequate support for workers and injured workers as well as ensuring that the financial burden that may be put upon employers does not put us out of step with other jurisdictions across Canada, many of which could potentially lead to uncompetitiveness of B.C. businesses.

B.C.’s workers compensation system does give workers the right to compensation for being injured on the job while providing employers immunity from lawsuits from injured workers. For a sustainable industry and healthy work-employer relationships, ensuring that all parties are protected is in the government’s best interests. However, we also need to keep in mind that businesses’ employees need consistency and stability, and we need to be mindful on how this legislation would impact that.

The act, specifically clause 9, requires the retention of a health professional for advice and information, and the independent medical opinion of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal does have its merits. However, we certainly do have significant questions about the potential impacts that may have both on costs and on the timeliness of coming to a final determination on a claim.

We’re certainly concerned about other cost issues. Although WorkSafeBC does have an unappropriated balance with more than $5 billion as of last year, it’s certainly subject to market volatility, and the distribution of these funds must be appropriately planned, monitored and executed.

[1:50 p.m.]

We do look forward to debating this, both in committee stage and to better understand how the cost pressures associated with this piece of legislation will influence the finances of WorkSafeBC.

Again, if we talk about the confidence and the amount of disclosure, the amount of information that is shared by this government with both employers and workers, with respect to the cost implications of different pieces of legislation that are brought forward, is absolutely paramount.

We only have to go back to the 1990s, when the current government was then in power. WorkSafeBC was an absolute dumpster fire, an absolute dumpster fire in the 1990s — significant unfunded liabilities. When the B.C. Liberals formed government in 2001, there was a significant amount of work that had to be undertaken to right that floundering ship. Many efforts were undertaken at that particular time to try and put the worker accident fund back into stable territory.

It was successful, extremely successful. Workers were well represented. The fund was very healthy, with a considerable surplus.

For members that may be watching from home, there’s actually a legislative requirement that when a worker is injured, the cost determined or established for maintaining and looking after the medical and the financial supports for that injured worker are taken into consideration, and funds are set aside to provide that protection for the workers. There’s a base rate that is established, based on all of those claims costs. As an extra measure of protection, there’s an additional 30 percent that is set aside.

WorkSafeBC, when they do establish and set aside the funds for maintaining a healthy worker accident fund…. It’s not just the base rate on their estimated costs. There’s an additional 30 percent contingency to ensure that if there’s market volatility, there’s a significant amount of additional funds in order to ensure that workers aren’t unduly put in harm’s way with respect to market volatilities that may happen, or future claims costs. So that worker accident fund is actually extremely robust.

The additional surplus that I referenced is funds that are in addition to that 130 percent. As of December 31 last year, it’s my understanding that that was a little over $5 billion. So again, a very healthy additional surplus.

That surplus and all of the premiums are funded by employers, so they’re employer premiums. One might be able to make the argument that maybe employees were overcharged for a number of years. But having said all that, the workers compensation accident fund has been extremely healthy for the last 20-odd years, which was not the case when the NDP left government back in the early 2000s. The worker accident fund was a disaster.

In any event, as we’re sitting here now, looking at yet further administrative changes or legislative changes for the Workers Compensation Act, the question arises: what is the cost associated with all of the changes that are before this House?

There was some reference to some generalities that I received yesterday. I certainly am hoping that the minister will be forthcoming in providing accurate information to this House with respect to what estimated costs are associated with the changes that are set out in this particular piece of legislation. I think all governments need to ensure that they’re being forthright, honest and upfront with the general public and, in this case, with workers — those who are actually responsible for providing the premiums to provide that necessary protection for workers in the province.

[1:55 p.m.]

There have been a number of changes to the Workers Compensation Act. The minister, in his remarks, mentioned a significant number of changes that have been implemented since the NDP have formed government. Many of them are valid and worthy changes. But what we have not seen from this government is any honesty when it comes to what the potential financial impacts are.

One specific change, which occurred in the last year and a half, was Bill 23, and in that particular piece of legislation, there was a change which took a look at, actually, the retirement age of workers. So if a young worker was maybe injured and unable to return to the workplace at the age of 30, there was an estimation and determination that their funding would run right through to the retirement age at 65.

In evaluating the cost of managing that claim and providing those necessary supports for the worker, WorkSafeBC would have to have a look at the severity of the injury, the potential ongoing medical costs on looking after that worker and, of course, what the indexed, estimated cost of their worker benefit would be through till age 65. That cost would be known. Although it wasn’t with absolute certainty, there was at least an estimation that was undertaken to determine what that cost might be. Those costs were borne and established, and the budgeting for that was put into the worker accident fund.

What Bill 23 has done is effectively provided an opportunity for those injured workers, ten, 20 or 30 years after the injury occurred, to make the request for a review of WorkSafeBC and to give consideration that maybe, rather than retiring at age 65, I was going to work till age 70 or 72 or 75. Although that argument may remain valid, and members of the general public may be thinking, “Well, maybe that is fair and equitable,” the challenge is that with respect to that particular change, it’ll have significant cost impact on the worker accident fund. But we don’t know what it is.

I appreciate that government may not be able to accurately determine how many individuals might be requesting a review, and it is fully up to the WorkSafeBC board — that’s my understanding — to make a determination whether they’re going to accept or reject that application, whether they may determine: “We’ll maybe let you move it till age 67 or 69 or 72 or 75.”

A significant number of additional cost burdens that won’t be borne by the ratepayers back when that worker was initially injured 20 or 25 years ago…. Those costs will now be borne solely by ratepayers today. That is a new, unintended, unanticipated cost burden that is being put on current and future ratepayers. We don’t know what that cost might be.

It was the dual pension provision back in the 1990s that put WorkSafeBC on the rocks and created all the financial challenges that needed to be remedied in the early 2000s. But here we have a government that has moved forward, now, with replacing the same dual pension legislation that was the cause of much of the hardship for the organization back in the 1990s. We have yet to receive any information from this government or from the minister with respect to the magnitude of the cost.

We talked about the potential $5 billion in surplus over here — Bill 23 — and we can appreciate that those costs won’t all be borne in the first year, but any workers that otherwise would be attaining age 65, I’m sure, are thinking: “Geez, maybe I’d like to extend this and be making application for a review.”

[2:00 p.m.]

What that process of determination is by WorkSafeBC, I’m not familiar, but I have heard that some individuals have had their age of retirement extended from 65 to 68 and, in some cases, until their 70s. So again, a significant cost burden without any information forthcoming from this government with respect to the cost magnitude.

The other concerns we have on the financial implications — and these certainly aren’t of government’s doing — have to do with investment returns. I recall asking the minister last year in estimates what the actual rate of return was for the worker accident fund on all their investments, and I was absolutely impressed that the rate of return that the minister shared with me was 11.1 percent.

I think most of us would be quite excited to have that type of an annual return on our investments, 11.1 percent. Extremely healthy. Those financial returns help to further bolster the accident fund and potentially provide some relief for worker rates, the compensation rates that are actually paid by employers.

However, this year I think we will all understand it’s going to be a very different situation. Is that a 5 percent loss, a 10 percent loss, a 15 percent loss? We don’t know. The financial year in reporting for WorkSafeBC is December 31. I’m quite certain that WorkSafeBC will be watching this very closely and likely will have some pretty good indication even now — at this late date, on November 1 — on what kind of returns they will or will not receive. I’m guessing it’s probably in the 10 to 15 percent range.

It was interesting that when I asked ministry staff when WorkSafeBC might report out on what the financial rate of return was or is or will be for this current fiscal, it wasn’t January 10 or January 15, although I’m sure WorkSafeBC will have the numbers by then. I was told that we’ll have to wait until the regular financial reporting of WorkSafeBC’s financial statement, which won’t be out until late March or April.

Well, imagine contacting your financial advisor trying to get some determination on how you did on your stocks this last fiscal, but you’re being told: “It’s going to take three months past year-end before we want to disclose that and let you know.” I’m not quite sure where that comes around for confidence in the system.

I certainly am hoping that when we do get to committee stage — I will certainly be asking many of these same questions directly of the minister — with the minister having all of his very competent staff at his disposal, that he might be able to provide a little bit more insight. On something as important as the financial return on $20 billion of investment, I certainly would hope that government would be more than willing to come forth and actually share, with British Columbians, the impacts of any reductions in estimated financial return for the accident fund.

Now, as I mentioned at the outset of my commentary, these are extremely tough financial times. Businesses that may still be busy, businesses that may have returned to full employment from pre-pandemic levels — what I’m hearing, they are struggling financially. Many businesses breaking even, having to dip into lines of credit in order to keep their doors open.

At the same time that they’re barely struggling to keep their operations fluid, we have increasing interest rates on the horizon, and economic forecasters from around the globe are talking of potential recession. And in the backdrop of all of that financial economic uncertainty, government has chosen that now is the time to put potential additional cost burden on the backs of businesses.

[2:05 p.m.]

Now, the minister did share that WorkSafeBC — I don’t think it’s any great surprise — came out last week, last Thursday, and announced that the actual base rate for worker protection in this province will remain static, that there will be no increases in fiscal 2023.

It gets me to thinking. A minister that says he has no control over WorkSafeBC, that they’re independent…. It’s not typical for WorkSafeBC to come out in the last week of October and actually make an advance notification that we’re going to hold rates for the next fiscal. So the fact that WorkSafeBC came out last week and said: “Don’t worry, folks. We’re going to maintain rates for 2023. All of these changes over here, yeah, there’ll be cost impacts, but we’re not going to share any of that with you. But don’t worry about it, because we’re maintaining your rate stability through 2023….”

Now, maybe it’s coincidental. With the tabling of Bill 41 this week in the House, with only two sitting weeks left, a pretty significant piece of legislation will have pretty significant cost impacts on the organization. Yet WorkSafeBC came out last week to provide comfort to businesses: “Well, yes, we’re making changes. Changes are being undertaken by this current government. It’ll add cost pressure and cost impacts to the worker accident fund. But don’t worry. We’re going to maintain rates through fiscal 2023.”

Storm clouds are not just on the horizon anymore. They’re now above us. Legislative changes…. Many of them are valid. I in no way, shape or form dispute the merits of many of the changes. But I think the question that is before us is the timing. There’s been no shortage of additional cost pressures that have been put on businesses in the last 5½ years that reduce the competitiveness of B.C. businesses, businesses here at home.

I think back to the 1990s. I know that’s a long time ago. I know that for many of our younger viewers, they may have just still been in elementary school then. But it’s important to remind British Columbians of the fact that…. The fact we’ve had a fairly healthy and robust economy in the last 15 years was not the norm in the 1990s. There was a time when B.C. had the worst economic performance of any province in Canada — the worst. Not the middle of the pack. Not second from last. Dead last. We had the highest unemployment rate in Canada.

You think of how we are blessed with natural resources on Canada’s coast, the economic opportunities that we have afforded to us. But without proper government that was keeping their hand on ensuring that businesses remain competitive, we went to the bottom of the pack — the bottom of the barrel in Canada and the worst record for job creation in all of Canada.

Now, that changed. Some might say: “Well, it was just coincidental.” The B.C. Liberals came to power with 77 of 79 seats. For members over there, I just want to remind you that there was a time when you were reduced to just two sitting seats in the Legislature.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Speaker, of course.

G. Kyllo: Oh, of course, hon. Speaker.

Of course, that was a message of British Columbians. They’d had enough of the cost pressures that drove businesses out of this province. It took a long time in the early 2000s to right that ship, to create B.C. as an environment that was attractive to businesses and to create that employment. And employment is so fundamental to everything that we do as a society — that sense of purpose and ability to provide for your families, put food on the table, pay rent and cover your mortgage payment.

[2:10 p.m.]

We see what happens with high unemployment rates. I’ve always shared — typically, campaigning during election cycles — about the value of full employment or as near full employment as we can get. A working community is a healthy community. Where we see high unemployment rates, we see increased dependency on drugs and alcohol, we see increased occasion for family and marital disputes and breakup, and we see increasing levels of crime. So it’s all connected.

There’s that balance. We have to have a healthy economy, which means that we have to be cognizant of ensuring that businesses that are operating here in British Columbia are competitive and remain competitive compared to other jurisdictions. And with respect to Bill 41, we also need to make sure that workers feel safe, that we have a robust system. I can say that worker injury rates in British Columbia have largely been stable or declining slightly for the last number of years, and that’s a good thing.

Governments have brought forward core certification, opportunities for businesses to really improve and add some more robustness to the health and safety policies they have in their corporations. For that additional cost burden and the work to make that employment worksite safer, there are some small deductions, some administrative relief that’s actually provided. Those are extremely valid initiatives.

But what we have seen, sadly, although we have seen accident rates largely stabilize, is a significant increase in the actual cost of administration and the cost of claims. The cost magnitude is absolutely staggering, and these are areas that I think government should be accountable for in ensuring that they’re properly monitoring the work of WorkSafeBC.

In benchmarking the program…. The minister is quick to want to benchmark the benefits that are provided to workers in B.C., as compared to other jurisdictions in Canada, and I absolutely agree with that approach. But where is the benchmarking that is undertaken to properly evaluate the administrative cost burden with respect to delivery of the workers compensation product here in British Columbia?

Given that injuries are down, it would be expected that costs and overall liability would be on a similar trajectory. However, in the last five years alone, the cost of claims has grown by a staggering 90 percent.

So you’ll recall I talked about this surplus. There’s this surplus that’s over there. And I guess if you’ve got a big bank account with a whole bunch of additional cash stowed away, you don’t have to be so worried about the ongoing operating expenses.

It’s apparent, under this government’s watch, administration costs have risen by 90 percent — not 9, not 19, not 29, but 90 percent. Yet worker accident rates largely have been unchanged or, if anything, slightly declined. How can you justify that? There’s a cost burden in this instance that will directly be borne by employers in this province.

[2:15 p.m.]

As we look at these different pieces of legislation that have been brought before this House, there has been no costing. What business would undertake change in policy or process without looking at the hard cost? If there’s an inability of government to pinpoint it with absolute accuracy, at least you could provide a range: “We estimate that this particular piece of legislation, as valid as it may be, will have a cost magnitude ranging from A to Z.”

Government would then have to be forthright and forthcoming to British Columbians and say: “Lookit, we’re going to be optimistic and think that the cost magnitude is low.” They could be pessimistic and think that the cost magnitude is going to be high, but at least they might even come to the determination that we’re going to estimate it to be somewhere in the middle. At least, on full disclosure, on transparency, we’ve shared with the employers, who are paying the funds to provide the workers protection in this province. At least we’re going to let them know what the cost magnitudes are.

But bill after bill after bill have been brought forward in this House with much debate and zero disclosure to British Columbians or to businesses with respect to the cost magnitude associated with these changes.

Now, hon. Speaker, if it’s not concerning for you or for listeners at home, I do know that business associations and business organizations are extremely concerned. This also will flow back to the competitiveness of businesses here in our province.

Since taking office in 2017, we have seen a significant increase in taxation and new fees that further erode and reduce the competitiveness of businesses here in our province. Bill 41 will only add potential further challenges and cost impediments on businesses in B.C. Everything from an increase in the corporate tax rate….

Well, we certainly aren’t an island. We don’t have finite borders where we only do commerce within the province of British Columbia. We compete with neighbouring jurisdictions of Alberta, northern U.S. states, but here’s an interesting fact. Do you know that our corporate income tax in B.C. is now 50 percent higher than our neighbouring province of Alberta? Fifty percent. Alberta has a corporate tax rate of 8 percent. For the privilege of opening a business here in B.C., 12 percent — 50 percent higher corporate tax rate to corporations that operate in B.C.

What message is that telling to large corporations, who we otherwise want to attract here to set up their head offices, to provide gainful employment, to invest in B.C., to create those very important family-supporting jobs? “Well, yeah, you can come here, but you’re going to pay a big premium, a 50 percent premium, on the corporate tax rate.”

What else have we received from this current government? Well, we have a new employer health tax, which for a significant number or the majority of our larger employers in this province adds an additional 1.9 percent of cost — $1.9 billion of additional cost burden that has been added.

So as much as the government may talk about eliminating MSP premiums, nothing was eliminated. It was just a tax shift. It went from the responsibility of the citizen, in many instances that were paid by businesses, to directly being fully on the backs of businesses in B.C. That even affected many of the other agencies and government agencies. Some were backstopped and provided additional funding to cover that additional 2 percent cost, but some weren’t.

We have crime rates in British Columbia that are out of control. What did the NDP do when they brought forward the employer health tax? They didn’t fund it. That was a 2 percent funding cut for RCMP services around our province, having a significantly larger impact on rural communities.

[2:20 p.m.]

We’ve got a 50 percent higher corporate tax rate. We have the employer health tax. Oh, and what did we get this year? Five days of paid sick leave. Now, paid sick leave in the middle of a pandemic, I think, is admirable. It was supported, I believe, by all members of this House — for illness. Guess what. They decided to slip in “injury” as well.

I get it. If somebody is sick, and they’re coughing, the last thing we want is that worker that has an illness to actually go to work and, potentially, transfer that virus and cause other individuals in the workplace to be ill. But if somebody, who’s out skiing on the weekend and twists an ankle — it has nothing to do with the employer; it’s not the employer’s fault — or injures their leg while skiing on a weekend, calls in saying, “I can’t come to work; my leg’s sore,” the employers in British Columbia get to pay for that — the only jurisdiction in Canada.

Now, I’m not saying that somebody that injures their leg skiing doesn’t still have to put groceries on the table and pay rent, but how is that the obligation and responsibility of the employer? Employers are getting fed up. It is one cost burden on top of another, which is reducing the opportunity for businesses to be competitive in B.C. The cumulative effects and the lack of disclosure by this government are concerning to me and many businesses across the province.

We certainly will be raising many questions during committee stage — about financial stability, how these specific changes in Bill 41 will affect the Workers Compensation Act, and how cost pressures will affect rates going into the future. At a time when costs are increasing for all small businesses, we want to ensure that they’re kept under control and that there’s full disclosure. Bringing forward legislative changes without sharing with British Columbians what the cost impacts are — that’s unfair. That’s certainly not transparent. That’s not forthcoming.

We do know it was only a number of years ago, when asked about the status of the surplus within WorkSafeBC with the worker accident fund, that the minister cavalierly said, “Oh, it has been wiped out; it doesn’t exist,” only to be corrected the next day by WorkSafeBC: “No, the minister misspoke.” It is a pretty healthy surplus.

I think at the time it was about $2½ billion or $3 billion. We have a minister that made a rounding error and somehow misplaced or didn’t recognize the fact that the worker accident fund was $2½ billion higher than what he was actually sharing to the news media. If that doesn’t give you cause for concern, I don’t know what would.

I think now I’m going to go through some of the specific changes. There are 16 different pieces of the bill, seven of which have a pretty significant impact on the delivery of services to workers in B.C. The first change that has been identified is the development of the fair practices commissioner.

I know, certainly within my own constituency office in Salmon Arm, that on occasion we do have workers that will reach out with concerns with respect to WorkSafeBC. If there’s an inability to find a remedy or solution to that particular problem, largely, for workers in B.C., the only avenue, if they pass their appeal process, would be then bringing it forward to the Ombudsperson’s office.

I see this as an important and, I think, necessary step to provide that second opportunity for a worker or an employer to reach out to the fair practices commissioner to have a second set of eyes looking at how that particular claim was handled or administered. I’m definitely in support of that.

[2:25 p.m.]

I did have the opportunity to ask ministry staff about the cost magnitude of that change. I was told that largely, it would be negligible, if any. Certainly, we’ll be asking some more questions through committee stage, for a bit more detail on that. So no real general concern with respect to the implementation of the fairness commissioner.

The other section is to establish a clear legal employer duty to re-employ or to accommodate an injured worker. Now, that’s incredibly important. I would suspect that all good employers see the value in the work done by their employees and would do everything they could. They’d likely feel extremely disheartened if a worker were injured at the workplace and would be equally encouraging to try and do what they could to accommodate the return of that worker to the workplace.

Now, I believe it was in the 1980s that there was a Supreme Court of Canada decision that actually made it a legal requirement to accommodate injured workers. So this isn’t something new. This is something that is actually within our legal system. Largely, any worker or employee that might have been concerned about the lack of accommodation that might be provided to them on returning to work have had the opportunity to reach out to the Human Rights Commissioner.

I guess further embedding that language and putting it directly in WorkSafeBC and, potentially, adding additional administrative penalties to employers that might otherwise suppress that opportunity or not make those very important changes within their workplace, I think, is certainly valid.

Now, the legislation does do a card vote for…. It’s my interpretation, on the initial reading the bill, that for employers with 20 or fewer employees, they would be largely exempt from that as far as what might be perceived as undue hardship. I’m certainly looking forward to a bit more detail, in committee stage, on that particular piece. I think that, for small business owners, sometimes the cost of trying to accommodate the return of an injured worker could be burdensome and could cause what the legal system would deem to be undue hardship. Again, no great concern from our B.C. Liberal caucus on that particular change.

There is also the intent of expanding the opportunity for an independent health opinion or an independent health professional to actually do a re-evaluation of any claims. Now, this his something that has been available to the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal, otherwise known as WCAT, for a number of years, but it is not something that was available to either employers or employees.

The tribunal had the opportunity, if they saw some conflicting concerns with respect to the medical opinion, to seek out an independent medical officer to do an evaluation. Then they would be able to look at that information and advice as part of their consideration of determining the final outcome on a claim.

This is a new move. I have no idea, and I’m certainly hoping that the minister will be able to provide some more clarity during committee stage, of what the costs are. I don’t anticipate it is a small cost — independent medical advice. I’m not sure if it’s $500 or $5,000. Maybe depending on the complexity of the accident and the injured worker, it could be even a magnitude more than that.

It’s really important. Although on initial review, it makes sense if an employer or an employee or worker, injured worker, feels that they have a concern, that they’re looking for independent medical advice…. It sounds valid, but it’ll really be important to see how that is codified in the actual policy legislation. The reason that’s important is that it would not only affect the cost — obviously, the additional costs associated with having that independent medical advice or medical opinion — but also the potential impact on the timing, on when the claim would actually be finalized.

[2:30 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

I’m certainly looking forward to a bit more scrutiny, in committee stage with the minister, to better flesh out what the cost magnitude may be and if, indeed, there are safeguards put in place so that we do not see every employee or injured worker that actually has a claim or a concern that their claim may not be adjudicated on to their benefit, who would automatically seek the advice of an independent medical officer, add further cost burden and delay the timing of that. You know, again, the devil’s in the details, they say. I’m certainly looking forward to fleshing it out in more detail in committee stage.

There’s another change that actually requires interest to be paid on compensation benefits that are determined by WorkSafeBC. It kind of makes sense. I don’t really have a dispute, although there certainly will be some cost burden associated with it. But even Revenue Canada pays interest on outstanding amounts.

The way the legislation is written is that for any amount due for a period of greater than 180 days, interest would actually accrue to the benefit of the employee or, if there was funding that was going back to the employer, also back to the employer. That just makes good sense.

I think that we would all agree that if money is owed or due, even though there might not be a final determination on the success of an injured worker on their application, even though it may be retroactive, that that payment that was due them should incur some form of interest. Again, not a huge amount of concern, although it will be important for government to disclose and share with this House what that cost magnitude is.

I can’t repeat it often enough: all these changes will have a cost and eventually have an impact on employers and the rates that they actually pay in this province. So it’s really important that we have a full understanding of what those costs may be.

A further change with the claims suppression amendment. This will be put in place to further dissuade and also have the opportunity for, I believe, administrative penalties on employers that try to encourage workers not to actually make a claim. I spoke about that a little bit earlier in my opening comments. I’m fully supportive of that. I think it’s important.

Although we want to certainly encourage good behaviour, those bad actors certainly should have some form of administrative penalty put against them. But it will be interesting to see what that magnitude is, if that is based on the size of the employer, the number of employees or if it’s just based on a per-occurrence basis and those that repeat bad offenses over and over again if there’s an escalation. Again, information that we hope to tease out a bit more in committee stage.

There’s also movement. It was interesting when the minister made his comments in his second reading speech about doing this cross-jurisdictional kind of evaluation, having a look at what other provinces are doing and, again, having a look at making sure that B.C. was not at the bottom of the pack, not necessarily at the top, but I think, certainly having a look at what other provinces are doing.

When it comes to hearing loss, the maximum cap in British Columbia was 15 percent. And the minister’s office yesterday in the briefing shared that some jurisdictions are as high as 35 percent. So if you have what’s deemed to be a non-traumatic hearing loss, so for a worker whose lost full hearing…. The maximum they’d be allowed under B.C. legislation was 15 percent. Some provinces are as high as 35.

In keeping with the minister’s remarks about wanting to be commensurate with other provinces, I certainly would have expected that the cap would be raised from 15 to 35 percent. But no, the minister is going it alone here. He’s giving WCAT or WorkSafeBC the discretion to make a determination on what it’s going to be. We don’t know. It could be 5, could be 10, could be 20, could be 50. We don’t know.

On one hand, the minister wants to be commensurate with other jurisdictions, but when it comes to this change for hearing loss, which I fully support, having a look at raising that rate and being commensurate with other provinces….

[2:35 p.m.]

But I’m wondering. Why is it that the minister is going alone and deciding to just give full discretion to WorkSafeBC to determine what that might be? It’s not in keeping with some of the other ministers’ remarks about being, I guess, fair with respect to what other jurisdictions across Canada are doing.

Now, the last change — I left the best for last — is also the most costly. I shared with this House how WorkSafeBC was a bit of a disaster under this current government back in the 1990s. It was a bit of a mess — huge, underfunded liabilities — and a lot of effort had to be undertaken to try and right that ship, so to speak. It was at that time, I believe in 2002, that the legislation was changed such that workers compensation would go up at the rate of inflation minus 1 percent.

Now, the minister shared how heartless that was at the time, but I think we have to take that into context and the backdrop of the disaster that was presented by the then NDP government. Very important legislative changes had to be undertaken to fix the mess that was created by the previous government.

It was also interesting…. Although the minister said it was quite heartless, he also shared that there are other jurisdictions in Canada that are actually at the rate of CPI, consumer price index, minus one-half a percent. So yes, maybe the rate in B.C. has been lower than others as far as the rate they’re increasing, and it’s definitely valid. I think we would all agree that for an injured worker, providing compensation for that injury on an ongoing basis, through till age 65 or maybe later — that that rate would go up commensurate, so they did not see themselves necessarily falling behind year over year over year.

Now, I agree with the logic. However, we also know that wage rates in British Columbia, in Canada or around the globe do not automatically just follow CPI. Some go up higher, but in certain years, things roll back quite significantly. I recall back in 2009, after the sub-prime mortgage crash, many employees were taking 15 and 20 percent wage rollbacks. So although CPI may be a great measurement tool, it does not always predict what the average wage rate would be within the province in any particular year.

The important piece on this is that there is also the provision that government is undertaking to provide flexibility for WorkSafeBC. So if the rate is actually higher than 4 percent, WorkSafeBC will have the discretion to determine whether it’s actually going to be fully indexed at CPI. The minister, in his comments, said that the change will index it to CPI, but only kind of.

To make it simple, if the rate was going up by 1 percent, yes, the rate would go up by 1 percent. If was 2 percent, it would be 2 percent. If 3 percent, 3 percent. If 4 percent, yes, it would be 4 percent. But if CPI was 5 percent, WorkSafeBC has the latitude, the discretion, to either raise it at 4 percent, 4½ percent or 5 percent.

In this current fiscal, if the actual rate of inflation or CPI was determined to be 8 percent, under the current legislation, that rate would be 7 percent, 1 percent less. However, this bill actually provides the latitude for WorkSafeBC which, although deemed to be independent…. I’m sure there’s going to be some direction from government. It might be 4,5, 6, 7 or 8 percent.

Although the minister’s comments made it sound like this particular change, tying it to CPI and not having the minus 1 percent, is actually going to be a benefit to workers, I guess the proof is in the pudding, and we have yet to see what WorkSafeBC actually brings forward.

[2:40 p.m.]

I think at a time where we see wage rates, both in the private sector and in the public service, not automatically tied to CPI…. We will see what decision WorkSafeBC actually makes in the months ahead with respect to their determination on what they feel to be a fair and just rate for increases to injured workers.

With that, hon. Speaker, I thank you very much for the opportunity to present some of the concerns that we have with respect to this bill. I really do look forward, in committee stage, to teasing out some more details to better fully understand the full cost impacts of this piece of legislation.

M. Bernier: It’s an honour to stand up and speak to Bill 41 today. I also want to start my comments by thanking our critic on this, the member for Shuswap. As we’ve heard through his commentary for the last hour-plus, he’s quite knowledgable and has done a lot of work on this. I commend him for that, because this is, in a lot of ways, very technical in its own parts.

I think it’s also important to highlight for the minister and for government some of the concerns that we have but also the areas we can agree upon. My colleague touched on a good portion of those.

I think it’s important…. When we talk about, not only within this bill but the Workers Compensation Act itself, specifically within the act, we’re talking about workers, workers’ rights, workers’ safety. I think everybody in this House acknowledges and wants to ensure that we have the safest workplace possible for all of our employees, for our loved ones, for our family members, the people in our communities that expect to go to work every morning, work a good, hard day but come home safe every night to their families. That’s obviously paramount. That’s something that I know everybody in this House wants to promote and support, a safe work environment.

Throughout that, though, it’s also important to ensure that we’re promoting a healthy economy, a sustainable business model, as well, because we have to remember that it’s both here, as we’re trying to ensure that we have jobs for people in this province to go to every day. Now, we know that this amendment that came forward for the Workers Compensation Act under Bill 41 comes, for the most part, from the Patterson report and recommendations within that Patterson report.

I think it’s important, as my colleague before me also highlighted, to highlight — not to take away from, maybe, some good recommendations that were in this report — how the report in itself can be considered somewhat tainted by the fact that through the gathering of information — making sure that we had all the right people at the table who would be sharing information to help guide the amendments and the recommendations for this bill — how concerning it was when many of the employers withdrew.

They were part of the initial panel, if you want to call it that, to share information. But because of the perceived or, maybe not even perceived, the notable bias that they were feeling with some of the commentary and direction and influence that was happening on where recommendations may go, a lot of the, I would say, talent that was at the table unfortunately left. Why is that important? Well, if we’re going to have proper recommendations for ensuring the safety and the well-being and the fairness for our employees, we have to ensure that the employers are also at the table as part of that discussion.

I hope the minister — I don’t remember hearing it in his commentary — acknowledges that. If the minister is going to base this entire amendment act on the one report that was kind of tainted by the people that should have been at the table but who left because they felt they were not being listened to and felt that their opinions were not going to be seen, that should be a cause of concern for this minister.

[2:45 p.m.]

We’re going to have to ask some of those tough questions when we get to committee stage, because we want to know what was considered. What are we going to do for further outreach and consultation? We’ve seen, with this government, how they talk the talk around wanting to consult. But at the end of the day, it seems like their ideas have already been made up and it’s just an exercise in pretending that they’re listening to people. That’s very unfortunate, especially when we’re talking about something that’s so important, like workers safety and the sustainability of a strong economy in our province to ensure we have those employers.

Now, one thing I will support is…. The minister put forward the fact that there are some areas that we want to acknowledge where maybe we are a little behind, in comparison to some of the other provinces in certain areas, when it comes to the Workers Compensation Act. I’m fully supportive of looking at that. We want to ensure that our workers are treated fairly but that we do it in a model that we’re not hindering competitiveness in the province of British Columbia for the people who actually want to invest and actually employ people. I’ll probably talk about that a little bit later on.

The reason why I have some concerns, though, on how this government treats our employers is that through their actions alone, we’ve seen, under the last five or six years of this government, when we’re dealing with employers, how they, in essence, demonize them. This is completely the wrong approach if we’re wanting to ensure that we grow our province, that we have those jobs for people to go to every morning.

In order to do that, we have to have confidence. We have to make sure we strike that balance between workers’ rights — which, as we’re talking about today, are important — and also the rights and understanding of what creates a strong economy for businesses to invest in.

I’m not saying this against anybody on the other side, because I absolutely don’t know all of their backgrounds, only some of them. But I know on this side of the House, in the B. C. Liberal caucus, a good majority of us are or were business owners. We employed people. We wanted to have safe workplaces. We understand the balance sheet of what we can do for investing to try to promote our business and to try to grow our business, which in essence hires more people.

Many of us have done that on this side of the House. Some have been managers, some have been employees, some have been employers, but we understand those nuances and that balance that has to be achieved in order to be successful for everybody.

Unfortunately, what we’re seeing and what we’ve seen over the last four, five or six years of the NDP, though, is almost contrary to supporting the employers in the province of British Columbia. We’ve seen how they brought forward the union benefit agreement, which really rewarded some and penalized others when it came to the ability to employ people and acquire work in this province.

We saw how they’ve removed the secret ballot, something that just surprised the heck out of me, for a government that says that they want to ensure a strong union environment — that then they would take away one of the fundamental rights of union or potential union members. We even saw, in this last tainted leadership race, how unions were infiltrating and influencing this government through the processes that they want to see.

We’ve seen the actions of this government. In all fairness, I heard the minister’s commentary when he was introducing this bill, which doesn’t really quite align with the actions that we’ve seen to date. So of course, it’s going to be important for us to really question the minister and dive deep into some of the issues in this bill, some of the recommendations that put together this amendment to this act.

Again, the minister spoke of balance, which I think we would all acknowledge is important. We just haven’t seen that.

[2:50 p.m.]

As we’re going through this bill, we want to ensure that those issues are being talked about and addressed and those questions are being answered by the minister.

One of the things that we should talk about when we look at this bill is some of the recommendations from the report. As my colleague, again, before me, who was the first speaker for us…. I know we’ll have a few more who want to speak to this bill.

It is important to acknowledge there are some aspects of this, some of the amendments that were brought forward, that we think are going in the right direction, that we can support or, at least, give some credibility to the suggestion around those recommendations. And then dive into them a little bit holistically to ensure that the intent of those recommendations and those changes within the amendment are actually going to meet the test that we can support and are going to be beneficial for workers and for employers in the province of British Columbia.

When we look at some of the recommendations that specifically came out of the Patterson report…. I’ll talk about some of these recommendations. It’s important, again, that afterwards, when we look at how those recommendations fit into the amendments, we will have further commentary to make sure that it is actually beneficial for all.

We look at recommendation 29, which says: “I recommend that the Workers Compensation Act be amended to provide that interest will be paid on overdue wage loss and permanent disability benefits greater than 180 days, based on the board’s return on investments, at compound interest as of the date the benefits would have become payable.” I think, actually, this is something that on the face seems logical, seems fair and something to be definitely considered. I’ll get into some costing afterwards — some comments that I have on that.

But when we look at this specific recommendation, I think we all know that any time people have been, let’s say, owed money by the government, which usually is very rare…. Usually, we owe them money, and they want our money. But the few times where somebody might have overpaid, especially as a business at tax time, they received that compensation back with interest. When we look at the fairness of this for an employee who may be owed compensation, I think that’s important to look at.

Recommendation 43 is also “that the Workers Compensation Act be amended to provide protection to and remedy for a worker facing retaliation for filing a compensation claim.” This one, to me, is very important, and I acknowledge this one coming forward. The last thing anybody wants to see is somebody get hurt at work. Again, we all acknowledge that.

But to add to that, we don’t want to see somebody being intimidated or threatened that they can’t report that injury. We have a Workers Compensation Act — an insurance policy, if you want to call it that — specifically to help our employees in the time of an injury or, even worse, for a family in the case of a fatality at the workplace.

Of course, we want to make sure that if there is a valid concern and a valid claim that’s being sent in to the board, that is looked at. We want to ensure that employers are not undermining that. And I think all of us in this House have maybe heard those stories. So I think it’s important that that recommendation…. Again, we’ll have some questions around it, but I think that’s an important addition to come in for consideration.

Recommendation 57 is that “the Workers Compensation Act be amended to recognize the employer’s duty to accommodate and the related legal issues as set out in detail in the attachment to 58” — again, another important one where there are going to be some definite questions around that one as we look at that recommendation.

[2:55 p.m.]

Then one other one I want to highlight is recommen­dation 67: “The Workers Compensation Act be amended to establish the office of a fair practices commission and appoint a fair practice commissioner by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council” — in an OIC, as we know it in here. “…from the Workers Compensation Board’s administration and reporting directly to the board of directors.”

Again, we’ve heard stories. I think a lot of us, as MLAs, have had constituents come to our offices who feel that they have not been treated fairly, who feel that they have a legitimate claim because they were hurt at the workplace or have maybe an underlying illness that they say is the cause of the workplace that they were at, and that claim gets denied. And right now, the only avenue that I’m aware of is to go to the Ombudsman to try to have that re-looked at or considered.

So to have that second look, to have a fair practices commissioner appointed…. On face value, again, this recommendation, as we’re seeing it within the amendment of the act, has some credibility. It has some merit to try to look at that.

Obviously, we want to know what the cost pressures might be. Is that an additional burden to the bottom line of the actual administration costs of the board? That’s something we always want to be mindful of, because the last thing we want to be doing, again, is going to businesses and telling them that their employer rates for WCB are going up, but then noticing that that money is now just being transferred to administration rather than to the employees who are actually putting in the claims, who may rightfully be entitled to compensation.

Those are just a few of the recommendations out of the report that I wanted to highlight that I feel…. Again, we’ll have some good conversation on it, but they’re important recommendations to definitely consider.

Again, we want to make sure this is fair. We want to make sure things are balanced. When we look at maybe even again on the fair practices, if we’re establishing a new agency, that can come with risks. I talked about maybe some of the cost pressures, but it could be also risks to the employees themselves — maybe a sense of false expectation, if government is not going to be laying out a strong path that employees can follow and the expectations of what they will be receiving if they actually contact this agency. So we’ll have good questions at committee stage. My hope is we’ll have some good, factual, wholesome answers from the minister.

This is not to put our minds at ease. These questions are on behalf of the employers and employees in the province of British Columbia who are going to want to know. Again, this is a technical bill, but a lot of this is stuff that, I’ll say, the majority of people don’t think about and don’t talk about until they actually need it. That’s when they want to make sure that all the answers are there and that a good path forward for them and their families to ensure that they can still put food on the table, that they can still pay their mortgage and pay their bills while they’re in a position of maybe not being able to work.

That brings me to basically, again, almost like a consultation process that…. We’ve talked about some of the failures of the government to adequately consult or, if they do consult, they don’t necessarily listen to the information that they’ve been receiving. I think in this one here, especially as I highlighted earlier with so many people walking away from the panel and not being there because they were concerned, again, around how this report was going to be framed….

The government has a duty to reach back out, I believe, after this to ensure that they’re not going to have any of those unintended consequences that are going to negatively affect businesses in the province of British Columbia. And when we do that consultation, I think it’s also really important, especially as a rural MLA, to highlight that we need to do consultation at a cross-section.

[3:00 p.m.]

This is not just a few union friends of the government that we should be consulting with. This should be small, medium and large-size businesses. This should be your mom-and-pop operations who are struggling right now after COVID. I mean, we look at COVID. There were a lot of businesses that, unfortunately, did not survive through the time of COVID because of lost revenues or cost pressures that they were faced with.

We need to remember that every time you lose an employer, it means you’ve lost employees. I know this government’s history is to demonize those employers. But if we’re truly….

As the minister mentioned in his opening remarks on this bill…. He talked about balance. He talked about partnership. I think it’s important to acknowledge that partnership actually is important, and it goes both ways. Without employers, we don’t have work. Then without workers, obviously, we don’t have the opportunity for companies to succeed. It is truly a partnership and a win-win for everybody if it’s done properly.

I know right now that there is a huge lack of confidence in the province of British Columbia around investment. In my area alone, one more hit to a bottom line…. WCB is a line item in every single business. They understand the costs that they have to pay. It is a requirement for them. I have yet to meet a business that says: “Look, I don’t want to pay WCB at all.” They understand the point of it. They understand the purpose of it, but they also want to ensure that they are being treated just as fairly as the employees.

As I mentioned, many businesses didn’t survive COVID. Many that actually did are just hanging on still and are trying to figure out how to recover. They want to grow and build and be able to hire more people. The last thing they’re looking for is another hit to that bottom line, imposed by government, that could be the difference of staying in business or not.

As I mentioned, up in my area…. That lack of confidence is something that I hear about on a daily basis in my office. Businesses are coming in, larger businesses — I’m talking ones that employ thousands of people in my riding — who are telling me that after being hit with the employer health tax, after being hit with other increased taxes, after being told that there is no certainty on whether they’ll even get permits to operate and expand in the province, whether it be forestry, mining, oil and gas, they’re left in limbo.

I know on this side of the House…. Again, I spoke about the experience that a lot of us have in business. The last thing you want in business is uncertainty, to be left in limbo and to be guessing.

When you are responsible to a board of directors and shareholders, they are very, very quick to say: “We’ll pull out of British Columbia. We’ll move to Alberta.” In fact, I know of billions — and I say that billions with an ‘s’ at the end — of dollars, just in the oil and gas sector alone, in the last 18 months, that have left British Columbia and moved into other jurisdictions like Alberta because they can’t trust this government.

They know the resource is there. They know the resource isn’t going anywhere. They said: “If we have to wait for another government, or if we have to wait, even, for this government to get their act together and understand the impact that they’re having with their lack of decisions on business…. Well, we’ll just wait too. We’re going to invest somewhere else, because we still have to have a rate of return for our investment and responsibility to our shareholders.”

It’s unfortunate that can’t be in British Columbia. Who pays the price for that? We all do. That’s less schools that can be built. That’s less hospitals that can be built. That’s less people that are getting family-supporting jobs in the resource sector.

That’s, I think, important, when we acknowledge that we need to have that certainty, and we don’t have it right now.

[3:05 p.m.]

I talked about ensuring that we have safe workplaces. I do acknowledge and applaud the minister for bringing this forward. It gives us the opportunity, again, to look at the act. It hasn’t been looked at in a little bit, and I think it’s important that almost every act gets looked at and gets modernized. Times change. Workers’ expectations and employees’ expectations and needs change. The impacts on employers also change with time. It is important to look at this bill and to ask the tough questions. When changes are needed, then those changes can be supported.

I think, also, as we’re looking at those changes around worker safety and the impacts they might have on companies, we have to talk about the financial stability and sustainability of the Workers Compensation Board itself. As we heard, we have over $5 billion sitting there right now within workers compensation. We’re going to have to really be careful with that. It’s important to make sure we have the funds that are there when needed and not overspend, because you never know when those funds are going to be needed.

We’ve also heard…. We’ve seen that workplace injuries and accidents have not increased. In fact, they’ve declined.

I look at some of the policies that were brought in with the B.C. Liberals — I know they’ve continued under this government, so it’s not a partisan attack — to ensure that we’re always looking at training and that we’re always ensuring that our employers are doing what they can to have a safe work environment. But — I hate to say “but” there — accidents do happen. We hope that they don’t, but they do. We always hope that if it happens, it’s minor.

I know, during my time…. When I was a manager running an oil and gas company, I was proud of the fact…. In the 20 years that I was there, I can only recall one time where somebody got hurt and had to have a lost time claim with WCB. I put that up to, mostly, the extensive training that we did and the value we put on our workers to ensure that they had a safe work environment. I know we always want to push that for our employees — to ensure that they go home every night.

As I wrap up my comments on this…. There are some amendments that have come forward that definitely, as I said, have some merit. I’m looking forward to the answers to our questions from the minister and to find out what we can support, or not, in this bill. Again, it’ll be really important, for that transparency part, to be as open as possible and to give as much information as possible so people know what these changes are and what they can expect after this government passes this bill, which we know that they will, with their majority.

Again, it’s our job to ensure, with what we’re hearing out there from the workers and employees, that their voices are heard in this chamber as well. This can’t be a top-down, pushed-on approach. If it’s truly going to be transparent and if it’s truly going to be a partnership like the minister talked about, then we have to ensure that that information is out there so everybody is comfortable with the changes that will be made through this amendment.

A. Olsen: It’s an honour to be able to stand and speak to Bill 41, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2).

Before I get too far into my comments here, I would just like to acknowledge that this is the second time that this bill has been opened in this session. It is becoming somewhat of a habit, I think, that the bills…. We see multiple amendments for these bills, for this legislation, in a single session. It’s kind of unique to this government, I think, that we open and close, open and close and open and close these bills, this legislation. Just acknowledging that this is the second time that this bill has been opened for amendments, a suite of amendments that I think workers in British Columbia are going to be pleased with.

[3:10 p.m.]

I know our colleagues in the official opposition have raised the point with respect to the impacts that these changes could have, potentially, on businesses. I think that there is a need to balance that.

However, I think one of the things that we have heard over the last number of years is a growing concern, especially in our constituency offices, with respect to WorkSafeBC and with respect to injured workers and the relationship between those workers and WorkSafeBC.

I know that I have a handful of cases, seemingly perpetually, of injured workers. I know that I’ve got two cases right now from outside of my constituency, simply because the MLAs of the areas that are responsible for where these individuals live were not prepared to provide any advo­cacy. We’re picking up that advocacy on behalf of those workers.

I think it’s important we recognize the changes that have been needed, the reports that have been written, the calls that have been made to this government, are being made, however slowly and however in a fragmented fashion — that we see them being made here.

This spring, I spoke to amendments to the labour code, and I said: “With the Patterson report collecting dust with 100 recommendations that authentically protect workers yet to be implemented, this B.C. NDP administration has ceded ground when it comes to workers.” So it is important that they’re making up that ground, and we see yet another piece of legislation here to be debated.

However, it’s not for them. I guess for the B.C. NDP, who have long claimed to be a workers party, it’s important for them from a political perspective. But for the sake of our constituents, for the sake of the work that we do in this place on behalf of the people of British Columbia, it’s really important that the work is being done to implement the Patterson report, the Petrie report, our Ombudsperson Jay Chalke’s report — that that work is being done by government, no matter what banner they’re flying, no matter what colour banner they have flying outside this building.

I was pointing out earlier in the spring the meagre progress that this government has made on the recommendations of the numerous labour reports that we’ve seen over the last years. I just referenced them, but I’m going to name them here: Janet Patterson’s report New Directions: Report of the WCB Review 2019; Paul Petrie’s 2018 report Restoring the Balance: A Worker-Centred Approach to Workers’ Compensation Policy and then the addendum of that report, Claim Suppression: The Elephant in the Workplace; and Ombudsperson of B.C. Jay Chalke’s report, Severed Trust: Enabling WorkSafeBC to Do the Right Thing When Its Mistakes Hurt Injured Workers.

Earlier in this session, earlier in the spring, I had some very pointed words as to where government and the systems that have been created here to support workers have left those workers without the support, without the care and without the resources that they need to be able to be looked after.

As has been said in the speeches prior to me standing and speaking to this, workers should have the expectation that they go to work and not get sick, that they should go to work and not get injured and that they should go to work and be able to come home at the end of the day. Those are the basic expectations that we have in this House and that we have in this society.

That’s the WorkSafeBC workers compensation system that we’ve set up. It was a system in which the premiums are paid, and the workers’ expectation is that when they are put in the unfortunate situation of having to access those resources, they will be there for them, and the people who are administering that system are there working on their behalf in order to ensure that they’re well looked after. Unfortunately, we’ve seen, through those reports that I just noted, that that’s not always the case.

[3:15 p.m.]

We as constituency MLAs see those cases come through our doors. It’s unfortunate. So it is important that this government is making these recommendations, and I think it’s also important to keep in mind the cost impacts as have been raised also.

For the sake of those that may be just joining the debate, I’ll just go over…. I know they’ve been mentioned previously, but I’ll repeat them again. The recommendations that are in this report will improve safety accountability and protections for workers. At a time, right now, where we see that workers in our economy are vulnerable, struggling to make ends meet, I think it’s just a basic provision that we can ensure that workers who also get injured or sick at work have the ability to be looked after. It’s nice to see that some of the recommendations that I talked about earlier in the spring, from the Patterson report, are finally being enacted, brought to the table for debate.

The legislation that we have in front of us today establishes a more independent fair practices commissioner with the authority to investigate complaints by workers and employers of alleged unfairness in dealings with WorkSafeBC. The office will be more independent than it currently is, and it will be an office within WorkSafeBC that will make recommendations to WorkSafeBC and deliver an annual report to this House.

It also establishes a clear employer duty to re-employ injured workers and to accommodate employees returning to work. It expands access to independent health professionals by allowing them to be requested as part of an appeal to the external Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal. The legislation requires interest to be paid on compensation benefits owed for 180 days or more.

It includes explicit provisions against claim suppression. This was a point that I made quite sharply, I believe it was in April of this year, with respect to Paul Petrie’s report. This has been in front of this government for some time, taking a look at the claim suppression that has been ongoing and that this government, for the last five years, has failed to address. It is going to make Mr. Petrie and it’ll make all those workers that have claims that perhaps have been suppressed quite happy to see that this government is addressing this issue.

It restores the indexing of workers compensation benefits to the consumer price index. I think there’s increased importance of that as we see inflation continuing to increase. Finally, this legislation increases the maximum compensation for non-traumatic hearing loss. These are all important steps that this government is taking to bring us in line with other Canadian jurisdictions and will serve to make B.C. a safer place for people to work.

I want to caution, though, as I do in these speeches, that government not use this progress as a shield against future and ongoing work. There’s much, much more work to do. We know that the compensation system has to be worker-centred. I think everybody here in the debate so far has been saying that. Certainly, the minister was saying it in his points earlier today.

We know that the dispute resolution process still needs to be redesigned. In a June interview, Janet Patterson, who I referred to earlier, highlighted this last issue, saying that there is “not even a whiff of comment” about redesigning the dispute resolution system. The changes before us today do not appear to overhaul this dispute resolution system.

All of this to say, the reality here is that for a party that has long worn the cap of the worker, a party that purports to be a labour party…. The reality is that we continue to raise these issues, and then they come to the table.

[3:20 p.m.]

This needs to be part of the government’s inertia. It needs to be something that drives this government, rather than having to have these issues be raised, and then, several months later…. If that’s the role this government wants to take and have the members of the opposition raising these issues about workers and workers’ rights — workers’ rights to be safe, workers’ rights to have a fair dispute resolution system — then that’s fine. Continue to provide that service. However, it is an expectation, I think, of workers that this current government be leading that, and I would expect to see those changes and changes in the culture of the government going forward.

We still have a long way to go, and there’s a lot more that needs to be done to protect workers. We’ll continue to raise those issues. And I think it is important, also, to acknowledge the comments that our colleagues have said previously, with respect to the fact that there is a challenge that this government has in making sure that they’re achieving a fine balance with the need to protect workers, to ensure worker safety and to ensure that there are dispute resolutions that are fair but, as well, to ensure that the decisions that are being made in this House are not putting an undue amount of pressure on a small business community that simply cannot carry any more.

That is a challenge that the Minister of Labour has and that, frankly, all of the members of this chamber have as we go forward here in a time in which we see increasing inflationary pressures not only on individuals and on businesses but also on the institution of government.

With that, Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity, and I’ll take my seat.

A. Mercier: It is an honour to stand here and speak to this bill today, the Workers Compensation Act amendments. I want to thank the Minister of Labour for doing the hard work to bring this forward. I want to take a moment in my brief remarks to just canvass what we’ve heard today in debate.

I would suggest to you that some of what we’ve heard from the other side has been absolutely egregious in terms of framing workers compensation and safe workplace protections as a dichotomy with a healthy economy — that you can have dignity for injured workers and a safe workplace or a healthy economy, and anything over here, in terms of helping injured workers and creating a safe workplace, somehow detracts from that. That is absolutely false. A healthy economy is built on a healthy workplace.

In particular, we heard the member for Shuswap talk about how he takes issue with the timing of these amendments, and we heard a lot about the timing from him. It seems that whenever it comes time to talk about changes that will help working people — and, in particular, changes that are going to help injured workers — there is always an issue with the B.C. Liberals on timing. I would say: if now is not the right time, then when is?

We would not have to even introduce this legislation and make these changes were it not for a set of brutal and vicious policy decisions and changes that were made in the early 2000s. The member for Shuswap can’t just roll over that with a misguided revisionist lesson on B.C. political history. Now, we heard from the member for Shuswap, saying: “This isn’t the right time. Costs are going up.” Well, not the right time to index the pensions of injured workers to inflation when costs are going up? That is absolutely the right time. That is absolutely the right time to help those workers.

The other thing we’ve heard is that there hasn’t been enough consultation. This is a peculiar theme, because in this House, the B.C. Liberals take umbrage with consultation any time there’s an engagement or any time the government seeks to reach out to stakeholder communities or people affected and consult, except when they don’t like the result, and then they say that there should be more consultation.

Well, the fact is that when they were in government and when they made these vicious changes to workers compensation, there was no consultation. They knew what they wanted to do. They acted quickly in the beginning of their term, and they absolutely gutted the workers compensation system, leaving a generation of injured workers behind. The focus in this debate ought to be on injured workers.

[3:25 p.m.]

We’ve heard how they’ve been referred, and it is absolutely mind-boggling — a line item, a cost burden, a risk. We heard the member for Peace River South say WCB is a hit to an employer’s bottom line. That is offensive. Injured workers are not cost burdens. They are not line items. They are people. They are people that deserve the same dignity as everyone in this House.

I just want to say that, in particular, for me, it’s personal. My mother is an injured worker. She gave her career as a nurse and ended up working in an emergency department, having multiple injuries from lifting people, having multiple back surgeries, leg surgeries, dealing with partial paralysis. And I grew up watching her deal with workers compensation my entire life, and she still is now. A lot of that comes from changes that were made in the early 2000s. So it is absolutely egregious to sit here and to listen to the opposition say this isn’t the right time.

That’s not all we’ve heard. We’ve heard the member for Shuswap say: “Well, employers have safe workplace policies, so really, that can do a lot of the work.” Well, look. When they were in office, they initiated a war on safe workplaces. They gutted WorkSafe. They gutted employment standards and turned everything to self-help kits.

We heard the member for Peace River South talk about the importance of training and how training makes safe workers. They gutted compulsory trades in a move so bizarrely characterized by ideology that not even the Mike Harris government followed them on that in Ontario.

They did all of this without any broad public consultation. So to sit here and say that there should be more consultation than the reams of consultation and engagement that have been done on this file — it is absolutely absurd.

I want to turn briefly to the act. I intend to keep my comments fairly brief, but this act is long overdue. It takes time to do the legislative work, to establish the technical changes and provisions and to build on this and to do the consultation properly to get to this point. It’s an auspicious day because this is going to help a lot of people.

It’s going to establish a fair practices commissioner within WorkSafe. I’ll say for the House: my background has been, as well as a worker and many other things I’ve done in my life, a labour lawyer. This will add a legal duty to accommodate for employers and re-employ workers who are injured at work. I can’t tell you enough what a positive impact that is going to have on injured workers and the harm that is done to so many injured workers that that provision has been lacking. That is absolutely huge.

Expanding access to independent health professionals to assist in deciding appeals and having good information, good medical information, from independent medical exa­miners to expeditiously hear an appeal is hugely im­portant. Interest on delayed benefit payments owed to the worker because of a review or appeal decision — that’s just common sense.

The thing that strikes me the most here, in addition to CPI, is establishing explicit provisions to prohibit employers from suppressing workers compensation claims. Claims suppression isn’t just anecdotal; it’s very, very real. I felt it personally when I slipped two discs in my back when I was driving a truck, and I had my employer come to me and actually have a consultant come to me and try to dissuade me from filing a compensation claim — not on the basis that I wasn’t injured but on the basis that it would affect their premiums.

Claims suppression is real. It’s incentivized, and we need explicit provisions to prohibit employers from engaging in that behaviour. This will make a real difference in the lives of injured workers.

Tying the annual indexing of workers compensation benefits for inflation to CPI, while eliminating the automatic 1 percent reduction from CPI that’s been in place since 2002 is huge.

I guess I’ll close just on contemplating that: an automatic 1 percent reduction for injured workers from CPI since their changes to workers compensation in 2002. That is vicious, that is unwarranted, and it’s about time that legislation is coming forward to change that.

[3:30 p.m.]

I am so proud of the work of the Minister of Labour for bringing this forward, and I can’t say enough good things about it.

D. Davies: First of all, it’s an incredible privilege and an honour to be able to rise here, first of all, on behalf of the opposition, as well as on behalf of the constituents and residents of Peace River North, to speak on Bill 41.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I just want to take a moment to give a few thoughts on the member for Langley, who just spoke before me, finding some of our inquiry and questions on this debate egregious. I find that quite puzzling.

Our role here, first of all, as opposition, is to ask questions, sometimes tough questions. We need to look at all pieces of legislation that go through this House and look at how they impact every single British Columbian. To ask about timing is absolutely critical. I’m not sure if…. The member for Langley says that we shouldn’t be asking questions, but that’s not the reality here in this place, which is where we debate these bills, look at these bills to make sure that we are looking at what is best for British Columbians, what is best for workers, in this case.

Like I say, the timing. Well, we’ve seen this government over and over again introduce legislation that has not been in the best interests of British Columbians, even though they may think it is. We’ve, as my colleague from Shuswap so well put it…. I do want to thank him for leading us off in this debate and his comments. There is lots in this bill that we do agree with, of course. We agree that we need to make sure that the WorkSafe legislation is improved. I’m going to talk a little bit more about that. Again, to have our comments seem egregious is just completely puzzling to me. I just wanted to raise that.

We have had so many challenges across British Columbia in these past couple of years, leading off, obviously, with COVID, which has dramatically impacted everybody. The opioid crisis. We have a health care system that has collapsed. On and on and on. There are many challenges facing British Columbians, all British Columbians.

As I mentioned, we are not opposed to improving Work­Safe, improving conditions for people that are injured, but we do question the timing right now. We do question the process right now. We do question the motive for doing this right now by this government.

A Coles Notes review of WorkSafe. It’s a system that gives workers the right to compensation for being injured on the job, to get them well, to get them back into the workforce. I think that is important to look at. It also gives employers immunity from lawsuits from injured workers. That system is about a balance between the worker, a balance between the employer, who relies on the workers compensation system. It depends on that balance, and it is an extremely important balance.

As many are aware, I, too, take this personally. I was in a horrific workplace accident in 2018 here in Fort St. John. I am a client of WorkSafe B.C. I do say “client” because it is a level of service that I do expect, as a client, and a certain level of respect that I do expect from WorkSafe. I’m still receiving medical treatment. It’s been really good dealing with WorkSafe. I think it’s really important that we do recognize the work and the folks that are working within WorkSafe — to recognize the important work that they do and to thank them for the work that they do.

[3:35 p.m.]

I think that’s kind of where I lead off on many of my remarks that I’ll be making on this, as it is personal. We do want to make sure that we see a system that is working for the worker, a system that is being improved for the worker at the end of the day. As my colleague mentioned — it’s been mentioned by speakers before me — generally, we are in support of this. But we do need to ask questions, and we are looking forward to going into committee stage on Bill 41 so that we can dive deeper into some of the recommended changes.

We also need to be looking at other jurisdictions. The member for Langley did mention Ontario and stuff, but we do need to look at other jurisdictions, not just Ontario but across the provinces, making sure that we are in line, that we are doing things better, that we are improving the system.

Unfortunately, we’ve seen this government repeatedly show this lack of balance that we’ve seen in other pieces of legislation that have been brought forward in this House, especially even around the labour piece. I remember being in this place debating the very, I say, discriminatory union benefits agreement or community benefits agreement and how that has negatively impacted, by and large, British Columbians. Removing the secret ballot — how that has had such a negative impact in labour. We’ve even seen most recently, as the member for Shuswap also pointed out, the role the friendly NDP unions have played in this recent leadership process that the NDP have just gone through.

We look at so many pieces around this legislation and how it will be implementing recommendations from the report by Janet Patterson, a report tainted by the fact that employers withdrew from the process over apprehension of bias by the former adviser of the B.C. Fed. We have a lot of questions around the lack of consultation and bias that is reflected in this Patterson report as well as the consultation process for this legislation. I’ll go a little bit more deeper here in a moment. But this is a government that proudly — well, maybe not so proudly — wears the badge of the most secretive government in Canada. These are the lenses that I look at.

Timing? Well, any piece of legislation that comes through this government we need to be looking at, because I do worry that this is going to have long-term negative consequences or unintended consequences. We need to be asking these questions. And time and time again we’ve heard from this government, on multiple pieces of legislation, around the poor job of consultation, the poor job of meaningful consultation.

People — as again, my colleague has pointed out — have reached out. Many organizations have reached out to us in the official opposition and spoken to us about their lack of consultation. Again, I’m going to talk about that momentarily. But this is real. These are real people. These are real folks that have reached out and shown concern around this piece of legislation.

At a time when costs are also increasing, we need to be looking at time. We are concerned. People have come to us that are worried that these costs are just going to be passed down on to these small businesses that are struggling, these small businesses that are the backbone of our economy, the backbone of British Columbia. This isn’t us putting workers before businesses or businesses before workers.

[3:40 p.m.]

As I mentioned, it is a balance. We need to make sure that we are supporting our businesses. We need to make sure that we are providing an environment where our businesses and companies can flourish in British Columbia so that we can have people employed and we can have people contributing to everything that we want, whether that, in the long run, looks at a good education system, a good health care system.

This balance — we want to make sure that government is getting it right. These are the questions that we will be asking on Bill 41 during committee stage, and I look forward to hearing some of the responses as we move into that stage.

I hear over and over again from not just businesses in my riding but…. We’ve heard — and I’ll guarantee the members opposite are also hearing these same phone calls, are getting the same phone calls from businesses in their riding — that they’re barely hanging on. The ones that, first of all, have made it through COVID, thankfully…. We’ve lost a lot of businesses that didn’t make it through COVID, but the ones that are still hanging on are hanging on by a thread. A lot of this is because of the financial burden that’s been placed on them over and over again since 2017.

I’m not going to go into great detail. I mean, others have done this already, and I’m sure others after me will do this. But this is a government that takes great pleasure in increasing the costs to our businesses and somehow imagining that there’s going to be no impact. Well, there is an impact, and that impact is that these businesses will close. These businesses will go elsewhere.

We’ve had tax increases, fees increased on businesses. We’ve had the stresses of wages, interest rate increases, labour challenges that we’ve had. Generally, the affordability — food costs rising through the roof, fuel prices. Supply chain issues that we’ve certainly seen come to light since COVID are still a huge challenge. Concerning, also, is the looming recession. We hear over and over again from economists that the future is not looking bright right now.

So Bill 41 — we need to ask those questions. What is this going to look like at the end? Yes, we want to make sure we are protecting workers — I am one of those workers — but we also need to recognize that the amount of burden that this government has pushed down on our businesses has been amazing. It’s been absolutely incredible.

Many times in this House, on different bills, this one included, I’ve brought up that British Columbia is one of the least competitive jurisdictions on the continent. I still stand by that. We need to make sure that we are in line with other jurisdictions, as well, when it comes to attracting, retaining businesses in our communities — our communities that rely on these businesses.

These businesses are the heart of our communities — the businesses that make our communities, the businesses that employ the people in our communities, the businesses that support our incredibly important not-for-profit sector. When we see the potential of more burden being pushed down on these businesses, that is really when I start to worry about the unintended consequences of Bill 41.

Again, this is not about that we disagree that we need to improve, but we need to make sure that we are asking questions when it comes to committee stage so that we know what the impacts are going to be. Are there things that government possibly might not have included, purposefully or otherwise? We need to ask those questions.

One of the things we also need to look at is that changes to the Workers Compensation Act in this bill come from the Patterson report, as mentioned, that was launched in April of 2019. The report was released in August of 2020. Now, when the report came out — and probably the latter half of the work that was done on this report, of course — we were in some pretty challenging times. If you recall, 2020 was when the world shut down. The world stopped because of COVID.

[3:45 p.m.]

We need to look at the environment that this report was done in as well. Those are going to be some of the questions that I’m sure my colleagues will be asking during committee stage around how this environment could have impacted these recommendations. Are those recommendations still going to be potentially appropriate, moving forward?

Again, questions that we need to be asking and hoping for appropriate answers on from the minister, because it was a very unique time, and we need to make sure that there…. Again, it’s all about unintended consequences that…. What was happening during 2020? How is that going to impact down the road? Is it still relevant? Those are going to be some of the questions that we use.

You know, I mentioned around the consultation piece, and this is where I probably…. I’m looking at my notes here. I jumped around a little much, and I should have stuck to my speaking points. But I’m going to go back to this, because this is quite alarming: around how Bill 41 became in regards to….

Multiple employer groups dropped out of the consultation basically because they saw an issue. I’m sure many recall the news at the time. I’m going to read, and I’ll read this right from the Victoria newspaper.

“Employer groups including the Business Council of B.C., the B.C. Construction Association and the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association wrote to retired labour lawyer Janet Patterson, the head of the B.C. government’s review Wednesday. They said the selected issues chosen by Patterson for review exceeded the mandate that they were expecting and matched closely with the report ten years ago commissioned by the B.C. Federation of Labour.

“‘The employer community is quite taken aback and dismayed with the extremely broad and far-reaching scope of these selected issues, and after giving the matter due consideration and consulting with various representatives of the employer community, we have determined that we have no choice but to cease all participation in the review’s process, effective immediately.’”

This was from Doug Alley, the Employers’ Forum, representing 46 business groups.

When we look at the recommendations and Bill 41, this piece of legislation, moving forward, it seems like there already is a dark cloud over top of this bill that we can’t ignore. We need to make sure again, as I mentioned earlier, what the motivation is, the process around getting here — make sure that it is in the best interest, again, of British Columbians and of workers that have been injured.

We heard already from one of my colleagues — I think it was maybe Saanich North and the Islands who mentioned it earlier — about the number of people that he gets into his office and files that he’s working on within WorkSafe. I can agree. I have a number of files at my constituency office around WorkSafe.

For the most part, again, for WorkSafe staff, my hat’s off. They’ve been great to deal with in helping us manage through this. But it is these folks that are that are struggling with the system that I will be keeping in mind to make sure that their voice is also going to be at the table as we move forward into committee stage. Because that is what this is all about: that balance that we spoke about. We need to make sure that that balance is appropriate, moving forward with this. So I do look forward to hearing more in committee stage. That’s going to be led by my colleague from Shuswap.

I’m not going to touch on a lot of what the bill does. We will go into that in much more detail here as we move into committee stage — around how the bill amends the Workers Compensation Act. Again, there’s much of it that we do agree on, but there are many questions that we also need to ask.

[3:50 p.m.]

I look at one recommendation, I think No. 67: “The Workers Compensation Act be amended to establish the office of the fair practices commission and appoint a fair practices commissioner by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council independent from Workers Compensation Board’s administration and reporting directly to the board of directors.” On the surface, it sounds great. It is probably a good thing to remove that or to bring a level of accountability to WorkSafe, but again, we do have questions around this government’s record on growing administration for the sake of growing administration, without any better outcomes.

That’s what this is all about. We need to make sure that the outcomes are better, with improvement in protecting the worker as well as that balance of making sure that we are not forcing our businesses to close down because they cannot afford to keep their doors open — which doesn’t do anybody any favours whatsoever.

I’m just going to kind of wrap up here. There’s lots in this bill around making sure we do protect the worker. We want to make sure that we never lose sight of that. At the end of the day, that is what we all want to make sure of — that we are protecting the worker. We also need to, as opposition, dive deeper into this bill to make sure that we are asking the right questions on behalf of all British Columbians and that we are holding this government to account on every piece of legislation that comes through here.

To find our questions egregious…. Quite frankly, I find that egregious. I encourage everybody in the House to look through a critical lens as they review any piece of legislation and ask the tough questions. At the end of the day, all 87 of us in this Legislature are there for that reason — to make sure that we are looking at the legislation for the betterment of every single British Columbian out there.

Hon. Speaker, I certainly want to thank you for your time. I do look forward to the committee stage on Bill 41, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, and getting to some of these tough questions. That might make government uncomfortable, but that is our job here: to ask the tough questions.

With that, I’ll take my place and look forward to listening to further speakers.

R. Merrifield: I am pleased to take my place in the second reading debate and at least provide some initial comments on Bill 41. Obviously, this is second reading. I’ll try not to get too into the details, because I recognize that we do need to update labour-related legislation. It’s vital in ensuring that British Columbia is a place that helps workers thrive and employers succeed. Protecting all parties involved, especially during times of difficulty, such as workplace injuries, is absolutely critical. This includes any mandated processes as well.

It’s with cautious optimism that I approach this amendment act, and I really am looking for the positive silver lining in it. Obviously, this is coming out of the New Directions report, also known as the Patterson report, launched in April of 2019 and then released in August 2020, which inspired the changes that this act represents. I have some concerns around that. I am trying to come at this particular bill without the preconceived notion that I would derive based on the report that was actually boycotted by many of the stakeholders that it would actually represent.

In some ways, it’s almost like a tainted report, because the employers actually withdrew, and my colleague from Peace River North just articulated all the different industry associations that withdrew from the process over apprehension of bias by the former adviser to the B.C. Federation of Labour. I’m going to note that this was quite controversial. With that, it is going to provoke more questions than maybe I would have had if that were not the case.

[3:55 p.m.]

This bill also attempts to bring aspects of the act in line with other jurisdictions. We do have best cases and good governance in other areas that we can follow.

Another aspect that I’m bringing to this conversation and this debate is that, unfortunately, the NDP has repeatedly shown a lack of balance regarding labour issues, from their discriminatory union benefit agreements and removing the secret ballot to the role of big NDP unions in their recent leadership process. We are seeing an effect on our businesses. Yes, we can go through the actual jobs numbers, which show that private industry has yet to really catch up to pre-pandemic levels, whereas public employment has soared throughout the course of these last two years.

Just recently, I met with a manufacturing company that was located in the Lower Mainland. They were moving. This is a business owner that I’ve known for more than a decade — a corporation that is literally 50 years old. I was really disheartened by this move. Obviously, yes, it’s the 800 to 1,000 jobs that it represents, but they’re also great-paying jobs in the biochemical engineering space, etc. When I asked why, the owner said: “Look, we’re dying a death of 1,000 cuts. At some point, we’ve got to jump over to Alberta before we actually bleed out.”

Yesterday, I heard the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan stand up and laud all the ways that the NDP have made things more affordable for British Columbians. I said that with quotation marks and waving hands, because I would disagree with what he said. What he neglected to say was that most of these measures have been actually just downloaded and put onto the backs of businesses.

He spoke of MSP. Well, EHT has absolutely hit businesses very hard — never mind the double-charging for foreign workers or the double-charging for international students. Then there are the taxes, which have been gone through by the member for the Shuswap. There are other taxes on housing that have created a less affordable housing industry. There’s a minimum wage that has continued to go up. I want to make sure that we keep wages competitive and absolutely on par with where they need to be, but — and I say “but” — it does make everything more expensive.

Then there were the five sick days — which, during COVID, made absolute sense. But now every business is giving five additional sick days to all of their employees. If I use even a public example of that, the RCMP is looking at 2 percent EHT as well as five additional sick days for all of their staff. If you look at that, what could be done with 2 percent? What could be done with that many more days?

These costs are all in these costs are all in addition to higher fuel costs, higher salaries, higher housing costs and higher WCB insurance costs. Deaths happen with 1,000 cuts. It’s no wonder that we haven’t seen the gains in the private sector. When I approach this bill, I want to see things like the balanced stability improvement that the report has — and the Restoring the Balance report that has also inspired some elements of this bill — and which have been integrated into it. I want to see those elements — not the elements, necessarily, of the report, but the elements that are chosen in the actual titles.

The bill implements several of the recommendations from the report, especially regarding interest paid on overdue wage loss and permanent disability benefits greater than 180 days, based on various factors. That makes a lot of sense. We’re not going to complain about things that are just practical and make sense. But how is this going to get paid for? How is this going to be costed out? Has that been done? These questions need to be answered as we move through into committee stage.

[4:00 p.m.]

Similarly, clause 4 helps guide the relationship between the worker and employer in situations where injury or other cases might cause a disturbance.

The bill also proposes the establishment of a fair practices commissioner by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, independent from the Workers Compensation Board’s administration and reporting directly to the board of directors. What authorities and powers is this agency going to have? Establishing a new agency and expanding government come with risks, and we want to ensure that the minister has considered all of these risks, especially regarding the execution of this launch.

We’ve seen this government fail to consult, at times, with relevant stakeholders regarding changes to industry. It doesn’t matter if it’s the forestry industry, the housing industry or now, with this bill. Were the stakeholders present? Was there consultation? Was there a sit-down meeting? Sure would have loved one of those when it came time to support the First Nations bid for the Olympics.

As the official opposition critic for gender diversity and inclusion, I’m interested in learning more about the effects that this bill takes to promote gender equality, especially for women and other marginalized groups in the workforce. How are they protected? How were they consulted? How is the consultative process actually inclusive of them?

We all saw what happens if these consultative processes aren’t met. We see the backlash. We see the mistrust. We see industry leaving. I would hate to see similar reactions with this bill. So it’s hard. We have a bill in front of us that is inspired by a report that industry didn’t participate in. So is industry supportive of this bill, or is this just another of the 1,000 cuts?

I wonder if there’s been consultation done specifically with groups such as women, people of colour, Indigenous peoples, to really examine it, to see whether this legislation prevents those people from falling through the cracks of a system that has continuously let them down. This bill strikes a tone of balance, or at least aspires to. But how will we know for sure without due process and examination through committee? We don’t.

B.C.’s workers compensation system gives workers the right to compensation for being injured on the job while providing employers immunity from lawsuits from injured workers. For a sustainable industry and healthy worker-employer relationships, ensuring that all parties are protected is in the government’s best interests. Keeping workers safe is in everyone’s best interests. However, we also need to keep in mind that businesses and employees need consistency and stability, and we need to really examine how this legislation affects that. If it’s not consistent, it can result in adversely negative effects.

Take, for instance, the implementation of the five sick days. As it was being implemented, there were errors in how those days were calculated in the calendar year. That cost some businesses ten sick days because the legislation wasn’t correctly implemented. It can hurt businesses, and it can hurt workers, if it’s not done correctly.

The act, specifically clause 9, requires the retention of a health professional for advice and information. What happens if someone, on the weekend, goes for a jog and rolls their ankle but claims that it was done on Friday afternoon at 3 p.m., on a job site? Well, this independent medical opinion on Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal — that could be expensive if there are not guidelines that are actually utilized on how that can be asked for.

[4:05 p.m.]

While WorkSafe’s unappropriated balance is more than $5 billion…. Well, that was last year. That unappropriated balance is subject to this year’s market volatility, so we don’t know what that amount is. The distribution of these funds must be appropriately planned, monitored and executed, and I know that businesses would have loved a little bit of a rebate. Businesses were still paying their WCB insurance amounts even though they were shut down, even though they were not employing anyone during certain seasons of COVID, which is part of the reason that WorkSafeBC has such a large unappropriated balance and that we didn’t see more claims.

We also know that safety has shifted on sites. We know that all employees, all employers are taking more precautions and are doing a better job of keeping each other safe. So a rebate would have been a nice way to reward businesses for great work during a pandemic and maybe just a little band-aid on one of those 1,000 cuts. But instead, we’ve got those finances going towards the aspects that are inside of this bill that we’re not even sure what they are, because they haven’t been quantified yet.

So we’re going to have some questions concerning the financial sustainability of these changes and how these changes are going to affect rates, because right now, we can’t afford another cut. We’re coming off of a few very challenging years for small businesses, who continue to face cost pressures. Inflation is hammering them, and not just inflation, but interest rates. You can’t fix very much of a commercial loan. So our businesses are paying much more for interest costs.

This may have a similar effect, and we need to make sure that increasing the costs that businesses have to face doesn’t happen, because that’s only going to drive up the cost for everyone. We are living in a cost-of-living crisis, and the government needs to recognize the need to be driving business costs down and not up.

Gas prices — well, they’re up. Renting — well, that’s way up. Our labour shortage means that salaries are way up, and the salaries in the private sector have outpaced the public sector in terms of how much more they have gone up.

Under this NDP government, getting by, for workers and for employers, has only gotten tougher. At a time when costs are increasing for small businesses and they are bleeding out with the death of 1,000 cuts, we want to ensure that these costs are kept under control, including WorkSafeBC rates.

That’s why I look forward to asking questions surrounding the cost of the independent medical opinions on employers and the CPI rate adjustments on WorkSafeBC rates, because any hikes to CPI rates or business costs…. Well, those could be detrimental, and we have no idea how this government has actually taken them into account.

We’re also going to look forward to clarifying what undue hardship means within this legislation. Overall, I love the premise. I love the premise of this bill, as it seeks to find a balance of protecting both workers and employers when dealing with complaints, claims and injuries. Ultimately, it’s also crucial to acknowledge and award the many employers and businesses that take initiatives to ensure that their employees are safe. Employers that are responsible, employers that invest in the well-being and safety of their personnel not only save more in the long run but are more likely to run sustainable business practices that provide for longevity and growth.

[4:10 p.m.]

What if you’re a construction company and you’re COR-certified? How is that acknowledged within this bill? How will this bill protect those companies?

We should be supporting all employers in B.C. to approach these standards by way of business success and accessibility and always aim to cut bureaucracy while maintaining regulation that promotes these standards of safety. Within this bill I see another layer of bureaucracy, another organization within an organization that could add more time, add more cost and not get us to a better result.

While I am concerned about the consultation process of this policy’s effectiveness…. Who was at the table? How were their voices heard? How will this actually impact the cost of business during times of extraordinary financial hardship, with inflationary pressures and cost pressures, with everything going up?

We look forward to further discussing this bill in the committee stage, especially regarding the costs that this is going to have on both business and workers.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Peace…. Sorry, Kamloops–North Thompson.

P. Milobar: That would be one heck of a boundary readjustment, Mr. Speaker. But you never know what’s going to happen with the electoral boundaries; that’s for sure.

Thank you for this time to speak on Bill 41. We’ve heard a lot today from members on our side, and it’s around those concerns and around trying to better understand what the impacts of Bill 41 will have on employers and employees, both positively and negatively, because there are no absolutes when you get into starting to change these.

As we’ve heard, there has been occasion, more frequent than not, frankly, where this government has brought in legislation that has had errors in it, that needs correcting, that needs adjusting. We just went through that with ride-hailing, with legislation that’s only three years old that needed several amendments brought into it because of things that were missed or not done in the first place.

When we talk about the timing of Bill 41, there are lots of ways to look at that timing. One way — the lens I look at it on — is, yes, it needed to have consultation and, yes, it’s based on the Patterson report, the New Directions report, but there are other parts of timing that are critical to making sure important pieces of legislation are properly scrutinized and dealt with. The member for Langley used some pretty dramatic language to try to explain his thoughts on labour history in British Columbia and how various governments have dealt with it. But the reality is that timing is important.

So when we’re standing here in the Legislature, looking at Bill 41…. When the Legislature first started sitting on October 3, for this particular session, and we see this legislation and have our first chance to look at it and scrutinize it as the government is removing four days of debate in this chamber — or at least attempting to, wanting to — out of a scarce few days we have left, that’s bad timing. That’s bad timing all the way around.

It does not serve the public well. It doesn’t serve the employees well. It doesn’t serve the businesses that will be impacted by this bill well that a government would sit on a piece of legislation for over half of the weeks that we’re here and then drop it in at the same time as they’re removing debate days out of the calendar. That is a concern when it comes to: what is this bill missing? What is the unintended consequence, or frankly, what is the intended consequence that the government just doesn’t want to actually talk about with this bill — and hope that it gets missed?

We’ve seen this before. We saw it with two forestry bills that got brought in and had to be debated simultaneously, both with time allocation put on them so they couldn’t get the proper scrutiny instead of being brought in earlier in the session.

[4:15 p.m.]

It’s a repeated pattern with this government, and now we’re seeing it play out with Bill 41.We’re seeing it play out with Bill 41 when it comes to the Workers Compensation Amendment Act and what the true impacts will be.

Why people should be concerned is that when you hear that industry groups and employer groups walked away from this process, walked away in 2019 from having input with the Patterson report because of the strong feeling of bias…. And that report is what has been the basis for these changes for Bill 41. You have to really ask yourself: what would make groups that had a seat at the table — that had a voice, that are not considered shrinking violets by any measure when it comes to advocating for their own points of view — and to drive them to walk away from the table…?

Then even more importantly, the lack of recognition of the seriousness of that decision by government — to try to figure out a way to re-engage those groups back into a process where the end result is going to dramatically impact them…. But that’s not what this government did with Bill 41. They shrugged, and they said: “Oh, well. We’re just going to continue on, and we’re not going to reach out.”

Again, a similar pattern. We saw it with the Indigenous Olympics bid: “We’re not going to bother to reach out. We’ll just tell them once the decision has been made.” Not exactly free and prior or informed consent on that aspect — no, sir.

On Bill 41, when we stand up to raise concerns and then start to hear the elected response from government coming back with such over-the-top language earlier, it does start to raise flags of worry, because that’s what this process is designed to do. It’s designed to have proper, well-thought-out questioning, scrutiny brought forward on bills.

On Bill 41, there is a lot to question, because there is a lot of change within this bill. There’s a lot of change that will impact businesses’ abilities to stay competitive. I know the government wants to try to portray us raising these concerns as if we’re anti-worker somehow. That is not the case. It’s a shocking mindset from government that they think that should not even ever be a consideration — that the competitiveness of businesses should never be a consideration, at a time when we’re under threat of losing businesses and operations to Alberta.

They’ve launched a big “Move to Alberta” campaign. We’re seeing people take them up on that, because their cost of living, their cost of housing…. You can have a good-paying job in Alberta, a family-supporting job, and actually have a house to support your family in. But that’s not what we’ve seen unfold in British Columbia.

When you keep adding costs, of course all the other prices are going to keep rising. So there is a legitimate concern as to what the economic impact of this bill will be on employers, on employees. Will it result in a scaling back of hours and shifts that employers might have to do? That impacts the employee base as well.

I know the government seems to think that there’s never a bad tax to be levied and there’s never a bad time to increase costs to businesses. But when you see a government that has increased taxation by $12 billion annually now — collecting $12 billion more in taxation in one fiscal year, more than when they took office in 2017 — there is a finite point where that’s not sustainable. It can’t simply be that we just keep hiring public sector employees, because that’s what the government has done to this point.

[4:20 p.m.]

The lens, when we look at Bill 41, of what that does to a cost pressure, to the overall employee base and the employer base in British Columbia, is critically important. When you layer that, if it’s a few percent extra cost on your WCB premiums with your few percent extra costs on employer health tax, with your few percent extra costs when it comes to five paid sick days, because that’s about a 2 percent hit to payroll every year….

When you start adding up all those 1 and 2 percentages, it’s no wonder that employers, especially smaller businesses, are struggling more and more and more and are rightfully concerned about what impact legislation like Bill 41 will have on their ability to actually keep their doors open.

The government always wants to frame it as the business owner is some multi-millionaire faceless entity that is simply trying to squeeze every last penny out of their business. The reality is most of them are small business owners that have invested all of their time and their life savings into their businesses. Right now what they’re concerned about….

Interjection.

P. Milobar: The Finance Minister, instead of heckling, might want to actually pay attention to this, because what the small businesses are actually concerned about is being competitive enough to actually keep their doors open, to actually be able to operate their business. They’re not even making a profit of any consequence right now.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

P. Milobar: Lease rates are up astronomically in commercial real estate right now, under this government’s watch.

When businesses have a concern about Bill 41, it shouldn’t be just laughed at by the government. It should be taken seriously. But it’s not taken seriously. We raise these concerns because that’s how business owners get their concerns raised in this chamber. They elect people to come here and speak on their behalf on these issues. We get our statements and half sentences twisted out of context completely by government MLAs trying to press upon….

Interjections.

P. Milobar: Thank you. I know I never do that.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: The member from Kamloops has the floor, please.

P. Milobar: That’s why the repeated cost pressures…. Every time a piece of legislation comes in front of this House with a cost pressure, when we are raising concerns around that, those are valid, legitimate concerns in the business community. The government chose to not engage with the business community on this bill. They will point to the fact that the business community stepped away from a process that was fundamentally flawed.

Instead of recognizing that — instead of the government saying to those business associations, “Why did you engage? Why did you disengage? What can we do to get this process back on track to make sure everyone is properly listened to and consulted on this?” — and, instead, to fulfil an ideological imperative, it was: “We’re going to just stop talking to the employers. We’re going to forge ahead. We’re going to base a bill on a report that those same employers walked away from as it was being developed because of the fear of extreme bias.”

So you bet we’ve got a lot of questions around this. And you bet we have a lot of concerns that need to be addressed.

Certainly, as with any piece of legislation in this chamber, if it hasn’t been updated in several years, of course you have to modernize legislation to reflect modern times and modern situations. We don’t take issue with that at all.

Of course, workers should not face retaliation if they file a claim for compensation. Those are not the types of things that we’re taking issue with or wanting to get a better, deeper understanding of with this bill.

It’s a very technical bill. When you read through it, it’s a very dry read. You would definitely have to be more inclined to read the legalese and understand the existing act and how the amendments are going to work and interplay and change things. But because of that complexity, it actually does open itself up to errors happening — honest errors sometimes; sometimes glaring errors.

[4:25 p.m.]

More importantly, which recommendations were acted upon, and which ones weren’t? And why? Why were some recommendations deemed to make the cut and others not? If you had two recommendations, was the intent of the report for those two recommendations both being implemented to actually maximize the efficiency and how well those changes would work? But only implementing one of those changes actually reduces the effectiveness of it? Those are the types of things we need to dive into. Those are the types of things we need in committee stage.

Yes, when I hear the timing of a bill that has this much complexity to it, that can have this much impact to workers, to employers, to the overall financial health of those employers and, by extension, the ability for them to employ people…. I see the timing of this bill coming in on the last days of this session, when we’ve been here since October 3, coupled with the fact it happens after the government has announced that they’re removing fully one-third of the remaining debate days left in this chamber.

We are now down to, very shortly, six days left of debate to look at Indigenous child welfare bills, a health colleges act and now a workers compensation amendment act — important, highly technical bills.

The government is removing four days. We should have ten days left. It’s what we should have. My understanding is that most of the government caucus is actually going to be here that week that they’re removing the debate days. I know our caucus is still coming to do their job. Apparently, they just don’t want to be held accountable and actually answer questions about legislation, like Bill 41, in this chamber.

Interjections.

P. Milobar: It’s interesting. I can hear the ministers try to be conversational with their heckling: “Oh, did they always have fall sessions?” There’s a big difference. If you don’t call a fall session, it’s because you said you didn’t work bringing forward legislation.

When you call a fall session and then wait until the last week and a half to introduce major legislation like Bill 41 while removing debate days at the same time, you’re essentially saying: “Yeah, we actually had some legislation to work on. We just don’t want the public to actually have any eyes on it. We don’t want to have to be answerable to it. We don’t want to have any type of scrutiny and accountability to it. We certainly, as the most secretive government in Canada, don’t want any transparency on it.”

That’s the result of introducing Bill 41, having it on debate with six days to go on the legislative calendar, when we should have had ten days left. There is a big difference.

This bill has the very real possibility that it’s not as balanced as the government wants us to think it is. It does need to find that balance. Of course, workers need to be protected. Of course, injured workers, especially, need to be protected. In a perfect world, they wouldn’t be getting injured on the job at all, but we know workplace injuries happen, and not always catastrophic injuries but ones that can seriously impact your quality of life, especially if it’s things like repetitive strain and muscular issues with your back. Those types of issues can severely impair your mobility and your quality of life to get around easily. Of course, those need the proper supports in place.

[4:30 p.m.]

To make sure they’re being delivered in a cost-effective way so that businesses aren’t being unduly charged against their payroll costs I don’t think is too much to ask. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for employer groups to make sure that things are being done efficiently and effectively and cost-effectively so they can try to stay competitive.

At a time when they’re competing against the Amazons of the world, at a time when small businesses have people going into their shops to try things on, to figure out what brand and size they want, only to go and leave and literally order it off of their phone in the parking lot, and they lose out on the sale…. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for those employers to know that things are being done in a cost-effective way with changes to the Workers Compensation Act.

As we get into committee stage, with the precious little time we will actually have to try to dig into this bill because of those four days’ worth of debate, for unknown reasons, being removed, we’re going to ask those questions. We’re going to dig into the balance.

It’s simply not good enough for the minister to stand up or one or two MLAs to stand up, from the government side, and say: “Oh, don’t worry about it. It’s got balance. Let’s move on. Don’t worry about it. We introduced it with six days to go in the legislative calendar. It should have been ten days to go, but we removed four of those days. We don’t need the scrutiny. Trust us. It’s fine.”

If we weren’t repeatedly finding errors in legislation that was brought forward to this House, you might be able to buy that, Mr. Speaker. But there is error after error after error being discovered when we dig into these pieces of legislation. It’s bad enough that the legislation gets delayed as long as it does, but then to still have it riddled with errors when it finally comes forward is shocking.

As we dig into this highly technical bill, with much complexity in how it interrelates with the existing act, we’re going to have those questions. Our critic for Labour has a lot of experience on this, and I trust that he will be coming forward with thoughtful, pointed questions that, yes, might make the government a little uncomfortable from time to time. If it’s truly as balanced a legislation as Bill 41 is purported to be, that shouldn’t be perceived as a threat. But that’s what you hear the member for Langley trying to characterize our words as.

We know this bill will pass. That’s not the point. All the legislation should pass simply because of numbers. That doesn’t mean the public deserves less scrutiny on the legislation in front of this chamber. It doesn’t mean, as we work through Bill 41, that because of a snap pandemic election and seat numbers due process and proper scrutiny of bills shouldn’t happen. That’s not how our system is designed. Our system is designed so that as we drill through Bill 41, as we look at the consequences this will have, positively and negatively, for employers, positively and negatively for employees….

I have news for the government side. WorkSafe is not the most revered organization out there. If you talk to people who have been injured on the job, trying to access WorkSafe, a lot of times, is a struggle for them. And if they get turned down, the appeal process is a struggle for them. If you talk to employers, a lot of times they’re not really thrilled. So when you have an organization that’s there to both help employees and work with employers, and neither of them feel that they’re being overly well served, it means there are some issues there.

[4:35 p.m.]

Us digging into Bill 41 to see what these changes will do…. It might improve things. That would be a good thing. But it’s getting a little rich continually hearing government speakers stand up, on bill after bill, shocked that we might have concerns with things they’re bringing forward.

If they can’t understand, after being voted the most secretive government in Canada, that we start to wonder about the true intentions of Bill 41…. When it gets introduced not on October 3, when we first started sitting in this fall session, but as the government is literally yanking away four days of debate, the precious few days we have left, that is a problem with timing. That is a problem with rushing it through. It’s a problem with not having good, public, open, transparent conversations about legislation like Bill 41, which will directly impact employers and directly impact employees. I think the public deserves much better than that.

Hopefully, it’s not too late. Hopefully, the government will see the light and rescind their idea of removing four days of debate from our calendar. Like I say, I understand they’re all going to be down here anyways. They might as well just walk down the hall from their offices and pop in here for a little bit of committee stage so we can properly scrutinize these bills. Hopefully, that will happen so that Bill 41 gets the proper scrutiny it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time on Bill 41. I look forward to hearing my other colleagues’ comments.

T. Halford: My colleague to my immediate right made some very good points. I’ll pick up where he left off.

I understand that we all have an important job to do, whether we’re in Victoria or whether we’re back home in our constituencies. But I think what’s imperative to us, when we are here to debate legislation that this government puts forward, is that that be given proper due process.

The fact is that we are…. This is a bill that was just introduced. Government has stated…. It’s, obviously, a very important, very critical bill, and we’ll go through that in depth at committee stage.

They have introduced this piece of legislation. There is another piece down the hall, where my colleagues are debating the Minister of Health on a bill that has 650 sections. This bill here, I would say, is obviously very important. But for it to be introduced so late….

The fact is that we’ve now heard from the government that they are eliminating four days from the session. We had this experience in a past session, where closure was invoked on some very important legislation. Here we are on Bill 41, in second reading. And you have to wonder: is it planned to jam these items through, or is this just poor planning on behalf of government?

I do know that people have an expectation — at least in my riding and, I think, throughout the ridings in British Columbia — that we do what we say we’re going to do to the best of our abilities. I will echo what my colleague said. This is, obviously, very important legislation here with Bill 41, and there is no justifiable reason for why four days have been yanked from this legislative calendar when we could be continuing debate, when we could be going and having an extensive committee dialogue on this bill.

We, as a caucus…. I know a number of us plan to be in Victoria. I’ve heard that a number of the government side plan to be in Victoria. If we’re all in Victoria, I think there’s an expectation from our constituents that we’re in this House doing the work that we’ve been elected to do. That includes talking about Bill 41, whether it’s in second reading or whether it’s in committee. When we’re talking about items like Bill 41, I think it’s important to note….

[4:40 p.m.]

We are a province that is based on, a lot of it, small business, economically. I know in my riding in Surrey — and in White Rock, for that matter — over 90 percent of businesses are small businesses, and what we tend to see out of an NDP government is…. NDP governments usually get big business. Big business becomes small business, and small business goes out of business quite often. When we talk about the layers that keep being added on…. My colleague talked about increased taxes — $12 billion more annually, increased taxes since 2017.

At some point, people, businesses…. They have a breaking point, and when we look at the added cost here and we look at…. The fact is that with workers compensation there are added costs, whether it’s premiums or other items. But we have heard, and I know government has heard this as well, that businesses, especially small businesses, are at that point if not beyond.

I can speak from my own family’s history. My mom owns a restaurant in White Rock, and I know that layer after layer of costs, whether it’s the five added sick days, which…. We know there’s good reason for that, but that’s a cost to business owners. The employer health tax — that’s another additional cost to business owners.

You look at the increase of food, the increase of fuel. It gets layered on, and it’s hard to keep up. So I will say that we really need to be looking at it through a lens. How are we making life easier for employers who can then make life better for employees?

We talked about…. The fact is that the New Directions report, also known as the Patterson report, which was launched in April 2019 and released in…. I think it was August of 2020. It was really kind of the inspiration to the changes in this act, and this legislation, I understand, implements some of the recommendations from the report by Janet Patterson.

But it’s a report that comes…. I won’t say it was slighted, but maybe differently viewed for the fact that employers actually, at a point, withdrew from the process. They walked away from the table believing that there was a bias from the former adviser to the B.C. Federation of Labour. I think that’s an important connotation which I’ll come back to.

Obviously, this was quite controversial, but it’s a theme, I think, that is very repetitive with this government, whether it’s that we’re talking about a lack of transparency, which we’ve seen, but also a lack of consultation, whether it’s the Olympics, which were canvassed in this House, or it’s on a piece of legislation like this, on Bill 41.

It’s becoming more and more evident to, I think, a lot of British Columbians that if your opinion is different from this cabinet’s, it’s not an opinion that’s going to be overly welcomed by this government. That goes for a number of things, whether it’s the forestry industry, whether it’s child care operators, whether it’s small business owners. If you have a difference of opinion, if you’re feeling that the burden is too heavy, this is not a government that’s going to be overly friendly to your concerns.

We’ve seen from this government a lack of balance regarding labour issues, whether they’re union benefit agreements that add added costs, whether it’s the Pattullo Bridge or other items that this government is undertaking — the added costs that are being layered on to the taxpayers.

We talked about the removing of secret ballots. We spent a fair bit of time on that last session. Also, when you look at the NDP and their lack of balance regarding labour issues, labour played a fairly significant role in this leadership race.

[4:45 p.m.]

The balance and stability improvement report and the Restoring the Balance report have also inspired some elements of this bill, which have been integrated. The bill implements several of the recommendations from the report, especially regarding interest paid on overdue wage loss and permanent disability benefits greater than 180 days, based on various factors. Notably, the bill provides protection for workers who may face retaliation for filing compensation claims. That’s important.

I think that we as a caucus have the utmost faith in our Labour critic. I know that at committee stage, he will be canvassing these items extensively. But we do need to make sure, too, that we have the time to do that.

I do know that when we look at the act, specifically clause 9, it requires the retention of a health professional for advice and information. The independent medical opinion on the Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal has its merits. However, I would have questions about how this impacts the length and cost of claims. What is this item? What is this specific act going to do when you’re saying the independent medical opinion on the Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal…? How is this going to impact the length of a claim and the cost of a claim?

For those that have been involved in businesses, whether they’re large or they’re small, but particularly small businesses…. They depend on that certainty. They depend on that certainty of cost, knowing where the goalposts are. I think that this is a government that many would argue has continuously moved those goalposts. It’s very hard for small businesses to know where this government is going because the playing field continually changes.

Another issue is cost. WorkSafe has an unappropriated balance of more than $5 billion from last year, which is obviously subject to market volatility. But the distribution of these funds has got to be appropriately monitored and executed. That is something, again, that my colleagues will be canvassing in committee.

I think overall that we will have questions on the financial sustainability of these changes to the Workers Compensation Act, and it will be through the lens of: does it protect the worker? But also, what will it do, and how will it affect rates to the employer? I think, obviously, we are coming off a very challenging time for small businesses who continue to face cost pressures. We all have stories of small businesses in our communities that have come to us seeking help. Virtually every cost for small business is rising, and we need to make sure that WorkSafeBC rates are kept under control.

This is why I think it’s going to be important to ask questions on the cost regarding independent medical opinions on employers and the CPI rate adjustments on WorkSafeBC rates. Any hikes to CPI rates or business costs can be severely detrimental. It’s something that we hope the government has taken into account — the impact on these small businesses. We have to look at…. When we talk about clarifying undue hardship, what does that mean? Overall, we do understand that this is legislation that is very important.

It’s also at a time where we need to ensure that it is vetted. That we are able to have debate in committee. That it is able to be properly canvassed. That we are able to have that consultation with small business, big business and employers and employees, to hear from them, to see what is working and what is not, particularly with WorkSafe, to hear about the challenges and to hear about the opportunities.

[4:50 p.m.]

I’ll go back to my earlier remarks — that every small business in B.C. right now is feeling the crunch. We know that. We have to be looking at everything through that lens in terms of: how are we protecting workers? But also, how are we making sure that these businesses stay open and that they’re able to grow and not be remortgaging their houses to make payroll and not be maxing out their lines of credit to purchase inventory? Every element of that matters.

I do look forward to seeing my colleague in here on committee stage and canvassing this extensively. With that, I will take my seat.

B. Stewart: It’s a pleasure to rise today. I want to say that I read this bill with great interest. I say that meaning I think it’s always important, when we’re talking about the balance that’s required in terms of between employers and employees, the relationship, and how we best build that so that it’s the strength and not something that is taking away from the relationship…. There has been, certainly, a history in terms of the relationship between governments and both labour as well as employer organizations.

We’re talking about this particular bill here just as we had an unfortunate incident a few days ago up in the northwest part of British Columbia at the Brucejack mine, where a worker…. There was a loss of life. The situation…. When it’s so far away, I often do wonder — the attention that is needed to take care of something, especially in something as large and as complex as a mining operation, where it’s underground and there’s hard-rock mining going on. I think about that when I read this bill, Bill 41. There is an effort to try to find balance in certain things where I think it does need to be. But, unfortunately, sometimes that balance is skewed by interpretation.

I know that my colleagues that have spoken before me have talked a fair amount about the New Directions report, known as the Patterson report. I think that one of the things that we fail to recognize…. I would encourage the minister and the government to look deeper in terms of how we find commonality in terms of what we’re trying to do in terms of legislation, especially when it comes to this.

We’re in a very competitive world, as we know. We know that part of what’s happened over the number of decades, and having worked abroad and also been involved in export markets from my own personal experience, etc.… The nature of competitiveness is something that needs to be understood on both sides.

I think about a book that I read years ago, written by John DeLorean, called On A Clear Day You Can See GM. I think about how it contrasted General Motors, what it was like in those days when DeLorean was the president, to what the Japanese automakers were doing and the relationship. I’ve been in Japan, and I’ve been on the factory floors there. I’ve watched the way that the businesses and the labour, as well as the financiers — the banks that invest in that — all work together to help grow the piece of pie and look at: how do we compete on a global basis? I mean, Japan is not a low-cost producing area.

[4:55 p.m.]

The key there would be productivity and the things that they look at in terms of how we do these things that make us not only qualitatively better but from a point of view of how we make it so that it works. I have to say that in that particular book, it clearly showed that there was a disconnect in terms of the North American model. I think that that clearly is where a lot of the imbalance has occurred, both in North America and British Columbia. The adversity just doesn’t really lend itself to what I think are the best outcomes, which I think, in Bill 41, is what we’re all striving to do.

I know some of my colleagues have talked about the amount of time that we’re going to have to debate this. It would be just great if we could rush straight into committee stage on this and start debating the whole idea about the individual clauses and what it means. But I think, overall, this opportunity in second reading gives us the opportunity to talk about, holistically, what the things are that…. Certainly, I would be more than happy, if I were the critic, to work with the Labour Minister.

I know that there are many members in our caucus that would like to try to find that balance. I think that is one of the concerns in terms of some of the things that this Bill 41 is based on — some of the recommendations. Frankly, some of the recommendations by the New Directions report are not so out of balance. But what is out of balance is the fact that somewhere along the line in that report, the people that were being consulted and talked to felt that it was really a one-sided point of view, which is not the right way to kind of find this balance.

So I think what we should be looking at is: how do we do the things in a competitive, cost-effective manner? I think that when we talk about WorkSafe, that’s what we should be looking at. Do we have a competitive, commonsense approach to making certain that what we’re trying to do here is find a way of bringing things together?

How do we make it so that British Columbia, which…? I mean, by doing what we’re doing…. We’ve heard all the costs, the added sick days and all of those things and the numbers, etc. But at the end of the day, it comes down to whether we can remain competitive in a global sense and how we can do that.

Good to see the minister here, because I know that he is very committed to this. I do think that this particular bill strives to do that. I think that what we often don’t do enough of is collaborate, work together and look at the bigger picture about what it is.

I mentioned the incident in the northern mine the other day, etc. That’s tragic. The fact that it has happened at least twice before in that particular setting is disconcerting and not healthy in terms of what it is that we’re trying to do.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

How did we get to this point where we have a system…? I think that, in some cases, maybe it’s not as valued by the employers as it should be — and, in some cases, by the employees that look at it. They say the same thing. They say: “Well, how can I take advantage?” I just think that one of the things that we should be doing is…. How do we get it so that we come together and make it so that we both trust enough? Just as I was describing, the employee, the people that were manufacturing and the financiers in the model in Japan…. That was revered by a lot of people that were looking at it as being a different way forward.

I do think that in this particular case, we do have to find the right balance. We need to make certain that worker safety is protected. The fact is that there are components within this, I do have to say, that I find reasonable — the fact that interest could be paid on the outstanding amounts that Workers Compensation is owing to somebody that has obviously had an injury claim.

[5:00 p.m.]

More importantly, is it balanced? I do think that when it comes to trying to build the trust that we’re talking about, we need to have it so that employees don’t feel that they need to rely on something like, maybe, an injury that is not very evident or not easy to ascertain. I know that WorkSafe probably has a fair amount more resources than any employee that would be injured and coming to them under the basis that they need to be assessed or whatever.

I think the culture is probably not necessarily one of looking at what’s right but one of how we can mitigate costs. We see that with other government insurance programs, like ICBC. I realize that that’s the culture and the nature of those things: we have kind of a clashing of ideals, etc. We’ve got insurance on one side, and we’ve got the people that are injured on the other side, and we need to find a balance between those.

I think, when I go back to the Patterson report: why would that be where employers have chosen to sit out? Why would they draw a line in the sand, rather than trying to find the solution or the path forward? Why would we not be looking at best practices in other areas?

How do we look at competitiveness? How do we make WorkSafeBC a more competitive organization, so that it’s one item within the whole cost structure of an economy and that we can all sit down and say, “We have a competitive, outstanding program,” rather than one that everybody complains about, doesn’t buy into and says, “Oh no, it’s way too high a cost,” and all of these other things.

I really do think that it’s one of the aspirations that, as government, we should be trying to do: bring both sides together. Maybe that’s a little bit rich for aspirational goals. I do think that trust is really important. I think balance between government, business and employers is very important in trying to bring a constructive discussion and making certain that we understand the loopholes or where there are pitfalls — whether it’s the legislation or the way that what was intended is going to be abused by one side or the other.

Unfortunately, there’s a high degree of skepticism that, as opposition members, we’re inclined to bring forward because we’ve seen, over the last five years, acts and legislation brought in that are, I would say, imbalanced. They’re not necessarily looking at the best interests of everybody in that whole economic picture, which includes not just the employees but the people that are footing the bill for the extra costs.

Take the CBAs, the community benefit agreements. I know that they’re challenged by the same thing employers are challenged with today: a lack of a labour force that’s there, willing and ready to work and available to get projects done that they need to do.

The bottom line is that this is a competitive market. We’re seeing it with labour, and we should be thinking of bills like Bill 41 in the same light. What are the additional costs? Did we improve the way that the process works by adding streamlining to the process? If I’m at WorkSafe, am I able to come up with a way of making an easy determination? It’s clear-cut, it’s easy, and it’s precise. I think that that’s one of the things that we certainly would like to see, especially in committee stage.

I know that another report, called Restoring the Balance, has inspired some of the elements of this bill, which have been integrated into it. The bill has several recommendations — especially, as I mentioned, the interest paid on overdue wage losses and permanent disability benefits greater than 180 days — based on various factors.

Those are reasonable, and I personally can’t understand why there would be an exclusion in this case. I mean, when I am owed money by the Canada Revenue Agency, they pay interest. Why shouldn’t WorkSafe pay some sort of compensation to the person that has been proven to have been affected? Anyway, I think that that’s an important part of that.

[5:05 p.m.]

I think that the other thing that we need to try to find and build trust on is the issue around employees facing retaliation. When I read that, I think of people that are in the situation where the employer feels abused too. There’s somebody that’s taking advantage. The term “retaliation” works both ways; that’s all I’m trying to say.

I think it’s really important. When it comes to this type of insurance, provincially administered by a Crown agency, it should make certain that it is always trying to better itself in terms of being a leading Crown instrument that is helping lead towards the idea of something that is going to protect the workers and protect the employers.

Do you know that years ago, when I first started working on our farm, there was no WorkSafe? We had nothing. We all hesitated when they said: “Oh, we’re going to bring you into the fold.” The first couple of years they gave us an assumed rate or whatever. We thought: “Well, that’s an added cost. I mean, where are we going to get that from?” It’s one of those things that incrementally…. There’s resistance. This is why it’s important that employers are brought along to this.

The part about it is that I look at it today, and I’m thinking: “Okay, am I doing a good enough job, as an employer, to protect my workers and make certain that they’re safe?” We do count on that, and I think that more of a collaborative effort, rather than an adversary one, is really important when it comes to that. Certainly, the good news is that I know we have a very good record.

However, I wouldn’t want to see that slip because of not doing our job in making certain that we were doing our best, that we were training people, that they had best practices and that the equipment was being maintained. We want to keep our rates low. That is an incentive. As an employer, we do want to see rates stay low.

There are obvious benefits to having that clarity and making certain, but it’s not one-sided, and that’s where, I think, in the reports that this has been based on — the Patterson report, the other ones — there is often a certain amount of adversity that has come into that. That’s not very helpful in trying to get to what is the best and the right solution.

Another thing I noticed in this bill is that there’s a fair practices commissioner. Really, the way that I read it, the idea is transparency, making certain that somebody can look at WorkSafe, can look at the employee and employer and say: “You’re not necessarily doing the right things.” I think that is really important: the idea that it’s independent from the Workers Compensation Board’s administration and reporting directly to the board of directors. I’m looking at this with the objective and lens that brings us to a point where it is a better organization.

One of the things that isn’t addressed in here — maybe it’ll come out in committee — is that employers really depend on workers. When does a day go by that we don’t hear about the fact that people can’t find employees to do the work that they need to do? It’s not a case where employers would be…. If they are taking risks that are putting employees at risk, well then, that’s the wrong mixture. That’s certainly not the balance we want.

There was an interesting report, which I’m sure the minister heard recently on the news, about restaurants now buying into the idea of extended benefits for their employees. I’m thinking that is a very positive thing coming out of a challenging labour availability market. It doesn’t necessarily mean….

Sure, the employer has to pay something, but in the employee’s case, where they’re not covered, I’m sure that they would be looking at that very positively, in the sense that they would have some extended medical coverage — whether it’s dental or other services or temporary, short-term or long-term disability, over and above what might be covered by WorkSafe. It’s really important that we do make certain that that balance is there. Employers are recognizing it. If we continue to consult and bring them along, we’re likely to get more buy-in and get them to sign off on what’s in here.

[5:10 p.m.]

I wish that there was more of their buy-in, in terms of the participation. Maybe because of the fact that they’ve had the last couple of years to find out what the consequences of having a pandemic are like, they may be a little bit more attuned to the idea that we really do value these people. But we also don’t want to incentivise people that are working in a relationship where they feel: “Well, jeez, that’s like collecting CERB or something like that. Let me ensure that what I’m doing is considered to be valued.” I don’t want that relationship to be established.

I think that this bill strikes a tone and balance, or at least aspires to, that the workers compensation system gives workers the right to compensation for being injured on the job while providing employers immunity from lawsuits from injured workers. That immunity should be, hopefully, in the sense that that’s the incentive to make certain that our equipment and operations are, certainly, of the highest standard of safety.

Having visited a few industrial operations — actually, quite a few — in China and places like that where the standards are quite a bit different…. I hate to tell this House that China probably doesn’t have the lowest standards. It’s working to improve for the very same reasons: that workers are valued. In other countries that are emerging, it is less, and those are the competitive forces that I mentioned earlier. We need to keep that in mind and not have a standard that is so low. Other countries — we need to make certain that goods and services from those countries are coming in from workers that are properly protected by some sort of labour code.

I think that we’re doing that with our government affairs Canada, in terms of trying to bring that to attention, but as you know, it’s not easy in some of these countries to have the influence. However, point it out. It makes a difference. We can make a difference by educating and sharing that information.

I think the last point that I just want to make is that for a sustainable industry, healthy worker-employer relationships and ensuring that all the parties are protected are in the government’s best interest. However, we also need to keep in mind that businesses and employees need consistency, stability. We need to be mindful how this legislation will impact that.

The act, specifically clause 9, refers to the retention of a health professional for advice and information, and the independent medical opinion on the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal has its merits. However, I do have some questions about how this impacts the length and costs of claims.

I look forward to this bill coming forward to committee stage and being able to drill deeper into those things or support the critic. Thank you very much for the time today on Bill 41.

D. Coulter: Once again it is a real pleasure to speak in front of you and a real pleasure to speak in support of this bill. I want to thank the minister and his staff for bringing this bill forward. I know they worked very hard on it.

This bill — what it essentially does is that it brings balance back to a more worker-centric system. This has been out of balance for some time now, and I applaud all the measures in this bill.

I was just chairing committee stage on Bill 36 in the little House, and it was very congenial with the Health Minister and the Health critic. So it disappoints me a little bit that it wasn’t so congenial in here. I might have a criticism or two about some of the debate on this bill.

[5:15 p.m.]

The most injured workers in this province rely on WCB pensions to survive. A lot of these workers cannot work, so they survive off these pensions. Many people or workers…. A good chunk of workers that rely on these pensions are young people. Young people tend to get injured at work more, I guess disproportionately to their age group.

You consider someone on a WorkSafe pension who can’t work and has to survive off their pension. Let’s say they’re 22. By the time they get to 65 with their pension, that’s 43 years. If the pension is indexed to CPI minus 1, their buying power at the end of the sort of working stage of their life is 43 percent lower than when they got their pension when they were hurt. So this brings balance, and this is going to be a good thing for workers.

I remember when the members opposite were in government, and they indexed pensions to CPI minus 1 percent. Really, if you’re going around saying that you care about injured workers, that is a mean-spirited and vicious thing to do to injured workers.

I think actions matter, not just words, when we’re talking about people who are severely injured at work. I just think the members opposite, at times…. They’re talking about how much they care about workers. Well, I mean, the record doesn’t say that. The record is clear how they treated injured workers. So I really want to speak in support of this bill because it does bring balance back to workers compensation or WorkSafeBC.

I heard some of the debate — well, I didn’t hear it. I was more reading it off the screen, so maybe I lost some of the context. But I heard injured workers referred to as a “line item.” I was injured at work. I don’t think I’m a line item, right? I am not a line item, and to say that about the most severely injured workers in our province is horrific and horrible. You cannot go around saying you care about workers and making statements on the Day of Mourning that you care about workers. Its empty — absolutely empty — in my view. And if it were me, I’d be walking around here with a paper bag on my head out of embarrassment.

Also, I heard about businesses bleeding out because of measures like this or the businesses breaking their backs. I broke my back. Injured workers are bleeding out. This brings back fairness to the Workers Compensation Act. It’s absolutely necessary in order to bring balance back. So I really want to speak in favour of this.

Another thing I’m really happy about this bill is that it requires WorkSafeBC to pay interest on delayed benefit payments. I think it’s only fair that if someone has to go through a long process in order to get their benefits, that they get interest on those benefits when they collect them. I think it’s only fair.

Going back to the pensions indexed to CPI minus 1 percent, I just think we really need to put a point on this here. This is a stark difference between our government and the official opposition. This is a stark difference.

[5:20 p.m.]

To hear people get up here and talk about businesses and them bleeding out and their backs breaking and how this goes beyond that and actually upsets the balance…. I guess it does upset the balance, in their view. But it really doesn’t upset the balance. It brings balance back to the Workers Compensation Act.

Where is the balance in indexing the most severely injured workers’ pensions to CPI minus 1? Did I say it was vicious? It’s vicious. And 40 years on a WorkSafe pension at CPI minus 1…. What do you have at the end?

Many of these workers, like myself…. I was a tradesperson. I basically got the largest pension that WorkSafe provided because of how much I made at my job. Where would I be at the end of my working career, on a pension, if I couldn’t work? So I really ….

This is absolutely a necessary bill, in my view, and should pass unanimously in this House. I think the way you vote on this bill will prove how much you care about workers. I think a lot of people may say they care about workers, but I think actions are more powerful than words.

I think I’m just going to end it there. I’m going to respect the time of the folks in the House. I just thought it was very necessary to hear a voice from an injured worker and to hear about how much this means to people like me. Thank you very much.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the member for Chilliwack for his congenial comments. I think it’s also interesting to note that we talk about who cares and whether this side of the House cares. I think this side of the House cares enough that many of us are going to speak. The government side of the House, for whatever reason…. Of the 58 members, so far, we’ve seen three of them speak. Maybe that will solicit a little bit more activity, a little more interest in this particular bill, but I think it is a stark contrast to who is paying attention here.

I am pleased to rise and take my place in second reading debate and provide some initial remarks on Bill 41, Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2). I think we all understand and appreciate how important WorkSafe is.

I’ve worked in many industries over my working career, many of which were hazardous, starting off in meat cutting many, many years ago and working as a logger in the forest sector. I actually tried to cut my hand off, which I was fortunately unsuccessful in doing, but it took some repair work. I’ll tell you that. Then working as a professional ski patroller is not the safest job, skiing around with primed explosives in your backpack. And then as a paramedic….

I did get to see many sides of this issue, both as a first responder to industrial accidents and as someone who has taken advantage of the WorkSafe system, and very grateful for the fact that it was in place — is in place.

It was interesting to hear the some of the minister’s comments and his description of WorkSafe, historically, as the historic compromise, which was an interesting turn of phrase I hadn’t run across before.

[5:25 p.m.]

I thought it worth better understanding how it came to be. The system that we have in place is well over 100 years old — 120 years old now, I guess. I guess it was developed during the First World War but implemented slightly after the First World War. If people haven’t seen it, it’s worth, probably, going to WorkSafe’s website. They have an interesting little vignette on what it was like, some images from what it was like to work back 100 years ago and the supports that were there — or not there, in many cases.

In the idea of a grand bargain or a historic compromise where there’s collective liability — in other words, industry overall shares the liability and shares the cost — there’s no fault. This is a term that we’re a little more familiar with these days. Regardless of the origin of the circumstance, there’s no fault placed on any one party, although I’m not sure that’s entirely accurate. As an employer, if your history of claims supports it, your rates will go up. Like anything, you will pay more if you’re not performing well, and then there are industry averages that are used.

What else is part of this — the no-fault system? Security of payments so workers can be confident that the money will be there. Exclusive jurisdiction and an independent board is an important piece. It’s not necessarily specifically subject to the vagaries of politics, although I think we can see that even in some of the debate that we’ve been having here, there is some concern about political interference or the political impacts on rates and on the services provided.

But I think it’s fair to say that overall, WorkSafe — or its predecessor, the Workers Compensation Board, or its original name, the Workmen’s Compensation Board — has certainly stood the test of time. Now, is there room for improvement? I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. There is room for improvement.

When the member for Chilliwack mentioned the issue of pensions…. I don’t imagine lifetime pensions are the majority of claims, but certainly they are an incredibly important aspect to claims and services that are provided to workers. It is only right, I think, to bring those pensions to a place where they’re not a diminishing return and they do allow for people to live reasonably. It would be interesting to understand, in certain cases, where lifetime pensions applied. I wonder in the case of, perhaps…. Well, maybe it’s a little too personal. Where lifetime pensions are applied and then employment is still gained, is that pension applicable?

But it caused me to look a little bit more closely at where the responsibilities lie, because as I went through the bill, it was interesting to note that the proposition was balanced. It was portrayed as being balanced. When you look at it, it certainly looks like that in some respects — the duty to cooperate, for example.

[5:30 p.m.]

When I first read: “An employer must cooperate with a worker and the Board in the worker’s early and safe return….” Well, that’s an obligation to the employer, but it also goes on to say that the worker also must cooperate with an employer and the board in the worker’s safe and early return, the duty….

But as we go through and we start to look at some of the obligations, they fundamentally fall, for the most part, on the employer, recognizing that the system is set up so that there is, ultimately, as a part of that historic compromise, a protection for the employer from being sued. Typically, or historically, the risk of the employer being sued was certainly less than the liability to the worker, hence the compromise.

As I looked at it, I looked to try and understand better where the responsibilities do lie. It’s fairly well laid out by WorkSafe that there are various parties here. There are owners, employers, supervisors and workers. When we look at the owners, who are the owners? Owners are a lot of people that maybe wouldn’t necessarily think they are. Yes, they may be, typically, an owner of a company, but let’s say you’re getting a roof put on your house and you hire a contractor. Well, you’re the owner.

What’s the owner responsible for? Well, the owner is responsible for maintaining premises in a way that ensures the health and safety of people working on site. So you own the house, but you’re still responsible for making sure that the worksite is safe, despite the fact that you’re not the employer, because you’re the owner. You must disclose hazards to employers and contractors and must comply with occupational health and safety requirements.

It’s not uncommon that owners…. I think it’s probably more uncommon that owners aren’t employers, but owners are more often employers. On top of the responsibilities of owners, employers are responsible for…. Whether you’re a big or small employer — it really is irrelevant, the size of your operation — you’re required to be providing a safe and healthy workplace, a health and safety program. You’re required to provide training to ensure that workers are safe. You’re required to provide supervision to ensure safety, amongst other things.

You’re required to provide first aid, be that a first-aid kit or a first-aid attendant or a first-aid room, depending on the site. You’re required to inspect. You’re required to inspect for health and safety. You’re required to fix any problems reported. You’re required to — potentially required, anyway — transport workers, injured workers. In some cases, that transportation plan simply needs to be a phone call to 911, but in other cases, it requires that you provide a helicopter to evacuate workers.

It requires that you report all injuries, that you investigate all injuries. And then, of course, there are the obligatory forms of many kinds that you must…. WorkSafe is, or has been, fairly paper-intensive, probably electronically intensive these days, but you’re responsible for reporting.

Then you’re also responsible for providing supervision, as I mentioned earlier. And what do supervisors have to do? They have to instruct and direct and control the workers to make sure they’re in a safe place. They are obligated to…. They’re responsible for worker health and safety. They’re responsible for knowing the WorkSafe requirements and responsible for ensuring that workers know of all the hazards and then ensuring that there is proper personal protective equipment.

That is sort of a summation of the responsibilities of the employer and owners at various levels. But what are the responsibilities, according to WorkSafe, of the worker?

[5:35 p.m.]

The number one workers’ responsibility is to know your rights, which I thought was kind of an interesting place to start. That’s according to WorkSafe, anyway.

The next responsibility of the worker, or the right of the worker, is to participate in health and safety in the workplace and the right, of course, to refuse unsafe work. Those are rights.

Responsibilities: to be alert to hazards and to report them, to follow safe work practices, to use personal protective equipment properly, to cooperate with the health and safety committee, to get treatment quickly, to follow treatment advice, to return to work safely. This was an interesting one: to return to work safely by modifying your duties and not immediately starting full-time responsibilities, although it doesn’t say “if appropriate.” It just says: “Don’t return to start full-time responsibilities immediately.”

Then it says to never work under the influence of drugs or alcohol or other substances, including being tired, which didn’t seem, to me, a substance. But nonetheless, don’t come in to work tired.

Then there is one other subsection, and that’s a prime contractor. In cases where there are multiple employers, there needs to be a written agreement as to who’s in charge, who’s responsible for coordinating occupational health and safety and who is establishing and maintaining procedures. But I think if you look at this, if you look at these areas of responsibility, clearly, the onus is on…. The owner-employer is the primary responsible party.

I think when the minister made his remarks earlier, he certainly reflected that — that this legislation is very much worker-centric and employer-funded. Clearly, WorkSafe is an employer-funded program, with the vast majority of responsibilities, the responsibility of the workers and the company, which is fair enough. It’s fair enough.

As a piece of, as the minister describes, worker-centric legislation, I don’t think that we in this House can ignore the impacts of the vast number of responsibilities of the employer that are assessed. To me, the impression I had in listening to the remarks was that this government seems to not trust owners and employers. The bill seems to be structured in a way…. The whole act, frankly, is that employers, if not checked, will abuse their workers and will take advantage of their workers.

I really can’t subscribe to that assertion. If we’ve learned nothing over the course of the last two or three years, if we have learned nothing else than that a company’s most valuable assets, bar none, are their workforce…. No workers, no company. I would have hoped that this would have been better understood by this minister and by this government. It’s really the bottom line. I think my colleague from Kelowna West mentioned the idea of additional benefits, health and safety benefits.

[5:40 p.m.]

I know many companies that have…. This is just one more thing that companies need to do to retain their most valuable asset. You need to have a benefit program. Oftentimes, certainly in the Sea to Sky, if you don’t have a housing program, you’re going to have a hard time finding employees. Employees are the most valuable asset that a company has. It’s unfortunate that there seems to be a suggestion that companies don’t care. I just reject that.

The minister asserts…. One of the assertions is that claims suppression is a big problem. Certainly, that’s never been my work experience, never seen evidence of that. He, the minister, declined to provide any evidence of that. I guess we’re all just supposed to accept it, but it would be nice to understand where that comes from. That is not at all to say that there should not be penalties in the case where it’s demonstrated that there has been an attempt to suppress an employee or to stop an employee from making a claim. But to come from the starting point that employers, especially, or I think more specifically, private sector employers are bad actors is an unfortunate place to be.

As I mentioned, there are parts of this legislation that I think — or much of this legislation — you will certainly find full support on this side of the House, but it’s hard not to be concerned that this isn’t just part of a long line of responsibility, a piling on of burden on employers.

The idea that there’s been an additional — what? — $12 billion worth of taxes collected on an annual basis since 2017, since this government took power…. I mean, where does that money come from? Much of it is coming from employers. The NDP has been consistent in showing a lack of balance towards labour issues. It’s reasonable, I think, for the opposition to be skeptical and to be concerned and want to very much look at the details of any piece of legislation that’s put forward.

From the idea…. Even if we look at the discriminatory union benefits agreements and the cost to the taxpayer, the cost to business…. The removal of the secret ballot is another piece that is particularly egregious, I think, to many of us. Why it would be okay to say: “Hey, just sign the card.” Not: “I get to go in a private booth and make my own decision without coercion.” I am just told to get on with it and sign the card. It’s very much an offence to democracy.

Why, in this recent leadership campaign of this government, is it okay for big NDP-type unions to support a particular leader, but not a social organization? Can’t support another candidate…. So balance is wanting here, I think it’s fair to say, at least certainly from my perspective.

[5:45 p.m.]

Another piece that adds to this overall burden to employers and affects in a serious way the competitiveness of our industries and our businesses is the constant refrain that we eliminated the MSP. We eliminated it. Well, nobody who understands it believes we eliminated it. We simply transferred the whole burden on business. Simple as that. So from one perspective, we got rid of it; the reality is that we didn’t. We just added a burden to business, a multi-million-dollar tax burden that fundamentally affects the competitiveness of B.C. business.

Not that competitiveness or an economic or a job strategy seems to be a priority for this government. I took the opportunity to review the mandate letters of both the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Jobs, and competitiveness does not appear at all in the Minister of Jobs’s mandate letter. And in the Jobs Minister’s mandate letter, the only mention of competition or competitiveness for our economy or our industry is, ironically enough, in the directive to make British Columbia’s shipbuilding industry more competitive, although I certainly haven’t seen any progress in that regard. We’re pretty much twice the price of other jurisdictions, certainly when it comes to ferries and that sort of thing.

Anyway, competitiveness is not an issue that concerns this government particularly. Unfortunately, it really should, because it’s the private sector and the businesses in this province that employ the people that pay the bills — that pay the taxes that pay the bills. The EHT piece is particularly egregious, because the idea that big payroll equals big profits is just not something that has any reflection in reality whatsoever. It’s illogical but, I would also argue, probably ideological.

When we look at the hospitality sector, the food and beverage sector: skinny, skinny margins, a couple of percent. Yet we can add a couple of percent to their cost by shifting the burden of MSP to employers and to businesses. That certainly doesn’t help.

This report originated, in many respects, from the New Directions report, also known as the Patterson report, which I think was begun in 2019 and published in 2020 and which implements some of the recommendations of the report by Janet Patterson. But as was mentioned by some of my colleagues, the idea that a whole sector, the employers, had no faith in the process — they were concerned about an apprehension of bias, to the degree that they felt they couldn’t participate — should be very concerning to the legitimacy of the report. Or maybe not so much the report but the conclusions, because it wasn’t coming from a point where all sides of the issue were contributing.

It’s disappointing that the employers felt they couldn’t participate and there wasn’t an initiative to ensure that they came back to the table. It was, I guess, suggested, “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out” — in other words, good riddance. But it, again, doesn’t lend credibility to the conclusions — or confidence that we have a balanced process and good conclusions.

[5:50 p.m.]

There are some positive aspects of this bill to bring some aspects of the act in line with other jurisdictions, which does make sense — keeping competitive aspects in mind, certainly nationally, although not internationally. I’ve heard my colleague mention this issue of competitiveness nationally, but not on a level playing field, on various levels, including corporate taxes. Again, this government doesn’t seem to be too concerned about the competitive aspect or nature of our economy or that the private sector is the generator of the revenue that pays the bills around here.

It is worth mentioning that currently private sector job growth is a mere third of the public sector job growth. Again, that certainly is not, over the long term, sustainable.

As we go forward and as we move into the next steps…. As one of my other colleagues mentioned, it is a fairly technical bill. Much to be explored in this bill. We’ll certainly be diving into it, with my colleague from Shuswap, a very competent and informed critic. We’ll try and explore the nuances and, most importantly, the unintended consequences and the costs of this bill to the businesses in British Columbia but also reflect the need to modernize an old piece of legislation that protects the interests of the workers of this province as well.

I thank you for the opportunity to make some remarks. I look forward to committee stage of this bill.

M. Elmore: I appreciate the opportunity to stand and rise and speak in favour of Bill 41, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act. I have a few remarks I’d like to make.

I’m very pleased about these changes that are being brought into force. It has been a long time coming.

Fundamentally, these amendments better support workers in British Columbia. We’ve heard, from my colleague in Chilliwack, what it means for injured workers, in terms of the past 20 years and some of the changes that were brought in by the previous government and our government now looking to restore and really consider workers at the centre, with respect to supporting them and ensuring that workers are safe on the job. If they are injured on the job, they have that support and are adequately compensated.

These changes restore fairness for workers injured on the job and their families and bring British Columbia in line with other provinces in providing benefits for injured workers. Fundamentally, the changes build on the improvements to the system our government has been making since 2018.

They include establishing a fair practices commissioner within WorkSafeBC, adding a legal duty for employers to accommodate and re-employ workers who are injured at work, expanding access to independent health professionals to assist in deciding an appeal, requiring WorkSafeBC to pay interest on delayed benefit payments owed to the worker because of a review or appeal decision and establishing explicit provisions to prohibit employers from suppressing workers compensation claims.

Two additional changes will increase the compensation paid to injured workers by improving the annual indexing of workers compensation benefits for inflation, while eliminating the automatic 1 percent reduction from the consumer price index, which has been in place since 2002, and also permitting WorkSafeBC to increase the maximum compensation for non-traumatic hearing loss.

[5:55 p.m.]

These recommendations come after the Ministry of Labour launched a review of the workers compensation system, specifically led by Janet Patterson. Her report, released in August 2020, provided recommendations for systemwide and structural changes to achieve a more effective system for workers.

My office — and, I’m sure, all offices of MLAs — has been faced with casework helping constituents who happen to be injured on the job and helping to support them to navigate through the quite complex and difficult process of getting compensation and also through the appeal process. So the significance of the change is…. It will be appreciated by these workers. It will be appreciated by employees. It’s really to the end of ensuring that our system, I think, is more balanced. We can gauge that by also comparing our protections in place in British Columbia and how that compares across the country.

I want to reference and make a few remarks about the context that we’re coming out of. The previous government, in 2002-2003…. Changes were made to really cut benefits, fundamentally, to workers compensation and also to drastically undermine the appeal process. Those were the two fundamental changes. That happened in 2002 and 2003 with the introduction of omnibus anti-worker legislation that included amendments to the Labour Relations Code, the Employment Standards Act and also the Workers Compensation Act that resulted, fundamentally, in undermining workers’ rights and restricting benefits and also drastically curtailing the appeal benefit for workers who are injured on the job.

These changes are, I think, important. Our government has been working on ensuring that we rebuild and consider workers at the centre, in terms of supporting workers who are injured on the job. I’m pleased that some of my colleagues across the way…. We have areas that we agree on, in terms of ensuring that workers receive interest if they’re owed benefits. Those are some points of agreement. I think, fundamentally, this is an issue of fairness for workers and ensuring that workers are supported.

I want to note, as I wrap up my remarks, that the early cuts in 2002 to 2003 to workers compensation — really curtailing those benefits — were quite comprehensive. I mentioned and other colleagues have mentioned that the workers compensation indexing was cut to 1 percent below the consumer price index. As well, vocational rehabilitation was cut and virtually eliminated. Pension benefits were also cut. The calculation for benefits was cut and the appeal process really restricted.

I just want to make a note that these changes were brought in by the then Minister of State for Deregulation, who is the current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena. He, as Minister of State for Deregulation, oversaw these changes. We know what to expect. Certainly no surprise, in terms of the remarks coming from the other side and also from the Leader of the Opposition, with respect to their record on curtailing benefits and also their record in terms of not only workers compensation and employment standards but also the labour code and the impact on workers.

Those are what…. We are today, with Bill 41, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, addressing some of these components.

There’s more to say. I know there’s more to get into. I just wanted to express my support and make a few remarks on the record.

[6:00 p.m.]

I’ve appreciated the second reading debate, and I look forward to the committee stage and hearing the debate further. I’m just very pleased with Bill 41, and it has my full support today.

B. Banman: It is, indeed, a pleasure and an honour, to get up in this House and speak on any bill on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia. I think that all members in the House can agree to that — that it is, indeed, an honour and a pleasure.

I look to my colleague, and here we are in the parliament. He has more than once said to us that the derivative of that comes from parley, which is to discuss. That’s exactly what we’re doing here. It doesn’t mean that we always have to agree on every nuance. As a matter of fact, it’s better, I think, when we don’t. You know you’re going down the wrong path when you’ve got the herd mentality and everybody is in agreement. This particular room, this House, is designed — exactly that, to share different points of view.

Here we are talking about the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, (No. 2), 2022, and there are a few colleagues that have, in a professional basis, actually dealt with WCB. I have had the privilege of dealing with WCB both as a claimant and as a professional filling out accident reports and coming up with a diagnosis and a treatment plan for patients that were injured on the job.

I think it’s important that we understand the history of why WCB came to be in the first place, and it really came to be for two reasons. Back in the day, if you got injured on the job, you had to sue your employer, and that was neither effective for the employee nor the employer. Nobody really won in this. Employers would get tangled up in long, lengthy legal battles, and employees many times gave up because they either didn’t have the funds or the ability or could wait long enough to see the end of that trial date. So it really was not working for anyone.

WCB came into being to ensure that workers and employers were treated fairly. We’ve heard the word “balance” mentioned many times, and as the pendulum swings back and forth, the balance does get…. The pendulum, I was reminded by a very wise man, always spends way more time on the outside of the middle, where that sweet spot is.

I think that this bill addresses some issues that have come to light to improve the system. I’m in favour of that. I think that we should always try to leave the campsite a little better than how we found it, and that’s what this bill attempts to do. In that vein, this side of the House has some issues to try and make that campsite better and have that balance for both parties, both employers and employees.

As I said to you, I had my personal experience with WCB. I was fairly young at the time. I was working in a delicatessen and was not really paying attention to what I was doing, and I actually cut the tip of my finger off in a meat slicer. While it was not a severe injury, as one of our members has had in this House, who we’ve listened to, it was an injury nonetheless.

As a professional, I also dealt with it from the patient’s perspective, from the employee’s perspective. Part of the balance that I look for and think is glaring and missing in this is…. It touches a little bit, and I’ll get into that…. The system does not always treat the claimant, the employee fairly.

[6:05 p.m.]

It’s been my personal experience. I’ve watched it. I’ve witnessed it. I’ve seen how employees that made a claim…. Once they got into the system, it was far from perfect. In fact, it was brutal. Not all the time, but when it goes bad, it was really bad. It was heartbreaking to watch what some of these claimants went through from my side, as their caregiver.

The employers, on the other hand, end up…. If you have a workplace that’s unsafe, your rate of what you pay goes up, as it should. That is the punishment that we have for employers that do not place a high enough regard on safety. But the employers also — again, you have to have that balance — are not evil. They’re not bad people. There are bad actors on both sides. It is the rarity. For the one side of the House to basically infer that employers are bad or somehow trying to circumvent or cheap workers or a few other things — to even infer it — isn’t fair at all.

Now, one of the things that I am concerned about in this particular bill is the lack of time that we have to debate. As I mentioned, the reason we talk about bills in this House is so that we can come to some form of agreement with regards to the differences that we see within a bill, yet this government has decided to take a full week out of this session. It was scheduled, as is mentioned. Everybody’s going to be here, or most people will be here. This side of the House is prepared to show up for work. I’m prepared to earn my pay that the taxpayers work hard for.

I don’t understand why that side of the House…. Why it’s even a question…. I haven’t heard one of that side of the House defend why it is that they don’t think that the taxpayers are entitled to that extra time to debate this work in this House — not a single one. I find it rather interesting.

It has also been mentioned that this legislation is designed to give the right compensation for being injured on the job while giving…. Part of the reason why WCB is…. It gives those employers the immunity to those lawsuits that I mentioned earlier. That’s an important part of WCB. That’s what WCB is supposed to do. The system is supposed to give that balance to both the worker and the employer. Parts of this bill, I agree with. They do exactly that.

Now, I think one of the things that I noticed in this bill, and it is back down, I believe, in…. Let me find the clause. I believe it was clause 9. Yes, clause 9 requires the workers compensation tribunal to retain a health professional to provide independent assistance or advice in an appeal. It authorizes parties to appeal a request, and it sets how that request can be made. WCB has had their own experts for a while and their own panel for a while.

I would say that part of the frustration that my former profession had was that it wasn’t always a balanced appeal board. There wasn’t always people on that board that necessarily had….

[6:10 p.m.]

As we go through the Health Care Professions and Occupations Act, and there will be many different health care professionals that will deal with WCB claims, I think it’s important that we burrow into clause 9 to find out exactly who it is that these so-called health care experts or specialists will be.

The other thing is when you are called by an organization to write reports on their behalf on a regular basis, there becomes a natural bias. There’s a natural bias that just starts to happen, because they’re the ones that are actually paying your food bills on your table. They’re contributing to that.

It is no more different than one of the biases that a health care professional has, and it’s natural, which is to have a bias towards the patient. That’s why the independent health care professionals are important. Naturally, I want what’s best for my patient and try hard as I may to be unbiased, it’s sort of…. On that 50-50, you’re going to land on the side of the patient almost every time.

The other thing that’s important is when the organization like WCB has their health care professional, it’s the right for the patient, the worker — especially in some of these more complicated cases — to pick their own health care professional.

I look forward, in the committee stage of this bill, to figuring out exactly what the government has done when it comes to that. Having the ability to choose that would give that balance that’s required — and no so more, I think, than also, in some cases, when a business feels as if they have been judged harshly or wrongly, will there be balance on that side as well. It’s important to have both sides being treated equally.

Now, the reason I bring up balance is, unfortunately, this particular government, the NDP, in the opinion of myself and others, has shown a lack of balance. They have a natural bias to one particular side, and that’s okay. They have a bias.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Continue, if you want.

B. Banman: Noting the hour, Mr. Speaker? No. All right.

The changes to this act…. There’s a number of those clauses, as I was saying…. The Workers Compensation Act is amended to provide protection and remedy for a worker facing retaliation for filing a compensation claim. I support this. No worker, Mr. Speaker — it’s good to see you — should feel intimidated by doing and fulfilling their right, no more so than that same worker should feel intimidated by being forced to sign a piece of paper, a union card.

You know, I found it interesting that the Premier used the word “thuggery,” which basically means undue influence. I worry that we have taken away that right in the ballot box to be able to have that privacy and sanctity of democracy. I’ve said before that it opens up the door. I think the Premier said it best. It opens up the door, in his words, for thuggery. I find it disturbing, be that as it may.

[6:15 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister would like to close the debate.

Hon. H. Bains: I just want to thank the many members who took part in the debate on this very, very important bill that is before us, Bill 41. I just want to repeat the comment that I heard today and why we use the word “work-centric.” We have used the term in describing these amendments. We’re seeking to restore some balance so that there’s more focus on needs of the worker in the workplace and WorkSafeBC.

When you look at it, at the end of the day, when a worker is injured, whether it’s their health and safety at a workplace, to protect their health and safety, or when they do become injured or become ill at a workplace, there’s a workers compensation system to help those workers. That’s why there’s a need to have a workers compensation system as worker-centric.

A lot of debates and a lot of good points were made. I want to say thank you. The attempt is to create a balance, because if we were to go to one side, as some members have suggested, we would have restored some of the benefits that were taken away from the workers in 2002 and 2003, such as the wage loss, which was reduced to 90 percent of the net compared to 74 percent of the gross, or life pensions, which were taken away all together.

There are a whole lot of benefits that were cut by that government. Because we are a government that listens, we’re the government that believes in balancing, looking after the interests of the workers and, at the same time, looking after the interests of the employer. That’s why we are going through these changes that are moderate, that are balanced.

Having said that, I say now that I move second reading of Bill 41.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 41, Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. H. Bains moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:18 p.m.