1981 Legislative Session: 3rd

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)

THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 6425 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Groundwater Licensing Act, 1981 (Bill

M214). Mrs. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading –– 6425

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act,

1981 (Bill 30). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 6425

Tabling Documents

McAlpine report on the activities of the

Ku Klux Klan in British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 6425

Oral Questions

Ward system in municipal government. Mr.

Barber –– 6425

Funding of post-secondary institutions.

Mr. Lauk — 6426

Ms. Brown

Mr. Barber

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour

estimates. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

On vote 140: minister's office — 6427

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Cocke

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No.

2), 1981 (Bill 31). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 6447

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Petroleum Resources

annual report, 1980-81.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 6448

Appendix –– 6448

FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this

morning I had the pleasure of presenting this year's Premier's Athletic

Award Scholarships to five outstanding high school athletes in British

Columbia. These students were chosen from more than 300 applicants for

the Nancy Greene scholarships, of which 25 were awarded, and they

represent both academic and athletic excellence. I'm sure that each of

these fine young British Columbians will put their $2,500 scholarship

to good use as they continue their post-secondary education. I would

like to introduce them to the House: Rick Dove, a wrestler from

Centennial School in Coquitlam; Sandra Espaseth, a basketball player

from Maple Ridge Senior Secondary; Rod Prat, a badminton player from

Spectrum Junior School in Victoria; Glen Steele, a football player from

Notre Dame Regional Secondary in Vancouver; and Rhonda Thomasson, a

swimmer from North Delta Secondary in North Delta. They are in the

members' gallery with their parents and members of their families. I

would ask them and their families to stand up and be recognized and

welcomed by this Legislature.

HON. MR. CHABOT: In the

members' gallery today from Newport, Vermont, is my brother Maurice,

his wife Fernande and his daughters Yolande and Chantal. They are

accompanied by my wife. I wish the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Further to the Premier's introduction of Sandra Espeseth, the Premier

also mentioned that Howard Espeseth and his wife Grace were in the

balcony with their daughter, who has done so well in achieving the

Premier's award. I want to say that Howard Espeseth and I have worked

together in the same business over the past 20 years. He is one of the

finest citizens of British Columbia, and I can't help but remark on

such a great.... I really and truly believe this is greatness when we

see a man who does his work over the years, studies and raises that

kind of family. I think this is the fibre that the province of British

Columbia is built from.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's my

day for introducing visitors from Holland. Today we have with us Mr.

Stel, from Langley, a good friend of ours who brought with him Nels and

Anne Van Pelt. They are visiting beautiful British Columbia from

Holland and are enjoying the sunshine as of today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

In the absence of our caucus chairman, Bill Ritchie, I would like to

ask the House to welcome Mrs. Margaret Rempe from Clearbrook.

also have some very fine volunteers from the Victoria Social Credit

constituency office on Blanshard Street. I would ask the House to

welcome volunteers Violet Stanyer, Ella Munroe, Alfred Christiansen and

also the office coordinator, Sharon Jackson.

Introduction of Bills

GROUNDWATER LICENSING ACT, 1981

a motion by Mrs. Wallace, Bill M214, Groundwater Licensing Act, 1981,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, that concludes

my legislative program.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Attorney-General Statutes

Amendment Act, 1981.

Bill

30 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich tabled the report arising out of the

activities of the Ku Klux Klan in British Columbia, by John D. McAlpine.

Oral Questions

WARD SYSTEM IN MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Can the minister confirm that he announced this morning the intention

of this government to revoke the authority municipalities currently

have under

section 87 of the Municipal Act to opt for a full or a

partial ward system?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr.

Speaker, I said this morning that this would be a matter for review by

the Municipal Act Review Committee, and I hope that they will look at

this very carefully. Certainly I have my views on this, and I will be

pleased to discuss them with the hon. member at any time.

MR. BARBER:

This time is a good time. Would you tell us what your policy is in

regard to allowing municipalities to retain the historical right they

have had under

section 87 of the Municipal Act to exercise freedom of

choice in determining the system of their own governance, specifically

full or partial wards? What is your policy?

MR. SPEAKER: If it's a question of future

policy, it's not in order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer this question, because I'm sure

there will be requests from areas from time to time seeking the

provision for a ward system in their community. This generally comes

about when there is an expansion of boundaries and a new area comes

into the municipality. Someone may be running for office who isn't

known, and the area may want local representation granted to them. This

is often the method adopted, and it is provided for in letters patent,

wherein a time limit is often provided for. Although we have had no

requests for ward systems in other municipalities, it's possible that

this may come about. Certainly there could be an area.... I don't know

of any area, nor do I think there will be an area, particularly wanting

this. Most municipalities — at least when I have had opportunities to

meet with them, through UBCM and others — indicate that they are not

about to take on an approach to govern their own areas. It would mean

an expansion of government, bringing in more council

[ Page 6426 ]

members

and the growth of bureaucracy. For the most part, municipalities are

very responsible when it comes to this sort of thing, and they do not

want to expand the bureaucracy.

MR. BARBER: Whether

or not the minister heard the question, he certainly didn't answer it.

The minister knows full well that

section 87 of the act provides that

regardless of the conditions of letters patent a municipality may

apply, if they wish, for a ward system. The minister's comment about

letters patent is bogus and irrelevant. I ask the minister again what

his policy is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I remind the

hon. member that the purpose of question period is to ask questions,

not to....

MR. BARBER: And to provide information to

ministers who don't know what they're talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I remind the

hon. member that the purpose of question period is to ask questions and

not make statements.

MR. BARBER:

I ask the minister again: what is your policy with regard to the

continuation of the historic right of municipalities, under

section 87

of the act which governs them, to make local choice and to exercise it

freely in regard to a ward or a partial ward system? What is your

policy with regard to continuing that historic right and freedom?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

There is, of course, a provision in the act which allows municipalities

by bylaw to elect some or all members in wards. These bylaws require

the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I'm sure the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would want the advice of the minister

when such requests come to the ministry. I would have to consider each

request on its own merits. But if in fact the request only provided for

more government and more bureaucracy, I would turn it down and advise

against it.

FUNDING OF POST

SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS

MR. LAUK: I have a question

for the Minister of Education. The vice-president of the faculty

association at Cariboo College has charged that the hon. member for

Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) is misinformed and is misinforming about

funding cutbacks at the college. Has that member made any

representations to the minister on behalf of that college?

HON. MR. SMITH:

Yes, indeed, that member has. I've had a number of discussions with

him. Like me, he's concerned with the education of students at Cariboo

College.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we

entertain many questions of that nature, I would refer hon. members to

section 171 of the fourth edition of Beauchesne regarding

communications between members and ministers, which are not a subject

of questions in question period.

MR. LAUK: I'll approach it differently.

The

cutbacks for Cariboo College first announced in late May have resulted

in nine instructors being dismissed, affecting over 500 students. Has

the minister decided now to intervene and ensure that these cutbacks do

not take place?

HON. MR. SMITH: As the first member

for Vancouver Centre knows, I don't intervene in the affairs of

community colleges. What I do is meet with the administration and

discuss any planned reorganizations or any alterations of programs that

they want to bring to my attention. I have done that on a very lengthy

occasion.

MR. LAUK: The minister intervened when he

started tinkering with the boards of the colleges, Mr. Speaker.

The

vice-president of the faculty association at Cariboo College says that

the faculty feels quite strongly that the board is dominated by

government appointees. Has the minister decided to expand the board to

include more representation from the community rather than from the

government?

I have a further question for the Minister of

Education. We learned today that several counsellors and staff

providing student services at BCIT have been terminated, while the

administration of that institute has increased its administration

budget considerably. In view of the fact that the BCIT governors are

government appointees, has the minister decided to investigate the

board's budgetary priorities?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the question

is argumentative, and the

preamble is inaccurate. If this member read

the BCIT act he would understand that the number of appointees to that

board is fixed by statute. They come from the students, the alumni

association, the faculty and the government. So the premise upon which

the question is based is erroneous. I have met with that administration

as well and I have also met with the student association of BCIT. I've

reviewed the budget in both instances.

MR. LAUK:

If the minister is trying to leave the impression that the government

does not dominate the appointments to that board, he is erroneous. The

second point that should be made by way of a question is that these

individuals who were fired yesterday were providing student counselling

services both in the institute and around the province. Are you going

to sit by while the administration increases its budget for its own

administrative bureaucracy and sacrifices student services that are

sadly needed in the institutions of this province?

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Education.

Nursing instructors at BCIT tell us that the province's ability to meet

future health-care programs will be jeopardized if cutbacks are made in

the nursing program as planned. Has the minister decided to intervene

to prevent these cutbacks occurring?

HON. MR. SMITH:

Once again, Mr. Speaker, the notion of the role of a Minister of

Education that is held opposite is a novel one — that he is a figure

that butts into everybody's affairs and tells them what to do. In my

discussions with BCIT I have reviewed some reductions in programs. The

nursing program is one of those. It is the intention of BCIT, as I

understand it, to re-order some of its priorities, but it is not the

intention that the system will have less nurses trained. If there are

reductions in the number of nurses who enter the BCIT program, it is

hoped and expected that those will be picked up appropriately by one of

the community colleges in the lower mainland.

[ Page 6427 ]

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Speaker, I have another question about cutbacks in staff at

community colleges across British Columbia, and it's directed to the

Minister of Labour. Three faculty and five support staff at the College

of New Caledonia were terminated in their employment on June 15. Of the

five support staff in question, two were prominently vocal and had a

public profile in recent salary negotiations. Has the minister decided

whether to request an investigation on the possibility that this might

be an unfair labour practice?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I think

that question should be more properly directed to my colleague the

Minister of Education.

MR. LAUK: It's an unfair labour practice.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Have you got any

evidence?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Ministry of Industry

and Small Business Development please come to order.

MR. BARBER:

Another question to the Minister of Education. Has he decided to take

any action whatsoever, either to supplement a budget or to request

different spending priorities, in order to restore the former level of

teaching and support services at the College of New Caledonia and thus

prevent the harsh and unfair impact of these latest cutbacks?

HON. MR. SMITH:

I'm by no means certain that the facts alleged in that

preamble are

correct, but I will look into that matter. I've had no meetings, nor

have any meetings been requested by New Caledonia, but I'll certainly

look into that matter.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, this

is a new question on the issue of cutbacks and community colleges.

Vancouver Community College has indicated that it will cut some 90

classes at the Langara campus because of insufficient government funds,

at a time when fewer high-school graduates are attending post-secondary

education in British Columbia than in other parts of Canada. Has the

minister decided to take any steps whatsoever to prevent the

elimination of roughly 90 classes at Langara, affecting nearly 2,000

students, by finding and providing to them additional funds?

HON. MR. SMITH:

I realize that there are members opposite who believe that cutbacks are

a reduction in wish lists. I do not consider a 19.4 percent increase in

the budgets of colleges and institutes to be a cutback; it's a very

significant increase.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH:

No, it's not my answer. My answer is that program reductions have

occurred in community colleges. That is known. Also, increases in new

programs have occurred at community colleges, and there have been a

number of new programs, Community colleges reorder their priorities,

and on some occasions they reduce the number of choices available to

students because they're increasing other opportunities and courses.

There has been quite an alteration in the clientele of the community

college system over the past three or four years. For instance, there

are more and more career technical students entering the colleges on a

part-time basis. There are fewer entering on a full-time academic

basis. Bearing these things and budget priorities in mind, community

colleges make decisions. These are not all decisions that I perhaps

would concur in, but they're their decisions to make.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

On vote 140: minister's office, $147,796.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I will attempt to keep my opening remarks reasonably brief. Before

introducing the estimates for the Ministry of Labour I would like to

mention some recent appointments. In March of this year James Matkin

left his position as deputy, which he had held for eight years, to

become Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. My new deputy is

Doug Cameron, who was the assistant deputy minister in charge of the

mediation services branch, labour standards and occupational safety. He

came in in April of this year.

Another recent change has

been the appointment of Stephen Stackhouse as my assistant deputy

minister in charge of finance and administration. Prior to his

appointment he served as the ministry's legal officer.

Sitting

behind me I have Doug Cameron, Bob Gray, who is the assistant deputy

minister in charge of manpower training and apprenticeship, and Stephen

Stackhouse.

Perhaps it might be of benefit to list a number

of the important developments which have occurred in the past year. The

first item was the introduction of the Employment Standards Act,

proclaimed March 14. I think the significance of that particular

legislation was the coverage of farm and domestic workers; and farm

labour contractors must now obtain licensing. We've also passed the

regulations with respect to the piece rate so that it coincides with

the minimum wage. One other addition was the improved maternity-leave

conditions lengthening the period of entitlement. Also, those who are

absent for maternity reasons now receive the benefit plans as well as

reinstatement to the same job or a comparable position. The last item

which came through — and the reason I raise these items now is that the

legislation was proclaimed in March of this year, subsequent to the

House adjourning last year — is the notice of termination, except for

dismissal for just cause.

I think the House will be

interested to hear that the legislation has worked very well. Some 10

previous statutes were reduced to one, and 93 regulations were reduced

to one regulation. I think the reduction in the number of regulations

was as effective as could be expected. We've just begun working with

the new act. You probably recall seeing an extensive campaign. The

response has been significant, Probably the most important thing is

that the decline in inquiries which come into the labour standards

branch is significant, although they did increase rapidly at the time

of the introduction of the legislation followed by the advertising

campaign. I really think the important thing is that the community at

large is aware of the contents of the legislation.

[ Page 6428 ]

The

appointments to the Employment Standards Board have been completed.

It's chaired by Jim Edgett, who's been an official with the Ministry of

Labour for a long time. The minimum wage was increased to $3.65 on

December 1. There have been a number of new appointments to the

Workers' Compensation Board, Labour Relations Board, the boards of

review where we appointed a sixth panel to handle the number of

appeals, and also the new Employment Standards Board and the Human

Rights Commission.

Of all the disputes which the ministry

was involved in in 1980, I'm only going to raise one particular dispute

at this time because of the significance and the progress which we have

been able to experience over the past year. You recall that we had a

difficult time with the British Columbia Railway over Christmas 1979

and January 1980. I think what is significant, though, is that since

that dispute, which lasted for approximately five and a half to six

weeks, depending on the location, we've had a vice-president appointed

in charge of industrial relations on the BCR. There was a decision of

the Labour Relations Board which treated the railroad as one unit for

the purposes of rating. The Strand commission was dissolved, and

fact-finders were appointed. It's interesting on the item of the

fact-finders that we did try an experiment. There was some risk

involved, but I think it was well worthwhile. That particular risk was

to appoint somebody from labour and somebody from management. The

report they came up with was unanimous.

I think I can report

that since that time the industrial relations on the railroad have

improved substantially. As a matter of fact, with each of the member

unions of the joint council, negotiations have proceeded extremely

well. Their particular contract expires in January 1982. I only wish

that more people would do the same in the areas of industrial and

labour relations: that is, address the problems of collective

bargaining and negotiations well in advance of the expiry date of their

respective contracts.

One of the purposes of the Ministry of

Labour is really to promote the harmonious and productive

labour-management relations. I think we all agree that it's probably

one of the most important elements of the B.C. economy. We're also

aware that during negotiations, cooperation and confrontation sometimes

exist side by side. As in any relationship, there is always the

potential for conflict. We've seen that over the last few months.

Inevitably, though, that conflict makes headlines, tending to

overshadow the underlying achievements of securing agreements. It must

be remembered that disputes and their resolution are signs of a free

democratic society. From time to time there is a great deal of

shouting, but I hope that cool heads prevail, because that's the only

way these matters are going to be resolved. We're not in favour of

disputes and labour strife, though we recognize that free collective

bargaining almost inevitably involves some conflict. There's a lot at

stake.

In the uncertain times in which we live, these

confrontations between labour and management are inevitable. However,

many disputes are resolved without work stoppage. We never hear about

these. I'd like to make reference to the analysis of the mediation

services division of the Ministry of Labour for the calendar year

ending December 31, 1980. The interesting thing was the batting record:

it was 83.5 percent. All of the appointments which came in — some

carry-over from 1979 plus all the appointments in 1980 — total 395. All

the way down the line the mediation service has been effective in

resolving or assisting in the resolution of something in excess of 83

percent. I think that's to be commended.

Government has an

important role to play in this area, but a role which differs from what

many people seem to expect. From time to time that assistance is

offered. The Labour Code is used. For the most

part it has worked out

very well, together with the Labour Relations Board and, as I

mentioned, the mediation services of the Ministry of Labour.

think we should mention as well that when things get out of balance

there is often a call from either or both sides for government to

intervene. There is usually public pressure for the injection of a

third party. Prior to intervening, government is careful to gauge when

negotiations have reached the point of no return and the public good is

threatened. Often in the Ministry of Labour we experience one or the

other party requesting intervention. My response from day one has

always been that collective bargaining works when there is a genuine

commitment by both management and labour to make it work and when

professional attitudes guide that bargaining.

The process at

times demands that both sides suffer a little bit of pain. That is

often what brings movement and ultimately resolution. So it's not

government's role to intervene in disputes simply to relieve that pain.

Caution is necessary, because the more often government intervenes, the

more often it will be expected to intervene. If this should come to

pass, the integrity of free collective bargaining will be undermined.

We have proven our willingness to stand by the concept of bargaining in

the true sense, and we recognize the delicate balance which must be

maintained. Recently, however, that balance has been tested by

inflation, interest rates, energy costs, uncertain international

markets and other factors beyond our direct control.

I have

some statistics here which I think might be of interest to the House.

Prior to raising them I would like to say that our industrial health

depends heavily on the degree of stability which we are able to

achieve. Continued capital investment in our province thrives in an

atmosphere of stability and responsible industrial relations. When we

look back to 1980, we were very fortunate, with a lot of hard work and

a lot of understanding. Primarily I would like to compliment those in

the field. In 1980 both the public and private sector put on record one

of the best years for the province of British Columbia in over a

decade. It worked out to something like this: only two out of every

1,000 man-days worked in the province were lost as a result of either a

strike or a lockout.

What has happened in 1981? The

interesting thing in 1981 is that we've had a bulge, and it's been

somewhat difficult: 1.235 million days in the first five months. I

wonder if an analysis of that might be appropriate. For all of British

Columbia, the figure is roughly 881,000 for those under provincial

jursidiction. But I'm finding that in excess of 89 percent — almost 90

percent — of the man-days lost are attributable to the public sector.

In the private sector it's 91,500. It's almost an unbelievable record

in the private, goods-producing areas. Our problem has been in the

public sector, and it's been somewhat difficult. Interestingly enough,

when you look at the public sector — and I don't think it really comes

as a surprise to anyone — primarily it involved the GVRD and the

Capital Regional District on one side and the Canadian Union of Public

Employees on the other. Of course when we add the problems there

together with B.C. Tel — B.C. Tel was perhaps 350,000; I'm not sure

[ Page 6429 ]

of the exact number of man-days lost —

those two areas are what really hurt us.

MS. SANFORD: Worker-days. He's in trouble

already.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Chairman, you'll have trouble with me with that from time to time.

I do confess it, Person, son of Per — I can't get away from it. I'll

stick with chairman.

It's interesting to note that the

settlements achieved in the metal-mining and transportation industries

have been superb — and the food industry this week. There are, however,

some major settlements to be concluded, primarily in the forest

industry, the pulp and paper industry. I trust that, as in years past,

all parties will make the bargaining process work. I'm sure this House

wishes success for those presently involved in negotiations. We must

remind ourselves of what is often forgotten: there is going to be a

little bit of noise and a fair amount of press coverage; but we know

that discord and harmony often work together, so let's keep things in

perspective.

I'd like to conclude my remarks with respect to

the labour relations portion of the ministry with the following

comment. I attach considerable importance to these comments, and I

think something we should all be concerned with is the respect we have,

or should have, for the institutions our society has established for

the regulation and conduct of society's affairs.

Encompassed

within the range of this concern are our parliamentary — I repeat

parliamentary — institutions, our courts and our administrative

agencies. We can legitimately take exception to the law and the

lawmakers — the institutions we have created for the administration of

the law — but we cannot afford to denigrate those institutions and

those who serve them, frequently at great personal and financial

sacrifice.

We must also support the sanctity of the

contract. We violate or ignore the rules at our own peril. We have

policy reviews in our province; they are called general elections.

Government and the law is not some form of sociological smorgasbord at

which we choose things we like and disregard the others. We should not

attempt to subvert our institutions by boycotts or sympathy strikes or

attempt to secure our ends by involving government in matters of

individual conscience.

Labour relations in B.C. at this

point in time are not as successful as I personally would like them to

be, but they are not an isolated phenomenon, as any perusal of a daily

newspaper will tell you. We have an obligation to make our collective

bargaining system work in the public interest. We have engaged in great

legislative experience in B.C. In the past 15 years, and the present

Labour Code and the Labour Relations Board, charged with its

administration, have achieved the greatest success. Within the context

of a difficult, persistent world-wide inflation, the right of any party

to a collective agreement to pursue its goals in free collective

bargaining carries with it a corresponding responsibility to act

lawfully.

Another area of the ministry, and one to which we

have attributed a great deal of importance, is apprenticeship training

in the trades. We have taken steps to encourage improvements in this

area, and it's evident that there are manpower shortages. I repeat, it

is evident to everyone that there are shortages in a number of skilled

trades in British Columbia. One of the most satisfying ways for

everyone to share in our province's prosperity is to have a marketable

skill. The challenge is offered to both industry and labour to provide

the opportunity for our young people to acquire those skills, During

the last year considerable progress has been made: the appointment of

the provincial apprenticeship board on January 1, 1980; the appointment

of the assistant deputy minister with full responsibility for

apprenticeship; preparation of a report from the Provincial

Apprenticeship Board identifying critical trade shortages — and this is

the one which has been circulated for a while now. We identified 1,400

tradesmen in seven specified trades where there was in fact a critical

shortage.

To follow that up we introduced a wage assistance

program totalling $14.4 million, and we are aware of what it has done.

More about that a little later. The thrust of it all, however, is to

help the first two years of a four- to five-year trades program. It

really works out to be approximately $5,000 per year. I've always had

the belief that when we start looking at people in the trades and those

people who certainly make an equivalent and many times a greater

contribution to our economy and the welfare of our respective boroughs

throughout the province, I attach equal importance to that as I do to

any university training.

Identification of the need for more

field counsellors in the Ministry of Labour. Since I wasn't able to

bring in charts or anything like that, Mr. Chairman, I've got a few

Polaroid snaps of the charts which I can pass over to my critic

opposite in due course. We certainly addressed the shortage of

counsellors, and we looked throughout the province. You know, I looked

in the northern half of the province and in one particular area of

240,000 square miles. Each counsellor had somewhere between 300 and 400

apprentices. Can you imagine what would happen if the teachers who had

300 or 400 students had problems in one school, never mind half of the

province? So there is a problem here, and we are addressing that. We

have conducted two apprenticeship forums, one in Prince George and the

other in Vancouver. Both, I might add, have really worked out very well.

Probably

something which hasn't been done before and we are continuing to move

on it — is the forecasting requirement. I mentioned phase 1— a critical

shortage of 1,400 tradesmen. We've also just released report 1 of phase

2, and that's quite important too, because it demonstrated what the

critical requirement is going to be by 1984. That particular study did

not look into the major projects or megaprojects of the construction

industry or public bodies, but this is coming along.

I think

the message really is that we can assist, but we cannot as government

alone ensure the delivery of skilled trades to meet the growing demands

of B.C.'s industry. The recognition of their responsibilities on the

part of employers and unions in the area of trades training, and a

commitment from each to meet these responsibilities.... Sometimes it's

like pulling teeth, because we have good and bad employers. We have

people who take seriously their responsibility for training and others

who are quite prepared to pirate and steal at any cost. Sometimes it's

difficult. But when I look into the bureaucracy we would have to

implement either by legislation or a grant-levy system, I think that it

would be a worse evil.

I say to the trade unions and

employers: if you can't adopt any other motive, adopt a selfish motive

and you will stand to lose if shortages continue in skilled trades,

because it is certainly going to affect the orderly economic development

[ Page 6430 ]

the province. Why not treat the training of young people as a capital

investment instead of an operating cost? A piece of machinery that's in

a plant for five or ten years is treated as capital on the balance

statement, but when it comes to employees it's an operating expense.

What happens to someone who is trained in a particular factory,

industry or construction company? It's a lifelong career. To me, that's

a very worthwhile investment.

The reason we have to look at

it is this: in British Columbia right now the average age of tradesmen

is believed to be 47. I don't know how accurate that figure is, but an

analysis of any construction site, factory or industry in most areas in

the province will certainly give you the feeling that that's the case.

Then if we look at attrition, mortality, retirement and those leaving

the trade, unless attitudes change we will continue to be in a deficit

position.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It's not

all bleak. Through the emphasis we placed over the last year it has

become apparent that we are having some success. On December 31, 1979,

13,800 apprentices were indentured. As of May 31, 1981, with the help

of the trades, labour, management — employers generally — and with the

assistance of government, there are now 17,182. I think that is a

significant increase. But I might mention one thing about that. In 1980

the number who decided to drop out or leave the training at some stage

of a four-year program was more than 1,200. That bothers me. Why would

that many people, some of whom may have waited or have had difficulty

in securing an apprenticeship, wish to leave? I suppose that's life,

and it's sometimes difficult to address.

There was some

comment with respect to the critical skills program which we put in. I

would like to make reference to the number of skilled tradesmen

indentured under the first program — the incentive program involving

$14.4 million. As of May 31, we signed up 727 apprentices under that

program. Over the same period of time — from September 1980 to the

present — 497 apprentices were signed up, but they are not registered

under the plan; as of April 1, 1980, there were 562. We addressed the

critical-skills shortfall of 1,400 in seven designated trades —

millwrights, machinists, instrumentation mechanics, industrial

electricians, etc.; we now have about 1,786. That was a problem we saw.

Some pressure was placed on institutions as well as on those who carry

some degree of responsibility. I think we have fulfilled that

requirement, but that's not the end.

There are a couple of

other items which I think I should mention, because I know there is

going to be some comment with respect to the Work in Government

program. The Work in Government program has been under the Ministry of

Labour for some time. If you analyze the program, it becomes quite

evident that it was to look after summer employment to some degree.

That alone has a great deal to commend it. But government has only so

much money. How do we get the biggest bang for the buck? This year we

shifted our priorities to job-creation programs. It wasn't easy, but we

assessed the alternatives and determined that the broadest interest

would be served by promoting the creation of private sector jobs which

have the potential of becoming permanent. There are two major

advantages in directing job-creation funds to the private sector. First

of all, funding is on a shared-cost basis with employers, and more jobs

can be created than through a program like Work in Government.

Private-sector jobs initiated through the youth employment program also

have the potential to become full-time permanent jobs. When we consider

that the unemployment rate among people between 15 and 19 years of age

is 14.5 percent, it seems to me that we should concentrate our efforts

on giving these young people job skills and work experience, and

encourage the creation of permanent jobs for them.

The last

item is obviously related to finances. The average cost of each Work in

Government job in 1980 was $3,529. We created 1,515 jobs at a cost of

roughly $5.346 million. In 1980 — and this is where the comparison is

drawn from — the private-sector programs created 9,460 jobs at a cost

of $8.31 million. So they represent an average cost of $878 per job of

similar duration. The cost-effectiveness is really self-evident: it's

$3,529 per job versus $878.

With respect to the Year of the

Disabled, I appreciate that there are some items to be raised. I have

some further notes on this particular aspect of the ministry, but I

think for the time being, during my opening comments, I will say the

following. In recognizing 1981 as the International Year of Disabled

Persons, our employment opportunities branch, in cooperation with

organizations for disabled individuals, has created a new program of

funding employment in non-profit organizations. About 200 disabled

people should receive job placements this summer.

Since time is running short, I think I will make reference

to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, a women's office

has been created in the ministry, and I'll go into further particulars

later on.

the area of human rights, there were three board appointments in 1980.

It seems to me that in the first five months of 1981 I appointed nine

or ten boards. In the vast majority of the cases, settlements are

achieved because of the conciliation efforts of the human rights

officers. In 1980, the branch handled over 800 formal complaints.

I'll

close my remarks with the boards of review under the Workers

Compensation Act. No doubt there will be some inquiries, but we did

appoint another appeal panel. There was a sharp increase in the number

of appeals, and delays were experienced. Roughly 1,200 decisions were

upheld, while claim adjudicators' decisions were reversed in

approximately 900 cases. So roughly 900 appeals were successful.

think I will close my remarks now, Mr. Chairman. No doubt there will be

some comments with respect to the Workers' Compensation Board, and that

would take a fair amount of time to answer. So I will sit down, leave

my remarks at that, and let my critic have a turn.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Chairman, I would first like to congratulate the newly appointed

people in the ministry upon their appointments, and welcome them.

The

minister made one comment during his opening remarks in which he said

that one of the jobs of the Ministry of Labour is to promote harmonious

industrial relations. I certainly concur in that. It's the job of the

Ministry of Labour, and government generally, to promote harmonious

industrial relations. In order to do that, you have to have strong

leadership, it seems to me, in the Ministry of Labour so that those

harmonious industrial relations can be promoted. This minister,

unfortunately, has not demonstrated that he has that

[ Page 6431 ]

leadership

capability, nor an ability to handle himself in the Legislature, answer

questions in this House, and deal with legislation when it is before

the House. We on this side have the distinct impression, Mr. Chairman,

that the minister is very unsure of himself. He is hesitant, he

stumbles around, and he really is not able to make definitive decisions

or to handle himself in the way we expect a Minister of Labour in this

province to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think you're doing a fine

job, Jack.

MS. SANFORD:

I'm speaking only of his administrative role as the Minister of Labour.

I have never seen a minister as ill-informed about legislation being

piloted through this legislature as he was last week and the week

before. Those are his administrative responsibilities, Mr. House Leader.

Surely

he has to be well informed; he has to be capable of understanding what

he is doing as Minister of Labour in charge of the administration of

offices throughout the province and in bringing legislation through

this House. That's his administrative responsibility. He does not

handle it well. He is unable to make decisions. The Ministry of Labour

itself is in chaos as a result of it. For instance, we have a human

rights branch that is very demoralized at the moment because they're

not getting the kind of decision-making and leadership necessary for

that branch to function effectively.

We have a Minister of

Labour who is reluctant — in fact, he avoids commenting on the disputes

that are taking place in this province. He doesn't want to give any

information. We are certainly not seeking details of agreements or of

negotiations. we just want to know that this minister is interested and

involved in providing some kind of service in order to ensure that

there are harmonious industrial relations in this province. That's not

happening. The minister avoids making any comments; he hides from

disputes. I think he runs into his office and closes the door each time

he hears the word "dispute." The only time we have heard the Minister

of Labour comment on a labour dispute is when it was a federal dispute.

Then he called on the federal Minister of Labour to do something. Of

course, I'm talking about the situation with respect to B.C. Tel, where

the jurisdiction is federal.

What is this minister doing

about the ICBC dispute? I haven't heard him say a word about it. I'm

not even sure that he's interested. He has certainly given no

indication at any time as to how his ministry is involved, or what kind

of action he is taking in order to resolve that long-standing dispute.

Do we hear anything from him? Not a word. He's reluctant, he's quiet

and he's hiding. He doesn't want to talk about the issues. He is unable

to take definitive action where it is required.

What is

happening with the Windermere Lodge dispute and the Hospital Employees

Union? Those have been ongoing. It is a very sad situation for those

employees, who are being replaced with employees from outside of this

province paid at a higher rate than was being paid when the labour

dispute came about.

What is happening with the cement

dispute? When I drive home every weekend, I see all the pickets out

there. What is the minister doing there in order to resolve the

problem? He has just finished telling us that the Ministry of Labour is

there; it's supposed to be doing something for labour relations in this

province. What has he been doing? He doesn't even talk about it. We

never hear him make a statement about the state of labour relations in

the province as it applies to the various disputes, or about how he is

involved and what he is doing.

MR. BRUMMET: Some people talk and some do

their jobs.

MS. SANFORD:

Well, let's just have a look at that, Mr. Chairman. We've heard from

the member for North Peace River about the job that's being done. I

assume he means that the Minister of Labour, working quietly in his

office, is able to resolve all of the problems that exist in the

province, as far as the labour disputes are concerned — or to assist in

resolving them.

We had a copy of the Social Credit

newsletter recently, in which the figures were given about the number

of worker days lost in B.C. The minister himself made some reference to

that in his opening remarks. For instance, in 1976 there were

1,470,000; in 1977, 648,000: in 1978, 754,000; in 1979, 869,000; and in

1980, 482,000. But that Social Credit newsletter forgot to mention what

is happening in B.C. in 1981. The figures up to the end of May 1981 are

1,235,783. I wonder why the Social Credit newsletter would neglect to

mention what's happening in 1981; or is that information that the

members of the Social Credit Party are not supposed to know about? I

wonder if the MLA for North Peace River has that information. I'll give

it to you again; you write it down. Up until May 1981 it is 1,235,783.

I'm

concerned because we have a Minister of Labour who has lost his

self-confidence, who is unable to make decisions and who is unable to

give leadership. It has not gone unnoticed. There have been comments in

the three major newspapers of the province about the problems the

Minister of Labour is having with respect to giving leadership, making

decisions and taking initiative in that very important field. It's

tragic, because that's an important portfolio. Personally I am very

concerned about it.

The minister is always talking about

addressing issues. He does a lot of addressing, but he doesn't get much

done. The action is not forthcoming. The ministry is really dormant at

this stage because of the fact that we don't have the initiative,

leadership and strong personality required in that difficult portfolio.

For instance, at one point the minister talked about industrial health.

I thought, oh, we're finally going to have something on industrial

health from the Minister of Labour, but what he was talking about was

stability as far as investors are concerned. That's his view of

industrial health, and I was not surprised that that was what he meant

by industrial health.

What action has he taken about the

situation at the Workers' Compensation Board? It is two years since we

called for a complete public hearing and a royal commission into the

operation and function of the Workers' Compensation Board. We have a

massive deficit. We have workers being gassed and poisoned — 49

recently in the Prince Rupert area, and I have one in the Crofton area

which I'm going to be bringing to the minister's attention later. We

have the United Injured and Disabled Workers Association. It's growing,

because they're not able to receive satisfaction from the Workers'

Compensation Board. In fact, they're now getting to the stage where

they're actually putting out a newsletter to keep their members

informed about the kind of actions they are attempting to take to

ensure they get some justice through that Workers' Compensation Board.

[ Page 6432 ]

have an example of a case which has been turned down three times by the

commissioners after it was accepted unanimously by the boards of

review. I will certainly be bringing that to the attention of the

minister as well.

We have seen the lack of action in the

whole area of human rights, and most recently the dreadful situations

of the cross-burnings and the KKK.

The minister mentioned

problems in the public sector. I'm assuming that he's also referring to

government employees and not just to CUPE, the VRMEU or the civic

workers in Vancouver and that regional district.

What about

the government itself? What interest does the minister take with

respect to harmonious industrial relations between the GERB and the

employees of government? We keep hearing about issues such as 500

grievances that remain undealt with by GERB. If you're going to have

harmonious relations between employers and employees, the minister can

certainly play a direct role here. I don't think he's even looked at

this issue or done anything about it. If you have 500 grievances

waiting to be heard, that does not make for harmonious industrial

relations. That's what we have right now with the B.C. Government

Employees Union and the employers' group representing government. What

action has the minister taken in there? Surely he can't be happy with

500 unresolved or unheard grievances from the employees of the

government.

The other thing the minister mentioned, in

talking about industrial relations, was that we must leave choices up

to individual conscience. I made the assumption that he was talking

about crossing picket lines. Maybe the minister could indicate if

that's what he was referring to. I know he was reading from prepared

notes; I'm not sure that he prepared them and would be able to answer

that. If he does know what the reference was, perhaps he could let me

know. When he mentioned individual conscience, I immediately thought of

the labour representatives on the boards of review and the difficult

position they found themselves in with respect to the labour dispute at

Deer Lake in the Labour office and other offices related to legal

services. Surely the Minister of Labour cannot expect that worker

representatives on the boards of review could be expected to cross a

picket line. Of course, they were ordered to do so by the Deputy

Minister of Labour, who I assume was supported by the Minister of

Labour, because no change was made there.

One of the long

disputes this year was the civic dispute in Vancouver. One of the

issues that kept recurring, and was a thorn in terms of getting the

settlement negotiated, related to the fact that women would like to get

parity; they would like to have their contribution to the workforce

looked at in a whole new light. We have not addressed that issue at

all. We're again using the word "address" that the minister likes to

utilize. I'm wondering how he has addressed that issue. What is

happening within his own ministry related to research into the issue

which came to the fore in the civic dispute in Vancouver and also here

in the Victoria area? We still have women in this province earning only

about 58 cents for every dollar that's earned by a man in the

workforce. That's an issue that has to be changed in this province. I'm

wondering what action or research is taking place in the Ministry of

Labour to ensure that that situation is changed.

The

comments made by Mayor Mel Couvelier, the chairperson of the Greater

Victoria Labour Relations Association, are disturbing. He says — and

he's quoted today in Monday

magazine

— that this issue of equal pay for work of equal value is an argument

based on emotionalism. We have court cases in the United States now

trying to rectify the situation that exists regarding the amount of

money that women who are in the workforce earn compared to that earned

by men. What is the minister's position on that? Where does he stand?

Is he doing anything to correct that matter? All these years after

International Women's Year, when that issue was raised time and time

again, we find that, instead of the gap narrowing, it is widening in

terms of what women earn in this society and what men earn.

Most

women who work in Canada today have to work. They don't work for the

fun of it. They are out there because they have to work. They have the

right to work in our society, and they have the right to a decent

income when they enter the workforce. I think it's a disgrace that in

this year of 1981 for every dollar that a man earns in this country a

woman earns about 58 to 60 cents. What is the minister doing about it?

He talked about the women's bureau. Is that one of the issues that is

being dealt with there? If so, what kind of research is going on? What

studies are being undertaken? What action is being planned so that it

can be changed?

It's not just a matter of negotiations,

because there are number of people in the workforce who are not covered

by collective agreements and don't have the right to negotiate. There

may be changes that are required, such as those which have taken place

in other parts of the country — namely, changes in wording to

legislation. I know I should not be bringing that up at this stage. In

Ontario the Human Rights Code refers to similar or substantially

similar work, so that work done by people working in clerical positions

on the inside can be compared to the value of work done by those in

other jobs, either within that building or outside. I'm wondering what

work the minister has done in order to rectify the problem that exists

there.

Women cannot, on their own, feed young children on

the wages they are making in Canada today. Many women are required to

bring up a family on their own, trying to run the household and raise

the kids on a salary that is not much above minimum wage. I wonder if

the minister would comment on those issues at this point.

MR. PASSARELL:

I have a couple of short questions for the Minister of Labour. But

first, here's a quick synopsis of some of his programs. We've seen some

of the programs which have been slashed, and I'd just like the

minister's statements regarding this.

The first one is

grants under "ministerial management and policy development." That's

been cut right off, and I wish the minister could give the reasoning

for that. Secondly, the labour education program has been slashed, and

that will have a drastic effect upon many of the young people in this

province. I would like to hear the reasons behind the labour education

program being slashed in the ministry budget. Thirdly, employment

opportunity programs have been slashed by over $4 million. It's a

cutback of approximately 20 percent. Fourthly, "fees and allowances —

boards, courts" has been cut back by 50 percent. One of the problems

with some of these cutbacks under the minister's estimates is that we

see "advertising and publications," which had nothing last year, has

been increased to $335,000 — almost a third of a million dollars —

while we see some definite programs, such as labour education, cut

back. Another one I'd like to bring to the minister's attention — if he

could elaborate on it — is the $7,000 for grants in the human rights

program. I'd

[ Page 6433 ]

like

to know the reasoning for that. We see programs like labour education

employment opportunity cut back, and grants slashed, and we would like

the minister to elaborate on the reasons for that.

On the

four constituency problems, I suggest to the minister that there is a

need for some type of trade school or apprentice school up in the far

north, a place where young people and women and natives could take some

type of training; they could take their skills training in the far

north. That's where the mines are, where the economic benefits are, and

there should be some type of regional training in the north, Mr.

Minister, instead of having the training hundreds of miles away from

where the mine and the development aspects are going on.

The second constituency aspect that I'd like to bring to the

minister's attention is a bulletin from the steelworkers' union dated

January 22, 1981. The statement starts off: "Northern Companies Driving

Employees from Their Homes." Just to quote the union representative of

the steelworkers' union:

" 'If you listened to the mine company

management recruiters you would think the roads are paved with gold,'

says Steelworkers staff representative Bill Rudychuck. 'Promises of

high wages, low rents and terrific housing are used to entice workers

north. But, once they have moved up here and set up in these isolated

communities, then it's just another company town and you are at the

mercy of the mine-owner.'"

Why I raise this, Mr. Chairman, is that in the constituency of

Atlin we have a major mine, Cassiar Asbestos, which will be closed down

this summer. I'd like to know what the minister can do in particular to

the Cassiar shutdown. Maybe he could elaborate what his ministry has

found out — why it is being closed down and why it is putting hundreds

and hundreds of men out of work this summer.

The

third constituency problem I'd like to bring to the minister's

attention is the grievance procedure. Often, Mr. Minister, we find the

need for a fairer cost-sharing agreement when workers and unions have

to take companies into arbitration, whether it's WCB or LRB.

The

last constituency aspect I'd like to bring to the minister's attention

is the.... He is the minister responsible for human rights, and I'd

like to know if the minister is doing anything in his role of overseer

of the human rights branch to ensure the protection of human rights

with regard to the Nishga on the Amax deal. We have seen, Mr. Chairman,

that to a certain degree there has been cultural genocide brought upon

the Nishga people. I would like the minister, if possible, to state

what his ministry is doing regarding the human rights issue and native

rights in issues like Stikine-Iskut and Amax. In particular, I would

like to know what the minister, in his role of overseer of human

rights, is doing to protect the native people on Alice Arm.

Those are four short questions, and I would hope the minister

could respond to them.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Perhaps I'll go back and

try to address some of the concerns expressed by the member for Comox

(Ms. Sanford).

sometimes wonder what exactly you expect from government with respect

to the profile in labour-management disputes. I think I can assure the

member that the least government involvement, the better it is for the

parties.

When they have to square up to the issues

themselves.... Our function certainly is to preserve the integrity of

free collective bargaining. I can assure the member, Mr. Chairman, that

every time government is requested to intervene, you put one more notch

in the handle of the system which we have always thought to be the

foundation of industrialized democracy. I can mention to the member

that if they are running to the government and to the Minister of

Labour to intervene as soon as there is a problem on either side, and

even before the doors of the plant have closed, we are going to

encounter difficulties.

As soon as I was appointed, I took the position with respect

to the

British Columbia Railway that nobody is going to run to us and expect

us to make their agreement for them. What I would do if I were to

follow the member's suggestion would be to subvert the process which

members on both sides of the House have been a part of creating. Anyone

will tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the system is going to be destroyed

if parties feel that they can get from government that which they

cannot get for themselves. In addition we've got the mediation

services, and many times.... I mentioned in my opening remarks that

close to 400 appointments were made. That's what we call assistance.

Mediation is assistance, and mediators are used all the time. But from

time to time we have to gauge what the problems are and we then will

make appointments, whether it's a special mediator, an industrial

inquiry commissioner, somebody who's going to conduct a mediation

arbitration — commonly known as med-arb process — or even somebody from

a bench. We've done that. I might suggest that it's rather interesting

to note that in 1980 I remember the number of disputes in which we were

involved. Let's not make any mistake about it, many of them were very

high profile. There was the railroad from north to south in the

province. I'm not about to destroy the process and system that people

must learn if they believe in our foundation and the integrity of our

system. Let's not whittle away at it. I can assure the member that a

substantial amount of pressure was brought to bear upon the government,

and me in particular, involving the tie-up of a railroad from north to

south. I'm not about to destroy the heat we went through in order to

preserve a system.

The Vancouver police was another one, and of course there were

the public and registered psychiatric nurses. All of them bring to bear

additional problems. There was the brewery industry and the

construction industry. In the construction industry right at the zero

hour we did do something. There's also the Victoria police, and I've

just been through another one with the firefighters for the lower

mainland. Interestingly enough, a number of those involve the public

sector.

I don't intend to change either my policy or my

approach with regard to labour disputes. It seems to me that we met

with a considerable degree of success in 1980. I don't want the member

to lose sight of one side; I know she certainly will not lose sight of

the other, The number of stoppages and man-days lost in 1981 was

primarily attributable to the public sector. I think I might say that

after this experience, perhaps there's another way of addressing that

particular problem. But a lot of thought must be given to it, because

for every action there's an opposite and equal reaction. There's

legislation in place for all those people if they wish to use it, and

interestingly enough there are a number of employees who are quite

prepared to use that legislation; hence its presence.

[ Page 6434 ]

You

mentioned something about the cement dispute: why aren't we doing

anything? Good heavens! Canada Cement LaFarge and Genstar and its two

subsidiaries, Inland on the mainland and Bamberton over here on

Vancouver Island, are the companies involved. As a result of that

dispute we're having a great deal of difficulty. The government

undertook some expense and got an extremely experienced practitioner in

industrial relations by the name of Edward Peck. He was appointed at

the request of both management and labour. They voluntarily came

through with a memorandum and said, please do this. Both parties agreed

to the appointment. We could go ahead and have a good look at it and we

did. It was a very lengthy report, and as I recall it was tabled around

May 1. As a matter of fact it was picked up by both sides of Canada

Cement LaFarge, but it was not picked up by Inland Cement workers.

However, I can report that that dispute is subject to a memorandum of

agreement and is in the process of being ratified. I will not diminish

the member's point. That has been a long, difficult period with that

particular company and union, make no bones about it.

Another

question was raised with respect to the boards of review. Those who are

appointed by order-in-council to a quasi-judicial tribunal are just

that. They in fact operate in many ways similar to a court or the

Labour Relations Board. They have the power to make decisions. They are

independent members of boards. Those panels are selected on the basis

of impartiality and to make decisions on the basis of merit. That is

important.

We encountered a problem at Deer Lake Centre. In

response to the member's question — I have some notes and obviously

anticipated the question — at no time were members of the boards or

other public employees — we're talking about support staff — threatened

with being discharged because of events associated with the strike of

the Legal Services Society. The dispute, if it can be categorized as

such, did not deal with the board and with what the boards do — that

is, their quasi-judicial function — but rather where, under what

circumstances and at what costs their duties are performed. So that

attention does not become diverted from more important issues, let me

summarize what the facts were.

There was a strike against

the Legal Services Society commencing May 1. Picketing commenced at

Deer Lake Centre and was respected by the employees of the Ministry of

Labour, who are members of the Government Employees Union. Perhaps

excluded personnel on the boards of review also honoured the picket

line, but I have no information in this regard. GERB applied to the

Labour Relations Board for relief, pursuant to

section

Section 86,

as the member probably knows, is the common-site section. It was put in

there for the purpose of stopping hardship from being created. Relief

was granted by the Labour Relations Board on May 12 following formal

hearings. The order restricted pickets to the Ledger Avenue entrance to

Deer Lake Centre or in effect to the premises of the struck employer —

the Legal Services Society.

Interestingly enough, all of the

Government Employees Union members employed by the Ministry of Labour

returned to work on May 13. Subsequently both the B.C. Federation of

Labour and the GEU issued bulletins to affiliates and members in effect

boycotting our premises and insisting that a picket line was still

around Deer Lake Centre, albeit an invisible one. This is stretching

it, believe me: boycotting an invisible picket line, although for some

philosophical reason, which presumably only they can explain, the

so-called invisible picket line was not operational after 5 p.m. or

before 8 a.m. — you can see how ridiculous this is getting — or on

weekends and paydays, which seems to be an extraordinarily convenient

way of evading legal obligations under the Labour Code. It was an

invisible picket line that certainly wasn't there between 5 o'clock at

night and 8 o'clock the following morning or on payday.

Then

I questioned the decision of the Labour Relations Board. I raise this

in response to the member's statement involving matters of conscience.

Associated

with the foregoing, both the union's communications contained the

remarkable statement that the GEU members employed at Deer Lake Centre

had been ordered back to work by the Labour Relations Board. No such

order was ever issued by the board, nor was such an order ever

solicited by any of the neutral third parties affected by the initial

picketing. Six members of the boards of review who had trade union

associations prior to their appointments failed to report for duty as a

result of the trade union edicts. Consistent with the policy of my

ministry, all supervisors were reminded by my deputy, with my blessing,

that those employees who did not report to work in these circumstances

would not be paid until they were prepared to resume their duties in a

normal manner. Their refusal to comply with the Labour Code of this

province and an associated order of the Labour Relations Board created

the controversy, and nothing else.

In

summary, while there

is an increasing tendency of late for some elements of labour and the

employer communities to ignore the labour law of this province, and

indeed, in some cases, to flaunt it, it will not be said that the

Minister of Labour or his ministry is prepared to repudiate the Labour

Code or the agency charged with its administration. I leave that to

others but remind them that much good can come from a generous respect

for our rules of conduct for labour relations and much harm can come

from disregard and disrespect.

In conclusion, let me read

you a brief excerpt from the LRB's decision in this case, because it is

important that this fact be understood by the members opposite, since

that's where the question came from. This is about the purpose of Local

66's broad-based picketing:

"It is appropriate

to consider this factor first, since it is not in dispute. Local 66

candidly admits that its picketing is directed not only at the Legal

Services Society but also at the applicants, for the purpose of

disrupting the government. As indicated earlier, Local 66 stated before

the board that it is not relying on the ally or common-employer

provisions of the Labour Code in order to justify the picketing against

the applicants.

"The union's admitted purpose

for the broad-based picketing does not fall within the definition of

picket as set out in the Labour Code; rather, the union's purpose for

the picketing identifies it clearly as secondary picketing, which is

not provided for."

That's an excerpt from the decision of

the Labour Relations Board.

I'm not going to bother commenting on the speculation in the

press that the member referred to, Mr. Chairman. I think I'll let my

record and performance be the judge of that.

MR. NICOLSON: Resign.

[ Page 6435 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

That reminds me of something that I read about from the member for

Nelson-Creston — something to the effect that: "Well, if I'm going to

lose, I want to lose for something which I've done."

MS. SANFORD: Then so something.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's so easy to be in

opposition.

MS. SANFORD: Why don't you try it?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll tell you what: the

electorate won't let me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hang around for a little

while.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll be here.

One

of the questions that the member made reference to is GERB and the

number of grievances. I'm aware of the concern expressed....

MS. SANFORD: You've done nothing.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Well, you can say what you like, Madam Member, but I'm not prepared to

discuss in the House the contents of any discussions I've had. As far

as your comment with respect to the minimum wage is concerned, yes, I

realize the minimum wage is now the third-highest in Canada. I think

you're requesting that it be reviewed, and I'll take notice of what you

said.

I'm a little at a loss right now on a couple of items

which I've attempted to get some information on, and those are

questions asked by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), who's

concerned about this. I'm having my people check into a number of items

which he raised. As far as employment opportunities are concerned, I

will repeat what I said in my opening statement. The Work in Government

Program was cut, and substantially. The reason for it is that it costs

four times as much to create jobs through the public sector as it does

through the private sector. Frankly, we can get more people employed by

using the private sector because of the shared-cost provisions. I'll

get particulars and get back to you with respect to advertising and

publication, the cutbacks on fees and allowances, and the labour

education matter under ministerial management.

I will take

as notice your concern with respect to the cost-sharing and grievance

procedures. I might mention that's a problem, Mr. Member, which seems

to be a common denominator in a number of trade unions. But I'm talking

about small locals in municipalities, in which we find they have 15 or

20 in their membership and they're responsible for a number of.... You

know, you can imagine what the assessment against them is like in the

event of a difficult grievance; in fact, it becomes almost

unconscionable. I'm aware of that. I might tell you that sometimes, to

assist people in that regard, we in the ministry will absorb the cost

of an arbitrator for various purposes in struggling to secure an

agreement, and often that assists. That has quite a significant impact

on small locals.

I'm not aware of this item on Atlin and the

Cassiar shutdown this summer. I will check into it, if in fact that is

going to come to pass. I don't know the reasons for it. I'm not sure

whether the member is referring to the summer only or whether it's

permanent.

MR. PASSARELL Summer.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I'll make the appropriate inquiry. I'm not going to stand here and make

a commitment that we'll do something, because more often than not it's

difficult.

The member for Comox referred to the unfunded

liability of the Workers' Compensation Board. This is a much

misunderstood area. It's very difficult to explain or to pick up the

first time around. I really confess that I had some difficulties with

this for a while, but I think perhaps I understand it. I'm quite

prepared to give an explanation. If the member wishes to bear with me,

I think this should be a matter of record. It's sufficiently important,

particularly when one is talking about a company with assets of over

$900 million and liabilities of about $1.3. I might mention at the

outset that there has been an impression that the unfunded liability —

a word which seems to be preferred over the word "deficit"....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

In 1971 everyone recognized that the unfunded liability of the board

was zero; in fact there was a small surplus. From about 1972 to 1975,

depending on how the calculations are done, it moved up to $188

million, but of course that has to be recalculated because of the

effect of retroactive legislation and cost-of-living indices. I've had

it calculated both ways. What is important is the percentage

relationship between the unfunded liability and the assets. In 1975 —

I'm not pointing fingers; I just want to keep this in perspective —

liabilities calculated on the present basis were $580 million; on the

old basis liabilities were $476 million. In 1975 the unfunded portion,

on the present basis, is $216 million; on the old basis it was $97

million. On the present basis we're looking at 37 percent. In other

words, the unfunded portion represents 37 percent of the existing

liability of $580 million, but if you want to go back and use the

percentage under the old calculation, it was roughly 20 percent. I'm

quite prepared to let the member have a copy of this. To keep it in

perspective, we'll go to 1980, when the liabilities were $1.294 million

on the present basis; on the old basis it would be $1.113 million. Then

we go to the unfunded liability portion on the present basis and find

the figure which is now being bandied about, $391 million; on the old

basis it is $210 million. It's roughly 30 percent, using present

accounting methods; on the old basis it was 19 percent. The only reason

I raise these figures is to put them in perspective. In 1975 the

unfunded liability portion represented 37 percent of the total

liability; at December 31, 1980, it was 30 percent. Those are

significant figures.

Why was this increased? It's clear from

reading the annual report. There's a 14.6 percent increase in days lost

from work, and a 10.4 percent increase in the number of wage-loss

claims. The main reason for the increase in the unfunded liability is a

sizeable rise in the present and future compensation benefits.

Expenditures for compensation claims rose 21 percent from $180 million

in 1979 to $234 million in 1980. We've got to remember that the Workers

Compensation Act provides for full cost-of-living indexing pension

benefits. These benefits and long-term wage-loss payments are adjusted

twice yearly to match increases in the consumer price index. I repeat,

adjustments are done semi-annually. Since 1974, when full indexing was

introduced, the CPI increased 68 percent. What happens is that this

obviously adds to the

[ Page 6436 ]

unfunded

liability. So we now understand that the classed deficiency of $391

million — again, the unfunded liability — is the estimated shortfall in

funds that would be required to meet pension and unfinal claims

payments only if the board ceased business.

So it's large in

absolute terms, but it must be placed in clear perspective. Viewing it

from the standpoint of annual revenue, it represents approximately 80

percent of one year's revenues. This amount of money is the amount

which is going to be required up to 50 years from now. The board pays

disability pensions to workers and pensions to dependents of fatally

injured workers, but it pays all the medical treatment costs in the

future for all compensation claimed. One of the biggest problems we

have is how to determine what the cost will be in the future. This may

be a simplistic way of drawing an analogy, but how about looking at a

young couple who are starting off in their careers; the total cost

facing them over their lifetime together will be $200,000, $300,000,

$400,000 or what? This is a difficult subject, Mr. Chairman. I can

assure you that much is made about it. I have gone to great lengths to

see if I could put an explanation in, but I see my time is up. I'll

have to sit down and continue later on.

MR. PASSARELL:

Mr. Chairman, to assist the minister on those four questions on the

cutbacks, they're on pages 179, 180, 181 and 182. That's just to help

the minister and his staff to find those cutbacks and the reasons why.

Secondly, you mentioned assistance for small locals. Could you state

how many small locals you help out in a year? Is there a figure for

that? You never answered the third question from my earlier debate,

concerning the trade school program up in the far north. I'd like those

answers.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: First of all, as far as

locals are concerned, you don't offer to help out with a direct funding

contribution to locals. I can give you an example with police, fire and

nursing locals. When we're dealing with services involving health, life

and safety, and we have some difficulties in reaching agreement, we are

quite prepared to absorb those costs. That's the only indirect way I

can do it.

As far as a trade school in the far north is

concerned, that is something that I would take under advisement, but I

think you were talking about the Ministry of Education. Our

responsibility is to encourage friendship. But I think it's a valid

point. Perhaps more training on the site of the mine might be of some

help, because that in fact is being done. We've been looking at that in

the ministry in one area of the Kootenays.

You mentioned

labour education. There was a $21,000 decrease. That was accounted for

by a $5,000 reduction in professional and special services, and $15,000

in grants and subsidies. The reduction has been made because the

proposed figures are closer to demands that have been made on the

services in the past several years. In fact, that's what's happened.

Obviously, there haven't been demands made and so it was reduced.

One

other item I'd like to make reference to for the member for Comox is

the matter of GERB. I understand it's now gone to the Labour Relations

Board.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You know as well as I do

that that's just about impossible to address.

There's

another provision under the Labour Code, and I hate to say it but it's

very seldom used. It's

section 112 of the Labour Code — where

assistance can be offered. You might look at the closing portion. It

says: "...the Minister of Finance, on the minister's requisition, shall

pay out of consolidated revenue fund one-third of the cost incurred by

the parties for payment of reasonable remuneration, travelling and out

of pocket expenses of the person named...." We've got to be careful

with that, because you're going to find it's discretionary. You can

rest assured there's not going to be a run on my ministry for something

like this.

I'd like to try to wind up that matter on the

board. I've mentioned that this has been restated, and it's important

that it be restated for the year 1975-76 to determine what the class

deficiencies really were. The allegation was that in fact the unfunded

liabilities have gotten out of line. The truth of the matter is that as

a percentage they are lower than they were in 1975-76.

There's

a very interesting item I think I have to raise. Prior to this

administration there was a policy which came out of this question:

should the unfunded liability be shown as an item of information in the

financial statement or should it be injected into the balance sheet?

MS. SANFORD: Are you now back to WCB?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes. I thought we'd

continue on that, because I think it's probably one of the major issues

we've got.

The

point really is that I prefer the former. It may be like a class in

mathematics or calculus, but the fact of the matter is that big issues

are made out of it, and the opposition has certainly had its run. What

would the consequences be if the difference were portrayed as a figure

in the balance sheet? Is this not of some concern to you, Madam Member?

The question is whether the policy of the previous administration was

not to disclose the unfunded liability as part of the balance sheet.

The interesting point about it is, I'm not so sure; it may be right, it

may be wrong. I'm not going to be the one to pass judgment on it, but

what I am going to do is find the truth. There was a reasoning, and the

reason given for not showing the true unfunded liability as part of the

financial statement and only appending it as a footnote is this: the

consequences will be a feeling of discomfort with the amount of

unfunded liabilities, and decisions that those liabilities should be

funded by raising assessment rates and establishing reserves for the

purpose. The reasoning may have been sound; the fact is it's not

commonly known.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

say that what you would be doing is generating a pressure to establish

reserves to meet those future costs without first considering whether

it would not be cheaper in the long run to meet them on a current-cost

basis. That might be sound too, but the fact of the matter is that

we've got to incorporate them one way or the other. Don't say that all

of a sudden, since 1975, the unfunded liabilities have shot from less

than $100 million to $391 million, without explaining the reason why.

I'll repeat that all we have to do is go back to the financial

statements recalculation one way or the other. In my opening comments

on this I made it clear: I drew comparisons as a percentage — the

unfunded portion as a percentage of the total liability.

[ Page 6437 ]

I'll

quickly hit these points with respect to those increases. Under the WCB

we know we've got indexing. From 1975 to 1981 the maximum wage rates

have risen from $12,100 to $22,200. It's interesting that you can add

to this too. It's strange how actuaries work. For example, reserves for

pension purposes show that

whereas in 1975 a worker aged 40 who

suffered 100 percent disability required a reserve of $206,200 and an

additional $90,000 for actuarial adjustments in 1981, that same worker

in 1981 would require a reserve of $378,400. That's an increase of

$172,000,

There's one other thing too with respect to the

assessment rates and how they are calculated. When we want to look at

the 1980 rates, for example.... They were set in 1979. They take into

account the board's experience in 1976, 1977 and 1978. The question

comes up as to whether or not they are sufficiently current. We know

that there were a number of amendments which went through in 1974, some

of which were not proclaimed until 1978. When they are proclaimed....

They trace back to the beginning when the injury took place.

Consequently, we find it affecting the unfunded liability.

How

do we address that problem? Obviously, there's a real issue in

addressing it — that is, whether or not you want to increase

assessments substantially in inflationary periods. If you do, the

capital funding during inflationary periods will be eroded even more

quickly than it would be if it were left in the hands of those who

paid. For example, when inflation exceeds the return on investment of

those moneys which are now an asset of the board, there doesn't seem to

be much sense in moving to increase assessments to that degree. There

has to be a compromise, and there has to be some increase. That's going

to depend on the size of the workforce in British Columbia, the change

in payroll and the rate of inflation.

I came across one

interesting thing which I'd like to point out to the member. This is

one of the problems which we have. I can assure the member that this

problem was incurred directly by your administration between 1972 and

1975. In fact, the inflationary rates which occurred in 1974-75 are

almost identical to those which we're experiencing right now.

Interestingly, at that time the chairman said that if we were to

experience these inflationary times in 1986 — looking ten years down

the line.... What happened is that we experienced them five years

earlier.

Everybody, including the board.... Perhaps you

didn't catch that; we'll go over it again. I'd like to mention

something to you, Mr. Chairman. All boards have to rely upon some of

the counsel which they get from their actuaries, We look at the number

of claims that are coming in. It's interesting that there was quite a

rapid acceleration of injuries sustained. Believe it or not, there was

a time, starting in mid-1953 and going through to 1956.... It's

interesting how they went up and then shot down. Then suddenly it was a

fairly even keel all the way along. The actuaries turned around and

looked at 1976 and said: "Okay, this is going to last for two or three

years." What in fact has happened is that it's gone much longer. It's

gone for almost four and a half to five years. I might mention to you

that there is a decline. In the first five months of 1981 a plateau has

occurred in the increase of claims. That might bode well for the amount

of the unfunded liability decreasing.

I'll leave that one

alone — probably to the member's pleasure. I felt that, with the amount

of concern which has been expressed by industry, trade unions, the

opposition and the press, and the number of comments which have been

passed, we ought to go in and have a look at it in some detail. I think

I'll sit down on that and try to get a couple of answers.

MS. SANFORD:

Out in the hallway earlier today we saw the minister with a huge

briefcase. I assume it contains all the voluminous documents that have

been prepared for him to read during these estimates. I hope he's not

going to read all of them, because....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You want the

information; you're going to get it.

MS. SANFORD: Really, Mr. Chairman, this is

very interesting. Before we really get to the subject.... The minister

is reading to us and giving us lessons about the unfunded liability and

the deficit and so on, in an attempt to indicate to us that all is well

at the Workers' Compensation Board. I can assure you that there are

serious problems at the Workers' Compensation Board, and I'm about to

outline some of them.

From

the Workers' Compensation Board annual report, let me just list this

for the minister. In 1976 the deficit was $8 million; in 1977 it was

$185 million: in 1978, $222 million; in 1979, $248 million: and in

1980, $185 million. That comes from the board's own failures. I know

he's indicated to us the difference between the deficit and the

unfunded liability, but if you look at what's happened to both the

unfunded liability and the deficit at the Workers' Compensation Board,

you have to realize that those actuaries and the commissioners

themselves are reluctant to take the action that is necessary. The

minister is reluctant to take any action, as is the Premier. He

indicated that to us in the Legislature the other day.

Surely

if the commissioners and the actuaries who work on behalf of the

Workers' Compensation Board were doing their job, they would not allow

this situation to develop. It's been developing over the years, and

it's clearly outlined in the Workers' Compensation Board itself. The

lesson we had today about the difference between unfunded liability and

deficit does not excuse what has happened in terms of the lack of

action of the commissioners in setting those rates for the industries

of the province. It’s a shocking deficit. Either they are unable to

face reality over there at the Workers' Compensation Board, or they are

not willing to do their jobs.

The minister talked about the

various changes that were made with respect to pensions and the reasons

that these have gone up. The Workers' Compensation Board commissioners

were aware of those changes. Those changes were made by the Social

Credit government. Back in 1966 they indexed the pensions to inflation.

That's a long time for those commissioners to have a look at what's

happening in terms of indexing and how that affects the unfunded

liability.

Another factor is that the time that injured

workers have to wait in order to claim compensation benefits has been

reduced from three days to one day. That was done in 1972, before the

election. The other aspect that the minister referred to is where the

NDP government attempted to do something about the old pensions. That

section was passed in 1974 or 1975, but was not proclaimed until 1978,

and those pensioners had to wait all those years before any action was

forthcoming from this ministry, because it was the minister who had to

proclaim that particular section.

What do we have happening at the Workers' Compensation Board?

The injured workers of this province are not

[ Page 6438 ]

being

protected by that board. Their interests are not being looked after.

Let me give you some examples. Safety inspections: in 1976 there were

22,000; in 1977, 22,000; in 1978, 18,000; in 1979, it was down to

16,000 inspections. What kind of protection is that? What kind of

interest is the Workers' Compensation Board showing in safety in the

workplace, with those kinds of figures? The minister is giving us this

big lesson in unfunded liability and trying to tell us that all is well

at the Workers' Compensation Board. How much time did he spend talking

about industrial health and safety in this province? He said virtually

nothing.

How many penalties were levied over the last few

years by the Workers' Compensation Board because of violations? There

were 253 in 1975; in 1976, 289; in 1977, down to 126; in 1978, only 52;

and in 1979, 58. What kind of interest is being shown by the minister

with respect to those figures as far as worker health and safety are

concerned in this province? It's an area in which he has failed

miserably. If you look at figures about disabling injuries per 100

workers — and these are all figures from the Workers' Compensation

Board — you find that in 1975 there were 6.5 disabling injuries per 100

workers; in 1976, 6.4; in 1977, 7; in 1978, 7.5. In 1979 that figure is

up to 8.3, when we should be making every effort to ensure that we

improve the industrial health and safety in the workplace in this

province. The same kind of figures apply to on-site consultation and

the number of instructors being certified in industrial first aid.

The

figures are lousy in terms of the protection of the workers in this

province, and the minister has done nothing about it. We talked about

those Prince Rupert people. People are being gassed and poisoned, they

are developing cancer and being hurt every day of the week in this

province, and the minister has never once indicated that he is working

to try to improve that situation. Instead we have worksite inspections

going down. We have the unfunded liability going up. The figures for

seriously injured workers are going up. The figures for those who are

being killed on the job have been raised by the IWA time and time

again; they keep going up and up and up.

What do we have the

board chairman saying? The chairman of the board, Dr. Adam Little,

spoke to the forest industry executives, and he said to them: "Some are

lax in enforcing safety on the job. While those in the majority have a

good performance, some of your group resent any activity in safety. I

don't know if it's the bottom line, or if they don't care." This is an

address given by the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board of

British Columbia. That attitude is not acceptable to the workforce or

society. What are the Workers' Compensation Board chairman, the

commissioners and the minister doing about it? Making speeches. That's

about the extent of it. Their worksite inspections go down; the number

of injuries go up; the number of people trained in industrial first aid

goes down. It's a dismal performance. We have problems with PCPs, as

has been mentioned by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) on

a number of occasions.

I have other concerns too. We have,

through the Ministry of Labour, consulting services for those who are

going to appear before the boards of review. The information I just

received in the last couple of days comes from the ironworkers, who

attempted to get the information that is usually available to these

people when they make inquiries. They're allowed to get a

summary of

the injured worker's files so that they can prepare their case for the

appeal. Do you know what's happening now, Mr. Chairman? The appeals are

being turned down because the staff is unable to handle the volume of

requests coming to them. One hundred and forty-five similar requests

were ahead of this one from the ironworkers. There is no way that staff

can handle the requests for assistance so that injured workers can

prepare their cases for the appeal board.

The minister shows

no interest in this area. It was mentioned last in the list of projects

he talked about in his opening remarks. Has there been a sufficient

increase so that we can have some decent service for those injured

workers so that they can go before the boards of appeal? One of the

reasons there are so many cases going before the boards of appeal is

that the initial decisions are erroneous. Nine hundred were overturned

last year, the minister stated in his opening remarks. The sad part of

this whole procedure is that injured workers, following the

adjudication, can go to the boards of review and have the decision

overturned in their favour, only to find the commissioners overturn the

board of review's decision. That's a disgrace. The whole concept in

setting up independent boards of review was that injured workers would

have an independent appeal procedure, aside from the Workers'

Compensation Board itself, where they could go to have their cases

heard. These independent boards of review are now being overruled by

the commissioners. That the commissioners would be able to overturn

their decisions was never the intention of the boards of review when

they were established. They're supposed to be independent of the

Workers' Compensation Board, and we find commissioners overturning

their decisions.

We get complaints day in and day out about

the doctors who are attached to the Workers' Compensation Board.

Perhaps there should be some system whereby the medical staff that work

for the Workers' Compensation Board can be changed more frequently so

we have a rotating system where medical people attached to the board

can spend some time there and then be moved on. There are so many

complaints that come in with respect to decisions that are being made

there, again overruling decisions of the local doctors of the injured

workers, and in some cases specialists as well.

The United

Injured and Disabled Workers Association has made representations to

the minister. One of the issues they raise — and I would like the

minister's comment on this — relates to the fact that some disabled

workers cannot receive training or retraining in order to get back into

the workforce. Because of the fact that these injured workers are

drawing a pension, which is completely inadequate to meet their needs

in terms of accommodation, food and the necessities, they are forced to

go on welfare. It seems to me that if an injured worker is not able to

be trained and is not eligible under that particular chart they have

established at the Workers' Compensation Board, he should be able to

have an adequate pension other than the one that fits in on the

particular chart that's drawn up. Otherwise they have to go on Human

Resources assistance. If a worker has been injured in this province,

that's the least we can expect for him.

I mentioned the

situation at Crofton, and I have not discussed this with the minister.

There was a carpenter at Crofton doing some repair work on one of the

buildings. They were working at quite a high elevation and found they

were affected by fumes coming from the stacks at Crofton. One of the

workers, suffering pain in his chest, had to be given oxygen and was

off work for a week. His doctor advised him not to go back if he had to

work under those same

[ Page 6439 ]

conditions

near the stacks with his lungs affected. When he applied to the

Workers' Compensation Board for wage-loss benefits for the week he had

to be away as a result of this, he was turned down. This is the kind of

thing we're finding time and time again with this particular Workers'

Compensation Board and the direction that's coming from this government

with respect to injured workers and the treatment they get.

mentioned earlier that the United Injured and Disabled Workers

Association are now at the point where they're putting out a newsletter

to try to keep their members informed of the activities they're

involved in in attempting to get justice from the Workers' Compensation

Board. Why should injured workers who are not able to be retrained have

to turn to Human Resources assistance in order to survive? I think the

point they make is a very good one, and I certainly would like the

minister to comment on that as well. The minister mentioned that

another board of review had been appointed. Well, what we have now is a

situation where people are waiting from four to six months to have

their cases heard before a board of review, once they make application,

as part of that appeal process. I don't know what this minister expects

from this additional appointment of a board of review. The other thing

is that they can't even get the information

summary of the files to

prepare a case to go before the board of review. They are now being

turned down because of the pressures on that staff.

Mr.

Chairman, I wonder what the minister feels — and I wonder if he would

comment on this — about the commissioners overturning decisions of the

boards of review. I have one case — it's an IWA case — where a worker

appeared before a board of review on three separate occasions. On each

occasion a unanimous decision was brought down in his favour, yet the

commissioners overturned the decision made on three separate occasions

by a board of review. That's unacceptable, and it's contrary to the

concept of the boards of review when they were initially established. I

would like to know what comment the minister might have on that.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to give a few quick answers. I find it

somewhat alarming that the member would quote in the House reports up

to '79; I think if the member would be good enough to have a look at

the annual report for 1980, she may very well find a reversal in some

of the concerns she has. For example, the point the member makes with

respect to inspections is a good one; I don't dispute it for a moment.

In 1979, according to my reading of the material, inspections were down

to 16,690, but I don't know why the member neglected to refer to the

1980 annual report, which shows inspections to be 20,313 — an increase

of 22 percent.

Mr. Chairman, the point is well taken, but

the member didn't go far enough. Since 1979, we've got another year

under our belt, and that year shows an increase of 22 percent. I just

thought perhaps we should throw that in.

I don't know why

inspections in industrial hygiene was forgotten; it's on the pages

right next to the report on the accident-prevention inspections.

Completed inspection of industrial hygiene went from 1,009 to 1,857,

for an increase of 84 percent in the last year. The member may say

that's not enough, but I would respectfully suggest that's a lot better

than the previous year.

Then we get into the old idea of how

to make the best of statistics for our own best interest. Well, let's

have a look at the annual WCB report for 1980, claims department. I

think the member made reference to the increased number of fatalities.

I said last year one fatality is one too many, and that's not in

dispute. But we should keep the figures together with the facts:

fatalities in 1971, 222, or a 0.20 percentage of new injuries reported;

1975, 246 or 0.18; 1980, 220 or 0.11. Now you can't use these things to

justify a fatality, but I am going to raise them to tell the House what

the facts are as a percentage of new injuries reported. So, in fact,

they are down. The only thing which bothers me — and it's the same

pattern — I suppose is a factor of the workforce and the increase in

the workforce from 1971 to 1980. The fact is that we've gone from

roughly 109,000 new injuries reported to roughly 197,000 in 1980. When

you look at it, it averages something like 9,000 per year, which is far

too many. But we also know that the workforce has increased

substantially. I suspect that since 1971 the workforce may very well

have increased by 50 or 100 percent. I don't think it has, because it

seems to me that last year there was quite an increase in the number,

according to the claims. I just raise those as facts that we should not

lose sight of.

With respect to the boards of review, before

I forget, if you look in the 1981-82 budget, you're going to find a 30

percent increase to handle an additional officer as a worker's adviser.

I'm

aware of the number of appeals which go to the boards of review. First

of all, as I was concerned about this last year, we have been

re-examining what is occurring there. As a matter of fact, a new

three-member panel was appointed. We commissioned a study by Price

Waterhouse to see whether we could get some outside influence or ideas

— to see if we could help it. That has now been sent to the officials

in the ministry. It's under review. There isn't any question that it's

under review. Believe me, there has to be some system for the

productivity of six boards of review, to assist them somehow so that

they can handle more cases and be involved in a number of approaches.

There

were 197,000 cases this year, and out of that roughly 2,500 to 3,000

cases, depending on the year, go to the boards of review each year. If

the adjudicators made an error — if it was an error — in 900, being the

number of appeals which were allowed, that's a pretty small amount when

you look at the total number of claims handled by the board.

With

respect to the boards of review being the final court of appeal, I

suppose there may or may not be an argument for it. I know you're

referring to

section 90 of the act, as I recall. I'm also aware that in

Ontario that recommendation has been made. I'm not too sure if that's

the Weiler report for the Ontario provincial government. I'll be candid

and open: it's a matter for consideration. I certainly have no

intention of making any decision or giving any commitment other than

the commitment to review and understand and see whether such a policy

would be advisable. That's really all I can say on that matter.

You

said that the number of workers per 100 who have been disabled or

injured went from 6, 5 percent in 1975 to 8.3 percent in 1979. I don't

know what it was in 1980. If the member has a figure for 1980, I'd be

pleased to know what it is. I'll have a look at that matter to see what

we can do. But one thing I think I should leave with you is that the

thrust should be in the direction of increased inspections. I don't

question that for a moment. I think your point is well taken. I thought

that this year you would have seen some evidence in the annual report

that we had increased them.

[ Page 6440 ]

MR. HANSON:

Sitting back listening to the minister in this particular ministry's

estimates, I sort of feel like I'm in the sixteenth century, where

someone is standing back and making a statistical analysis, counting up

people who are dropping off the end of a conveyor belt, weighing them

up and sizing them up without any appreciation of the overall picture.

If there's one thing that this minister has clearly demonstrated in his

time as Minister of Labour, it is that he has no sense at all of the

big picture of labour relations and the way the health and safety of

the workers are affected. He has none whatsoever.

reference to that sixteenth century thing, it's been since about the

sixteenth century that we've known that people contract disease as a

result of influences at work. We've known since the studies of the

chimney sweeps that people could get cancer from their contact with

coal tars. British Columbia has one of the worst records in days lost,

and one of the worst records of any jurisdiction in the numbers of

people killed and injured at work. The broader picture is this. Over

the last couple of hundred years the increase in the number of

chemicals, toxic substances, dusts and agents in the workplace has

increased exponentially. In fact, there are millions of substances in

the workplace, and only a very small number have ever been tested.

earlier debates and question periods in this House I have proposed to

the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) that testing should be done

following the mortality atlas studies done by the federal government.

The mortality atlas studies of the distribution of cancer in Canada

indicated that there were places in British Columbia that should be

studied to see if there's a correlation between the kind of work

performed in that area and the incidence of cancer. My appeals fell on

deaf ears with the former Minister of Health. I did some research

myself and looked at the closest geographic area to British Columbia to

see what kinds of studies had been done in Washington state.

would like to tell you a few things about that study, but first — to

set it in the context of a province with a terrible accident rate and a

massive industrial illness incidence that is at present undetected

because of the long latency period before cancer and other kinds of

things manifest themselves in the working population.... It is well

known that a third or more of all cancers are contracted at the

workplace. I'm sure British Columbia is no different than any other

jurisdiction.

MR. MUSSALLEM: How do you know that?

MR. HANSON:

Dr. John Marshall of Dalhousie University stated that one in five

deaths in Canada results from cancer, and between one-quarter and

one-third of these have been contracted at work — for the benefit of

the member for Dewdney, who asked the question.

In 1979 in

Canada we had 90 fatal accidents per 100,000. In the U.K. It was 19.

Five times as many fatal accidents per 100,000 population as in the

United Kingdom. Incredible! We hear a lot of statistics in this debate,

but what I would like to do instead of citing innumerable statistics is

try to indicate to you the kind of studies and approaches they're

attempting in other jurisdictions where they see it as a serious

problem.

I report to the Minister of Labour of British Columbia that

volume 1 of Occupational Mortality in Washington State was a

comprehensive study carried out between 1950 and 1971 analyzing the

deaths of 300,000 males in the state of Washington during that period,

and looking at the occupations they worked at and where they resided in

the state of Washington. It contains some very interesting things. I

want to cite a number of occupations which are of particular interest

in British Columbia. I want to look at the pulp and paper workers,

orchardists, electricians, woodworkers, hospital workers and so on. The

reason I mention orchardists is that some time ago I asked the Minister

of Health to look into the high incidence of lymph cancer among men and

women in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia. This relates directly

to questions regarding the kind of work performed by people in the

Okanagan. This is what the Washington state study says. First of all,

I'm going to tell you how they conducted the research among these

300,000 males who died, in Washington. They looked at the number of

deaths and the number of expected deaths within that particular

occupational grouping.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I see people in the gallery today from the organization of

disabled workers. I'd like to welcome them.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I must remind the member that references to members outside of the

Legislature are not in order. It is the Chair's remissness that it did

not advise this member prior to this on numerous occasions; I do so now.

MR. HANSON: Quite right, Mr. Chairman. I

ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. HANSON:

In the gallery today are a number of officers and representatives of

the disabled workers of British Columbia, and I'd like the House to

welcome them.

I made my remark because I know that these

individuals in particular will be very aware of the kind of thing I'm

trying to outline at the moment. It's very complex, and it's not

understood by the public. But it's probably one of the most serious

problems facing the working people of our province.

This is

what they say about the people who work in the orchard industry in

Washington state. They looked at the number of people expected to die

in a particular industry and the number of people who did in fact die,

and they come up with what they call the mortality ratio. The figure

100 represents the normal incidence — where there's nothing alarming or

significant. If, for example, the number was 200, then it would

represent twice the number of deaths you would normally expect in that

population.

Let me just tell you about the orchardists. The

pattern of mortality of orchardists in Washington state differs

markedly from that of farmers. They found that orchardists have

significant excesses of both lung and large-intestinal cancers. Also

they note that the area they were looking at is east of the Cascade

Mountains, localized primarily in Chelan, Okanagan and Yakima counties.

They suggest that this area saw a very heavy use of lead arsenate as an

insecticide until 1940, and heavy use of DDT and other insecticides in

the years since. Arsenic exposure has been linked with lung cancer, and

lead arsenate exposure may be considered among the causes to explain

respiratory and other types of cancer in orchardists.

[ Page 6441 ]

I'm

saying to the Minister of Labour that information is available to him

which says that there are high incidences of cancer in certain areas,

and he should be saying to his own ministry officials and Treasury

Board: "I want money to do studies to find out what the relationship

might be to the kinds of work that people perform in that area and the

incidence of cancer."

Let's go on to another one —

electricians. We've heard a lot from electricians recently about their

concerns on polychlorinated biphenyls. A coolant, it is a chemical that

is particularly desirable for industry because of its tolerance for

high heat. But once it is ingested by the human body the body cannot

get rid of it, and it causes cancer. The electricians in British

Columbia are saying they don't want to handle it any more, but have we

ever heard the Minister of Labour make statements on polychlorinated

byphenyls? No, we have not. Let me just tell you what they found out in

Washington state about the cause of death among electricians.

Electricians show increased mortality from cancer of the bronchus and

lung, cancer of the kidney, cancer of the urinary bladder, cancer of

the brain and acute leukemia. This is our sister province, our friendly

neighbour, immediately to the south. The studies they have done

indicate there are high incidences of cancer among electricians.

Electricians should be falling under the jurisdiction of the Minister

of Labour.

I might point out to the minister responsible

that in his own budget estimates he has not increased the staff of the

occupational environment branch in his ministry. He has increased the

amount to be spent by $15,000 in a total budget for this government of

$6.6 billion. A $15,000 increase doesn't even cover inflation from the

previous year. The number of staff is 27 people — to cover a workforce

of we don't know how many people.

Let me just tell you the

conclusion on the electricians. "The exposure of electricians to

electric cable may explain the bladder cancer excess. Davies" — a

particular researcher — "has shown that electric-cable workers have

increased incidences of bladder cancer due to carcinogenic substances

present in electrical cable coatings." Have we heard this minister say

anything about the health hazards to the electricians? Not one word.

want to tell you a little bit about the pulp and paper workers and our

brothers and sisters working in Washington state. What do they say in

this study about the pulp and paper workers? It's one of the major

industries in our own province, as you know, Mr. Chairman. "Men in this

group show a very interesting pattern of mortality. Cancers of the

small intestine and cancers of the lymphatic tissues show excess

deaths."

I asked the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

on earlier occasions if he would please investigate why we have high

incidences of lymphatic cancer in theSun shine Coast and Comox areas of

British Columbia. He came back and said that the report I had cited did

not demonstrate without any doubt that there was any link or any

statistical significance, The fact is that the mortality atlas put out

by the federal government had asked provincial governments to conduct

studies to see what the relationship may have been between working in a

pulp mill and getting lymph cancer; working as an electrician and

getting bladder cancer; and working in an orchard and getting lung

cancer. This is what they say for the paper and pulp workers in

Washington state. They say: "It is possible that the excess of fatal

anemias is related to the increased mortality from cancers of the

lymphatic and haemopatetic tissues. Environmental agents cause fatal

anemias and are good candidates for carcinogens of the lymphatic

tissues." In other words, here is a study just south of our border

which indicates there may be a causal relationship between the kind of

exposure that a person is subjected to in a pulp mill and a lymph

cancer. Have we heard the Minister of Labour say one word about this

possible jeopardy to the workers working under these conditions? No, we

have not heard one word. I could cite page after page of the

relationships they have demonstrated with a sample of 300,000 dead

workers in Washington state. Tinsmiths and copper workers.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Three hundred thousand dead

workers?

MR. HANSON: Yes, 300,000 dead workers. This

is a mortality study. The member for Dewdney is interjecting, but he's

asking good questions. In case it is unclear to the members of the

House, the study is based on the deaths of 300,000 workers in

Washington state, which is a very large sample, and it indicates high

correlations between the kind of work they performed and the kind of

death they finally met. My point in raising this is that we have a

large workforce in primary industries in British Columbia — forestry,

mining, pulp and paper — being subjected to environmental agents that

are damaging their health. They are damaging their health, and this

government doesn't give a darn. It really doesn't.

want to tell you briefly about a chemical in the forest industry which

is extremely dangerous. It is the chemical that all wood is dipped into

when it is cut to protect it from a mould. The chemical is

pentachlorophenol, an anti-stain chemical. Every person working in a

sawmill in this province is subjected to it because it is not handled

properly, it is not labelled properly, and it is not tested. Have we

heard anything from this minister on this subject? Not one word. It is

the most pervasive chemical in all of British Columbia used in an

industrial setting, Do we know where it's being disposed of? No. It is

dumped helter-skelter all over the province. There is no permit

available for its disposal. Often it is burned in hog-fuel boilers.

When it is burned in that manner it creates a toxic gas. Unless it is

burned at a temperature of between 3,000 and 5,000 degrees centigrade,

it creates toxic gases, one of which is dioxin, which is the most

deadly chemical known to man. Have we heard a word from this Labour

minister?

In the

preamble to vote 142, which covers

occupational health, which has a staff of 27 for a workforce of over a

million in an area of 365,000 square miles, he says that the particular

vote is for a safe environment for persons in British Columbia by means

of standards, education, inspections and so on. What a farce! It's

incredible. It's a farce. We haven't heard him speak on PCBs —

polychlorinated biphenyls — for electricians. We haven't heard him call

for epidemiological studies to see if workers in certain areas are

subjected to higher risks, which they are, of course. I would like to

find the incidence here for aluminum workers, of whom we have a large

work population in Kitimat. I'll just try to find that, because it

indicates that aluminum workers are subjected to a higher incidence of

all cancers. They run the risk of every single cancer increase. Have we

heard from the Minister of Labour about the possible damage to the

health of the workers of Kitimat? I have not heard him say one word in

this House or even in the press on this particular subject.

Also, the safety record within the provincial government is

absolutely a disgrace. One thing I think the public and the

[ Page 6442 ]

workers

in the workplace are not aware of is that people who work for the

provincial government do not come under the scrutiny of the WCB to the

same extent. The provincial government is a pay-as-you-go assessment.

They are not assessed as a sector according to the terrible record

they've had in the previous year. They pay according to the fatalities

or the injuries as they occur.

I would like to refer to my

earlier comment about aluminum workers, because I think it's very

important. To many members of the government side, this is boring. They

feel this is not a sort of sexy item. But I think it's very important

to the people and the workers of this province. The total deaths in

Washington state — there were 583 aluminum workers in this sample; men

in this group show an increase in cancer of the pancreas and of the

respiratory system, and malignant lymphomas show significant increases

in death. Cancer of the testes, brain and esophagus showed

insignificant increases, based on the small number, but cancer of the

pancreas and malignant lymphomas showed mortality increases in the

study of the members of the American Chemical Society. Aluminum workers

are exp