1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3085 ]

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Department of Labour estimates.

On vote 12 1. Mr. Smith — 3085

On vote 122. Mr. Gardom — 3094

On vote 123. Mr. Wallace — 3101

THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 121: general administration, human rights, research,

$2,548,966.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, it's nice

to see you're wide awake this morning. It's such a beautiful

day.

In this particular vote I notice that there's an allocation

for a Deputy Minister of Labour, two Associate Deputy Ministers

of Labour (one for labour relations and one for manpower), a

special consultant and an ombudsman. Would the Minister explain

to the committee the interlocking functions of these people?

The point that I am really asking, Mr. Minister, is: when you

have a Deputy Minister, two Associate Deputies and a special

consultant, what are the duties of the ombudsman in relation to

your department and in what particular area does he

function?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, the

duties of the ombudsman are clearly spelled out in the Labour

Code. I believe it's

section 153, right at the end of the

Labour Code; I forget the precise section. The duties of the

ombudsman are clearly spelled out there and that provides for

an independent ombudsman to deal with matters that arise

creating problems between a trade union and members of that

trade union or, indeed, matters within management associations

where an individual feels his rights are being abridged in any

way by those organizations. It also provides for an

investigation and reporting on the activities of any Department

of Labour official in relationship to the rights of employees

and employers.

The Deputy Ministers' positions are quite clear, I think. The Associate Deputy

Minister in charge of industrial relations is the main functionary, the main

administrator holding responsibility over the industrial relations officers

and the mediation officers pertaining to industrial relations and the many and

varied services that we offer in that field. The Associate Deputy in charge

of manpower, of course, deals with apprenticeship and vocational training and

the whole range of job placement and so on. That's an area which has been developed

under the new administration to a great extent. The projections are that it

will become an increasingly more important function of the Department of Labour

— working with the trade union movement and working with management in an attempt

to try to project the kind of skill requirements that may be anticipated in

the years ahead and to provide the facilities and the training courses to ensure

that there is an availability of the kind of labour pools that are necessary

in the province. So the functions are quite different. The Associate Deputies'

responsibilities are internal within the Department of Labour.

The special consultant. We have, on occasion, appointed

special consultants dealing with the construction industry to

deal with specific problem areas related to industrial

relations that do not quite fit the normal pattern of

provisions provided under the labour code. I think the Member

can appreciate that some of those areas are unique and have

their own peculiarities and therefore need special study, so we

have the ability to make those studies with that position.

MR. SMITH: That position, then, is occupied by one

individual. It is a position within the civil service and it's

not a matter of consulting fees or using those funds for

consultants outside of the civil service. The special

consultant is a civil service employee. Is that right?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I just want some information on

one or two parts of this vote. Under the human rights branch I

notice that we have nine human rights officers and the total

staff has gone from five to 15. I wonder if this is likely to

be a continuing increase annually. Perhaps the Minister could

just tell us about that particular item.

The other item that I am interested in is on page L 129,

where there is $150,000 allocated under code 033 for an

industry advisory committee. Could we have some details on

that?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the increase in the Human

Rights officers is incident to a start-up basically of the new

human rights procedures in the province. We have a new Human

Rights Code, and in order to make that code evenly applicable

throughout the province so that all British Columbia residents

have access to the protection and to the information flowing

from human rights legislation, we have had to engage human

rights officers who could occupy regional offices and

accordingly ensure that the extension of these protections were

felt throughout the province. So I don't anticipate there'll be

a continual growth of that kind. It's more or less a start-up

provision. Now it may well be that from time to time in various

areas that develop problems with respect to human rights,

additional help will from time to time be required. But I think

basically the structure is pretty well set up and I think

fairly adequate.

[ Page 3086 ]

The vote of $150,000 for industry advisory committees

pertains to a number of things we've had going. We had an

industry advisory committee sitting in the construction

industry. It was composed of representatives of management and

labour. It was previously chaired by the former Associate

Deputy Minister of Labour, Mr. Kinnaird, and they worked in an

advisory way with my office to determine problems. As I said,

the construction industry particularly throughout Canada is a

very problematic one due to a variety of things — the

multiplicity of unions involved, the fact that it doesn't fit

the industrial mould in terms of continuous employment tenure.

This produces jurisdictional disputes and it produces problems

at the bargaining table. That committee was charged with the

responsibility of advising my office on legislative change that

would be directed solely to that industry and would try to come

to grips with some of the inherent problems.

Now partly based on the problems they have identified over

the years, the subsequent appointment of Mr. Kinnaird as an

industrial inquiry commissioner was developed and followed

through on. So this occurs from time to time. And we have other

industries where there are differentials. They don't quite fit

the normal mould of industrial relations, and it is helpful to

have people intimately involved in that industry advising me on

a day-to-day basis of what the problems are and perhaps what

some of the remedies may be.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I hope I'm on the right vote.

The Minister will tell me if I'm not, I guess. I wanted to talk

a little bit about the appointment the Minister made of Helen

Austin to do the study into the employment opportunities for

the handicapped.

First of all, I wonder when an initial report might be made

from that study and what the terms of reference have been for

the study that Helen Austin is conducting at the present

time.

My concern again is, as I mentioned at an earlier time, that

we don't fall into the trap of tokenism — appointing a token

handicapped to sort of push the problem off into the corner, a

token woman in another area to push that problem off in the

corner.

Another concern is the duplication of services that may be

resulting. I'd like to ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, how

closely he works with the Health Minister (Hon. Mr. Cocke), for

instance, in the division of aid to the handicapped, which I

understand does an excellent job and perhaps should be expanded

rather than creating another bureaucracy or another department

which will just do the same job over again.

In the terms of the reference in any studies that are going on for employment

of the handicapped, I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if you'd tell me if those terms

of reference include a possibility or a probability of not

only finding employment but also personal counselling services

for both employers and employees. I have found in other areas

that it's very important that that counselling take place if

the employment is to be a meaningful and long-term relationship

for a handicapped person — on both sides of the fence.

I think there's a special problem in Victoria for this kind

of counselling because the Canadian Paraplegic Association, as

I understand it, doesn't have a full-time counsellor here in

Victoria, as compared to the Vancouver area which has some

eight counsellors working in this field and doing a very good

job.

Again, I'm concerned first of all about the tokenism idea

and, secondly, about this duplication of services. I may be

wrong but I believe the division of aid to the handicapped

already does quote an extensive job-replacement programme and

they also do have this counselling service which handicapped

people themselves tell me is very important.

Now on a philosophical basis about employing handicapped

people, we've got a long way to go, I think. I'd just like to

relate the case of one person that I know who had quite an

extensive background of, first of all, three years of nursing

before she was injured and became handicapped and had to drop

out of the nursing school. Then she went on to Simon Fraser

University.

She majored in sociology and anthropology, psychology and

political science; she's now working on a five-year internship

with accreditation in the Canadian Association of

Rehabilitation Personnel. She's had experience in

psychometrics, testing of the handicapped, counselling and

interviewing the handicapped — very extensive experience, a

very bright young person. Yet every time she goes to get a job,

the first thing they ask her is: can you type? Because that's

all they consider the handicapped good for — you can be a

clerk, a file-clerk or whatever it is. From that point of view,

we do have a long way to go. In my opinion, here is a complete

waste of quite a talented person. There are other examples.

I have another example of another young woman who has had

experience in public relations, creative writing, designing;

she's a medical clerk — medical steno, I guess is the correct

term. Yet the same question comes up when she applies for a

job, particularly in a government service. Can you file? Do you

know how to file cards, and can you type? Can you take

shorthand? It's not the kind of work they're looking for;

they're looking for something more meaningful and

important.

So, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister could just respond to

those few questions I'd appreciate it.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the

[ Page 3087 ]

Hon. Member for Langley that one must be careful that you

don't become involved just in a degree of tokenism in

expressing concern for the plight of the handicapped. I've made

similar observations with respect to women in the labour force

in this International Women's Year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. KING: I think there is a danger of engaging in that

kind of tokenism just to show good faith. And that's really not

a meaningful gesture. What we have to try to do in this

society, as far as I am concerned and as far as the Department

of Labour is concerned, is to try to assist people in every way

we can to realize their full potential, not only in the work

force, but as citizens of the community we live in.

I'm confident that with some encouragement and with the

breaking down of some of the barriers that have traditionally

existed against employment opportunities for handicapped, they

can, in fact, in large measure make a real contribution to

society, and as a consequence feel a good deal more independent

and, perhaps, assist in their psychological adjustment through

the feeling that they are making a worthwhile contribution

rather than being cast out on an unwanted heap.

So the appointment of Helen Austin was, basically, to get

our own house in order. The Member is correct when he says that

other departments are engaged in special programmes within

their departmental responsibilities. But in my view, the human

rights branch should act as a catalyst for ensuring that the

total government policy is one of providing adequate

opportunity for handicapped, recognizing the special problems

and breaking down any barriers that exist. So I see this

appointment as a method of determining how effective our

liaison is between the various branches, departments of

government and the hiring authorities for government, which is

the Public Service Commission.

They are actively engaged in scrutinizing their own

procedures, too. But if we are to make an impact on the private

sector in appealing to them to provide opportunity for the

handicapped, then it's incumbent upon government to make sure

that our own house is in order. And who better to tell us than

an actually handicapped person? I think the appointment of

Helen Austin will assist all of the departments greatly in

identifying any problem areas and coming up with a

comprehensive policy for government that makes sure that our

hands are clean before we start to aggressively persuade the

private sector to adopt similar policies.

I would agree that there is good counselling service

available in some areas in Vancouver. There's also a good

counselling service available through the Workers' Compensation Act from where many of the handicapped

workers emanate...

AN HON MEMBER: Not all of them.

HON. MR. KING: ...through industrial accidents. Certainly

not all of them, but a large group. But the counselling is

hardly adequate unless they are met in their job applications

with a reasonable and understanding response from industry.

Accordingly, that's why we're taking a two-pronged approach

to this thing: first of all to make sure that our own

procedures are proper, that they're well co-ordinated, and that

there is liaison between the various departments and precisely

how we handle and provide opportunities. Then we can move out

into the private sector and try to persuade industry that there

are social gains to be made as well as real gains, because many

of the handicapped people are capable of producing as well or

better than those who are not handicapped. Many handicapped,

given the opportunity, are that much more zealous about proving

themselves in terms of productivity that they do a more

productive job than those who are not handicapped. This is what

it's all about.

I believe the appointment was for a one-year term, and we

should be receiving a report within that time.

MR. WALLACE: On that same point, I wonder if the Minister

could perhaps give us a few more details about what he is

trying to do to help the blind. I know he has been in

communication with the association of the concerned handicapped

of B.C. I have a copy of a letter here from Mr. Frank Hunter,

who had written to the Minister. I notice that the Minister did

state that he was concerned about the total power of the CNIB

over the employment of blind people. In reading the legislation

I really wonder how that ever came about. Anyway, like a lot of

other things, it's done with the best intentions at the time,

but certainly from the correspondence that one gets from the

concerned handicapped of British Columbia it is obvious that

they want to be treated like anyone else. I couldn't agree more

with that.

The government should show consideration, as it has done.

Mr. Hunter tells me here in this letter that an excellent

example of renewed consideration of the blind was that the

Workers' Compensation Board printed the result of their inquiry

in braille. This is obviously a big step forward. He also

mentions that the Acts and regulations have been read onto

tape. But he points out something that we with our sight tend

to forget when we have our sight, in studying documents we can

drop our eyes and go back over the page and so on, but it is a

great deal more difficult for the blind to deal with the

suggested alternative here.

I wonder to what degree the Minister could tell us

[ Page 3088 ]

about his plans for the blind without perhaps anticipating

the details of legislation. Could he give us some idea of

whether they will simply come under the Department of Labour in

the same way as any other person or handicapped person? Could

he tell us what new direction he plans to take in regard to the

blind?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Members can anticipate

legislative change with respect to the Blind Workmen's

Compensation Act. I agree with the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) that undoubtedly at the outset, when the CNIB was

given statutory authority virtually over the lives of blind

people, the intentions and motives were pure. I suppose we

have moved to a more enlightened kind of society where

individuals want to express and function under their own

personal freedoms which should include the right to choose a

job that they feel they are capable of doing — a job that would

be acceptable to both them and the prospective employer. It

seems altogether inappropriate that in our kind of society

today an organization, albeit charitable and well-intentioned,

should have the control and the power to dictate to a blind

individual whether or not they have a right to work for a

particular employer.

You can expect an amendment that will simply remove that

power. I think that will probably be contained in the Statute

Law Amendment Act, since it is a simple amendment. That would

mean that those individuals would be free, subject to voluntary

relationships with the CNIB for whatever services they wish to

offer, subject to any counselling and rehabilitative services

that are available through the Workers' Compensation Board, if

industry is the source of the inquiry, and whatever other

government services are available to blind people. The main

thing, though, is with respect to their choice and their

ability to obtain employment. That should, and will, be freed

up.

MR. WALLACE: Just a small point following that. One of the

other points that Mr. Hunter raised was the question of minimum

wage for the blind. I suppose that raises a concept of

sheltered workshops. The Minister and I have talked about this

privately and I see the dilemma that it may not be feasible to

pay the minimum wage to those persons who cannot perhaps carry

out a certain number of hours or efficiency of output. I don't

know. But I wonder if the Minister could comment on whether

progress is being made in this regard and whether he thinks

there is a possibility that every person — handicapped, blind,

or otherwise — should be able to receive the minimum wage.

HON. MR. KING: As the Member is probably aware, the Board of Industrial

Relations is currently holding hearings with respect to minimum wages. The board

holds the authority to make adjustments to the minimum wages and to issue regulations

governing certain classifications of workers under the minimum wage law.

Myself, I am inclined to agree that perhaps the previous

system with respect not only to handicapped groups but certain

classifications of workers has not been too altogether

realistic.

The Member will also be aware that all of the labour

standards laws are under review. The department is in the

process of developing a new labour standards code for British

Columbia which will hopefully incorporate all the varied and

diverse musty old statutes pertaining to workers' protection

such as the Truck Act, Deceived Workers' Act, Minimum Wage Act,

Hours of Work Act, Annual Holidays Act and so on. I believe

there are about 16 different statutes — somewhere in that

neighbourhood, anyway. It's very difficult for workers and for

industry to understand and be conversant with all these varied

statutes so that they know what their rights and obligations

are. It seems appropriate to combine them into one statute

which will be more clearly understood and which will update

many of those standards of protection that are available.

I would expect that such a statute will be introduced,

hopefully, and dealt with in the House at the fall session.

There is a possibility that it might be available for

introduction at this session, in which event it would provide

the opportunity for people to scrutinize and study it and make

their observations regarding the need for amendments and so on.

But inherent in that is a hard look at the traditional

functions of the Board of Industrial Relations, the structure

of it, and the manner in which they have provided exemptions to

certain classifications of workers. At that time I think it

would be completely appropriate to look at the sheltered

workshop concepts that have been dealt with in a rather blanket

way rather than in individual terms.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I was going to mention this in

the next vote but since the Minister has brought it up it might

save time to touch on this whole question of the hearings that

are being held by the industrial relations board. I notice as

recently as yesterday in The Vancouver Sun

there is quite an

article reporting some of the suggestions

made by groups who appeared before the industrial relations

board dealing particularly with the minimum wage concept, and

in particular the fact that everybody has to train for a job

nowadays and the question of paying people under 18 less than

you pay people over 18.

This has been raised several times, not just in this

article. This is from The Vancouver Sun of

Wednesday, June 4, but I have seen it mentioned

[ Page 3089 ]

several times and I notice that one gentleman here, John

Philpott, the vice-chairman of the Lower Mainland Council for

Canadian Unions said that this is knows as "McDonald's law."

Here we are not referring to the Energy Minister Macdonald or

the Attorney-General Macdonald but we are referring to the

Golden Arches which the Premier often refers to. Apparently

McDonald's specializes in using people under 18. Certainly in

the United States this is mentioned. I am not sure if I am

being unfair in implying that it's also done to a great extent

here in British Columbia, but certainly in the United States

the same principle applies.

I wonder about two things. I wonder if the Minister has made

any decision, or if, without anticipating policy, he can tell

us if we are going to decide that when somebody works they work — and if it's $2.50 an hour it's $2.50 an hour. Secondly, I

would like to know whether these hearings are still being held

at the present time. I think this combined statute that the

Minister refers to is a great idea. I don't know how often that

one finds there's bits and pieces of the same subject through

many different statutes. How would he be able to anticipate

legislation maybe being introduced at this session when the

hearings are still in process?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before the Hon. Minister answers, since

we are into labour standards, perhaps we could just pass the

previous vote and then we'll deal with this one.

There is someone else who wants to speak on vote 121 — the

Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the

Minister whether the ombudsman's office is available to serve

in workers' compensation cases.

HON. MR. KING: No, Mr. Chairman, the office of the ombudsman

and the regulations and statutory authority under which he

would function would not include the Workers' Compensation

Board; it would cover the whole range of services of the

Department of Labour.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, can I talk about workers' compensation

for a second under this vote in relation to the need for an ombudsman in that

area? I wonder if the Minister could advise what's happening with the request

from the Disability Rights Association of British Columbia. I know the Minister

has met with their representatives along with Hon. Mr. Levi, Minister of Human

Resources. This is an association that seems to have a place to fill in British

Columbia today. It seems to be fairly successful and seems to be the last resort

for a lot of people. I don't know whether every MLA is the same as I am, but

I find that the most frustrating part of this job is dealing with complaints

having to do with workers' compensation cases. There comes a time, in some cases,

when an MLA simply has to throw up his hands and say that he's sorry, there's

nothing else that can be done, and because it's of such a personal nature, and

sometimes over such a long term, a person who comes to an MLA for help in that

area simply cannot accept that last resort opinion by the MLA.

So the Disability Rights Association has set itself up as an

area in which people with malingering problems, difficult

problems, frustrating problems, can find someplace to go at

least, and in many cases get some help. I know that in some

cases which have seemed to be hopeless and have lasted for 8,

10, 12 years, there has been a ray of light somewhere and

workers' compensation has reversed decisions and has varied

payments, even over that long a time, So persistence does pay

off.

The problem, as I understand it now, Mr. Chairman, is that

this organization, whose funds are coming from thy Human

Resources department, are now told that they can only be funded

over a month-to-month basis. For an organization such as this

which is doing investigations it sometimes takes three months,

six months to complete. That's a pretty difficult condition

under which they have to operate.

There were 53 claims received by the office in Victoria of

the Disability Rights Association from April 14 to May 23.

That's a pretty significant number of people looking for some

kind of help. Now I'm not saying that they can help all those

people, but I do know that they try and that in some cases they

have been successful in overturning judgments of the Workers'

Compensation Board. A number of unions now use them to direct

injured workers looking for help.

So it would seem to me that there is quite a bit of merit in

this organization's aims and objectives and in the results

they've achieved, and I wonder whether the Minister would....

Well, I'd make a plea to the Minister, if he agrees that this

is a necessary function, given today's climate, and since we

don't have a formal ombudsman to look into workers'

compensation cases, to look into a more permanent funding

solution for this organization.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm glad the Member

raised the matter of problems of appeals for claimants under

the Workers' Compensation Act.

At the outset I'd like to say to the House, Mr. Chairman,

that in my view British Columbia is extremely fortunate in

having the most capable and the most humanistic chairman of the

Workers' Compensation Board of anyone in Canada. I certainly

have the highest respect for Terry Ison, the chairman of the

board, and I think he's done an

[ Page 3090 ]

absolutely...he, along with the other commissioners...

AN HON. MEMBER: No complaints about the board.

HON. MR. KING: ...have done a fantastic job in humanizing

not only the method in which workers' compensation cases are

handled. The attitude, the counselling, the advice that flows

to workers making claims — certainly the quality has improved

immensely. As a consequence, I think every Member of this House

would acknowledge that there's been a very, very dramatic

reduction in the number of cases that used to be drawn to the

attention of MLAs. That used to be a very, very significant

portion of the workload of most Members of this House, and

there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of cases

coming to us.

Now many of the ones that are still around are cases that

date back many, many years. The board is still dealing with

some of them and resolving some of the apparent injustices that

have been visited upon those claimants.

But I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, about some of the

changes that have been made to ensure that claimants have

access to adequate appeal systems, have access to advice on how

to proceed and progress their claims and so on.

We have a workers' compensation consultant, Mr. Paul Devine,

who is a lawyer and specializes in workers' compensation law.

He is there to assist workers, not only as to whether or not

they have a valid appeal but, if they have, on how they should

proceed with that appeal. He has access to records of the

Workers' Compensation Board in a confidential way; consequently

he's in a unique position to help claimants.

We also have a consultant available for management. That's a

fairly recent appointment — Mr. Ed Zurwick, a former officer of

the board. He's there to ensure that management has the proper

advise in terms of the position they take on claims, too.

In addition to that we have established boards of review which deal with points

of law or questions of proper

interpretation. There are three such panels sitting

and they are an agency which is now available — it wasn't in the past — for

workers to appeal to when they feel that in interpreting the law the board has

been too rigid, or perhaps has interpreted and applied it improperly. They are

there to consider unique problems or new evidence that might be brought to bear

that relates to a case that has been turned down. Then, of course, there are

under

section 55 of the Act, medical review panels which provide for an analysis

by three specialists of questions of medical disputes; and that's final and

binding on the worker should he choose to take that route.

Now there's a problem with workers' compensation. There are

those people who are injured on the job who for one reason or

another believe that the job created the injury, but the

medical facts, the medical investigations show that indeed the

accident, whether someone bent over and their back went out of

place or whether it was a slipped hip or disc or whatever...the best medical advice from available evidence indicates that

the accident was really attributable to some pre-existing

condition. You and I can argue and debate that forever, but it

is really a medical determination.

I think the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) and

the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) probably know all

about back injuries. But under those circumstances it is very

difficult. Some people will always fall just outside of the

permissible coverage under the Workers' Compensation Act. It is

difficult to persuade them that they have received a full

measure of justice. Some people in those situations continue to

appeal to the board, to doctors, to trade unions, to other

agencies and to the politicians with respect to changing the

decision.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, but sometimes they are successful,

too.

HON. MR. KING: At times, I agree. The current board has,

indeed, reviewed many, many, many old cases, and they are still

doing so. The board is always in a position to review, as well

as the other panels which, as I have indicated, have been set

up. But there has to be a finality to every claim and every

dispute.

Frankly, I have some grave misgivings and reservations about

this whole system in terms of the kind of time and resources

that are expended in determining who is responsible for the

worker's problem rather than what the problem is and how he can

be best helped. That is something that, perhaps, this

Legislature will have to consider in years ahead.

The group which the Member brings up specifically has met

with me. They claim to have resolved a number of cases, and

undoubtedly they have resolved some, or at least assisted in

resolving some by bringing their new evidence to the attention

of the board and so on.

Earlier on, the Member expressed concern about duplication

with respect to human rights. I presume that he is concerned

with duplication in any area. I have to consider the agencies

and vehicles we have established through law for redress of

workers' problems within the Workers' Compensation Act.

I would also mention that, in my view, it is the

responsibility of Members of this Legislature to assist their

constituents with problems pertaining to government or Crown

agencies. I think it always will

[ Page 3091 ]

be, and that it is proper. I would again say that, with

respect to the present board, I think most Members find an

encouraging, sympathetic and helpful audience when they do

refer matters to the board, or seek its advice and guidance on

claims.

All in all, I think we have a pretty good service. I would

be somewhat concerned about funding outside agencies to perform

essentially the same functions that we have gone to quite an

extreme to provide within the structure of the laws to ensure

that workers, and industry too, receive a full measure of

justice. That is something we have to consider.

On the question of the disability rights group — they have

been funded by the Human Resources department. That may be

appropriate. That is a decision that the Minister will be

considering. There are other factors involved here. Apparently,

branches of that association in other areas of the province do

not altogether share enthusiasm for the job that the Victoria

group is doing. I've had such indications, so one has to be

very, very careful. But I think it would be inappropriate for

the Minister who is legislatively responsible for the Workers'

Compensation Board to fund and encourage some outside agency to

monitor the structure that I am responsible for.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Members, as they proceed

in debate, if they could tie their debate onto some peg

somewhere in this vote.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm talking about an ombudsman, Mr.,

Chairman...

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's fine. Would the Hon. Member carry

on?

MR. McCLELLAND: ...and the need, perhaps, for an ombudsman.

Maybe that's not the approach to take. Maybe it should be

overall rather than in your department. Maybe we can talk about

it under the Member's bill today.

I don't think that it is entirely inappropriate for the

Minister to want to see, perhaps in difficult cases, an

outside, divorced, agency or person or some area of

responsibility.

I must say, too, that I find the Workers' Compensation Board

excellent to work with. I'm very happy with the assistance I

get from them. I'm very happy, in most cases, with the

decisions that are finally rendered.

But I still say that there are occasions where the medical

review panel can be proven wrong. While a dispute between a

private doctor and a compensation doctor may resolve itself in

favour of the compensation doctor, it might be proven at a

later date that the private doctor was correct. That is the job

where I see an ombudsman serving in this area.

The Human Resources department is probably the best place to fund an organization

like this. Certainly, it would have to be done in consultation with the Labour

Minister; it couldn't be done any other way. The decision to fund this organization

has already been made. It is being funded.

I'm just saying, Mr. Chairman, that it's impossible to

operate any kind of any agency like this on a month-to-month

basis without knowing whether you're going to be in operation

next month. The association now says to people who are

contacting them and asking for help, that they are sorry, they

can't take it because they don't know whether they will be in

business next month. That's the difficulty: either fund them,

or don't, I guess. But the decision has already been made to

fund. Why not do it on a more practical basis?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Chairman,

I'd like to say a few words on this question, and I'd like to bring full support

to the Minister for his statement.

During my time in this House, prior to the present

government, I was inundated with compensation claims. Those of

you who were in the House at the time will remember some of the

fights I had to put up to get some of the amendments that have

been brought to fruition in the Act. We had some great times in

the House over the Workmen's Compensation Act. I had a

continual, running job of looking after those compensation

cases, riot only in my own riding, but every riding in the

province was sending me letters asking me to help them because

in my own riding I was recognized as Mr. Compensation. That's

what they used to call me.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): We should make you

the ombudsman.

HON. MR, NIMSICK: Well, I was the ombudsman in those cases,

and I think an MLA is an ombudsman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, of course he is.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: He is an ombudsman.

AN HON. MEMBER: All 55 of us.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: But since this government has taken office

I don't....

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I know that the Hon. Minister has done a

lot in changing the Workers' Compensation Act, but I'd never

have thought for one minute that he would change it to the

extent that in the last two and a half years I haven't had five

cases, I believe, brought to my attention on workers'

[ Page 3092 ]

compensation. I think that is a great record.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, you don't know me like I know me.

(Laughter.)

So that's the case. I'm sure that they would be writing to

me just as much today as they were at that time. There's one

thing about my riding: it's been well serviced for the last 26

years and I am very pleased and very proud....

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): They want to get rid of

you.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I don't think they'd ever want to get rid

of me.

MR. CHABOT: They do!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Maybe age is the only thing that might get

rid of me.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Minister has the

floor.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: But anyway, I think that the Minister has

done a marvelous job in regard to Workers' Compensation. I

think the whole board is more humanistic than it was before and

if it continues the way it is, I see no reason why we should

have a separate group of people looking after it.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, on this subject of an ombudsman

or the equivalent, or some kind of court of last resort, I

first of all want to say how much I agree with the Minister's

comments about the progress that's been made in the last few

years. I couldn't agree more. I have the greatest respect and

admiration for Mr. Ison who has certainly dealt with some of my

cases in the most fair and most productive manner that was

possible.

There is one area I want to question. Unfortunately, I have to be critical

of some of my own professional colleagues on this point, but I'm anything but

happy with the medical review panel. Without going through a whole long harangue

about the problem, they're not working as well as they should and I'm not sure

that I know the reason. Too often the patient who goes before the medical review

panel, first of all, has to prove that there is a medical dispute, that there's

some differing opinion somewhere along the line as to the medical situation.

And as the Minister so aptly pointed out, the decision of the medical review

panel is final and binding, so the patient is in a real dilemma. He or she is

not happy with the physical condition that is the problem; there is a medical

dispute. In medical disputes, like legal disputes and a lot of other disputes,

you can provide experts till they are overflowing and you still may not get

agreement.

So I think, with the greatest of respect, that the medical

profession and the members of the medical profession who

constitute these review panels either don't recognize the

tremendous authority they have and the power to influence the

patient's life for the next 20 years, or they just don't have

the time to do the job. Too often patients have come back to me

and said: "Well, if that's the medical review panel, I was in

there about 10 minutes. The doctor asked me one or two

questions and did a little bit of an examination and I was out

the door." And this is an assessment of a person's condition

which usually has developed over a period of time. Often

there's been a long period of disability, out of work because

of the injury or illness, and this medical review panel

assessment is very important and far-reaching. Sometimes the

person's whole life is bound up in the degree to which the

medical review panel reaches the decision it does.

So I'm suggesting one of two things. First of all, we either

have to perhaps look into the whole question of the

constitution of these panels — who should be the best medical

people to serve on these panels. Or, secondly, should the first

medical review panel be final and binding?

Again, I don't want to take up a lot of time of the House,

but the Minister knows of the case I'm thinking of, and, like

the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), I've been on this

case all the years I've been in this House. It's the case of a

man who worked in the closest of contact with asbestos, lagging

the pipes in the hull of naval vessels when, again without

going through all the details, the conditions were shocking.

The protection was practically nil. Every rule in the book was

broken. The federal government even admits that now, and he was

working in the federal dockyard; but that's beside the

point.

After a long battle this man — and again I have to thank Mr.

Ison for his devoted attention to this case — has finally got a

50 per cent disability pension, years after. Oh, I don't know,

we're talking about 1950, I think, or 1948 that he went to work

in the dockyard.

The point is that this man has been penalized all along

because a medical review panel, in my opinion, wrongly stated

at that first examination that there was a pre-existing

condition. Two words have fouled up this man's attempt to get

justice under his own condition, and there's been medical

evidence produced by about five different, independent,

unrelated medical people with nothing to do with compensation,

saying that there was no evidence

[ Page 3093 ]

whatever of a pre-existing condition. But one of three men

on a medical review panel made up his mind that there was, and

this patient's been fighting the battle ever since.

Now I know that one swallow doesn't make a summer, but this

isn't the first case or the last, I'm sure, and I just wonder

on this whole question of medical review panels.... I know the

Minister has already looked at this and he's made some changes

in approach. But I still feel, from the very obstinate example

in this man's case — obstinate in my view because the medical

evidence presented on paper by the medical review panel was

completely at odds with this man's A-1 discharge medical

condition from the navy.... He started working in the dockyard

two days after his discharge from the navy with a complete

first-class certificate of health. I think he'd had about two

days sickness while he was in the navy. How anyone could look

at the record and say that he started in the dockyard with a

pre-existing condition I'll never know. But once that goes in

the record as the opinion of a medical review panel, that

patient, unless he has the kind of guts that this man has and

the obstinacy that this man has.... He finally, because of his

lung condition, had to give up working. He simply couldn't

work.

All I'm saying is that I realize, as the Minister pointed

out, that somewhere along the line there has to be a point of

finality and decision. But I wonder if there isn't the danger

that either we need to change the ground rules on medical

review panels, or have some kind of ombudsman person who can

intervene or who can delay the point of finality if there is

any reasonable doubt. The other point I've made many times in

this House is that I feel that in this kind of situation very

often the workman should be given the benefit of the doubt.

The Minister has mentioned the cost and expense of all these

lengthy proceedings and delays and so on. I sometimes think it

wouldn't be any more costly to give the person the 20 or 30 per

cent disability pension or whatever, particularly in the light

of the fact that if the man doesn't get the pension and if he

just cannot work, he's going to be receiving government

assistance of some kind or another through one agency or

another, just like the man the Minister of Mines and I talked

about the other day. Okay, he's got lung problems, he can't

work in the mines; let's try and find other ways to get him

some kind of work. Otherwise he'll finish up on welfare, and

the same can happen with the kind of patient I'm talking about.

I feel very strongly about this, and I wonder if the Minister

has looked again at the medical review panel situation and can

tell us what his thoughts are.

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm inclined to agree with the Member

for Oak Bay to some extent at least that medical review panels have not always

been a very appropriate way of making final settlement, final adjudication of

medical disputes, but I don't really know where else we turn.

There has been quite a turnover of the specialists involved

in medical review panels. There has been a real turnover of

personnel, not only with respect to those who appear on medical

review panels but internally within the board. Of course, he'll

appreciate that when there is a medical review panel the

claimant selects one specialist, the employer one and the board

one, so that's not controllable to that extent.

I can only reiterate my general concern that we spend a

great deal of time assessing the cause of the accident — more

than the degree of impairment, more than the implications of

how the man's life is affected, what the restrictions on his

earning capacity are, psychosomatic consequences, general

social consequences, and it just seems to me that we have to

rethink the whole approach and the whole structure of workers'

compensation law. I am speaking in a general way because,

frankly, it matters little to me whether a man falls in the

bathtub, is injured on the job, in an automobile or is the

victim of a violent crime, but society must be concerned with

the extent to which that person's earning capacity is curtailed

and with the consequences that flow to his family. We must deal

with and provide for the dependents and we must provide for the

impaired earning capacity of that individual. It strikes me as

wasteful and misdirected for us to go to all of these extremes

in determining: Is it attributable to the job — an accident

that occurred on the job? Is it attributable to a pre-existing

condition? Was it at home? Was it in the automobile? In the

meantime, many workers are falling in between. They cannot, in

some cases, receive the benefits of private insurance while a

full adjudication is being made under the workers' compensation

law. That can take an interminable time, and in the meantime

the worker and his family are suffering.

This is the conceptual approach of all workers' compensation

law, as I know it, pretty well throughout the world. I'm

certainly asking questions as to whether or not this is the

most appropriate philosophy to pursue. But if we are going to

come to grips with that problem, it's a major undertaking. As I

indicated before, perhaps that's something this Legislature

should be looking at in time to come.

In the meantime, we are stuck with not only the current

procedure and the current law which requires that procedure,

but we are also stuck with the anomaly to some degree of

long-time claims — claims dating back many years. No matter how

much we liberalize the current law, it's impossible to

retroactively dispense justice to every claimant who feels that

he was aggrieved 20 or 25 years ago. The

[ Page 3094 ]

Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is dealing with one of

those cases. It becomes increasingly difficult to obtain

realistic evidence in those cases and it's extremely difficult

to understand the basis on which judgments were made at that

time. Then there is the question of trying to legislate in a

retroactive way. The adjudications that may be dealt with more

flexibly today due to amendments are fine, but we can hardly

extend that same kind of adjudication to a judgment that was

made 10 or 15 years ago.

So we have a legacy, to some extent, of problem areas and

many of them the board has been able to deal with through what

I can only suggest is a more humane approach and a more

humanistic understanding of people's problems. But I am

confident that in today's circumstances the administration is

functioning much better and I think there's a more sympathetic

and reasonable adjudication in terms of medical reviews also.

So until we are prepared to come to grips in a major way with

the Act and the whole philosophy on which it's founded, we have

to live with some of the problems that are in it. I am not

particularly happy by that at all but that's the way it is.

The other question that the Member brought up — I'd like to

respond to it now before I forget completely, and I don't want

him to go through his speech again — was with respect to labour

standards. I think it was the board hearings. The Board of

Industrial Relations has concluded its public hearings but it

is always prepared to receive submissions from anyone who is

interested in making representation to it with respect to

proposed changes in the minimum wage law.

I was interested in the Member's comments regarding the

distinction between 18-year-olds and those over 18 in the

minimum wage differential. I am not persuaded either way. The

rationale for introducing the differential was that young

people may find difficulty in obtaining employment if they were

paid at the same wage level as adults. How does a young person

break into the work force and receive the training necessary if

the employer is obliged to pay them the full rate? Why wouldn't

he, under those circumstances, hire an experienced adult? That

could work to the detriment of young people trying to break

into the work force and obtain training. Weighted against that,

of course, is the kind of case that the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) outlined where some employers take advantage of young

people and just keep turning them over to ensure that they are

receiving the lowest minimum wage.

I've had complaints from both points of view, and it is debatable. I have no

real strong feelings on it but I can't really find any major body of support

for either proposition. I suspect that if we rationalize and adjust it to one

level then I would start receiving complaints from young people that they couldn't

get a job. It is difficult to make a decision on but that is the dilemma.

Vote 121 approved.

On vote 122: labour standards, mediation, arbitration,

$1,869,168.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I've been looking

forward for quite some time to hearing not only from this

government but from some government in the country that will

have the gumption...you notice, Mr. Chairman, that I haven't

used the words "lack of vertebrae" or "lack of strength in the

knees" so I won't risk the very hastily pronounced penalty of

being named or banished from the precincts or fined a day's pay

for which we now have a very strange and peculiar precedent in

this Parliament.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think that the Hon. Member is

reflecting on a decision of the House. I would ask him to

confine his remarks to the vote.

MR. GARDOM: If one would reflect on that decision one would

have to reflect upon it badly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member should reflect accurately if

he is going to reflect on it.

MR. GARDOM: I would have hoped, Mr. Chairman, that we would

have heard from a government, and particularly this government,

that it would have the fortitude and perhaps the intelligence

and the gumption to recognize its true governmental

responsibility to say to the general public that if, as a

matter of right, taxes have got to be paid for providing the

public services, those public services will be provided,

specifically in the areas of health safety, transportation and

communication, perhaps especially in view of this government's

intervention more and more into the private sector as well as

into the field of finance.

Before 1967, with the election of the Pearson government in

Ottawa, the postal workers were given the right, as it's called

by some people — it's called a privilege by myself — to strike.

We have found that that has not assisted labour peace in that

area. We have found that it has not provided better postal

services or post offices but indeed far worse service.

Strikes in the public sector are essentially granting to

individuals who choose to take that course the right to

determine or set taxes. Those people are not voted into office

and I don't think they should have a right that is in essence

the right to determine or set taxes by virtue of them taking

those work stoppage positions. I think that is a precept that

is not correct. I think it is contrary to the historic concepts

[ Page

3095 ]

democratic government.

I think it should be a term of employment by statute that

those people who wish to be employed in the public service

should be prepared to abandon the privilege of striking and

substitute that with binding arbitration.

I would read to the Hon. Minister a

section of the Public

Schools Act of this province that I am sure he must be familiar

with —

section 138(7):

"Where the conciliator is unable to bring about the making

of a new agreement or the modification of the existing

agreement he may at any time and shall, if a new agreement is

not made or the existing agreement is not modified on or before

the 14th day of November next ensuing after his appointment, by

written notice advise the parties and the department that the

matter shall be referred to a salary arbitration board under

section 139 and notice shall be deemed to be submission of the

matter to arbitration."

Mr. Chairman, that has proven to be a workable procedure and

a publicly acceptable procedure. It is one that meets with the

wishes of those who are employed — the teachers; it is one that

meets with the wishes of the employers — the trustees; it is

one that meets with the wishes of the people who pay the bills — the taxpayers. Education has obviously been determined as

essential service. Mr. Chairman, the very fabric of our society

in this decade is being fragmented daily, weekly and monthly by

public sector strikes.

As I said before, for society to exist it must function. For

society to function it must have its public services operating,

without question, in those areas which are essential for the

well-being, the health, the safety and the commercial life of

all of our people. Governments are not providing leadership but

are abdicating their responsibility by not recognizing that

which I'd advocate as a contemporary fact as well as, I'd say,

a conventional wisdom.

Car insurance is compulsory by law in this province. By law

the public have to pay for it. But by the laws enacted by this

government the public today are not receiving the full service

to which they are entitled.

There are a couple of interesting articles. "Money Is Not Sole Issue: ICBC

Strikers," says the headline. This is referring to Mr. Fred Trotter of the

Office and Technical Employees Union, a report, I believe, in the Vancouver

Province : "Trotter said the union wants issues involving job security, posting

of job opportunities and the setting of salaries paid to new workers resolved."

"Money is not the sole issue," said the headline. "It also wants assurance

that if part of the auto insurance industry is returned to the private sector,

workers will not be displaced." Well, I guess they're forecasting a change of

government and they're probably correct in that forecast.

But, Mr. Chairman, were these people dragooned into

employment with the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia? If a

facility is not required, do these people feel that they should

have perpetual job security? Is that the concept of government?

Is that the responsibility of government? Is that what a

taxpayer is supposed to be voting his tax dollars for? I'd say

no.

The Vancouver Province in an editorial stated it this

way:

"At the heart of the matter is the question of whether ICBC

is really an essential service in which a strike can be

permitted or be allowed to continue for long. Automobile

insurance is compulsory. There is no other supplier in B.C. and

the automobile insurance Act of 1973 clearly states that 'if an

applicant for insurance is eligible and pays his premium, he

shall be provided with a motor vehicle liability policy.' "

The editorial goes on:

"The government has a range of unenviable choices, but it

must make its choice with speed. Stopgap measures will merely

invite chaos."

And what to this extent has been done to try to cure that

situation, and what could have been done? What could have been

done, Mr. Chairman, when that bill came in and what should be

done today when the bill of the Premier comes in for his trust

company: we should have it stipulated within those Acts, as we

find within the Public Schools Act, that the employees of those

Crown corporations subject themselves to binding arbitration.

It's just that simple.

The Sun , in its editorial on May 26, said this:

"ICBC's strike is a legal strike." All right. The government's

permissiveness has made it so, and how true that is. "But, no

less than the ferry walkout, it involves workers in a Crown

corporation vital to the million or so car owners in this

province, if not to the secure and orderly conduct of the

province itself." Those are very strong words and those are

very correct words. I'd like to repeat them: "... if not to

the secure and orderly conduct of the province itself." Isn't

that supposed to be the job of government, to ensure that there

is orderly conduct of the province and continuing conduct of

the province?

"Asking whether ICBC is an essential service is a rhetorical

question. The New Democratic government answered that when it

deemed automobile insurance essential enough to take over as a

state enterprise. Auto insurance is compulsory and Autoplan is

the only show in town.

"The government has the usual option. It can starve out the

strikers if the chaos resulting

[ Page 3096 ]

from motorists driving in an insurance limbo permits it. It

can cave in to what its computers tell it are outrageously

unacceptable demands. It can eat its shibboleth that every

worker has the right to hold a whole society at ransom and

resort once more to a legislated return to work and some form

of compulsory binding arbitration. What a choice and what a

mess."

It carries on:

"Like the government of Pierre Trudeau, a similar victim of

his own labour law liberality, as the dreary rerun of the

postal workers' shenanigans reminds us, the government of Dave

Barrett must face facts."

I'm asking you people to face facts. You've got to have a

contemporary concept.

We are a completely interrelated society. This is a

privilege that has become to expensive. It has become too

expensive. Not for one second should those employees be denied

their rights, as the teachers are not denied their rights. But

we cannot have the public sector shut down a city, a

municipality, a province or a country. We are not paying taxes

for that purpose. I would suggest to you, Hon. Members and the

Minister, that it's exceptionally wrong.

Witness the grass cutters. The grass cutters are able in

this province to shut down the school system. Now is that

right? Is that right that they should have the privilege of

doing that?

MR. J.H. GORST (Esquimalt): No, just lawyers.

MR. GARDOM: Lawyers don't have that privilege. Not at all.

What about hospital workers, police, firemen? I don't think

that this should be a thing that should have to come back in

the heat of the moment and have to be legislated. I commend

this government for the step it took in the fall, and I

supported the measure that it took, but I don't think that's

necessary. We have found in this province that we have had a

good experience. It has worked under the Public Schools Act. As

I said at the beginning, it is acceptable to the employees

there, it is acceptable to the employer there, and it's

acceptable to the person who funds it and who is the taxpayer.

The public pay the bill, the public take the knocks.

Unfortunately, I think a great degree of antagonism is

developing between the taxpayers and the public sector when the

public sector takes the steps that have been taken in a variety

of situations. I think that could be totally avoided. It

requires governmental leadership to see it come about. I think

it would be publicly acceptable, and I think it would be the

right thing to do. I also noted, dealing still on the process

of arbitration, Mr. Chairman.... . I don't wish to stray from

the vote, but I notice the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) came out.... Well, under arbitration. That's how I....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Everyone has been straying from

the vote this morning. Would the Hon. Member say his piece?

MR. GARDOM: Well, I haven't been. It says: "Labour Standards

Mediation and Arbitration." That's the way I read it, so I

haven't strayed at all. Now the Attorney-General, in a moment

of rash frankness, came out with a very, very interesting

statement a few days ago. I read that he made the point that

representatives of the public should sit in on conciliation or

arbitration procedures of labour disputes directly affecting

the general public. That's a first-class suggestion. That's a

first-class suggestion, and I'd like to have the Minister's

comments on that, too. But what we've got to do....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, no, don't ask. I don't want to start

squirming.

MR. GARDOM: I'm happy with your Labour Code. I am happy with

many of the innovative procedures you've brought in, Mr.

Minister. But I'm certainly not happy with this situation which

is an ever-mounting one — an ever-mounting problem and an

ever-increasing problem — which I've just discussed this

morning. And I am most unhappy with the fact that the

governments in this country — not only this government — are

abdicating their responsibility to the general public and, in

essence, abdicating their responsibility to the country. The

thing has got to work, and it cannot work with these continuous

stoppages. It cannot work on the basis of living from crisis to

crisis. It cannot work on the basis of there having to be

continuous legislative action to terminate these kinds of

transactions.

HON. MR. KING: I wondered when the Member was going to get

back to the vote. He dealt with the Public Schools Act, he

dealt with the philosophy of the Labour Code, but he did very

little in terms of dealing with the estimates that are before

the House for consideration at the moment. But he did start his

speech with a reference to the spine and the backbone and he

said he was going to steer clear of those comments and those

accusations pertaining to lack of them. I understand that it

was a back problem that kept the Member away from the House for

the past week or so. I wasn't sure whether it was a back

problem, a spine problem or whether it was related to his

departure from the Liberals or whether it was related to some

real physical disability. In any event, I can understand his

sensitivity to that particular epithet.

MR. GARDOM: Do you want a medical certificate?

[ Page 3097 ]

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Member makes this speech

pretty well every year regarding the philosophical approach to

the right to strike, the right to lock out.

MR. GARDOM: Privilege.

HON. MR. KING: "Privilege," says the Member. He,

suggests that perhaps people should enter the public service or

certain key industries under a term of employment....

MR. GARDOM: Public service.

HON. MR. KING: Public service. A term of employment, he

refers to. I wonder if it might not be better described under

that Member's identification as a sentence, because he wants to

deal in a very, very legalistic way with social problems.

MR. GARDOM: Just like the teachers do. Just like the

teachers do.

HON. MR. KING: As far as the teachers are concerned, they

are covered under the Public Schools Act where, by the mutual

consent of the parties, they have a different way of resolving

their problems.

MR. GARDOM: The law of the land.

HON. MR, KING: It's not the law of the land. It's their

choice and they are prepared to abide by that.

MR. GARDOM: The law of the land is....

HON. MR. KING: But history has shown, Mr. Chairman, that

when workers feel aggrieved, whether they are in the public

service, the private sector or wherever, even in such sensitive

areas as police and fire departments, they will, indeed, lay

down their tools. The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey finds

this reprehensible and suggests that because this happens on

occasion we should make a presumption that the majority of

people in those areas are not responsible enough to carry that

right and to exercise it carefully.

Consequently, he wants to prejudge and write blanket

legislation which prohibits by law any right to resort to those

historic devices when the collective bargaining system breaks

down. I want to say again that whether or not they have that

right by law, they will engage in its use if they feel

sufficiently aggrieved. I want to ask the Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) what his remedy would be

there. When they break the law, do you suggest that they be

rounded up and all put in jail?

MR. GARDOM: It hasn't happened.

HON. MR. KING: Oh, certainly it has happened. Many people

have gone to jail. But I say in terms of social controversy —

and we have increasing social controversy in society today —

that a persuasive approach is usually more effective to

convince people that they do have a reasonable recourse in

society, rather than a punitive approach which is going to try

to pound them into submission and impose heavy penalties unless

they comply with what, in effect, would be a one-sided effect,

as anyone who is interested and anyone who is qualified in

industrial relations knows, including the employer.

I wonder about that Member, Mr. Chairman. We've been accused

in this House of pursuing policies which deterred investments

by industry. In effect, what they're saying is that industry,

because they are having to pay what we conceive to be their

fair taxation, is striking the residents of this province,

creating major unemployment and creating all kinds of conflict

for vast areas of the province. I've never heard the Member for

Point Grey get up and question the propriety or the morality or

the legality of a private employer's right to create economic

devastation in this province, to close down overnight and leave

a company town. He has never advocated legislation that would

curtail and control those kind of powers. But he is absolutely

obsessed.

MR. GARDOM: Baloney!

HON. MR. KING: He makes the same tired old speech every

session regarding the rights of workers that he would like to

curtail. The rights — he says "the privilege"...those

Members on that side should know all about privilege; they

should be very familiar with the word. I don't view it as a

privilege. I think it's a reasonable response, provided it's

exercised in a responsible way.

True, it's not always exercised in a responsible way. Trade

unions act irresponsibly, management acts irresponsibly, even

lawyers, on occasion, act irresponsibly — even legislators. But

in total, when you look at the performance in the federal

public service, which the Member referred to, it's an

exceedingly small percentage of instances where strike action

has interrupted the public interest — exceedingly small.

I question the wisdom of using a meat hammer to deprive even

those workers who do exercise their fair rights in a

responsible way simply through the actions of one group who may

have been precipitous and perhaps not as sensitive to the

public interest as they should have been. I would rather

develop a reasoned approach of persuasion with these

people.

It was harsh reaction — it was redneck reaction — that

resulted in the shooting of students at Kent State University.

It was a pretty reactionary response that

[ Page 3098 ]

resulted in vast social upheavals all through the United

States. When we try to respond to legitimate social protect in

this province or in this nation in a heavy-handed, legalistic

and punitive way, I think we're inviting the same kind of

upheaval. I'm surprised that one who has had legal training and

who has been involved in this House for so many years would

attempt to take that kind of harsh response as a remedy to

occasional problems that do arise relative to strike

activity.

However, I don't really think this debate is appropriate in

terms of the estimates of the department. He's talking about

legislation and he's talking about the Labour Code and the

philosophy on which it is premised. So, Mr. Chairman, I

understand the Member's point of view — he's made it abundantly

clear on many occasions. I emphatically disagree with him. We

usually manage to disagree on fairly amiable terms; I hope that

disagreement continues. I'm just sorry that, apparently, the

leader of the Liberal Party was unable to disagree with him on

equally amiable terms.

MR. GARDOM: Might I just have a very short response to this

pyrotechnic rhetoric of the Hon. Minister?

I've always referred, Mr. Minister, to both sides of the

coin. Work stoppages, be it strikes or be it lockouts, in the

public service are no longer rights; they have become

privileges by virtue of the interdependence of society.

The Hon. Minister talks about the heavy hand and the meat

hammer, Kent State, dragooning workers, jailing of people and

so forth. I was referring, Mr. Minister, to the Public Schools

Act of this province, which is a system that works.

HON. MR. KING: It's not under my department.

MR. GARDOM: Never you mind, my friend. We don't find the

type of labour disruption in that area. Maybe it would be a

good thing to get rid of the department if someone else could

adopt philosophies other than yours, and we would have the same

type of provisions in essential public services in this

province — I'm only talking about public services — that we have

under the Public Schools Act. If we had that type of thing we

wouldn't find these unwarranted work stoppages and we wouldn't

find the taxpayers being ripped off day after day after day

after day.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Chairman, I think everybody

should be reminded once in a while of those words which they speak in this Legislature.

The Hon. Member who has just finished, as the Minister of Labour pointed out,

has made his perennial speech for the privileged few in our society. It's the

same every year. I don't blame him for making it, because that is who he represents,

and he wouldn't be doing his job in this House if he didn't make that speech.

I commend him for making it. You are representing, Mr. Member, the people you

represent and that's good — but it's probably not the vast majority of the people

in this province.

One of the areas that he always puts forward when he's

making this speech is that people who join the civil service

should know what those terms of reference are when they join

the civil service, that there is no right to strike. He says:

"Once you have signed the contract and these are the terms of

reference, then you are honour bound and shall be legally bound

to follow those terms of reference." But you can't have it both

ways.

It seems to me if you run for a political party as a Liberal

you sign some terms of reference, Mr. Chairman. You say to the

people in that constituency: "I am a Liberal. I believe in the

Liberal philosophy. I've signed. I have nomination papers, I've

signed them, and that's what I stand for. But if things get

rough, then at some point I've got the option to change my

mind."

Do you know something? He's right, Mr. Chairman, but he

doesn't want that option to carry on to the workers of this

province — only the elitist few from Point Grey, West

Vancouver, the Union Club, and that whole elitist group.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope that you will

give me the latitude to discuss this vote that you have just

afforded to the Minister of Highways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, inasmuch as we have broken nearly every

rule this morning, we might as well break one more. Will the

Hon. Member proceed?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): He's afraid to bring

the Minister of Highways to order for fear he'll cut off his

bridges!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm glad to see some Hon. Members concerned

with the rules of the House. However, as some latitude has been

allowed, I would ask the Hon. Member to exercise it very

judiciously.

HON. MR. LEA: Evel Knievel's next feat is going to be to try

to jump from one side of his mouth to the other. Ten-to-one he

doesn't make it! (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: I was interested, Mr. Chairman, in the

Minister's reaction — or maybe I should say over-reaction — to

the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) because I

think arbitration has to be the route that we should go to an

ever-increasing degree. I think the Minister was trying to

split hairs

[ Page 3099 ]

when he tried to hide behind the screen that he is not

responsible for the Public Schools Act. Nor is he. I am not

asking the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey to join our party.

He'd be very welcome, but this speech hasn't got that

intention.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: No, we are in very similar minds on this issue,

Mr. Minister. There's a lot of people out there who think this

way also. Don't be so smug and sure that because you honestly

and sincerely believe in your ideas on this issue you are with

the majority of people either.

AN HON. MEMBER: The voters will decide that.

MR. WALLACE: That's right, the voters will decide. It is a

very important issue and I know we've had our fun this morning

but it really isn't a laughable matter.

The principle of binding arbitration is established in this

province in another field, and I admit that it's not the

Minister's responsibility, but in looking for better solutions

for society as a whole, surely we should acknowledge that kind

of example that exists in the case of the teachers.

Goodness knows, Mr. Chairman, it's far from perfect. The

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey talked as though the situation

with the teachers was some Utopian situation in the

labour-management field. It's anything but, and we'll talk

about that later, as the lady Minister knows, on her bill.

Nevertheless, there is some assurance that in that particular

example the third innocent party will not suffer and the

arbitration system that exists there gives that guarantee,

albeit that there are many twists and turns of the road. I

don't find that the situation is as good as it might be. But at

least the principle of arbitration, I think, has a great deal

to recommend it in our society today.

The Minister in his comments said that police and firemen,

if they're unhappy beyond a certain point, will lay down their

tools. And that is true. But I ask the Minister: what happens

then? The Minister was all uptight about meat hammers and heavy

authority and people being clobbered into submission.

I notice we've woken up the Member for Vancouver-Little

Mountain (Mr. Cummings) again. It's only 20 to 12.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): I wasn't

clapping for you. I was clapping for my friends.

MR. WALLACE: Why don't you go back to sleep, Roy? We were

getting along fine while you were snoozing. Just go back to

sleep.

The point is that when the policemen and the firemen lay

down their tools the government acts, as it should and as it

did in the case of the firefighters. The Minister's argument

that you can't compel people to do certain things when the

whole of society is endangered is just false. His own

government has shown that when in fact society is endangered,

whether it be by fire or complete breakdown of law and order,

as happened in Quebec, the government does act. So the

so-called right to strike which he feels is enshrined in the

laws of this country is really a mirage because when they do

strike they get the meat hammer, all right. They get the whole

weight of government down on them, and that's the way it should

be.

Now, should we go through all these tortuous,

time-consuming, expensive procedures to the great inconvenience

of the public, when the end result is that government comes

down with its heavy hand anyway, surely in this society we can

find preventive ways or better ways. Arbitration, I think, is

one of these better ways. The Minister also talked about

"historic devices" in the labour-management battle. That's

again my whole point: we're still using historic devices that

might have been all right in the bad old days when children

worked in the mines and some of the conditions of labour, for

example in the mines, were absolutely inhuman. But we've moved

a little bit along the road since then, as the Minister knows.

Certainly the socialist movement can take a great deal of

credit for that. But let's not be so blinded by the word

"strike" as being some absolutely sacrosanct enshrined idea

that the whole world's going to come to an end if some group of

people are not allowed to strike. I think the pendulum's just

swung so far that we're losing sight of the total picture.

The third party is often the public. As the Minister says,

there's sometimes not a great deal of public inconvenience and

he feels that the concept of removing the strike weapon in some

instances, in essential services, is not justified because we

haven't yet had enough trouble. Well, he may have an element of

justification in that comment provincially, but certainly

nationally I don't know where you've been in the last year or

two. If you don't think we've had fantastic amounts of trouble

to the public in the form of transportation strikes, the postal

strikes and disputes.... The Minister shakes his head as much

as to say, "Well they're nothing." Well, you must know the kind

of time it takes to get a letter from Vancouver to Victoria

these days.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): That's federal, Scott.

MR. WALLACE: I know it's federal, but I'm talking about a

principle. He said the principle of the right to strike hasn't

really been a great public

[ Page 3100 ]

inconvenience — not to the degree that justifies

legislation. We obviously have an honest difference of opinion,

but I don't think you're listening to a lot of people out there

in the general public who are pretty fed up with the amount of

inconvenience they experience. If there were no alternatives,

maybe the Minister's position would be reasonable, but there is

this alternative of binding arbitration. As I said in an

earlier debate, it was very interesting when our committee came

up with their report regarding teacher bargaining, the draft

report contained the words "compulsory arbitration," but

some very astute and observant member of the committee managed

to take that word "compulsory" out. They're trying to suggest

that it's not compulsory. Whether it's compulsory or binding or

whatever it is, the fact is that a certain deadline in

negotiations the teachers have arbitration, and that

arbitration is binding. As I said a moment ago, despite all its

shortcomings, it words, in a long and tortuous and confusing

sort of way many times.

It seems to me and certainly it's the policy of the

Conservative Party that in essential services — I don't care

what the historic devices have been which have led to a greater

degree of justice in the marketplace, and I think the Minister

would have to agree a great deal of progress has been made —

the whole concept of arbitration leaves the potential to solve

problems without the kind of inconvenience we have had in the

past, or without the potential danger whereby this House has to

be called back into session with some considerable difficulty,

as the Minister knows, at short notice and at great expense

simply to put the particular party back to work in the first

place. I just think that in our modern society, with all the

facility we have for communication and negotiation and all the

technology we have and the experience we have, surely

arbitration — and particularly binding arbitration in the field

of essential services — makes a great deal of common sense.

HON. MR. KING: We are discussing the philosophy of labour

legislation. We are not discussing the estimates here. I say

that is unfortunate. I hesitate to get into a debate where it

is obvious, patently obvious, that the Members don't even

understand the process of collective bargaining.

In the first place, I don't believe that there is anything

sacrosanct about the right to strike. I try to avoid the

exercise of the right. That is my function and responsibility,

to try and mitigate, curtail — well, not to curtail but to

minimize and cut down — the incidence of strikes and disruption

to the public. But there is a basic question there. How much

inconvenience does society tolerate before it starts to curtail

what are basic rights of individual people?

You know, you can argue with me all you want, but institutions such as the

United Nations, international labour organizations and every church group in

this nation assert that it is a right of workers to lay down their tools. I'm

not hung up on some dogmatic philosophy that pertains to our party. I also happen

to know, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the bargaining process at the table, that

unless there is a right to terminate employment, the collective bargaining process

doesn't work. Why should it? Why should the employer bargain and seek a collective

agreement with his employees if he knows that there is no penalty or sanction

at the end of that round? He is simply going to hold out. He is better equipped

to go into an arbitration process. He has at his disposal actuaries, economists

and lawyers which the small unions can't afford. Why shouldn't he go into a

process of arbitration? It's an economic sanction that makes the collective

bargaining system work. It resides equally in both sides in the right to lockout

and the right to strike, You are obsessed with the number of times it is exercised.

Very few people pay attention to the great number of rounds of negotiations

that are consummated without resorting to strike or lock-out activity. It just

seems to me that to hold out compulsory arbitration as some panacea for solving

industrial relations reveals an ignorance of the dynamics of the process. We

have the indication of countries where that has been tried. Don't forget that

within the public service areas, within firefighting, police and hospital areas

where the public health and welfare may be held in jeopardy, we have a provision

in the Labour Code that allows the union to opt for binding arbitration to settle

it. In addition to that, through the policy of the department, where a third

party is requested, we always seek an indication from both parties as to whether

they will accept the third-party recommendation as binding.

To try and deal with all of these problems in a legislative

way and say that you haven't got these rights because it is too

disruptive to society, if we are going to proceed in that way,

we had better start looking at industry and their right to

close down a business because it is no longer profitable. Quite

often that has a more profound effect on a community than any

strike does. What about Ocean Falls where the schools and

hospitals were walked away from?

How far are we prepared to start curtailing rights in this

society? It's a bit blasé. I don't think that people really

understand the inherent use of the strike threat and the

lock-out threat to ensure that serious bargaining is undertaken

by those responsible to consummate an agreement. That's what I

think is sacrosanct, not because I encourage people to go out

on strike; but until we find better devices, which we are

trying to do....

You will note that there is an amendment before the House dealing with the

very thing you have been

[ Page

3101 ]

discussing — the right to identify in advance certain areas

that would be crucial to the maintenance of the public health

and safety. These are factors the Members apparently just don't

understand.

Vote 122 approved.

On vote 123: manpower development, $10,635,689.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the manpower development branch

deals with a variety of areas but I just wanted to touch on one

or two, particularly the question of apprenticeship training. I

notice, for example, that under code 031 apprenticeship

training is down from $5 million to $3,474,000. I have an

article here that I remembered reading back in January in

The Province pointing out that the Education and Labour

departments were getting together because there was a real

problem regarding the question of the adequacy of

apprenticeship training. There was a joint committee formed. It

stated in the

article that there were some very important

issues which had to be faced and that the Minister would be

making a major policy statement. I'm referring to the Vancouver

Province of January 15, 1975. It said that the Minister

would be making clear his views on a range of matters,

including the B.C. inflow of foreigners and migrants from

elsewhere in Canada, northern development in concomitant labour

demands, work force mobility, employee upgrading and improved

ways of keeping educational establishments informed of upcoming

job opportunities.

The Associate Deputy Minister, I guess, is Mr. Azad who

stated that one possibility is an expansion of the province's

pre-apprenticeship training programme. This is a programme

that's being used widely, I gather, in the United States, where

the members of the department go to the high schools and

discuss the whole question of careers and jobs.

The other point that is mentioned in this

article is the

fact that in many of the crafts, because there are an

inadequate number of apprentices, the average age of the work

force in that class is increasing considerably. I notice here

that in the construction trades industry, one-third of the

total work force is over 50 years of age. This is stated in the

same article.

I don't know how valid these comments are, or how accurately

reported Mr. Azad was. I'm not criticizing him or suggesting

that he didn't have the right to make these statements, but it

seems to me that in the light of emphasizing the importance of

apprenticeship, then to find the vote in the estimates reduced,

as I say, from $5 million to $3.4 million, perhaps the Minister

could tell us if since January, they've changed their attitude

about the problem of apprenticeship training.

HON. MR. KING: I'd point out, Mr. Chairman, that in terms of

facilities for apprenticeship training, this is done in

collaboration with the Department of Education and also the

federal department of Manpower and Immigration which also funds

within the provinces vacancies or seats available for B.C.

apprentices. We are working together, the Department of

Education and the Department of Labour, in terms of trying to

provide more facilities so that more and more of our own

working people can be under training and available to fill the

demands of industry in the next few years. There was an acute

shortage of facilities, and we're coming to grips with that as

effectively as we can. I hope that the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and I may be in a position to make a further

announcement in that regard within the next few weeks or

so.

MR. WALLACE: But there are very few things in this whole

budget that are reduced in cost, for whatever reason. Is some

of this cost then showing up in the estimates of the Minister

of Education?

HON. MR. KING: No, that's not the case. The federal

department does fund a good deal of this training, though,

therefore there is a division of costs between this province

and the federal government.

I'm not quite sure why there is a reduction this year. I'm

aware that there are more people under training now than there

were previously. However, I can check into that and let the

Member know precisely.

MR. WALLACE: Just another quick point, Mr. Chairman, and it

relates to the occupational environment inspection branch which

is also listed under this vote.

Back in March there was a statement from the department that

certain factories and plants were not being inspected with any

kind of regularity. Some plants hadn't been even inspected from

the day they were built. The statement here mentioned that

often eight years could elapse between visits to particular

properties, and the inspectors were concerned with the quality

of air cleanliness, the adequacy of toilet facilities, luncheon

arrangements and so on.

Apparently, the kind of costs that might be involved to the

plants concerned in bringing their factories and plants up to

standard was quoted.... In Port Alberni, MacMillan Bloedel

claimed that it was faced with a $0.5 million expenditure. I'm

quoting from a report of March 5 this year in the Vancouver

Province . I know the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A.

Williams) should be interested to hear this: a statement was

made at that time that independent consultants had looked at

Can-Cel in relation to the requirements that it was to meet as

an employer, and as much as $1

[ Page 3102 ]

million might be involved by Can-Cel in providing better

facilities and better conditions of work as required by the

Act.

I notice that there has been an increase from 146 to 161

inspectors, or staff at any rate. Are most of these inspectors?

Could the Minister tell us to what degree the inspections are

being upgraded and made more frequently and more regularly, and

what is the cost to the employers?

HON. MR. KING: They certainly are. We've employed

considerably more inspectors to ensure that there are valid

inspections and monitoring undertaken throughout the

province.

It's true that some plants had not been inspected. Of

course, with this increased inspectional service, naturally we

are now determining that the employers have not in all respects

been living up to the requirements of the law. Consequently

they are being faced with fairly large capital outlays. The

amounts, of course, depend on the extent to which they have

voluntarily complied with the standards heretofore.

I have some information regarding the reduction in the

apprenticeship that the Member asked about.

Apparently the reduction is a result of a change this year

in reporting actual provincial training costs. In the past the

department has always reported as a cost of apprenticeship

training an amount fully paid by the federal government for

subsistence and travel allowances. So that's the different.

It's just an accounting procedure in terms of the division

between the two levels of government.

Vote 123 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada