1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd 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)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3463 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Fluoridation of water supplies. Mr. Cocke –– 3463

Indexed pensions. Mrs. Dailly –– 3463

Vancouver fire boat. Mr. Lauk –– 3464

Kettle Valley Railway. Mr. Barber –– 3464

Accommodation for students. Mr. Gabelmann –– 3465

Transportation and Highways ministry policy on Indians. Mr. Howard –– 3465

Ombudsman staffing requests. Mr. Macdonald –– 3465

Tabling Documents.

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority annual report, 1979-80.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 3465

Oral Questions.

Educational television equipment. Hon. Mr. Smith –– 3466

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm)

Votes 162 to 164 inclusive approved –– 3466

On vote 165: revenue sharing fund –– 3466

Mr. Barber

Votes 165 to 169 inclusive approved –– 3466

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Labour estimates. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

On vote 146: minister's office –– 3466

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Hanson

Mr. King

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Cocke

WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I inform the House this

afternoon that with us in the members' gallery are four young people

from the village of Burns Lake in that great constituency of Omineca.

They are Mr. Wilf Adams, band manager of the Lake Babine band,

accompanied by Mr. Frank Alec Jr., Corrina Wright and Corrina Joseph. I

would ask this House to make them very welcome.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is the Merritt senior Babe Ruth team,

attending the British Columbia senior Babe Ruth championships here in

Victoria. They won their first game yesterday, 3 to 2, over Trail. Doug

Beech is the manager of the team. Mr. Beech last year received the

Ministry of Human Resources International Year of the Child award in

recognition of his 13 years of service in working with young people in

Merritt. Along with Doug — an erstwhile fishing companion of mine,

which will bear no further explanation — are five team members: Ronnie

Hume, Arne Stadler, Scott Wright, Duane Jurret and Mike Bertucci. I ask

the House to welcome them.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr.

Speaker, the House might be interested to know that I had the pleasure

of meeting this morning with the Tourist Advisory Council of British

Columbia. This council is composed of 20 members from all over the

province, people from the industry. We had a most productive morning.

In the gallery this afternoon are Mrs. Bunne Hoffman and Mr. Bob

Petrick, both past-presidents of the British Columbia Chamber of

Commerce. They were at our meeting this morning. I would ask the House

to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. BARNES: I'd

like to ask the House to join me in congratulating Mr. Bobby Ackles,

manager of the B.C. Lions, and their coach Vic Rapp, on their victory

over the Winnipeg Blue Bombers 26 to 6 last night. It looks as though

they are going to repeat the glorious days, which I once enjoyed, in

1964 when we won the Grey Cup.

As well, I would like the

House to join me in welcoming my secretary, Elaine Little, her daughter

Beverly and Beverly's husband Bob Stone, who are immigrating to Canada

from Crapstone, England. If the House would join me in welcoming them

this afternoon I would be most appreciative.

MR. RITCHIE:

I would invite the House to welcome one of British Columbia's more

progressive poultry farmers, Mr. Manuel Manuelan from the Central

Fraser Valley.

MR. MACDONALD: I wish the House to

welcome to our galleries two fine citizens of British Columbia, Dr. and

Mrs. Greenberg. If I may say, to boot, they are two great Canadians.

MR. LORIMER: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming my doctor,

Gordon Gell — he's here to check on why I'm still around here — and

his wife, Isabel, with his sister Mona Bohemer and a cousin from Wales.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I'd like the House to give a warm welcome to members of the B.C.

Marketing Board, Mona Brun, Mr. Chuck Emery, Mr. Al Giesbrecht and Mr.

Martin Hunter.

MR. HYNDMAN: The Laurel House Society

of Vancouver does exceptional work with children around the province

suffering with the problems of autistic disorders. One of its

directors, Mr. Speaker, is in your gallery today. Would members welcome

Mrs. Yvonne Jackson from Vancouver.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today, under the guidance of Mrs. Betty

Good of my constituency, are a group of 20 or more Mexican students who

are visiting our capital and British Columbia. They are here on an

exchange basis, and next year a group of our students will go to

Mexico. I wish the House to make them welcome,

MR. SEGARTY:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a very good friend of mine, John

Siray. John is dean of vocational programs at the East Kootenay

Community College. I'd like the House to welcome him this afternoon.

Oral Questions

FLUORIDATION OF WATER SUPPLIES

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of

Health — that's quite a change for me; I normally direct them to the

Speaker. I would like to ask a question about fluoridation. Contained

in the minister's health statement of today's date regarding denticare

is a quote by Dr. Ted Ramage, president of the College of Dental

Surgeons. He said: "The college applauds the minister's support of

fluoridation. We hope he will convince the government to promote

fluoridation throughout British Columbia as part of a total preventive

dental-health program." Is the minister still determined to promote

fluoridation of municipal water supplies?

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Speaker, I certainly encourage municipalities to use the means at

their disposal to obtain the permission of their residents to

fluoridate water.

INDEXED PENSIONS

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Provincial Secretary. The government

has in recent weeks directed boards of Crown corporations to bring

their pension plans into line with the legislation currently before the

House, which limits the protection given pensioners against inflation.

Yesterday the minister introduced amendments to one of the bills that

changes substantially the pension indexing arrangements of one of the

groups, government employees. My question to the minister is: has the

minister decided that all employees, including municipal employees,

teachers and employees of Crown corporations, should now have broadly

similar pension-indexing provisions?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is

[ Page 3464 ]

aware

that she is addressing a matter covered by a bill before this House.

Her

preamble to the question, in any event, is not correct. She implied

that the government has directed all Crown agencies to bring their

pension plans into line with those in the public sector that are being

currently amended. In any event, I don't think it would be appropriate

or in order to debate the pension bill which is before the House.

MRS. DAILLY:

I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm not attempting to debate the

bill and I would just like to repeat the question. If you consider it

in order, Mr. Speaker, I would hope the minister would answer it. Has

the minister decided that all employees, including municipal employees,

teachers and employees of Crown corporations, should now have broadly

similar pension-indexing provisions?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is in order.

AN HON. MEMBER: No answer.

MR. LAUK: I'm surprised at the Provincial Secretary's lack of knowledge.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'm still checking your handwriting.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't write so bad yourself.

MR. LAUK:

That's improper grammar. Would the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Smith) please talk to that gent. He needs the benefits of a core

curriculum.

VANCOUVER FIRE BOAT

To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and lack of transit....

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. member, if a question is prefaced in such a manner,

the question automatically becomes out of order. I would ask the member

to possibly start again.

MR. LAUK: Shall I rephrase?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please.

MR. LAUK:

My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. What steps has the

government taken to assist the city of Vancouver to obtain federal

funding for fire boat services in Vancouver harbour? As the minister

and the government know, there's a widespread concern that this fire

boat will be taken out of service.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, my ministry has excellent and regular liaison with the

city of Vancouver, and any request from them would certainly be acted

upon. We've not received any request in that regard.

MR. LAUK:

Would the minister undertake to provide information to the House

confirming absolutely that the government has received no requests from

the city of Vancouver?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I have not received a request. As recently as

the day before yesterday I met with the mayor of Vancouver. Certainly if the

mayor or the council has a presentation to make, we look forward to it.

MR. LAUK:

Has the minister received requests from trade unions operating along

the shore for such an intervention on his part, either as an MLA or

cabinet minister?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No.

KETTLE VALLEY RAILWAY

MR. BARBER:

I have a question for the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker. The CPR

has given the Kettle Valley Rail Heritage Society only until July 28 to

come up with some $500,000 with which to finance the purchase of a

section — only a

section — of the Kettle Valley railway line. My first

question to the minister is: has he decided to support this excellent

project, either by providing a grant necessary to purchase the rails or

by offering to guarantee a loan to the Kettle Valley Rail Heritage

Society for the purpose of obtaining the rail from CPR?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

As you know, the government, through various ministries, has been

approached with regard to the Kettle Valley railway situation. As far

as my ministry is concerned, its responsibility would be through the

heritage branch, and the suggestion is that the heritage branch should

have some dedication towards applying their authority covering parts of

the Kettle Valley railway. I might say that the government has already,

long ago, indicated that it is committed to acquiring the rights-of-way

involved in that site. At this stage there has been no proposal under

which we would undertake to acquire a tourist railway or acquire the

facilities of the railway which exists: We are already committed, as I

say, to acquiring the rights-of-way in the name of the Crown when the

railway is dismantled. That purpose is already being pursued.

MR. BARBER:

I'm aware of that, but that wasn't the question I asked — nor, in any

case, is there any great purpose served by acquiring the right-of-way

and abandoning the rail. There's no great purpose to that at all. Has

the minister decided whether or not to make available funds, directly

or indirectly, via the Kettle Valley Rail Heritage Society to assist

them in the purchase of this historic tourist resource? Have you

decided whether or not to make funds available for that purpose? Yes or

no.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Not from this ministry.

MR. BARBER:

Have you decided whether or not to guarantee a loan in order that the

Kettle Valley Railway Heritage Society might be able thereby to obtain

the interim financing in order to preserve this vital piece of Canadian

railway history?

HON. MR. WOLFE: You've got the wrong ministry.

MR. BARBER:

It's not the wrong ministry. You are responsible for the Heritage

Trust, which should, if it is doing its job, be concerned about this.

My final question to the minister: have you decided whether or not to

designate the railway as a heritage resource — as you are empowered to

do under

section 4 and as you could do by a study under

[ Page

3465 ]

section 7(1) of the Heritage Act — in order to preserve and protect the existing rail line known as the Kettle Valley Railway?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

That question has already been answered to the Kettle Valley Rail

Heritage Society by indicating that it would be impractical or

impossible to declare the entire railway project as a heritage site. It

is not within the resources of the heritage branch or in fact the

government facilities to take on a project of that size.

ACCOMMODATION FOR STUDENTS

MR. GABELMANN:

I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. What

steps has the minister taken to ensure that students attending UBC,

BCIT and the Pacific Vocational Institute will be able to obtain rental

accommodation near their respective campuses this fall?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That is an important question. I will take it as notice.

MR. GABELMANN:

Is the minister now in a position to answer the question he took as

notice on June 4 regarding the shortage of accommodation for SFU

students this fall?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I don't recall

the question. However, I will check my questions that I've taken as

notice and come back with an answer, hopefully.

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

MINISTRY POLICY ON INDIANS

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker,

I'd like to transport a question over to the Minister of Transportation

and Highways, and ask the minister if he has decided to put a stop to

his ministry's practice of advising construction crews working on

Indian reserve land to treat Indians with special care because they, in

the words of the ministry, "are more likely to be guided by their

emotions than by law and logical reasoning." Has the minister decided

to stop that practice?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, this is the first I've heard of this. I'll certainly look into it.

MR. HOWARD:

I'd like to ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the minister,

while he was looking into it, would mind examining page 109 of the

construction foreman's manual of his department. He might find it there.

OMBUDSMAN STAFFING REQUESTS

MR. MACDONALD:

I have a question to the Premier. In view of the caseload before the

ombudsman, which has reached staggering proportions, and in view of the

announcement of his Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) that he was

introducing a "crude instrument of restraint," can the Premier assure

the House that a decision has been made to exempt the request of the

ombudsman for additional staff from that "crude instrument of

restraint"?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The ombudsman has had all requests to Treasury Board

or the Minister of Finance for staffing dealt with, as far as I understand,

both appropriately and quickly, and to the extent of the requests. I think possibly

the ombudsman has had great satisfaction in dealing with Treasury Board.

regard to the member's question about a "crude instrument" which is an

attempt to bring efficiency to government and to watch the spending of

the taxpayers' money — there must be appropriate appeal for just cause

for replacement of personnel — I would think the public would think of

that as good stewardship rather than a "crude instrument." They would

perhaps think that if other governments had practised the same sort of

restraint in advance, perhaps some governments wouldn't run large

deficits when they were in office.

MR. LAUK: I rise

to point out to the Speaker that under the rules established for this

period of time, ministers should be responsive to the questions and not

make speeches.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon.

member. With some degree of intention to help members, I will reserve

on that until the conclusion of question period and deal with the

matter then.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, before

asking the ombudsman to investigate the Premier's answer to my question

I would suggest that this request is before the cabinet — from the

information I have, which is pretty authentic, Mr. Premier. I'm asking

whether some steps cannot be taken from your high office to expedite

that request, which is very urgent, and exempt this particular request

from your freeze.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as

the member knows, I am very attentive to the needs of all citizens and

particularly those that would be met through the ombudsman. It goes

without saying that without his urging I would obviously take special

care to preserve requests, not only from the ombudsman but from every

citizen, to get more responsive government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, just prior to proceeding, the point of order raised

during question period took away, in itself, from the time of question

period. When a question is framed in such a way that it more or less

elicits a long answer, that has to be taken into account as well.

Secondly, if members, when they are phrasing their questions, impart

some argument or particular phrase that might be argumentative or

stimulate debate, then some response to that point must be expected.

The point by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was well

taken.

MR. LAUK: Further on that point, Mr. Speaker,

if that were the case I would agree with the Speaker's ruling. In this

particular instance I rose — and I do rarely within question period —

because the phrase that was chosen by the second member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Macdonald) was a phrase used by the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis): "a crude instrument of restraint." As a result of that, I

was surprised to hear the Premier make a speech attacking the use of

that phrase and thereby indirectly attacking the Minister of Finance. I

rose for the dual purpose of bringing him to order and protecting the

Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I have the pleasure to file the 1979-80 annual report for the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority.

[ Page 3466 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: May I have leave to answer a question?

Leave granted.

EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION EQUIPMENT

HON. MR. SMITH:

This is a question which was asked of me by the penetrating first

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) on July 16. He asked me a

question concerning the ministry policy of approving the purchase of

educational video cassette equipment. The member brought to my

attention the case of the South Cariboo School District, which wished

to purchase 1/2-inch cassettes but were unable to get assurance that

shareable funding from the ministry would be available for this format.

answering this question I should say that about five years ago the

government approved a policy of the uniform purchase of 3/4-inch

videotape cassette equipment. This allowed cassettes to be

interchangeable for use within government and was a good policy as it

ensured uniformity and portability. But technology has changed during

the past five years and there have been some decided advances in the

development of 1/2-inch cassette equipment. Some colleges and school

districts have already purchased these 1/2-inch cassettes while others

wish to expand their use for educational purposes. Proponents of the

small format argue the equipment is more serviceable. It is smaller and

therefore more portable; even more pertinently, it is cheaper. Taking

into account this new technology and the need to replace some videotape

equipment through the system, my ministry has been sensitive to the

desirability of broadening the approvals to permit replacement of

1/4-inch cassettes with authorized 1/2-inch cassettes like those in the

home video systems. My ministry in the past month has been cooperating

with a committee of school district representatives to develop a new

cost-sharing formula which will permit the purchase of 1/2-inch

cassette format. This cost-sharing formula should be in place and

announced in the fall.

In addition, I support the desire of

the Provincial Educational Media Centre to acquire the necessary

videotape dubbing equipment permitted to provide programs in the

1/2-inch cassette format to school districts and colleges. As a result,

school districts can soon be expected to be able to acquire replacement

equipment in the authorized 1/2-inch format using a new cost-sharing

formula. They can also expect that the Provincial Educational Media

Centre will shortly have the capacity to provide their programming. I

know the member has been hanging on every word.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

Vote 162: minister's office, $165,465 — approved.

Vote 163: general administration, $2,685,010 — approved.

Vote 164: grants, contributions and subsidies, $73,450,000 — approved.

On vote 165: revenue sharing fund, $176,200,000.

MR. BARBER:

I have one question only. I raised it during the debate on the

minister's office. Can he inform us when he intends to inform local

government as to the extent to which their share of provincial

revenues, as defined in the Revenue Sharing Act, will be announced and

the likely extent of the decline in those revenue-sharing grants next

year because of the current decline in provincial revenues? When will

it be announced and what is his best guess as to the likely proportion

of decline in those grants to local government in B.C.?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We normally announce at the end of December.

MR. BARBER:

Has the minister received to this date any information from the

Minister of Finance as to the level of decline in moneys available for

revenue-sharing under this program? If not, can he tell us when he

expects to receive that information?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

The sources of revenue for the revenue-sharing program are sales tax,

income tax, personal and corporation tax, as well as a portion of the

resource revenues. None of that will really be known until later on, so

it will be about December before we get that information from the

Ministry of Finance.

Vote 165 approved.

Vote 166: central ministry services, $445,382 — approved.

Vote 167: transit services, $77,765,000 — approved.

Vote 168: building occupancy charges, $348,000 — approved.

Vote 169: computer and consulting charges, $49,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

On vote 146: minister's office, $155,758.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

My staff has been called, and those who are in the immediate environs

will be here shortly. Prior to their arrival, I would like to mention

something about the great Ministry of Labour.

I would like

to acknowledge my predecessor, who left the ministry in pretty fine

shape. We've had to do the odd thing; I admit that. There has been some

reorganization in the ministry and some recent appointments. My deputy

minister, James Matkin, will be arriving shortly.

Since my

taking over the ministry there has been an appointment of a new

assistant deputy minister, Hugh Bardon, who is looking after

administration and safety engineering.

Also, there is a new assistant deputy minister, Bob Gray,

[ Page

3467 ]

who was recently appointed to that position. His function is in the area of manpower and apprenticeship.

The

other assistant deputy minister is Doug Cameron, who is presently on

vacation. He, is in charge of labour relations and the area of

occupational safety.

There are a number of boards and

commissions for which the ministry is responsible. I think they ought

to be identified, for the benefit of all members of the House.

Under

the jurisdiction of my ministry is the Labour Relations Board, the

Board of Industrial Relations — which will now be known as the

Employment Standards Board when the new legislation comes to pass the

Human Rights Commission, the Workers' Compensation Board, the workers'

compensation boards of review, the Essential Services Advisory Agency,

and the Provincial Apprenticeship Board.

With respect to the

Essential Services Advisory Agency, I have some plans for that

particular agency. It's something which I think the community requires

— that is, education in the area of industrial relations and also

further education in the areas of occupational health and safety. We're

just in the process of attempting to work something out. Probably

within the next few months we'll be able to expand the services of that

agency to our community in general.

The Provincial

Apprenticeship Board is something which became effective on January 1,

1980. There were appointments of 12 people from industry — six from

management and 6 from labour; the chairman is a director within the

Ministry of Labour. The board has recently come in with a report. I

felt that the number one mandate of our ministry ought to be training,

and apprenticeship in particular. Recently we have received the

approval of Treasury Board — as the members opposite are aware — to

inject some new enthusiasm and assistance into this training program.

This

year in the area of labour relations we have had some difficult

disputes, as you're all aware. I guess the major dispute was the BCR,

followed by the Vancouver police and the public health nurses; but I

think that the ministry has acquitted itself reasonably well. With a

great deal of help from all of the officials and those in the mediation

services, we managed to preserve the traditional collective bargaining

relationship.

The present dispute in the construction

industry would indicate — at least in the releases which I had most

recently — that that particular dispute may be pointing in the

direction of a settlement. There is one outstanding dispute which is

concerning me, but I have made it a practice not to comment on disputes

which are under active negotiation and, of course, when there is some

fostering within the community. The Victoria and area police are posing

a small problem at this time; but I think that we'll be able to

encourage a resolution. I hope that that's not too far away.

the area of Human Rights there was an appointment of a new Human Rights

director, Nola Landucci, who I think is doing a very commendable job in

her new role. She has jumped right in, and I know she will be of great

help to us.

There are some other areas that no doubt are

sensitive. Probably one of the areas is the Workers' Compensation

Board, and I'd like to say something about it. I have a couple of notes

here. Probably one of the things which has pleased me more than

anything was an editorial in the Victoria Times

headlined "Signs of Sensitivity." I would like to quote a couple of

paragraphs from that editorial, because really what it does, I think,

is describe in fairly clear language what some of the problems are or

have been, the emphasis which the board is placing upon its function,

and also that it is sensitive and responsive to a number of the

criticisms which have been levied. The editorial reads:

"The

provincial Workers' Compensation Board has a reputation for being slow,

rigid and far more interested in saving money than helping injured

workers. The reputation may not have been deserved. In an area as

emotional as injuries in the workplace nearly every rejected claim can

turn into a cause célebre with the help of political action and

publicity.

"Be that as it may, the board

showed last week that it can listen and be sensitive to the concerns of

workers liable to sustain injuries in the course of their jobs."

Of course, they are making reference to revised

schedule B, the list of industrial diseases and working conditions

about which it will make an automatic assumption of cause and effect.

And it goes on.

I think it's indicative of the concern which the board does

have, and the fact that it has been translated and reflected in the

editorial comment is again indicative of, as stated in the title of the

article, "Signs of Sensitivity."

I expect to receive

questions concerning the board during the discussion of these

estimates. The House is aware that the board is not included in my

estimates, but the opposition will take that opportunity, no doubt; it

has for a number of years through the hon. member of Shuswap-Revelstoke

(Mr. King), and you're going to express some concern. I hope that we

never treat the safety and rehabilitation of workers as a partisan

issue. Differences of opinion and emphasis are bound to arise, but the

basic issue must be non-partisan. As long as I am minister responsible,

that will be my position. I think we have an excellent system in

British Columbia. I don't know if I noticed that great a change between

this government and the previous administration. In some respects,

particularly in regard to the board's rehabilitative facilities and

activities, it is the envy of other jurisdictions and other countries;

but I can see that we can't become complacent.

I've been

concerned with the record of fatalities and the injuries sustained by

workers in this province. The record is upsetting to me and it will

take strong action by both management and labour, assisted by the

prevention services of the board. There were two recent appointments to

the board, as you are aware: Mr. Michael Parr and Mr. Joe Miyazawa. Mr.

Parr brings with him a lifetime of experience as a worker and highly

respected trade union leader. Mr. Miyazawa began his career in 1940 as

an hourly worker in the forest industry and was on the staff of the IWA

in 1946. In 1965 he became part of management.

There's another area involving the boards of review. I'll mention to you that in reading Hansard

from a few years back I note that there was an eyeball figure of about

500 cases for each panel when it was originally set up. Right now it's

anticipated that in 1980 we can expect to receive something in the

order of 3,000 appeals. As a result there are now five panels in

existence and I am in the process of appointing a sixth. So when we

eyeball the figures we are looking at about 500 per panel.

One

of the areas that concerned me was the number of appeals which were

going to the boards of review. Going back to 1978, the total number of

general appeals that did go

[ Page 3468 ]

the boards totalled 2,507, according to the statistical analysis

delivered to me by the WCB. Approximately 300 were disposed of without

going through the process. Of the 2,132 that did go through, the

actions of the boards of review upheld roughly 1,250. I'd like to speak

in round figures. The decisions by the boards of review reversing the

decision of the claims adjudicator were roughly 900. In 1979 the total

number of appeals was roughly 2,400. Of that number approximately 1,400

were sustained and 972 were allowed. I have some detailed material on

the boards of review, which I think perhaps we'll go into when members

ask questions on that particular area.

I would like to

mention the mediation services. As you are aware, they have done, and

always do, a commendable job. But I think what some people are not

really aware of is just exactly how successful they are in mediating

disputes. In 1979 there were 308 appointments and they were involved in

effecting 271 settlements, which is about 88 percent. In 1978 there

were roughly 280; 232 were settled with their assistance, which is 83

percent. So I notice they've gone up 5 percent over the previous year.

Another

area that members might be interested in is a significant one on

mediation involving work stoppages. In 1979 the total number of

man-days lost was 665,000. This is .046 percent of the total number of

the workforce. This year indications are — if in fact the construction

industry does secure a settlement, and I understand there is a proposal

from both sides that the agreement negotiated be accepted — that we're

going to find 1980 to be an exceptional year. As of the end of April

the total loss in man-days is about 160,000 for the first quarter. So

pushing that out for the full year at 480,000, it's going to be the

lowest it's been, I imagine, in the seventh decade. I have figures

going back to 1975 and 1976 and it's a substantial reduction. I'll just

put one caveat on that: I'm not aware of the present status of the

breweries.

I'll conclude my opening comments with the

following items. One recent announcement by the ministry was the

increase in the minimum wage. You are aware of the employment standards

legislation. As to priority with respect to a social services tax and

payment of wages, a policy decision was made by cabinet giving wages

priority. If you recall, a piece of legislation was passed, the Social

Service Tax Act. It was fairly rigid for some time, giving priority to

government. I am glad to report to you that three or four months ago, I

think, this change was made as a matter of policy. Of course, it was

the correct decision to make, to give priority to wages.

One

other item I think members might be interested in is the matter of

Ocean Falls. As you are aware, the closure of Ocean Falls resulted in

displacement, dislocation and loss of jobs for approximately 400 men

and women. I am pleased to report that a great deal of concern was

expressed and a lot of effort was put into this area, and my ministry

was a part of it. As of July 18, some 26 people were still not

relocated. There are about another dozen on top of that who, I think,

in all fairness, are not too interested in moving at all and are not

really looking for assistance. That's to be expected and understood,

but 26 is not bad, and that was done in a very short time. I think that

we should offer our thanks to people in industry, to the corporation

and to Mr. Williston for all the work he did, and to people in industry

throughout the province who absorbed.... I can tell you that the

tradesmen were absorbed very, very quickly. The problem that we had was

in the area of the production workers.

I think I will leave that for the time being, sit down and let you have your turn.

I would like to announce that Mr. Matkin, my deputy minister, is in the House.

MS. SANFORD: I was about to welcome him; I saw him come in.

want to thank the minister for his brief overview of some of the things

that are going on in his ministry. I was particularly interested, Mr.

Chairman, in the minister's opening statements and the emphasis which

he placed on certain aspects of his ministry, which is going to give

perfect credibility to the first line of criticism that I wish to bring

forward under the estimates of the Minister of Labour.

have never seen a minister as defensive about any aspect of his

ministry as this minister was about the Workers' Compensation Board and

its activities. He even read from an editorial in one of the newspapers

trying to justify the actions of the Workers' Compensation Board,

trying to convince us through an editorial comment that indeed the

board is doing a good job, has a heart and all of these things. One of

the areas in which the minister has utterly failed is in the area of

workers' compensation and industrial health and safety in this

province. He has been a complete failure. I think that his defensive

posturing concerning that particular aspect of his portfolio in his

introductory remarks verifies his own feelings of inadequacy in that

area, his understanding of his own failings in dealing with the

problems that relate to injuries, deaths, compensation and the whole

question of industrial health and safety. It's an area which the

minister hasn't talked about before.

The public has been

very concerned about health and safety in the workplace. I have never

heard as much discussion from the general public on issues such as the

hazards of asbestos. We have heard about the problems as they relate to

the schools, the problems related to PCBs in the environment, the

problems related to the new chemicals being introduced and what sort of

dangers are inherent in them, and the effects of radiation on workers.

Even

issues that were very rarely discussed before are now being discussed

by the general public — but not by that minister, and not by this

government. These are areas that relate to stress on workers and the

dangers presented by just the sheer boredom of the repetitive work that

some workers in this province have to face. Noise, vibration, dust —

all of these things are now becoming issues with everybody except the

minister, the Workers' Compensation Board or the government. They're

not concerned about them. I have not heard the minister make one speech

on that issue. He has not directed his attention there, and it has been

one of his biggest failings, Mr. Chairman. That's the tragedy, because

it affects the health and the lives of the workers and the people of

this province.

You know, you would think, listening to the

minister in his opening remarks, or at any time that he has been

questioned about the operation of the Workers' Compensation Board, that

that minister was a paid public relations employee of the Workers'

Compensation Board. Every time, he jumps to their defence. He has shown

absolutely no leadership in terms of trying to improve the situation as

it relates to health and safety in the workplace, or in terms of

improving the situation as far as the role of the Workers' Compensation

Board in improving health and safety, and in dealing with the claims

that come before it, is concerned.

No wonder he was

defensive in his opening remarks today. Ever since 1976, Mr. Chairman,

one of the problems that has increasingly come before the MLAs — or at

least a

[ Page 3469 ]

problem

that comes to us in increasing numbers — relates to the dissatisfied

claimants who have gone before the Workers' Compensation Board. We have

file after file relating to dissatisfied injured workers in this

province who have felt that they have not had fair dealing from the

Workers' Compensation Board.

Even the ombudsman complains

that one of the biggest problems he has to deal with relates to the

Workers' Compensation Board and dissatisfied claimants. Surely the

minister must be aware of the fact that all MLAs are receiving these

complaints from constituents day after day. I wonder how much time and

effort is spent by the MLAs in trying to resolve satisfactorily the

complaints that come before us with respect to the Workers'

Compensation Board.

He must be aware of all of those

complaints. He must be aware of the dissatisfaction that's been

expressed by the United Injured and Disabled Workers Association. He

must be aware of his own colleagues who are being badgered concerning

Workers' Compensation Board claims. But each time he acts like the

public relations expert, the employee of the Workers' Compensation

Board. He jumps to the defence of the Workers' Compensation Board and

makes no indication at all to the public that he is concerned about it,

that he intends to make any changes with respect to either the

operation of that board, the makeup of that board or the whole question

of industrial health and safety.

We've had the IWA document

for us the increase in the number of injuries and deaths within the

forest industry in the province. The B.C. Federation of Labour has

stated many times that one of its major concerns is that of Workers'

Compensation Board claims. CAIMAW has been a constant, outspoken critic

of the operation of the Workers' Compensation Board.

What

does the minister do? He stands up and defends them. In fact, the major

action the minister has taken is to reappoint Dr. Adam Little, whose

resignation has been called for by almost everybody within the labour

movement. He appoints him for another two years. That's the extent of

the concern of this minister with respect to the very serious problems

that exist in that area.

When the minister was confronted

with the figures relating to the increase in the number of injuries and

deaths in the workplace, and at the same time was confronted with the

figures that demonstrate that there is a decrease in the number of

inspections in the workplace conducted by the Workers' Compensation

Board, what was his response? Immediately he jumped again to the

defence of that WCB. In my view, the minister should have said: "This

is unacceptable. This is an area which I expect I will be changing in

the immediate future, and it is something that I cannot accept." What

did the minister do instead? He said: "Oh, well, the increase in the

injuries and deaths in the workplace in British Columbia relates to the

fact that there's been an increase in the workforce." Mr. Chairman, we

had an increase in the workforce in British Columbia last year of 3

percent, but the increase in the injuries in the workplace last year

over the previous year was 16 percent and the increase in the number of

deaths in the province showed an increase of 25 percent over the

previous year. But oh, no, the minister must play his public relations

role on behalf of the WCB. Does he not know that he's the minister, he

is in charge and he is the one that should set the direction, pace,

tone and stage for the operation of the Workers' Compensation Board?

assume that you really can't blame the WCB all that much when you have

a government and a minister that gives no leadership, shows no concern

in this area, and in fact concurs with the Workers' Compensation Board

in its attempt to cut costs. The major direction and thrust of that

Workers' Compensation Board is to cut costs on behalf of the employers

of the province. They're under tremendous pressure from the employers

to keep the costs down. There's an unfunded liability in the Workers'

Compensation Board fund of well over $200 million and the employers

say: "Keep the costs down." I'm sure that the commissioners feel that

pressure.

When you have a government that concurs with

keeping the cost down you have a reduction in the number of inspections

and no improvement taking place with respect to health and safety in

the workplace. That's what happens, Mr. Chairman, when you have a

minister that adopts that attitude and refuses to take any leadership

with respect to improving the situation as far as Workers' Compensation

Board claims and health and safety in the workplace are concerned.

Surely

the minister must be aware of this. I cannot understand why he has not

taken an interest in this subject and got up and given speeches on it.

Anytime you read about the minister making a speech somewhere, there is

no reference whatsoever to the problems surrounding Workers'

Compensation Board. Sheepishly today he came into the House and tried

to explain that Workers' Compensation is okay, but he was very

defensive. It showed that he's uncomfortable with that issue and is not

prepared to take any leadership there, and that the workers of this

province cannot look to that minister or that government for any

improvement with respect to the operation of Workers' Compensation and

the improvement of health and safety. I think that they must be feeling

very pessimistic at this point. The minister has failed on that issue.

The

Workers' Compensation Board had to drop its Diagnosis Alert Program

because of the pressure that it was under. Do you know that program,

Mr. Chairman? That was a program introduced by the Workers'

Compensation Board to keep down costs. We know that. The people who had

claims before the Workers' Compensation Board were to be healed or

cured within a given period as laid out by the regulations set down by

the commissioners of the Workers' Compensation Board, or their claims

would be reviewed to find out why they were not cured or healed within

that given period of time. It was an attempt to make sure that those

workers got back to work — got cured within a given time as set down by

the Workers' Compensation Board and got back on the job, to keep the

cost down for the employers. That program has been quietly dropped

because of the pressure that the Workers' Compensation Board

commissioners were under.

We had an interesting development

with respect to the proposed changes to

schedule B. There the Workers'

Compensation Board were going to cut off the eligibility for firemen

who suffered a heart attack if they didn't suffer that heart attack

within 48 hours of fighting a fire. I'm sure the minister remembers

that kefuffle. Again, because of the pressure they were under from the

public in that issue, they have decided to drop that from the

regulations under

schedule B.

But how can the minister

accept the fact that there are reductions in the number of inspections

in the workplace? He says himself that the workforce is growing, but he

can accept a cut in the number of inspections that take place.

[ Page 3470 ]

The

province of British Columbia ranks second among the provinces of Canada

with respect to the number of injured workers' claims filed. There is a

great deal to be done in improving the safety and health of the

workplace, and I'm afraid that this minister is not prepared to take

any action in that area. He has done nothing; he has said nothing; he

has shown no concern. The only thing he has done is defend the Workers'

Compensation Board and reappoint a chairman in whom the people of the

province have lost confidence.

There is a lot of work to be

done even with respect to the operations of the government itself, let

alone industry, in terms of health and safety. Between 10 and 12

percent of the claims for the year 1978 — I am afraid I don't have any

more up-to-date figures — involve provincial government employees. The

figure demonstrates an accident-frequency rate higher than in either

the mining or the logging industry — two of the most hazardous

industries we have, yet the frequency with which the government

employees made claims is higher than in those two industries.

What

has the minister done in terms of encouraging his cabinet colleagues to

ensure that the employees who work for the provincial government have a

safe workplace? He hasn't said a word about it. In fact, I don't think

he was even aware of those figures until this moment.

Another

area in which the minister has been a great disappointment relates to

the area of unemployment. He has done very little to ensure that the

people of this province are going to be able to find work. He hasn't

shown any concern; he hasn't made any speeches about that subject

either. He has given no leadership and no direction in that area. What

has he done to try to increase the processing of raw materials here in

British Columbia? I haven't heard him say a word. I haven't heard him

make any proposals. I haven't heard him express any dissatisfaction

with shipping our raw materials to other countries. I haven't heard him

say anything about the need for more secondary processing here. He is

not that concerned about it.

He talked about Ocean Falls and

the relocation of employees there. What did he do in cabinet to prevent

those layoffs in the first place? Was he an outspoken person within

that cabinet, saying that unemployment in this province is high enough

without having to lay off people at Ocean Falls?

What action

has he taken with respect to the layoffs resulting from automation in

areas currently being affected, such as the telecommunication workers?

Has he made one statement? Has he done any work at all with respect to

the layoffs occurring in that industry?

I don't want to discuss legislation at this stage, but he did make reference

to his new employment standards legislation. There is no provision in there

at all with respect to layoffs resulting from automation, plant closures or

whatever. These all relate to employment in this province. He made no mention

of it and has not dealt with it at all. I don't expect that he will. Surely

in this day and age when we see automation taking place at an alarming rate

— people losing their jobs all over the place and being replaced by machines

— the minister should be doing some work to ensure that those jobs are replaced

by some other jobs. He should be making sure that the people who are going to

be affected have some alternatives and some notice of what is going to happen

to them. We were out just the other day on a tour with one of the logging companies.

One of the things that they demonstrated to us, which was of great fascination,

was a falling machine which will eliminate the work now done by fallers in

the woods industry. It cut the tree off and laid it down neatly. This one machine

can take out 600 trees a day.

These

are things that are happening all over the province, and the minister

has made no effort, no move to ensure that there are alternatives for

these people. What did the minister say about the shutdown of Railwest

when that happened? I realize he wasn't a minister at that time.

Railwest was shut down, and I didn't hear any noises out of Prince

George from a candidate who was the potential Minister of Labour. No,

he didn't say anything about that. What steps did the minister take to

prevent the bungling with regard to the Cargill operation? We have the

Maplewood people still out of work because of the bungling by his

cabinet colleagues. I didn't hear him make any comments or statements

about that. How much fighting did the minister do during the bungling

of the Marguerite, where we

had Canadian crews here in Victoria losing their jobs and American

crews being hired to operate the jetfoil service between Seattle and

Victoria? Was the minister alarmed about that? Was he concerned even?

He didn't make one comment, not a word.

I don't think he's

been in there fighting for jobs, fighting to improve the employment

situation in this province. He didn't mind when American crews replaced

Canadians; he didn't say anything about it anyway. We've very high

unemployment — 8.1 percent on Vancouver Island according to the last

figures — but it's okay. According to this minister the government can

go on closing down, shutting down and selling out at the expense of

jobs here in British Columbia. He does and says nothing. That's a

disappointment. He just sits quietly in his office allowing all these

things to happen around him, allowing his cabinet colleagues to go on

shutting down, selling out and giving jobs away to the Americans, and

he doesn't say anything about it. In fact, he compounds the problem by

his silence. He should be in there fighting. He's the Minister of

Labour. He should be concerned about unemployment in this province. I

haven't heard him say anything.

There is one subject that

the minister talks about a lot, and that's the subject of

apprenticeships. I picked up papers out of Prince George and the

minister has made another speech about the shortage of skilled

tradesmen in this province and how he's going to solve the problem. One

of the difficulties right now is that they have a hiring freeze on, and

I don't think he's going to be able to solve the problem very

adequately through his own ministry because of that hiring freeze. But

that's only one small aspect of the problem that he has with respect to

trades training and apprenticeship programs. It's a very serious

problem. We've all these young people without work and we have industry

all over the place looking for people who have skills. The minister has

set up this Apprenticeship Board....

But I am wondering at

this stage, since the minister was hoping to be able to come up with

some joint program with the federal minister, Mr. Axworthy, who is

putting some $7 million into British Columbia for trades training, if

all this fighting and bickering that's going on between Victoria and

Ottawa has affected that program to the extent that there is no

cooperation and no communication. Mr. Axworthy and this Minister of

Labour should be working hand in hand in order to try to solve that

problem. I'm not convinced that Mr. Axworthy is going about it the

right way, but I think that program has been jeopardized by the

statements of the Premier of this province, and the attitude of this

government towards the federal government at this stage, because the

[ Page 3471 ]

federal

minister, Mr. Axworthy, is about to sign agreements with Kaiser and

other companies — the interior forest industry — so that apprentices

can be hired with the assistance of federal money.

Mr.

Chairman, I'm going to take my seat at this stage. I want to raise more

issues concerning the apprenticeship program, as well as other issues.

But I'm hoping that the Minister of Labour will comment on some of the

points that I've raised.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There are

a number of items which the hon. member has raised. I would like to,

first of all, make reference to her comments on unemployment. I think I

can say that the statistics which were recently issued for the end of

June indicated an unemployment rate of 6.3 percent. I appreciate that

that's not really ideal, but I will tell you that 6.3 percent is the

lowest it's been for approximately seven years.

I know this

may be difficult for the hon. member to accept, but as far as the

Workers' Compensation Board is concerned, generally speaking I think it

has not only been the policy of our government but that of all

governments within the province that a minimum amount of political

interference in the activities of the board will probably produce far

better results. It is my practice, and it has been the practice of a

number of my predecessors.

That doesn't mean to say that

there is not dialogue between the Minister of Labour and the

commissioners on the board. It doesn't mean to say that there is not

dialogue between various directors employed at the board. But one of

the things which would place every politician, and I mean all

government members, in an unbearable position would be if, in fact,

they were constantly being advocates for people who have been injured

in the workplace.

With respect to the comments raised by the member on occupational health and safety, I'm very much aware.... It

is my belief that for the next five years there are two areas which

will be of major concern, and that's one of them. The other one is

training in the trades. That's why I raised in my opening remarks the

comment about the present Essential Services Advisory Agency, where I

thought perhaps an institute could be created to cover not only

education in industrial relations, but also addressing by all members

of industry the concerns in the areas of occupational health and

safety. Now I mean that. I recognize the concerns which we have and

which you have. There's no dispute.

Somebody recently said

that it's easy for all governments across this dominion and in other

jurisdictions as well to have workers' compensation boards end up being

the kicking boys of the western world. I think that was rather an

astute observation. As a matter of fact, it was made by a former

British Columbian who was very active in the Labour Relations Board and

has recently left.

Figures are sometimes hard, Madam Member, to analyze. I presume that you will

receive one set of figures and I'll receive another set of figures. But

you set me back when you told me there is a 25 percent increase in deaths, because

I have before me a breakdown of fatalities right from 1975 to 1979. I think

that I should raise them with you. This is a table which I received from the

WCB for fatal claims during the years 1975-1979 inclusive. The essence is that

there have been the following fatal claims which are accepted by the board:

1975 — 210; 1979 — 198. Now in the intervening years they have reduced. The

difference between 1975 and 1976 there is a reduction from 210 to 151. In 1977

there were 147, 182 in 1978, and 198 in 1979.

is interesting to note, though — and the question is really one of

inspections, I presume — that during that time the total claims had

increased as follows: from 1975 claims were approximately 135,000; in

1979 there were 187,000.

You cannot, by any means, justify

fatalities. I for one am not going to do it. One death is one too many;

that goes without saying. But we have to live with some of these facts

of industrial life, and we try to do the best we can. If you wish to

make comparisons, have a look at the number of fatalities in 1975,

which were 210, and the total amount claimed was $135,000. Compare that

with the number of fatalities in 1979, which were 198, and the amount

of claims was $187,000. The ratio of accepted fatal claims to the total

claim remains fairly constant: in 1975 it was 0.18; in 1979 it was

0.14. A 25 percent increase is an alarming figure. I would hope that

over the next little while — if not during my estimates, then

subsequent to them — perhaps you could show me where that figure came

from. Perhaps I'm getting the wrong information. I'm not going to take

an oath on this. I believe it to be true; I have no reason to dispute

it. But I'm always ready to listen.

I think we ought to have

a look at those 198 claims as well. The Workers' Compensation Board has

jurisdiction over certain areas. The WCB had inspectional jurisdiction

for 105 of those fatalities — 53 percent. Others having inspectional

jurisdiction were the Department of Mines, Transport Canada, the RCMP,

the Coast Guard, the Department of Labour, and RCMP (non-motor

vehicle). So I think we ought to be concerned with what the WCB has

jurisdiction over. Then we ought to address ourselves to where in fact

that 53 percent is occurring — the 105 fatalities. In logging there

were 41 fatalities. Inevitably it's highest in the logging industry. I

made an inquiry into that, involving chokermen. I understand there was

a short program for chokermen at Camosun College — almost like a

pre-apprenticeship program — which lasted for about three weeks. I was

interested in the type of training those chokermen received. I'm well

aware of how dangerous it is, because I spent a long time doing that. I

found out that until very recently there was only one injury for those

chokermen who had been trained; I thought that was rather interesting.

It seems to me that maybe there ought to be more effort in the logging

industry to train people who are going out, because those are difficult

jobs.

Sawmills accounted for 9 percent of fatalities; in

construction it was approximately 17 percent; the rest break down into

a number of miscellaneous industries. If we could just seriously zero

in on one area — logging — I think we would make substantial progress.

I'm

not going to respond to your comments, Hon. member, regarding Ocean

Falls. I think the reason for the closure has been made abundantly

clear by my colleagues. I'm not sure whether the member for Mackenzie

(Mr. Lockstead) was here when I....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I heard it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: As I told you, there are now about 26. I think the people involved ought to be commended for that.

There were some discussions between me and the federal minister, Lloyd Axworthy. On two or three occasions I have

[ Page 3472 ]

promised

to be somewhere to receive a call. I worked with him to try to get some

assistance. I found out something in government, and it didn't take

very long: it's that each bureaucracy wants to have control. The

program is something that I think we, the provincial Ministry of

Labour, have got in place. Apprenticeship counsellors look after all of

the administration. And what happens? The feds come through and pay,

through journal entries between my ministry and the Ministry of

Education, for the apprenticeship seats. As far as the program goes,

which we have not yet formally announced but have managed to get out....

MS. SANFORD: Did you manage to get it out? Was it personal and confidential, and you pinned it on the wall?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

No, hon. member. I am talking about the apprenticeship program. Yes, I

was looking to see whether or not we could get some assistance and have

just one government do the administration. It makes a great deal of

sense. Why should an employer who is prepared to participate and is

encouraging and delighted to have this assistance and incentive have to

fill out more than one set of documents and deal with more than one

government? It just doesn't make sense. Anyway, the responses have not

come.

I am aware of some talk about Kaiser and the program

in the forest industry. The figure which you mentioned in the House,

Madam Member, boggles me, because the amount of money I am told is

available through the federal government is something in the order of

$30 million. Normally 10 percent would be allotted to British Columbia,

so we are talking $3 million. I haven't got any particulars of their

program. There has been a lot of talk, but not much more. Maybe there

is more coming.

You made reference to the ombudsman. I saw

the annual report, and it looks like a number of the claims he has

involve the Workers' Compensation Board. Remember, there were 187,000

claims in 1979. Of those, something in the order of 2,600 were subject

to appeal to the boards of review in 1979. Take 2,600 over 186-thousand

odd and we are down to a pretty low figure. Then in 1979 the appeals

permitted were 960. In other words, 1,400 were sustained — not

necessarily disallowance of a claim, but in fact the amount allowed may

not have been acceptable to the injured worker.

I am afraid

that I must take issue with the hon. member involving her comments

about Dr. Adam Little, because I will tell you that I have found

him.... It didn't take me too long to find out what a very, very

difficult job he has. The fact is that he has the courage and knowledge

to back it up in every case. It is very easy to criticize, but I will

support him. I am on record as saying that a number of times, and I

will continue to. I decided to put him right in the centre with me and

one other in the presence of those who are concerned about the increase

of assessments. I said: "I am going to go to this meeting only if you

people are going to level, put your cards on the table and not have

another social gathering. I will go, and I want the chairman to be

there as well." I will tell you, we went from something like 6:30 until

1 in the morning. I listened to those who complained about assessments

and a number of other items. I saw Dr. Little in action. When that

meeting concluded I knew he was the man for the job. Nobody from either

side was going to persuade him from the position he took or his board

takes, which is fair to everyone.

As far as the ombudsman is

concerned, I don't want to take up the time here, but I have three or

four pages. I don't think a very major effort was made by the ombudsman

to find out the real workings of the board. That is probably

understandable too, because it is a fairly new appointment and has been

in progress now for about a year. I hope that the ombudsman takes the

opportunity to discuss in some detail all of the problems the board has

and the difficult issues it must resolve.

I will make

inquiry with respect to the Diagnosis Alert Program. I cannot say

anything more at this time about it. Yes, I met with the injured and

disabled. I have a detailed report on all of the demands which were

made by them; I presume you have a copy of their demands. I thought

that perhaps after our meeting and after the position taken by the

board covering a number of the items was explained, most of the matters

were adequately resolved, but I would tell you that not all of them, by

a long shot, will be resolved to the satisfaction of all of those who

are aggrieved. I think that's about all I will state, hon. member, on

those items.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the minister has not reassured me at all

with respect to the attitude and the approach taken by the Workers' Compensation

Board to injured workers in this province. Time and time again the chairman

of the board is quoted in the paper as putting the blame, in effect, on the

workers. The workers may have a lot of stress at home, and that creates a

problem; that puts the injury rate up. He talks about people having an attitude

which is not very satisfactory in terms of the workplace; he refers to them

as "pot smokers" or "cigarette smokers," or says that

they're worried about their families. Instead of emphasizing and trying

to concentrate on locating the source of the problem within the industry —

the minister talked about forestry — the whole direction and thrust of the chairman

of the Workers' Compensation Board is putting the blame or tending to put

the blame on the actions of the employee.

Let

me give you one concrete example. There was a miner who was developing

the signs of silicosis and was taken out of the mine. He developed

silicosis, but he was turned down by the Workers' Compensation Board,

Mr. Chairman, because he smoked cigarettes. I agree that cigarette

smoking is not very good for your lungs, but it doesn't cause

silicosis. That's the kind of cost-cutting and the kind of attitude

that I think is indicative of the attitude of the minister and the

government towards workers, the workplace, injuries and deaths.

I said before, Mr. Chairman, a lot of this attitude expressed by

somebody like the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board is really

a reflection of government. Many of the agencies and the boards and the

commissions that are appointed by any government reflect the attitude

of that government. They know who appointed them; they pick up through

all kinds of subtle statements, attitudes and even silences by

government people as to what is expected of them. They have picked up

from this minister and from this government....

AN HON. MEMBER: Who has?

MS. SANFORD:

It's the Workers' Compensation Board commissioners I'm talking about.

They have picked up the attitude that, yes, it is important to keep

down costs. It is important in my view for the Workers' Compensation

Board to begin a program which develops an expertise on specific

[ Page 3473 ]

B.C.

health problems, develops a cancer reporting system and does all kinds

of things that would help cut down on the number of claims and the

number of deaths occurring in the workplace in British Columbia.

They're not doing any of that, and it's because of the attitude of that

minister and of this government. "Cut costs, cut costs, cut costs."

That's the message that's going out, and that's the message that Dr.

Little is picking up and that's the message that he is carrying out.

That's why he makes statements about workers and their attitudes, the

problems that they might have with families and the fact that some of

them smoke cigarettes. That's why they get turned down on the silicosis

claim. Even though they worked in a mine and quite clearly developed

silicosis there, they're turned down because they smoke cigarettes.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

Mr.

Chairman, I would like to refer the minister to the annual report of

the Workers' Compensation Board. He was worried about the figures. This

is page 5. I was talking about the fatalities reported in this

province. There is a whole list on page 5 indicating, right through

from 1970 to 1979, the increase in the number of fatalities reported as

quoted in the annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board. In 1978

there were 208, in 1979 there were 260. That is an increase of 25

percent.

The minister did not answer the question with

respect to his lack of interest and his unwillingness to fight for

those employees who are losing their jobs in this province. He made

some general reference to the overall unemployment figures in B.C., but

why wasn't he up there saying it is not acceptable for Canadian

employees to lose their jobs so that American employees can be employed

to provide the same service that is already being provided to British

Columbia? Why does he allow that to happen? Why doesn't he say it is

unacceptable to him as the Minister of Labour? He must be weak.

have a couple of other points. I hope the minister will get up again

and respond to these. We did not see an increase in the minimum wage in

this province for a period of four years. We saw a tremendous increase

in the cost of living during that time. Politically, the previous

Minister of Labour and the government refused to recognize the

difficulty that people who are working for the minimum wage were put

under because of the increase in the cost of living, and refused to

accept the recommendation of the Board of Industrial Relations year

after year after year that the minimum wage had to be put up. As a

result, when the minister raised the minimum wage by 40 cents after a

period of four years, that did not in any way, shape or form

accommodate the needs of those employees who have had to face the

tremendous cost-of-living increases in the previous four years. It

doesn't nearly measure up. If they had assumed their political

responsibilities and recognized the increase in the cost of living year

by year by year, then employers would not be faced with huge increases

all of a sudden in order to meet that cost of living. Forty cents was

about all the minister figured he could raise the minimum wage, but it

is inadequate. It is because the government refused to accept the

recommendations of the Board of Industrial Relations year after year

after year. They shirked their responsibility.

There are new

appointees that are going to be made to the Human Rights Commission

next month. I am again appealing to the minister to assure this House

today that the people who are being considered for the Human Rights

Commission are people who have some interest and understanding of human

rights in this province. How many times have we heard human rights

commissioners making statements which reveal that they have no interest

in human rights and that nor do they particularly care?

I am

also wondering if the 12-member commission is not too large. If you had

maybe even half that number — if the commission were made up of people

who understood human rights, who were willing to make the effort

towards improving human rights in British Columbia — then I don't think

you would need a commission as large as 12. I think it becomes quite

unwieldy, and certainly the current make-up of that commission leaves a

lot to be desired. I hope the minister is prepared to change that.

I think that I'm going to resume my seat at this stage and hope that the minister might make a few more comments.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to your last comments, Madam Member, I concur and I think that that is enough said at this time.

With

respect to the minimum wage, I had comparisons drawn right across the

country and, interestingly enough, the recommendations of the Board of

Industrial Relations were slightly higher. But with the adjustment on

December 1 you will find that they are in line and, as a matter of

fact, leading most provinces in Canada. I haven't got the figures

before me, but I don't think I'm too far out by saying that.

somewhat surprises me — the constant comments with respect to attitude

— because I thought that I was demonstrating a great deal of concern,

and I thought that was reflected in recent appointments to the Workers'

Compensation Board, particularly those of Mr. Parr and Mr. Miyazawa.

the way, there is one item I would raise with respect to another point

which you had raised, hon. member, and that is how the law stands today

involving the board and the act. I would just like to read this item to

you: "The Workers' Compensation Act places the responsibility for the

interpretation of the act and for the enunciation of its policies on

the board of commissioners." The act also says that the board of

review, following its hearings, will recommend to the board what

decisions it feels are proper. The board in general accepts those

recommendations except when certain circumstances exist. Why I raise

this with the House at this time is that the appeal process is a good

one. I find it difficult for the ombudsman to find fault when in fact,

generally, unless there are some particular areas that they cannot....

The appeal from a board of review does have to go back to the

commissioners, but generally they always accept the board of review's

decisions. I think perhaps there was an area in there which required

some clarification with the ombudsman.

I think those are the

items I've covered: human rights, minimum wage comparatives, Board of

Industrial Relations, attitude, reappointments. The last items which

you covered that have been touched by me, and I'll take my place.

MR. HANSON:

I've enjoyed the comments of my colleague from Comox (Ms. Sanford). I

think that the minister's remarks are a bit Pollyannaish, actually.

What I mean by that is that we have an annual report of the Workers'

Compensation Board which is full of information regarding fatalities,

about the current trends in disease which is occurring in the

workplaces of British Columbia, and what do we hear from

[ Page 3474 ]

him?

Things are fine and dandy. No, he says that "we're working along, but

the figures are down." I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, about

something that happened to me today. The minister....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: I guess I'm waking the gravel pit up over there.

Mr.

Chairman, I want to tell you something that I did today. The minister

knows I am interested in occupational health and safety. I'm interested

in environmental health. Particularly I'm interested in what's

happening in the forest industry, and how they account for such a large

portion of the permanent disabilities, the fatalities, the medical

claims, and so on. A lot of it is avoidable. But I'll tell you what I

did.

I phoned the Workers' Compensation Board and I said:

"Hello. My name is Gordon Hanson. I'm an MLA in Victoria. I don't want

anything that anybody else couldn't obtain, but I would like to know

how many people have died in the forest industry from January 1, 1980,

until today." I was sent from the statistics branch over to the

information services branch. I was informed there that it is a board

policy that no statistics whatsoever are to be disclosed because they

are embarrassing if they are disclosed to people or people give out

different information. My point is: how do we monitor trends, what is

happening, what particular industries are accounting for the claims,

which ones run a safe shop, and which ones run an unsafe shop? It was

pointed out to me that that is the board policy now. I guess it's been

embarrassing, because somewhat after the IWA convention last year, when

fatalities were an issue on the floor of the convention and there was a

dispute about the numbers.... Perhaps that was when it was changed.

conferred with my colleague, the former minister during the NDP period,

and that was not the policy at the time. There was an annual report.

Now there is a quarterly report, but they are lump-sum figures. They

don't give any refined specific data.

My point is: if the

minister feels that things are fine and dandy in the Workers'

Compensation Board, then why aren't those figures open and available to

anybody who wants them? I think any union occupational health and

safety officer should be able to pick up the phone, phone the

information service and say: "In class 1(2) I want to know how many

medical aid claims and how many permanent disabilities. How are we

doing compared with last year? Where is it happening?" I think it's

their right to know that. It's not happening, and I would like to see

the minister do something about that.

I'd like to see the

minister expand the whole occupational environment area — the number of

inspectors. We all know that people are contracting diseases that have

long latency periods when they ingest dust, chemicals and the kind of

thing that my colleague for Comox was pointing out. Have you, for

example, said publicly that you're opposed to all the untested

chemicals that are in the workplace? They're not marked or labelled.

There's no information given to a worker when he comes on the jobsite

saying that if he ingests some of that he's going to have a good chance

of getting a liver cancer. How about that? We know that health care

costs are largely environmental. Therefore the preventive area has got

to be anticipating that and cleaning up the workplace. As the minister

pointed out, in 1979 there were almost two million work days lost as a

result of on-the-job illness and injury; it's in the annual report.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's roughly three times the work-stoppage loss.

MR. HANSON: Yes, it's two million days. I think in the annual report it says 144,000 new claims, but you said 180,000, so I'm not sure.

The

forest products area, for example, according to the annual report

accounts for 23 percent of all claims. The minister made a passing

reference to being interested in chokermen and the fact that there was

only one injury among the people who had taken the course. That should

be self-evident then, and every person who works in the forest industry

should have an employer-paid orientation and safety program before he

goes into the field. That's the way it is in Scandinavia. Yes, they

have smaller-diameter wood, but right away they cut down the high costs

of injuries in the woods.

I'd like to read you some of the

things that happened just in the forest industry, and how avoidable

they are. There are many people killed in the forest industry as a

result of falling wood, branches breaking off — fallers have a very

high-risk job. Here's one, skidder operator: a rubber-tired skidder

with a full load of logs left the road; the operator was found

semiconscious under a log and had amnesia as to exactly what had

happened. Bucker: as the skidder was blading off the limbs a small log

or large limb swung around and struck the bucker's ankle. Chokerman: at

the conclusion of the first day of his work the worker collapsed and

died. This may be attributed to high temperatures and the worker's

being unaccustomed to this type of labour. Another chokerman: worker

staggered and collapsed at the end of a 10-hour shift in extremely hot

weather.

What I'm trying to point out is that if you look at

the annual report you will find that the majority of people injured in

the forest industry are under 24 years of age. A large proportion of

that occurs within the first 30 days on the job. It's self-evident

again that the necessity to have pre-job training is absolutely vital.

You can't hire somebody off the street and expect that he is going to

be aware of all the hazards in the workplace. So I would like the

minister to give a response, not just to talk about Camosun College and

the chokerman, or Malaspina College, or wherever a community college

has a program. I want to see an industrywide program in this province,

to save the lives of people dying in the woods unnecessarily. With

proper training it's avoidable.

Every coroner's report that

I have seen — I haven't seen many, but I've seen some — called for

training. I have one here, an inquest. People in the forest industry in

Mission who worked for Millstream Timber were killed when there was a

premature blast of some blasting powder, and the coroner calls for

training for blasters. Is there not training for people doing blasting

in the woods? If not, why not? I don't want to hear how rosy things

are; I want to hear specific proposals about how this minister is

addressing specific problems.

I'm going to sit down. I want

the minister to address, if he would, the several proposals I have

made: pre-employment training in the forest industry, and for the

blasters; the opening to divulge.... I understand that people may call

the WCB and put an onerous load onto an information officer asking for

information that would involve a huge computer run, for example, for

data. But I think that the statistics on

[ Page

3475 ]

fatalities

and just general disabling injuries are kept on a monthly basis.

They're there stored in the computer. The statisticians there — the

computer programmers — have them. They could be made available to trade

unions and to a person writing a letter to the WCB who has a reasonable

request. I would like him to address that if he would.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

To the member, as far as safety is concerned, it's self-evident. I'm

certainly not in dispute with the comments that you raise. It seems to

me that if it's not compulsory it ought to be so addressed in the

logging and the forest industry generally, if we know that's where the

greatest number of claims are. I've got with me every fatality for one

year. The breakdown of these fatalities — of which I have been

interested in for some time because of my obvious concern for it — is

that we take the date of the death, inspection jurisdiction, type of

industry, firm name and number, location, employee's name, occupation,

age, date and nature of the cause of the injury.

The thing

that worried me right off the bat was your comment that most of the

injuries were involving people 24 years of age and younger. Did I hear

you correctly?

MR. HANSON: Yes.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

As soon as you said that I thought I'd go through here and check them

out. Of a total of 16 fatalities, two were 24 years old and one was 23.

The others were all over 24. I'm amazed at the numbers in here

involving 30-year old, 40-year old and 50-year old people. I would

expect that men of this age who have died in the forests, sawmills or

logging operations of one type or another have been people who've been

in the industry for some time. I think that's a presumption which

probably would be fair to make. The question then we have to address

ourselves to is: why would somebody with that number of years of

experience be the victim of a fatality? Then when I go in and look at

what causes these accidents, I really begin to wonder. I take notice of

what you said. If somebody starting off in the beginning has

instruction in safety, I think it makes eminent good sense. I'm just

checking my notes on here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I wonder if I might interrupt the minister just for a moment. Hansard advises that perhaps you might raise your microphone.... They're having a little difficulty.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's me, not the microphone. My apologies.

With

respect to disclosure, I'm going to make an inquiry into why.... I mean

it seems to me that if somebody dies in the workplace, somebody's going

to have a record of it. If it's convenient to secure those records or

that information from the WCB, I think that it's worth inquiring into.

I know that you could easily find out by going elsewhere, but I think

the WCB is a convenient place of record. I will make note of that.

Blasters. I will take notice of that too. I can't answer that question right now.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of other things I'd like

to address to the minister. He's made a number of comments when times get

tough politically regarding the WCB that the WCB is an independent body and

so on. Certainly

it's an independent body, but this body reflects the tone of the

government. If he does not recognize that, then he is not aware of the

reality.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Let me give

you an example — the changes to

schedule B of the Workers' Compensation

Act.

Schedule B, as you may know, lists a series of illnesses which are

directly attributable to the kind of employment a person performs. For

example, firefighters have a higher incidence of heart disease than

almost any other occupation. It doesn't take a great deal of

imagination to know why. They are exposed to high temperatures and dust

and chemicals which they inhale and which damage their lungs and in

turn damage their hearts. Why did the board embark upon a plan to make

it difficult for a firefighter to claim a work-related heart attack?

Was there medical evidence? The medical evidence is well substantiated

for the causal relationship of heart disease and lung damage and

firefighting.

If you look in the annual report you will see

that one of the highest cost items, and an exponentially increasing

item, is claims for chemical burns and respiratory problems — costs, in

other words. When Adam Little.... I have nothing personal against Mr.

Little. I am talking about the policies of the board, which I feel

should follow the intent of the act, which is to assess each claim on

its merits and a balance of probabilities as opposed to one person's

medical opinion. That is the bone of contention. It is a legal thing.

We need a more legal definition of a worker's rights, and not one

doctor presiding over two million patients. That's the point.

Back

to the firefighters. When Adam Little announced on television, without

any prior consultation whatsoever with the labour movement or any other

interested party, that these changes were to take place, it just so

happened that some people viewing the program were interested and wrote

him a letter which said: "Further to your appearance on such-and-such a

television show, where you indicated that

Schedule B of the Workers'

Compensation Act would be changed, would you please advise us, as we

are very interested?" He then wrote back and said he had come to the

Minister of Labour — either you or your predecessor — and was advised

that he himself had the power to proceed.

Those changes did

not result from medical research. They involved going to cardboard

boxes in the basement of the Workers' Compensation Board to find out

the numerical frequency of claims and where the costs were. Take a look

in the annual report. It talks about a massive increase in tendonitis,

a massive increase in tenosynovitis, and all these things. Guess which

changes they made to make it more difficult to claim? Tendonitis,

tenosynovitis, the firefighters, etc. It was based on costs, not

medical research. What is that? Is that political? I would really be

interested in hearing the minister's comments on that.

have another sheet here which gives the employer assessment rates by

class and by industry. It is clear to me that forest industry costs,

due to the frequency of injuries, are increasing. But is the penalty on

the industry increasing? No. In fact, it is staying the same. I would

like the minister to give this House some kind of rationale for what

the assessment structure is supposed to be. Is there a penalty on an

employer who has a high incidence of accidents and runs an unsafe shop

— in other words, a high risk industry? Is that money supposed to be a

penalty to clean it up, or is it a cheap

[ Page 3476 ]

insurance

policy to carry out his business without cleaning up the shop? I would

like that cleared up. I think there are other members on this side of

the House who would like that cleared up too.

I think the

minister should show some leadership. When the

Schedule B changes were

proposed, I think a letter should have gone from the minister's office

saying: "I would like to know what the medical justification for these

changes is. Has extensive research been conducted? What is the

rationale for it? What is it all about? As a minister of the Crown, as

Minister of Labour, my role is that of advocate for working people in

this province." That is your role.

You said you were going

to look into the Diagnosis Alert questionnaire. You know what the

Diagnosis Alert thing is now. It was to sit down and get from several

doctors what they felt would be roughly the right healing period for an

injury. In other words, someone has a hernia, someone has a cartilage

removed, someone has some kind of injury, and they are receiving

benefits. The doctors would come up with a standard amount of time

which would be built into the computer, and if the person was not off

benefits after that three-week or six-week period, that particular card

would be kicked out of the computer and that person would be off

benefits. That makes a number of assumptions about human health,

anatomy and physiology: that we're all the same; that we all heal the

same; that we're all of the same stamina and recovery period. No

attempt was made to include ageing, general well-being, the nature of

the industry a person was working in, etc. etc. In other words, it

wasn't based on anything but costs.

Mr. Chairman, for the

minister to say the WCB is not a political thing.... It is political in

the sense that the tone, the general operation and orientation of the

WCB is set by the government in power and by the minister himself in

the sense of attitude, approach, statements that are made and so on.

You know that as well as I do.

I would be happy to take my

place and hear the minister's comments on Diagnosis Alert and what role

he should have played in

Schedule B changes.

Before I take

my place, it just occurred to me that I would like to make another

comment. I think that all of the medical literature as it relates to

industrial occupational illness should be reviewed across all

jurisdictions to see where we stand. Why do we have to rely, for

example, on inspection standards from a private agency in the United

States? Don't we have a University of British Columbia and a Simon

Fraser University? Don't we have epidemiologists, doctors, other kinds

of people? In fact, we have some of the most prominent people in the

country working on asbestosis here in British Columbia.

For

many of these things there is no safe level. Therefore I don't think we

should be relying on two particles per millilitre of more than five

microns, blah-blah. I think we should be aiming for "no safe level" for

some of these hazards, because the social costs later on are going to

be picked up by the Minister of Health. It's not a matter of the

employers alone paying through their assessments for the costs; those

costs are picked up in Human Resources, in welfare for people who don't

qualify for one reason or another — somehow they can't fit into all the

documentation, they fall between chairs, they're adjudicated against,

or what have you. It's Human Resources, federal agencies and Health;

it's out of the public purse. So it's not an issue limited specifically

to this minister's portfolio.

I would like to see some

leadership, speaking out on these issues that affect working people in

this province. We don't hear it. We hear platitudinous, Pollyannaish

statements about how figures are down; things are looking okay. It

ain't good enough.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll take a couple of minutes, Mr.

Chairman. I have to advise the second member for Victoria that I don't

accept his statement. I will tell you my position, and it is the

position of our government. I will not interfere in a truly political

sense in the affairs of the WCB. I think that all members in this House

are going to invite a great deal of difficulty.... I mentioned earlier

in my comments that that doesn't mean to say at all there should not be

some dialogue, but to try to effect a lot of policy matters in the

day-to-day operations of the board is to invite chaos. I feel that way,

and I think it's probably in the interests of all. You know, the board

has the ability to set assessments. The government does not go to the

board and say: "We want you to increase the assessments in one

particular industry."

I sort of missed the impact of your question —

unless it went over my head — involving the concept of penalty. It is

not a concept of a penalty; it is a concept of insurance. But the fact

is that the type of assessment that is levied in fact is almost a

penalty, and deservedly so, because that is where — in the high

categories, particularly logging — we find the highest rate per hundred.

With

reference to the firemen and

Schedule B, I think what is important is

this: the board came forth with a proposed or revised

Schedule B; the

board asked for submissions; the board floated the first revised

Schedule B. The board had to float that revised

schedule because of the

number of briefs that were submitted. I spoke with representatives from

the firemen and I suspect they talked to you, probably the same day

they talked to me. I know that brief was submitted. It was a very

elaborate brief but there were a number of others. I know those briefs

were read by the board. But as a result of all the discussion between

members of the board and a review of the briefs which were submitted,

there was in fact another

Schedule B which came.

Interestingly

enough, since it's come through I haven't received any complaints.

Nothing has been registered with me at all. As a matter of fact,

probably one of the strongest advocates on behalf of the employees had

something favourable to say which I read in the press. I have not heard

anything else. I remember there were questions asked of me in the House

and I told you that I was concerned about the position which the board

had taken — that is, whether there would be a public hearing. I

accepted the position of the board with respect to the public hearing

portion. I saw nothing wrong with them making an oral presentation in

support of their submission. But I think what is important is this: the

board did listen and it showed signs of sensitivity to which you have

made reference. Their new

schedule came out and I've not heard any

complaints.

However, I am going to pass the other item you

mentioned rather quickly; that is, shouldn't we have somebody in

British Columbia that can prepare this material? I would like to think

that we would have but British Columbia doesn't have the answer to all

the problems in the areas of occupational health and safety. As a

matter of fact, the firemen found that their best source of material,

from their point of view, was to be found in the U.S. Rightfully, they

went to the U.S., through their representatives, to get what they could

[ Page

3477 ]

best support their case. There is nothing wrong

with that at all. There is nothing wrong with anyone looking for other

sources of information. It is not all going to be in British Columbia.

far as tone is concerned, I think that the reflection and tone of the

government is in the nature of the appointments made to the board that

I raised before. There were two appointments made to the board. As a

matter of fact, there is a fifth slot open right now. When the

candidate arrives whom I think can really fill the job, it is going to

be filled. I can tell you I've sent that message out a number of times.

That is how I want the tone of the board. If you mention tone, it is by

the government.... That is how I think it is best reflected.

MR. HANSON:

The

Schedule B changes were not circulated to any trade union until

after they had objected. The firefighters then had to put together a

medical brief which cost their membership over $15,000 just to keep the

board from taking away their protection under

Schedule B. Question

number one: do you think it would be fair to reimburse the firefighters

the amount of money they had to spend to stand still?

Question

number two: yesterday or the day before I made a proposal to the

Minister of Health that employment history be included in the medical

record so that the long latency of many industrial illnesses and so on

would be apparent. The whole adjudication process may be somewhat

assisted by that information. I would like to hear your opinion on that

proposal and then I am concluded.

MR. MACDONALD: Answer the question now.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Nice to see you, second member for Vancouver East.

HON. MR. MAIR: You don't have to lie.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I always enjoy his company.

MR. MACDONALD: Answer the question of the member.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm not so sure I can answer the second question.

With

respect to the first question — the brief, $15,000 first, I don't

believe that the board has the authority to indemnify them, and from my

own position I wouldn't support it. The reason I wouldn't support it is

that there are briefs to government made by hosts of organizations

throughout the province for just as many reasons. Are we then to

subsidize every brief which is submitted to a Crown corporation or a

government office? I think the precedent that you're creating would be

pretty significant.

I cannot answer the second question, I'm sorry. I will read the Blues tonight and see what I can do for you.

MR. KING: I want to advise Hansard ,

first of all, that they should not be too concerned if they can't hear

the minister, because what the minister is speaks much louder than his

words, and I think we've seen an indication of what the minister is

here this afternoon.

The last point that the minister seems to have some difficulty understanding

is that he fears a precedent by funding those who are threatened and jeopardized

by government action. Mr. Minister, you're a lawyer, and there is no precedent

established in this case at all. It is not uncommon at the federal level or

the provincial level to fund minority groups whose way of life is jeopardized

by government action which erodes some standard that currently exists. That's

what my colleague is talking about — a standard of protection which already

exists with respect to occupational health and workers' compensation coverage,

which the board proposes to unilaterally remove without consultation with those

affected.

Then

the minister suggests that it's very sensitive of that threatening

agency to come along after the fact and listen to submissions. How

wonderful!

Well, it so happens that one of the first

firefighter cases was in Trail, British Columbia. It happened to be a

friend of mine. It was a case in which my brother represented the

worker and established protection for a heart attack. It's significant

and interesting that that case was won by the boards of review, subject

to appeal by the commissioners and then appeal by the employers, and is

now resting dormant. In the face of that threatened litigation by the

employer, to strip that unfortunate widow of the protection she had

gained through the normal litigation process of the WCB, isn't it a bit

significant and coincidental that all of a sudden the board, which is

supposed to be an agency to protect workers, proposes to remove that

very protection under which this firefighter's widow won a pension?

That's ironic, Mr. Minister; that's highly coincidental, isn't it? It's

highly coincidental that, in the face of pending litigation by the

company to strip that widow of the pension, the board proposed a change

in

Schedule B which would make it much more difficult for a widow in

similar, future circumstances to gain and win a pension.

The

minister says: "Far be it from me to interfere in a political way with

the board. It's fine and sensitive for the board to make these changes

and then invite representations after." That's an old political trick,

you know. If everything's going well out there and the government's not

getting any good news, take something away from the people, create a

furor, and then give it back to them and say: "Look at how wonderful we

are." That's all the board was proposing. I suggest that if the board

were really sensitive they would consult with the trade union movement,

the working people of the province and the employers before they

arbitrarily imposed this kind of threatening, retrograde step on the

people whom they are supposed to represent. I suggest that would be

sensitive.

I don't like attacking the WCB. I happened to sit

in your chair at one time, Mr. Minister. But I must say that Dr. Adam

Little's letter in response to admittedly fairly inflammatory and

volatile statements made by the IWA — but with 49 fatalities involved

there's reason to be a bit inflammatory — was anything but sensitive;

it was insulting and abusive. I suggest that no public servant in the

province of British Columbia should respond in that fashion.

Having

once been the steward of that department and having great respect in

the main for the employees of that department.... During the past year

I have had occasion myself, after a telephone conversation with a

regional WCB officer, to thereafter direct a letter to that individual

and demand an apology for the abusive fashion in which he addressed me

on the telephone. It was forthcoming; otherwise it would have been

referred to the minister's desk.

I suggest that we have not got sensitive treatment from

[ Page 3478 ]

elected

politicians and much less for the people who need it most, those

injured workers in the province. I'm not very happy when the minister

says: "Look, we don't interfere politically."

Mr. Minister,

I'm going to tell you that it would be improper to interfere

politically in the day-to-day administration or in the adjudicative

process. It's not improper for you to give policy direction; that's why

you were elected as a politician. Failure to do so is an abuse of your

elected responsibilities, in my view. You have a responsibility and an

obligation to monitor the policy performance and the administrative

performance of those agencies which reside under your portfolio. If the

performance is not up to snuff, you have a further obligation to take

corrective action, if not in the field of policy direction and hiring

or firing, then certainly in statutory reform. That is your obligation.

So to dodge by saying, "Look, it's not my political responsibility," is

cute, but it's not quite good enough. As I said, the minister is a

lawyer and he should know that.

Mr. Chairman, I didn't get

up to talk about WCB; that was not my purpose. My colleagues have

articulated their concerns very eloquently and clearly. With his

responses the minister did provoke some comments from me.

Quite

frankly, I got up initially to ask for some information. There are two

areas that I am a zit perplexed and confused about. Things have changed

a great deal since I was Minister of Labour. I've been involved in

other things, and perhaps I forget a little bit. So I'm looking to the

minister for some help and guidance in terms of understanding what the

ground rules are now.

The first area about which I want to

consult with the minister is with respect to the hiring of non-union

contractors by the government. As I understand it, the area of

non-union contractors working for government is regulated by the Public

Construction Fair Wages Act. Is that correct, Mr. Minister? I believe

that was an answer you gave during question period one day. I'm just

going to make some assumptions and ask the minister to indicate whether

or not I am correct. If that is the case, I presume the Minister of

Labour is the person responsible for the application and enforcement of

that act. I further presume that the purpose and the main essence of

that act is to guarantee a fair standard of wages and working

conditions for unorganized workers who are operating in the public

sector in terms of a contract with the government. How am I doing, Mr.

Minister? Am I correct so far?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The

member knows that particular piece of legislation to which I

referred.... I subsequently found out — as a matter of fact, it wasn't

too long after I had made that statement — that there are no

regulations under that statute. So I wonder if it has any applicability

at all.

MR. KING: I thank the minister for his

comments. The act has no regulations, and therefore it's unenforceable

in terms of any meaning whatsoever.

This question arose

because the Ministry of Labour contracted a non-union organization to

do certain work on the ministry's offices in Burnaby.

Interjection.

MR. KING:

Okay, BCBC contracted it. BCBC contracted the non-union contractor to

do work on the Ministry of Labour offices in Burnaby at Deer Lake

Centre. The minister was questioned in the House about this, and he

said: "Well, they bid the lowest contract. Therefore I have to protect

the public interest and ensure that we get the best deal for the

taxpayers' money." He went on to say that non-union help that was

employed on the Ministry of Labour buildings in Burnaby was guaranteed

fair treatment by the Public Construction Fair Wages Act. The minister

now admits that there are no regulations under that act so that

non-union contractor was in effect able to pay the minimum wage if he

so chose. Is that correct?

I'm not going to spend a great

deal of time on this but I do want to draw to the attention of the

House, for the sake of comparison, what happened to those union people

who were affected by the acceptance of this non-union contract. The

unions affected ultimately picketed the Ministry of Labour buildings in

Burnaby, which was pretty embarrassing politically, I imagine, because

the Minister of Labour is supposed to be the referee to ensure fair

treatment, no unfair labour practices and minimum standards of

protection in the province for all workers.

MR. MACDONALD: How long has he been in Labour?

MR. KING: I think the gestation period is still underway, Mr. Member.

After

those union workers said, "Look, we don't want non-union people on this

job," they finally put up a picket line. Lo and behold, I find that the

Ministry of Labour took action immediately, through an application to

the Labour Relations Board, for an expedited hearing to obtain a cease

and desist order against that union picketing.

A complaint

was filed by a lawyer representing the Ministry of Labour based on a

sworn affidavit by Colin Kay. He is one of the high-profile industrial

relations mediation officers often involved in sensitive bargaining

between employers and unions in the province of British Columbia. After

him now being a complainant, after him now establishing himself and his

credentials on management's side in this process, I find it a little

difficult to understand how his credibility is going to be preserved to

carry on his historic role in industrial relations in the province.

any event, the Minister of Labour commissioned this complaint against

the unions for picketing against a non-union contractor doing work on

the Ministry of Labour buildings. The minister said, "Oh, they will be

protected by the Fair Employment Labour Standards Construction Act" —

whatever the heck it is — with no regulations and no power of

enforcement. Only now, months after, he gets up in the House and says:

"Well, I found out subsequently that there were no regulations." Well,

the minister wasn't reticent about taking action against affected

employees who picketed. His ministry sought a cease and desist order

before the Labour Relations Board and they found regulations to hammer

them into line pretty quickly. But he had no protection to offer to

those employees of the non-union contractor, none at all.

What

is the Minister of Labour going to do about the fact that his

colleague, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications

(Hon. Mr. McGeer), was brought before the Labour Relations Board last

year and convicted of an unfair labour practice with respect to his

utterances on Notre Dame University of Nelson?

[ Page 3479 ]

The

point is simply this. Here are three examples. In the one case you had

an opportunity, Mr. Minister, to defend the rights of and establish

protection for working people. You now have to admit that there are no

regulations to give any force to that act of yours, so non-union

workers are completely at the will and the whim of the employer. As a

matter of policy, you invite them in competition with organized workers

to bid and do work, even on Ministry of Labour buildings, with no power

of enforcement to assist them in any way. But when the trade union

movement stepped over the bounds you immediately initiated action

against them before the Labour Relations Board. You hammered them.

When

your colleague, the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications, breached the Labour Code, neither you nor your

predecessor, who may well have been the Minister of Labour at the time,

spoke out. Neither one of you took any remedial action to protect the

rights of those employees of Notre Dame University of Nelson. That

minister got away with complete impunity with an affront and a breach

of the act that you are sworn to uphold, but not so the working people

of the province of British Columbia. When they put, up a picket line in

front of your offices in Burnaby to indicate their displeasure and

their opposition, you hammered them. Some Minister of Labour you are!

So I say your conduct does indeed speak much louder than your words.

I want to ask you some questions, too, on a second issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've never worked a day in your life.

MR. KING: There's the magic mushroom again, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Will all members please come to order — the members for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf), Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), and the first member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk). The hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke continues.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, if I could ever legislate an honest day's work out of any of those members, I would certainly proceed with it.

Interjections.

MR. KING:

Oh, listen to them, Mr. Chairman; they're coming into full throat. It's

getting late in the evening and they're waking up. Fred and Barney are

doing their act. And the magic mushroom down there is starting to find

his voice too. Isn't that amazing! The magic mushroom who never stands

up to address the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Hon. member, I will ask you to contain your debate to vote 146, and I

will ask all the other hon. members in the assembly now gathered to

remain quiet, because the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has the floor

on vote 146.

MR. KING: Thank you for protecting me, Mr. Chairman; I needed that.

want to ask the minister about his new approach to apprenticeship

training. It's an area that is very difficult to deal with; I

appreciate that. I know that the minister is deeply interested in it. I

watched him very closely on "Capital Comment" last week, and I was

really unable to discern any new and dynamic approach to that question

of apprenticeship training. As I say, it's very difficult. But it's my

understanding that one of the things that the minister has done — this

seems to be a bit vague, and I would appreciate the minister listening

with rapt attention.... I understand that minister has either announced

or is on the verge of announcing a program of subsidy or financial

incentives to employers who take on apprentices in the province and

train them. I'm not sure what the criteria are, but it's my

understanding that the minister either has announced or is on the verge

of announcing a very substantial subsidy arrangement to employers that

meet those certain criteria for industrial apprenticeship training. Is

this correct? If so, I would like the minister to explain his rationale

for that kind of approach to industrial training. I'm very interested

in understanding what the background is and what he feels the results

will be. Was it his own idea? Was this suggested by ministry officials?

Was it something that the employers of the province or the

apprenticeship training board recommended? How was the idea born in the

minister's mind? I'd appreciate some information on that.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

With respect to the first item raised by the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke, at the time that I answered the question in the

House I freely admit that I thought that this particular piece of

legislation was effective. Subsequent to that time I have found that it

is without regulation, and I so advised you. I'm not ashamed to mention

the fact that I was in error, but it was inadvertent at the time. I

hope you accept it in that spirit.

I might tell you that it

is my understanding, and I'm relying upon other information, that the

piece of legislation to which you are referring was introduced by the

members opposite when they were government. I wonder about.... There

may have been some amendments...

MR. KING: Oh, yes, there were indeed!

HON. MR. HEINRICH: ...to that piece of legislation, but I gather that's where it came from.

I'd

like to mention only this. I can tell you that you've now told me

something that I wasn't aware of, and that is an application which was

made for a cease-and-desist by a Mr. Kay. I don't know anything about

that, and I never did. I was wondering whether or not it makes

reference to the particular contract that was raised in the House by

the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). But I can tell you that I was

in a very difficult position, because this contract had been let by

BCBC and, I understand, by the time it was brought to my attention it

was half concluded. It was a very small contract involving some

leasehold improvements. I admit that it was rather embarrassing for me

because of the nature of the area where the work was being done. I was

also faced with the other problem, and that is that the low tender was

in the amount of, I believe, something in the order of $22,000 or

$24,000 and the next tender was, I think, $36,000 or $38,000. So there

was a substantial difference.

The real issue here is whether

or not the employees of the contractor — company or partnership, I'm

not sure what it was — that did the work did in fact receive a fair

wage. I am advised — and all I can tell you is what I have been advised

— that an analysis of that particular job indicated payment somewhere

in the order of $14 to $16 per hour. I would have

[ Page 3480 ]

think that an hourly rate of that amount must be the amount which was

probably incorporated by the contractor when bidding on the job and not

necessarily — I wouldn't go so far as to say — the amount paid to the

worker. I can tell you I'm being as candid as I can be with you on it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Well, I may have a point, but then I don't think that we should think

that because the company was not certified nothing but evil is to be

found there.

MS. SANFORD: Did you bring in regulations, once you knew there were no regulations?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have not brought in regulations with respect to that piece of legislation.

With

respect to the other question asked by the hon. member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) on apprenticeship, I will tell you this.

The Apprenticeship Board was set up on January 1, 1980. The

Apprenticeship Board consists of 12 people plus a thirteenth who acts

as chairman. The chairman is Mr. Heywood from the Ministry of Labour.

The other 12 are representatives from industry — six from the trade

unions and six from the management side. That recommendation was made

by them. That recommendation came through in a report filed with me,

and I have no reason to think that it was not a unanimous report. In

fact, I was delighted with the report. And I would say that there's....

You

know, we've got to face some major issues. I'm sure it's as much a

concern to the member as it to me. There's been total reliance upon

immigration in order to fill the need. Members opposite are as well

aware of that as I am. As a matter of fact, the second member for

Surrey (Mr. Hall) had something to say.

Secondly, we know

that there are good trainers and bad trainers, and we know there are

lots of poachers and stealers out there too. They're going to have a

program too. So when I looked at it, I thought that we've got to

provide some kind of leadership. I'm looking at a critical shortfall

now of approximately 1,400 involving seven of the designated trades —

those designated by order-in-council under the provisions of the

Apprenticeship Act. I don't think I have to recite the seven trades in

particular. But I think it might be fair to also say this. I don't

think that it's just those seven trades. I think there are a number of

others besides where there are some shortages. But the indications

would be from all the surveys which were taken that those seven trades

in particular need some immediate attention.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

might say that I've received tremendous support from a number of areas

on this program. I think another thing has been important too. The

figures were just run off for the last....

I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, are you prepared to go along in debate or carry on over there? I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I tell you, hon. member, that I have had a lot of support from all

areas on this, and I think we're moving in the right direction. In the

last six months — the period ending June 30, as compared to the

previous year ending June 30 — we've noticed an increase of something

in the region of just under nine times the number of apprentices

enrolled. I think we're moving in the right direction, and I think the

important thing was to identify it and speak out about it and give it

the profile that it deserves. I would like to see what happens. I feel

that in about probably two years the number of apprentices enrolled

within the province should increase very substantially. That's my

objective, and I intend to deliver on it.

MR. KING:

Just a couple of things, Mr. Chairman. For the minister's edification,

if he was blissfully unaware that an employee of his own ministry had

initiated action against a trade union with the Labour Relations Board,

I will just read this briefly for him, so he might be attuned to what's

going on in his ministry. This letter is dated March 25, 1980,

addressed to the Labour Relations Board, attention Don Munroe, Ministry

of Labour:

"I enclose herewith a complaint

with respect to the above-noted matter: Ministry of Labour, 4946 Canada

Way, Burnaby, B.C., and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and

Joiners of America, local 1251. This complaint is filed with the Labour

Relations Board" — get this! — "pursuant to the provisions of the

Labour Relations Act."

I better take the name of this lawyer — Bruce McColl.

"The picketing, I am informed, has been undertaken on

behalf of the carpenters' local 1251 and apparently arises out of the

use of non-union labour in the premises for work being done on behalf

of the tenants, the Ministry of Labour, by the British Columbia

Buildings Corporation. The statutory declaration of Colin Kay I expect

to have completed and filed in your office by 12 noon today."

Now this action was initiated, I presume, by the ministry with

a statutory declaration by one of the minister's employees, and I would

have thought that perhaps he would have known something about it. Be

that as it may, that's by the board, but I think the question that my

colleague put forward.... Okay, we accept as naive your reference to

the legislation you described — I forget the name of it; the name has

changed since I was the minister, as well as the substance of the act.

In fact you people virtually eliminated the protection which resided

under that act when it was know