1982 Legislative Session: 4th 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 )

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

9571 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Rate Increase Restraint Act (Bill 81). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On the amendment to

section 1 –– 9571

Mr. Stupich, Hon. Mr. Gardom, Mr. King, Ms. Sanford, Mr. Howard, Hon. Mr. Richmond, Hon. Mr. Waterland

Division

On the amendment to

section 2 as amended –– 9579

Mr. Stupich, Mr. Howard, Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Division

section 2 as amended –– 9582

Mr. Stupich, Mrs. Wallace

School Services (Interim) Act (Bill S9). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

Mr. Howard –– 9583

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 9585

Appendix –– 9585

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1982

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

MR. PASSARELL: I rise on a point of personal privilege.

What started as a northern tall tale blew out of proportion, and I

would like to correct the record regarding the situation. It's a fact

that a woman was not involved in hitting me on the head. But the story

about killing the bear and what transpired started as a northern tale

and blew out of proportion. I would like to correct the matter by

simply saying that there was no grizzly bear killed by me or my press

secretary, Mr. Jean Godet, who probably had the greatest line: "The

only thing I stand by Mr. Passarell on in this grizzly story is that it

was all B.S." Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

On point of order, Mr. Speaker, does this House deal with fairy tales?

I'm wondering whether there is such a thing as a point of personal

privilege. I wish you would clarify whether the member who just told us

a fairy tale was trying to correct an erroneous report he'd made to the

press, whether that's a point that should be accepted in this House,

whether he's violating the standing orders of this House, or what. I

think it's important, because we've got to refrain from the kind of

fairy-tale episode we get from the member for Atlin.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 81, Mr. Speaker.

RATE INCREASE RESTRAINT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 81; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, several members on this side of the House

have spoken on this, and I think others will want to speak on it again this

morning. We had hoped the minister would delete the reference to the Workers

Compensation Board. We would welcome some expression from him this morning on

the reference to the Workers Compensation Board. We've raised the question

about the deficit that the board already has. We've raised questions about

the attitudes of employers whose assessments vary according to their own accident

rates. If their increase is limited, we're concerned about the effect this

will have on employers' attitudes, but we're primarily concerned about

the effect on the employees. I raised a question in my earlier remarks about

the very serious situation with respect to the appeal-board system. If they're

going to be trying to live with lower revenues than they require to operate

the boards, just what effect will this have on claims? I know others of my colleagues

will want to add to this discussion.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr Chairman, without in any way attempting to limit the member's

discussion of one of the agencies to be limited. I wonder if this

amendment is in fact in order. I look to the Chair for a ruling in that

regard. I emphasize that it is not to limit the debate in committee

which could occur on

section 2. I would think. I ask specifically about

the amendment which the member has placed on the order paper.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Just supporting a point made by my colleague, Mr. Chairman. It appears

to me that this is essentially a detraction, not an impost, and that

could only be moved by message or on the government side.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

An impost on the Crown moved by a private member would be out of order,

but what we have here is a decrease, which would be the same as a

decrease in, say, an estimate of the minister. The amendment is in

order.

MR. KING: We discussed this particular

provision in second reading of the bill in general fashion, but I want

to draw to the attention of the Minister of Finance that there are

indeed some serious implications if the provisions of

section 1 are to

include the Workers Compensation Board. Certainly I support the

amendment deleting the Workers Compensation Board.

I want to

put this particular set of circumstances to the minister. The Workers

Compensation Board has the authority, indeed the obligation, to assess

penalty applications against an employer who might be found guilty of

flagrant disregard for safety standards set by the board. In those

circumstances the whole theory of penalty assessments is to induce

compliance, and to persuade and require employers to respect reasonable

standards of safety for their working people in factories and plants

throughout this province. If the board's ability to set and enforce

those penalty assessments is restricted, as it will be by this bill, to

a mere 6 percent increase, then the impact, effect and deterrent

imposed through penalty assessments is eroded, and indeed nullified, in

my view. That is a very serious implication.

The working

people of the province of British Columbia have the right to expect

compliance by their employer with standards of safety set by the board.

In the case of normal protection for the use of toxic materials —

poisons and pesticides — the employer can now find it cheaper in some

circumstances not to comply and simply to assume a 6 percent penalty

assessment, which is a very modest assessment. The deterrent impact,

which is the whole premise of penalty assessments, is eroded by this

provision.

Mv colleague the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich)

referred to the general assessment increases which occur each year in

order to maintain the integrity of the workers compensation fund. The

unfunded liability of the board is a matter of concern to the

commission and certainly has been to those who have the responsibility

for ensuring that we have a secure workers compensation fund in the

province of British Columbia. The notices have been mailed out, by and

large, to employers indicating what the assessment increase would be

for this year, and it is my understanding that it was in the range of

10 percent. That is based upon actuarial requirements for the fund. I

believe this very government appointed a firm of chartered accountants

to conduct an inquiry into the unfunded liability of the Workers

Compensation Board a few years ago. It was pointed out that that

unfunded liability had

[ Page 9572 ]

be brought within manageable proportions. There is only one way that

can happen — that is, through increases in the general assessment rate.

Now the government is denying the board the authority to impose the

necessary increase in assessment rates which would bring that unfunded

liability under actuarial bounds. That's unacceptable. What we have

here is, first, an incursion by the government into the board's

administration, a minimizing of the impact of penalty assessments; and,

second, an erosion of the financial and actuarial viability of the

workers compensation fund. There is no way the Workers Compensation

Board can pass along their requirements for funding other than through

assessments on the employers. By taking this action the government is

seriously jeopardizing the board on those two particular points.

The

other area that I'm terribly concerned about here is with respect to

the benefits accruing to working people. An injured worker who is on

time-loss benefits — that is, on temporary-injury benefits — is

entitled to 75 percent of his normal earnings. But should he be

incapacitated to the point where he can no longer go back to his job

and earn a livelihood, he is entitled to either a partial or a total

disability pension. Those pensions are calculated, as are time-loss

benefits, on a formula which includes cost-of-living-index adjustments.

I read this particular section, unless the amendment is accepted, those

cost-of-living-rate increases will be curtailed by the bill that's

before the committee now. I find it difficult to believe that the

government of the province wishes to impose 6 percent ceilings on

widows, dependent children and, indeed, upon handicapped and

incapacitated working people who, as a result of injuries in the

workplace, find that they are no longer able to earn a livelihood. What

is the rationale for denying those people who most need help in our

society the benefit of at least reasonably keeping pace with the

accelerating cost of living? All of those things, in my view, are

contained in this bill.

Hence we move the amendment which

would set the Workers Compensation Board apart and leave it to run its

own affairs. It would leave the board to set their own assessments as

required by their own actuarial needs. The Workers Compensation Board

has historically been an agency that was set apart at arm's length from

government and free from political intervention by government. I submit

that this particular provision, unless the amendment is accepted,

represents a political incursion into the sound and effective

administration of the Workers Compensation Act in this province. I

think that is a dangerous precedent to set.

I would

appreciate hearing the minister's response to the points I have raised.

There are basically four points: (1) the security of the unfunded

liability and the ability of the board to service that outstanding debt

by receiving the necessary assessment level; (2) the question of

penalty assessments that are set from time to time by the board where

there is a flagrant disregard for safety standards.... Are they to be

limited to 6 percent also? Is that the intention of the government, in

so doing to erode the safety and health standards of this province by

removing protection? The third and fourth points with respect to the

normal time-loss benefits, which I believe are also subject to

cost-of-living adjustments, but more importantly the whole range of

pension benefits that are available through the Workers Compensation

Act, both partial-disability and total-disability pensions for

claimants and their dependents.... I would very much like to hear if

this is the minister's intention, or is he not aware that the bill

would do all of those things? Perhaps if he was not aware, he will be

ready to accept our amendment, which relieves the board from

interference under

section 1 of this particular bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, in answer to the member for Nanaimo, who moved the

amendment, and the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, who has spoken to it,

the government is not prepared to accept the amendment. The Chair will

note that we are dealing with

section 1, which speaks in this context

of "workers' compensation," and obviously the members opposite, if that

is their wish, will continue to discuss in

section 2 the advisability

or inadvisability of adding "Workers Compensation Board" to this

restraint measure. Mr. Chairman, if we could reflect for just a moment,

the bill was introduced on September 21 and attracted quite widespread

attention in the 24, 48 or 72 hours immediately following that. We now

are at October 5, and therefore I think the agencies, the Crown

corporations, the boards and commissions which are affected by the Rate

Increase Restraint Act have had a reasonable opportunity to examine

their position vis-a-vis the restraint which is put in place.

noticed by CBC radio report this morning, which is the most recent

information I've heard, that a spokesman for the Workers Compensation

Board indicated that they were thoroughly familiar with that which was

proposed in this bill, and that in the short term — and I will speak on

that in just a moment — it would, while imposing some discipline on the

Workers Compensation Board, in its entirety.... I paraphrase the report

to the extent that it appeared to me as a listener that the Workers

Compensation Board could manage with this limitation.

I said

a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, "in the short term." That is a fundamental

point that I think is not lost on members of the committee. This is in

place until September 30, 1983, although in second reading I did not

commit that it would not be extended for some time. I did that because

I did not want to mislead the House in any way, nor do I want to

mislead the committee. If I had to make a definitive statement, Mr.

Chairman, I would expect that the bill will live its life to September

30 of next year and will not be extended. The security of unfunded

liability, or the whole question of unfunded liability, with respect to

workers' compensation is a matter which obviously the board and its

senior management and government have examined over a good number of

years. The members opposite have examined it in the course of their

time as government. I am satisfied that this measure, again in the

short term, will not significantly affect the unfunded liability or

impair — more correctly stated — the board's ability to reduce the

unfunded liability over the next several years. I believe it is their

intention.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke spoke about

penalty assessments where there are "flagrantly poor safety practices."

Mr. Chairman, it is not the intention of the government in the

implementation of this bill to exempt an employer where — to use the

member's phrase — "penalty assessments are well deserved." Since we are

section 1, the

interpretation section, I would draw the committee's

attention to the fact that the word "penalty" does not appear,

whereas

"assessment, budget, charge, collection, fare, levy, premium, tax,

toll, workers' compensation and other items as may be prescribed...."

Quite clearly it was our intention....

[ Page

9573 ]

MR. KING: Nonsense!

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm trying to give a logical and straightforward answer to the member, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KING: That's not true.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members will be allowed their chance to debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The word "penalty" is not there. The member is exercised by my

response, but I was indicating the government's view with respect to

the question of penalty assessments in the context which he described,

and I cannot make the government's position clearer than that, Mr.

Chairman.

The second member who spoke referred to an

expectation of 10 percent in assessments for the coming year. I think

that debate could continue for some time; so be it if it does. I am

informed, and it is my clear understanding, that 10 percent would be

the high range of the projected increase. Again, it's been indicated

that on average the increase in assessments would be something less

than 10 percent. That again, Mr. Chairman, leads me to an observation

which would be perhaps more appropriate in

section 2, but I'll simply

allude to it: the 6 percent maximum described in another

section of the

bill was drafted very carefully. A zero percent increase in this

context would have been absolutely unworkable and would have severely

interfered with the agencies who are being asked to conform to this

aspect of restraint.

MS. SANFORD: The minister's

explanation is completely inadequate in terms of what this is going to

do to the Workers Compensation Board this year. The

interpretation says

that "'rate' includes assessment," but now he's made an exemption.

Surely he's going to bring in his own amendment to clarify that

assessment, according to his

interpretation, doesn't include penalty

assessment. I thought an assessment was an assessment.

Mr.

Chairman, this government is operating so much by the seat of the pants

that it just doesn't know what it's doing. This is another political

bill. He's trying to convince us that this won't affect the unfunded

liability of the Workers Compensation Board.What nonsense! It's obvious

that this was dreamed up on some weekend for some political purpose.

It's obvious that there was no consultation with the commissioners of

the Workers Compensation Board, or they wouldn't have been mailing out

all of those assessment notices. If they had been aware of what the

government was up to, they wouldn't have put all those in the mail and

incurred that extra expense. What it means, Mr. Chairman, is that the

unfunded liability is going to grow by at least another $14 million

this year; that's not even talking about the assessment that they have

applied with respect to the hospitals and the surcharges that they're

applying there. That's an attempt to fund the hospital programs by

putting a surcharge on the Workers Compensation Board.

The employers who are going to be joining the Workers Compensation Board in

the next few years — starting up a business, getting covered under the WCB

— are going to be paying higher assessments than they should be paying because

of this kind of political move by the government. They're going to have

to pick up the difference. Everybody's been concerned about that unfunded

liability. The commissioners have been grappling with the problem, and they've

been attempting to reduce that unfunded liability. Then the minister comes along,

after they've mailed out the assessment notices, with this bill that limits

them to 6 percent. They're going to have to recall all those letters and

incur more expense to mail out new assessment notices, all for the political

benefit of this government that's desperately trying to cling to office.

The

minister did not deal with the effects of this particular legislation

on the injured workers. What's going to happen to those who are now

covered by a disability pension? Are they going to be affected by the 6

percent? He didn't make that clear in his earlier comments.

The

other thing about this bill is that the pressures on the public purse

from the employers of the province are going to increase. They're going

to come and say: "Look, our unfunded liability is over a half a billion

dollars at this stage. It's going to increase with this kind of

legislation because of the surcharge applied against us for hospital

costs. We need help from the public purse in order to bail us out of

this predicament we're in." That kind of pressure is going to increase

as a result of this political legislation before us today.

would like the minister to respond with respect to the effects of this

bill on injured workers and their incomes over this next year. I point

out again that the minister is very wrong in his assumption that this

will have virtually no effect on the unfunded liability, because it

will.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. minister.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I defer to a member opposite who is about to speak.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to hear what you have to say.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'll defer. I can say it later.

MR. HOWARD:

The minister had an opportunity to correct the erroneous information he

gave to the committee earlier, but he didn't take advantage of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: I want to Submit that it is erroneous, meaning that the

minister was in error when he gave that information to the House in response

to the argument put forward by my colleague from Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King).

The

minister said: "It isn't the intention of the government" — as I

understood his words — "to exempt an employer from penalties where that

employer is running an unsafe operation." He then proceeded to read

section 1, which is the one before us, and said: "It doesn't say

anything about a penalty." That indicates one of two things. Either the

minister hasn't the foggiest notion what the Workers Compensation Act

says with respect to unsafe working conditions and places of employment

where the employer is not performing his duties under the act — either

the minister hasn't a clue what the Workers Compensation Act is all

about — or he does understand it and he was trying by verbiage to give

the committee an impression of something which is not in fact so.

[ Page 9574 ]

Let's read the precise words back to the minister.

The minister said: "Yes, Mr. Chairman,

section 1 does not contain the

word 'penalty'." The minister read it out. Let's read it again, just

to ensure what it does say. The proposed clause 1 says: "In this act

'rate' includes assessment, budget, charge, collection, fare, levy,

premium, tax, toll, workers' compensation" — which is what we propose

to take out — "and other items as may be prescribed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council." Two significant words in that

definition that apply here are the first one, "assessment," and the

second one, "levy."

Section 73 of the Workers Compensation Act uses

those two precise words.

Section 73 is the

section of the

act which says: "Where the board" — that is, the Workers Compensation

Board — "considers that (

a) sufficient precautions are not taken by an

employer for the prevention of injuries and industrial disease; (

b) the

place of employment or working conditions are unsafe or the employer

has not complied with regulations, orders or directions made under

section 7" — where the board considers that there are unsafe working

conditions and that the employer is running a show where injuries are

likely to take place or where he has not complied with any regulations

— "the board may assess and levy on the employer a percentage of the

amount of the assessment for the preceding year or the projected

assessment for the current year, and may collect the amount so assessed

and levied in the same way as an assessment is collected."

The

purpose of that is basically to penalize the employer for running an

unsafe show. I use the word "penalize" because the minister used the

word "penalty." We normally look upon it in the ordinary, everyday

working world as that being a penalty against the employer, but the

words in the act are that it's an "assessment" and a "levy," precisely

the words that are used in the

section before us. So it's just arrant

nonsense for the minister to stand up and say: "Oh, this doesn't apply

to unsafe working places; that's a penalty." Of course it applies —

absolutely, clearly and without question.

In other words,

what the minister is saying in this bill is that as far as he's

concerned unsafe working conditions in the workplace are okay with him.

As far as he's concerned, an employer can disregard orders of the

board. He doesn't give a hoot about injury or industrial disease

visited upon employees in the workplace. He is saying that the board

may consider that there's an unsafe working place, that an employer has

disregarded orders given under

section 71 of the act, that workers in a

plant or out in the logging camps or wherever else in this province are

working in unsafe conditions and are liable to get injured or liable to

contract an industrial disease — silicosis or asbestosis, or whatever.

Whatever the board thinks is the necessity of imposing a penalizing

levy or assessment to correct that situation, the minister doesn't

care, because he's going to limit it to 6 percent. So in other words,

what's a 6 percent levy on an employer who may, by the Workers

Compensation Board's own decision, be obliged to pay, say, a 25 percent

levy to correct an unsafe working condition in the workplace?

This

government has got a record of attacking those who cannot defend

themselves. It's got a record of picking on the defenceless, right from

the time when the Minister of Education attacked working mothers,

single parents, individual women by themselves, with children, having

to rely on social allowance. In addition to the attack on the sick by

the Minister of Health, we now have an attack on the injured, under

this particular bill. We now have an attack upon the employees and

their compensation payments, and upon those who may be working in

unsafe working conditions. I'm sure the minister can see that.

he says that it's not the intention of the government to exempt an

employer from a levy or assessment where unsafe working conditions are

involved, then let him say so in the act. Let him clear it up with an

amendment. But so long as this stays the way it is proposed, unless he

accepts our amendment to remove workers' compensation from that, and

accepts a subsequent amendment to

part 2 — which I only refer to in

passing — to remove the words "Workers Compensation Board" from

section

2 of this bill.... Unless he's prepared to accept those amendments, and

I suggest that he should, because if he accepted them his argument that

it's no intention of the government to intrude upon or to exempt

employers who are operating premises in which there are unsafe working

conditions.... If that's really the intention of the government, then I

say accept the amendment and that will satisfy it. Then we will be

together and unanimous on that particular point, and the bill can

proceed and pass, and no problem.

The minister says, though,

right from the outset that the government doesn't intend to accept the

amendment. He went on to talk about the necessity of discipline on the

board, how this brings an element of discipline to the board, and the

$500 million unfunded liability position of the board, and so on. It's

got nothing to do with those things at all — bringing discipline to

bear upon the board. If the board needs to have a discipline imposed

upon it by this Legislature, if the Workers Compensation Board has been

undisciplined in that regard, then I suggest to you that the discipline

that should be applied to the board is by law to require the board to

wipe out that $500 million unfunded liability deficit within a certain

period of time, and put them in the position of saying you have to

collect these assessments within whatever period of time seems

reasonable.

MR. KING: Nine years.

MR. HOWARD:

Nine years — that's what the board has said at some time or another. I

think every year they say nine years and yet they don't do it. It was

nine years when I first heard about it in 1979, it seems to me. It's

now 1982 and it's still nine years, and it's still not there.

Now

this bill is going to make that situation worse. So if the minister

thinks that the board needs to be disciplined, and needs to run a tight

ship, and needs to have a balance in terms of its own internal

financing, then it should move to deal with that $500 million unfunded

liability that exists there by saying: "You have a certain number of

years to work that out and to assess in order to collect it." If they

don't do that, this bill is just going to make it worse. It's going to

add to that $500 million. They will never be able to collect it — or

even start to collect it — during the time this particular bill is in

force. I think the minister said it was for one year.

So all

it's doing is adding the difference between a 6 percent assessment and

whatever may be necessary in one year out of nine to wipe out that $500

million unfunded liability deficit that the board has on the books. All

it's going to do is to add to whatever that difference might be, and

make the situation worse. We see there's nothing more to supplement the

four points put forward initially by my colleague from

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), and very ably dealt with as well by the

member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). We

[ Page 9575 ]

need

the four points to be answered. If the minister sincerely believes in

what he says about no intention by the government to exempt employers,

then I suggest he is to accept the amendment and that will do it. They

then accept a subsequent amendment to remove the Workers Compensation

Board from the impositions imposed upon it by this act; and we can get

on from there.

I don't want to reiterate the other points

made, but I thought it worth while to put on the record what

section 73

says, so that the minister will see that his earlier argument about the

application of

section 1 has no validity in fact, and that the minister

was giving erroneous information to the House when he spoke earlier.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

On the amendment to

section 1, in developing his point I wish the

member would not reach the conclusion, which is also erroneous, that I

am not concerned about injured workers in the province of British

Columbia. It's fair enough to enter into debate....

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order, I was talking about the government of which this

minister is a part, not about him personally. I'm sure that personally

his heart's in the right place, but he belongs to a government which

has a record of attacking those who can't defend themselves too well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Skeena was not recognized.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The member for Skeena quite clearly indicated that he was speaking of

me, and I simply assure the committee that that is not correct. If you

want to debate as to what he meant by that for the rest of the morning

and this afternoon.... I just want him to understand that in debating

the amendment which the opposition has put forward, it is incorrect to

assume that because the Workers Compensation Board is among those

agencies which will experience short-term — ie. approximately one-year

— restraint.... We can debate that; but I would ask him to reconsider

the observation, for reasons which I could explain to the committee at

some other time. The benefits accruing from workers compensation are

very well known to me, as apparent, I need say no more.

think I have a reasonable understanding of the workings of the Workers

Compensation Board. I do not pretend to be an expert. Again, looking at

the amendment which the opposition has advanced, and looking at this

section, in developing this short-term 12-month restraint program, the

question was posed, "Would this limitation do serious harm to any of

the agencies so covered?" and our answer was no. Again, I emphasize the

brevity of the restraint. I would refer members to my comments in

opening and closing second reading debate, where we indicated that this

was yet another step in necessary restraint in the province of British

Columbia. With regret, the government cannot accept the amendment with

respect to workers' compensation.

MS. SANFORD: The

minister still has not dealt with the points we have advanced this

morning with respect to the effects of this political bill on the

workings of the Workers Compensation Board. I would like to know why

the board was not consulted about this particular limitation. Why, if

this was not a last-minute bill that was thrown together for political

purposes...? Everyone anticipated an election, but the Premier

has become so indecisive on this issue that that point is not clear at

the moment. Why was the board not consulted in advance? A lot of time

and effort is spent by the commissioners and their economists in

drawing up the assessments required for the year. Working on the

reduction of the unfunded liability. It's the same kind of thing

they've been doing with education. It's exactly the same. The school

boards and the Workers Compensation Board....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, we are in committee on an amendment to a specific section.

I've accepted the amendment; it deals with workers' compensation. I

would ask all members of the committee to be specific to that amendment.

MS. SANFORD:

The Workers Compensation Board, like the school boards of the province,

is spending all its time these days not improving the education

system or the workers' compensation system of the province but redoing

the budget, reworking the figures. There is no consultation with groups

in this province.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: That's right: a straight political move by this government

in order to....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: No, they don't care.

With

the effect of this 6 percent limit on injured workers, still the

minister did not deal with the unfunded liability and the fact that new

businesses coming into operation over the next few years are going to

have to pay an increased Workers Compensation Board assessment because

they are bringing in this legislation at this time. All their boards

and agencies are being treated in the same way. Everyone has to knuckle

under to the needs of this government.

The minister made

some comment about having heard on CBC this morning that the board

could live with it. I assume that school boards can live with the

impositions on them as well. They spend all their time trying to figure

out what the government is up to. They can't deal with the issues they

are supposed to deal with. I suppose they can live with it. The

minister has not answered. They have no choice; they have to live with

it, don't they? If it's law, it's law; they can live with it.

The

kind of treatment this government is giving to various boards and

agencies throughout this province, without any consultation whatsoever,

is an indication of their political desperation.

I wish the

minister would answer the questions posed to him with respect to the

effects of this legislation on injured workers and particularly on the

unfunded liability.

MR. HOWARD: It's very interesting

to watch the minister shy away from the valid questions that are put to

him. It's very interesting to see how he attempts to divert attention

from the realities of this particular bill, this particular

section and

the amendment that we put forward. It's very important to keep that in

mind. The minister took personal umbrage at a reference that he happens

to belong to a government that doesn't care about injured workmen, the

workplace and so on. He went off in the direction about something about

his

[ Page 9576 ]

own

family and so on, which I think didn't have anything to do with this.

It's important to note, first, that he said there would be no

penalties, that this doesn't apply to penalties. It was pointed out to

him that "penalty" was just in the use of the word, that in fact it

included the words "levy" and "assessment," which are contained in

section 73 of the act, the

section dealing with unsafe working places.

When that was brought to the minister's attention he ignored it

completely. He went off in some other direction and made a statement of

significant ignorance with respect to what we're dealing with here. The

minister said — I wrote his words down — that when they were developing

this bill they asked themselves — I assume he means the draftsmen and

the government, or whoever it is that asked these questions; "they, "

which probably included him — the question: "Will this bill do serious

harm to the agencies so covered by it?" And their answer to themselves

was: "No, it would not." That's the point that I want to make, Mr.

Chairman, that we are not here now dealing with the agencies so covered

by this bill — that is, the Workers Compensation Board. We are dealing

with human beings, individual people about whom the minister says, in

his heart, that he cares. Oh, he cares about people on workers'

compensation, but he didn't answer that question. Injured workmen —

working men and women — is what we're talking about. Workers'

compensation — this compensation to workers who are injured on the job

— that's what we're talking about, not serious harm to the agency so

covered for a year. Of course it won't mean that, but it will sure mean

serious harm to injured workers.

Let me read to you another

section of the act, as to how this is seriously going to harm injured

workers in this province. Compensation — which is the word we want to

take out of here — within the definition and the meaning of the Workers

Compensation Act includes medical aid. So a person injured on the job

is going to have anything that he receives from the Workers

Compensation Board, if there's any increase in it, limited to 6

percent. But his medical aid is going to be restricted to a 6 percent

increase over what the medical aid might have been before. Now suppose

bandages go up by 18 percent — one of the hospitals in my constituency

tells me that. What do they use? Do they use one-third the amount of

bandages to put it within the 6 percent limit? Suppose a plaster cast

for a broken leg has increased by about 12 percent, covering the

materials that go into the plaster cast, and hospital coverage, medical

attention and that sort of thing have increased by 12 percent, but

they're permitted a 6 percent increase. What do they do? Do they only

put on half the cast? Do they put it on half of the leg and leave it

off the other side, or do they put it just halfway down and don't do

the full portion of it? What's he talking about?

MRS. WALLACE: Every other leg.

MR. HOWARD:

Maybe that's the way they'll work it out. So, Mr. Chairman, you may be,

figuratively speaking, one of the unfortunate ones who breaks a leg and

you're left out because the person there before you got the full cast.

Is that what they're talking about?

They're talking about an

attack upon the injured workers of this province, not whether or not it

would cause serious harm to the agencies so covered — to the Workers

Compensation Board itself. Of course it won't cause the board serious

harm for one year. We know that. We were pointing out the impact upon

the board, that was all. But the major thing here is injured workers

and the medical aid available to them. That's why we say the government

doesn't care about injured workers. The minister, if he wants me to say

it — he sort of wanted me to say it to him so he could deny it —

doesn't care about injured workers. If he did, he wouldn't have put up

such an insipid, weak....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We must be parliamentary and not make personal reference to another hon. member.

MR. HOWARD:

He started on this. It's his argument in support of the bill and

against the amendment they're proposing. I'm only responding to it. He

got his family involved in this for some obscure reason, which we don't

know. I'm not interested in finding out, because those are matters

which should not be injected into discussion in this chamber, even

obliquely. But the minister did that, and that's his business. All I'm

talking about, Mr. Chairman, is that this amendment speaks for itself.

He's the sponsor of this bill, right on the front page: "Hon. Hugh A.

Curtis, Minister of Finance." That's the fellow who brought the bill in

and is piloting it through the House. It's his baby. He's taking the

full responsibility of the government on his shoulders. He brings in

the bill, and the amendment: he uses specious arguments to object to

the validity of the amendment which we have put forward. Not once has

he answered or even attempted to answer the valid criticisms we've made

of his position, so I think I'm entitled to say that he, by this

particular bill before us and the arguments he puts forward, doesn't

care about the effect that this bill will have upon injured workers and

upon unsafe working places in this province.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I too want to make it very clear that the Minister of

Finance has not responded to one of the arguments advanced by the

opposition. It has been demonstrated clearly and it has been

demonstrated without contradiction from the government that this

particular provision of the bill will have a serious adverse impact on

safety in the workplace and upon the benefits which injured workers in

the province of British Columbia would normally expect to receive. It

will adversely affect the benefits which widows of workers who have

been killed on the job, and their dependants, would normally expect to

receive. All of those things are without contradiction and it's not

good enough for the minister to try to avoid those basic truths through

the use of bafflegab.

If the minister and his government

wish to proceed with denying injured workers and their dependants in

the province of British Columbia the benefits which are now provided to

them under the Workers Compensation Act, if they are prepared to

proceed with this bill without the amendment, it has been clearly

demonstrated that some — those few irresponsible employers — who choose

to ignore decent and safe standards of work in their factories and

enterprises will be freed by this bill from the normal penalty

assessments which would otherwise have been applied. That's the

reality, Mr. Chairman. I don't think it's a very nice thing to do. I

don't think it's a very humane thing to do. I think it ill behooves the

minister to plaintively say, "Well, I care for these people," when by

the very essence of refusing our amendment he is imposing a very

serious punishment upon the safety environment and, indeed, on the

benefits which injured workers and workers who are suffering from

industrial disease at present

[ Page 9577 ]

enjoy

in the province of British Columbia. That's what's happening. This bill

is not designed to injure the Workers Compensation Board. The

consequences of it will fall directly and heavily upon the working

people who make up the workforce of the province of British Columbia.

That is who is being affected. That is who is being disciplined, as the

minister refers to it. The minister, by his comments, wants to

discipline injured workers and their dependants in the province of

British Columbia. The board is going to continue to function. The

commissioners will continue to receive then salaries, as will the

claims adjudicators and the rehabilitation staff. It is the working

people who rely on that agency for their benefits, and as the

enforcement agency to provide a safe working environment, who are in

jeopardy here. The minister, with all of his significant skills in

sliding past the question, cannot avoid that basic truth. He, in

addition to his government, will be called to account for this very

inhumane approach to penny-pinching.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has once again put

forward a series of points selectively and reached incorrect

conclusions. That happens fairly often when he is debating, and I

reject the straw man which he has.... He squirms in his chair. He's

uncomfortable, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will

advise the minister, as I've already advised other members of the

committee, that we should avoid personal reflections on a member.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, so long as it is evenhanded I abide by your request and wishes.

MR. HOWARD: Poor little Hughie!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, there were no interjections when the members opposite were speaking, and now....

MR. HOWARD: That's because you've got a bad case and you're on the defensive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I call the member for Skeena to order.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, in speaking earlier this morning about the effect that

this might have on the Workers Compensation Board.... It will not

be lost on the committee, and it is surely not lost on the people of

British Columbia, that in speaking of the Workers Compensation Board

one must obviously speak of those who require the services of board.

Again, the

interpretation by the member opposite is so unbelievably

narrow that I think his case collapses immediately. The Workers

Compensation Board will not be significantly interfered with in the

short term of the 12 months and the few days during which this bill is

likely to be in effect. If I have to expand on that statement made

earlier this morning I shall — that the clients of the Workers

Compensation Board will also not be interfered with by the imposition

which has been applied here.

I do admit, Mr. Chairman, to

perhaps not having answered a point — although I thought that I had in

second reading. Let me make it very clear for the committee, because it

has been one of the important points raised in this discussion. It is

not the intention under this legislation to limit increases in benefit

payments to injured workers, which, as we all know, are currently

indexed to the consumer price index of Vancouver. I make that very

clear and fundamentally apparent to the committee. It is not the

intention of this legislation. What we are doing is limiting the

revenue of the Workers Compensation Board to a possible maximum of 6

percent in the course of the 12 months commencing September 20 of this

Near.

HON. MR. RICHMOND:

I want to enter into debate

on this amendment for just a brief moment to present the other side of

the case. I've had several meetings in the last few months with the

interior truck loggers — independent operators in the interior of this

province — as have other ministers and MLAs on the government side. The

purpose of bringing the Workers Compensation Board under this

section

is to prevent the type of increases that they've had over the last

year — indeed, the last two years, but especially this last year where

some of their rates have gone from 3.6 percent to over 15 percent of

their wages. To back up what the Minister of Finance says, this bill

will not affect the claims of workers' compensation victims. It will

not affect those who are suffering from diseases or affect the death

benefits. As the minister said, these are indexed. What it will do is

perhaps bring the Workers Compensation Board into line and into some

sort of reality so that these independent operators in the interior —

and probably elsewhere — can survive. If some sort of ceiling is not

put on the increases that this organization is allowed to put forth

every year, there won't be jobs for the workers to work at — it's as

plain and simple as that. I want it to be clear and on the record that

the workers' compensation increases have to be brought in line and this

section of this bill is the vehicle by which we can do that.

MR. KING:

Quite frankly, I wish that the Minister of Finance had been as

forthcoming as the Minister of Tourism is, because now we receive the

real motivation for this particular bill. That motivation is to prevent

the increase in levies to employers in the province. The minister

acknowledges that by limiting those assessments and unfunded liability

increases to the point where it has been demonstrated it is actuarially

unsound, the unfunded liability is too high. If the employers are not

going to be assessed enough to service that unfunded liability and

bring it within actuarial bounds, the next step is for the government

to say to the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia: "You pay

it." It will ultimately be loaded on the backs of the taxpayers of the

province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Nonsense!

MR.

KING: Well, obviously you can't have it both ways. It's similar to

ICBC. The government tells us that they have to charge us rates

commensurate with the experience rating. So the rates for automobile

insurance accelerate each year to service the cost of the claims. That

is precisely the purpose and the practice of the Workers Compensation

Board. They have to collect the necessary assessments to service the

calls on pension disbursements on injury time-loss benefit claims to

the workers.

It's an experience-rating, system with a

penalty for those who flagrantly disregard safety standards. In the

same way that we have a safe-driving benefit for automobile users.

[ Page 9578 ]

Those

who flagrantly defy the rules of road safety lose their safe-driving

discount. So it is with employers. If they flagrantly violate the

standards of safety in the workplace, they are assessed a penalty. It

is all, to an extent, an experience rating system.

The

Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) says the board is not going to

be allowed to collect enough assessments to service the debt and the

projected call upon funds to disburse pensions for widows, injured

workers and their dependants, victims of industrial disease and for all

those things which the Workers Compensation Board was established back

in 1937.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You weren't listening when I was talking.

MR. HOWARD:

The government has admitted that their concern is to prevent the

employers from paying that insurance fund to protect the workers'

benefits. If they freeze it at this level, the unfunded liability

increases and the security of the pension funds for the claimants is

jeopardized. There's only one other area from which the money can come

to fund and secure those benefits to the workers of the province: from

the general revenue fund of the province of British Columbia; from the

taxpayers' pockets. Direct taxation to bail out the employers that the

Minister of Tourism plaintively moans about.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Have you talked to the loggers up in your riding?

MR. HOWARD:

Yes, indeed. For those employers classified in groups who feel that

they are being rated too high, there is an appeal mechanism, on which I

have represented employers in processing. I doubt that the neophyte

member for Kamloops has, or perhaps he is not even aware of that appeal

process.

The point is that the rating system is set on

experience. If you have a good record of safety and a low ratio of

accident experience, then your assessments are adjusted accordingly.

This government, by the rather naive comments of the Minister of

Tourism, who gave the game away, is saying: "Look, there's no free

lunch for anyone else. You have to pay your automobile insurance on the

basis of your driving record. You have to pay your life insurance on

the basis of what your age and experience rating for that

classification is. But when it comes to safety, industrial disease and

the loss of limbs in the workplaces of the province of British

Columbia, that's not the employer's responsibility anymore. We're going

to have the taxpayer bail them out." I disagree with that. That's what

the minister said.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, I did not.

MR. HOWARD:

The minister said: "We are going to limit the assessments on behalf of

employers, in defiance of the reality of the experience." He didn't say

that it was going to come out of the tax fund, but where else can it

come from? Either you defer it so that employers in the future will

have to bear a heavier risk, or you bail it out of general revenue on

the taxpayer's back, unless what we have here is a throwback to Major

Douglas's Social Credit and they're going to manufacture some other

kind of currency. I suppose that that's a possibility: the A plus B

theorem.

It would have been better had the Minister of

Finance been forthcoming enough to acknowledge that this was just a

straight move to relieve the employers of assessments necessary to fund

their own performance in terms of safety in the workplace. They can't

have it both ways. They can't have him, on the one hand, say, "Yes,

we're concerned and sensitive about the security of pensions and

benefits to injured workers throughout the province," while on the

other hand he says: "We're going to relieve the burden of real

experience from the employers." That's a bit too crass for anyone to

accept.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I feel that

since the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has taken what I said and seen

fit to twist it to suit his own needs, I must respond.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask you to withdraw the word "twist," please. It's unparliamentary.

HON. MR. RICHMOND:

All right — convoluted to suit his own needs. It's quite obvious to me

that he hasn't talked to the independent operators in his riding, as I

have, because I made no mention of an increase that had anything to do

with the performance of the private operator as to safety. I'm talking

about an increase in assessments, where the employer's safety record

has not changed at all; it is as good this year as it was last year,

yet his assessment has tripled and quadrupled, and in some cases is

five times higher than in the previous year. I also mentioned that we

have no intention of trying to alter benefit payments for those

injured, those diseased, etc.

I should also point out that I

was putting this remark on the record to echo the sentiments of the

independent truck loggers. I met with about 30 of them, and they are

very concerned about their livelihood and the livelihoods of the

hundreds of people who work for them. I think this

section of the bill

will enable many of them to stay working and in business. It's a

short-term bill, as has been pointed out many times. If the Workers

Compensation Board has to live within these guidelines for a short

period until the economy of the forest industry turns around, I think

that will be a good thing.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I

listened with some dismay to the comments made by the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). I guess that member has not yet got the

message that constraint is necessary in all endeavours in British

Columbia, that some difficult economic times exist not only for

government but for people in all sectors of our economy. He seems to

think only two factors go into determining what Workers Compensation

Board levies must be: the money coming in and the claims paid out.

There is another very big factor: the cost of running a workers'

compensation board in British Columbia. By constraining their revenues,

perhaps we can enforce some efficiencies in that organization so that

funds can be saved.

As the members know, I worked for a

number of years for the inspection branch of the Ministry of Mines and

Petroleum Resources in British Columbia, where we were amazed at the

seemingly bottomless pit of money that the Workers Compensation Board

had to pay out in the operation of their business. Certainly there are

many efficiencies that could be

[ Page 9579 ]

brought

into their operation, which would have no detrimental effect whatsoever

on the safety of workers in the workplace or on the amounts of money

paid out to claimants under the Workers Compensation Act. If all we

accomplish by doing this is to force some semblance of efficiency on

the Workers Compensation Board, that in itself would be very worthwhile.

I must reject the amendment and I support the bill as it stands.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

Macdonald

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Sanford

Skelly

Lockstead

D'Arcy

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Howard

NAYS — 27

Chabot

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Segarty

Waterland

Rogers

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Smith

Hewitt

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Jordan

Ree

Hyndman

Mussallem

Davis

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See

appendix.] I think the committee will appreciate the need for the

amendment. It adds the words "including any interim rate level in

place" after the words "rate level" appearing on the fifth line of the

section.

Amendment approved.

section 2 as amended.

MR. STUPICH: I move the amendment to line 13 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

was intrigued when the Minister of Finance was responding to the

comments that were being made with respect to

section 1. He kept saying

that perhaps some of this argument would be more appropriate in

section

2. It led me to believe that maybe he would have some response to these

arguments in

section 2 that he thought wasn't appropriate in

section 1,

and I wonder if he wants to say anything at this point.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

With respect to the amendment, perhaps I did not convey completely or

accurately what I had in mind. I expected that there would be further

debate on

section 2. The member was not in for much of the debate on

section 1, but perhaps he was listening. We did have quite a spirited

debate, and I don't want to reflect on that vote. The government does

not accept the amendment proposed by the member for Nanaimo. I refer to

line 13,

section 2, the deletion of the words "Workers Compensation

Board."

MR. STUPICH: Just to clarify, I did move the

amendment to line 13 first because if this fails I intend not to move

the other amendments. The situation with respect to the Workers

Compensation Board is so bad in the event that this legislation is

implemented that I wouldn't want to proceed with the other amendments.

So I am moving this amendment. I'm not sure whether any of my

colleagues want to discuss it any further. I thought the arguments were

very well raised during the debate that I listened in to. I also

though, the arguments were much better than the responses. At this

point, all I can say is that I do wish the minister would delete the

reference to the Workers Compensation Board. I can't put the case any

better than it has been made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the

amendment, the Chair will recognize the member for Skeena. First of

all, I'll clarify two things for the record. The amendment as proposed

by the hon. member is in order, but the Chair must observe that it is a

companion amendment to another amendment that has failed. Perhaps

debate could be brief.

MR. HOWARD: What do you mean by that, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

We could be offending standing orders, which advise us against tedious

repetition, hon. member. That is my only comment and only an

observation to the committee.

MR. HOWARD: We

certainly wouldn't do that. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

might — he's noted for that kind of activity — but we wouldn't.

Over

quite a number of years the Workers Compensation Board has been

building up and increasing the amount of unfunded liability with

respect to pensions. It has been increasing year after year. The reason

that it has been increasing is that the board has not been levying

assessments appropriate to the injuries caused and the demands that

those injuries will place on the fund for pensionable earnings and

pensionable income in future years. That has been happening

consistently, whether times were good or times were bad. One would

expect, in a period of high economic activity with lots of money

rolling in, when industry has so much money that they don't know what

to do with it, that the board would have looked at it and said: "Now we

can move to reduce some of this unfunded liability." But it didn't do

it and it's now to the level of some $500 million: at least, that is

how I read what the Workers Compensation Board itself has set.

Insistently,

Mr. Chairman, over that same period of time, particularly over the last

six years, different employers' groups, and maybe even individual

employers, have made the case to this government — and have made the case

and the argument publicly, but have made representations to this

government — that the amount of that unfunded liability of

[ Page 9580 ]

$500

million should be covered out of the public purse. Employers have made

those arguments. This government has on record in its files letters and

correspondence, documentation to that effect. It's a case that has been

pushed for quite some time. The Provincial Secretary knows that. He's

seen some of that correspondence, and maybe even participated in the

discussion with employers' groups. They said to him: "Look, the

unfunded liability can't be covered by industry, it's got to be covered

from the public treasury;" in other words, a tax load upon the people

of this province to pay for injuries caused to workmen working in

workplaces...where the employer — or groups of employers, where a

group assessment existed — should have taken place.

The

evidence given to this committee earlier by the Minister of Tourism

(Hon. Mr. Richmond) and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland),

both of whom are conspicuous at this moment by their absence from the

chamber, indicates that that's the direction in which this government

is going. It is not interested, apparently, in having industry, which

is responsible under the Workers Compensation Act for providing

sufficient funds to pay pensions for workmen injured in the

workplace.... It is not interested in covering it in that fashion;

it's interested in giving in to the pressure of various employers'

groups, much of it presented in private to this government that's

giving in to that pressure. We will see the taxpayers of this province

picking up the tab for that unfunded liability if this government

either has its way or continues in office. I think that has to be put

on the record as a countering comment to the inaccurate information

given to the House by the Minister of Forests, and the very accurate

information given to the House by the Minister of Tourism when he

stated the purpose of this particular amendment.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Chairman, I'm rising to speak against this amendment. We've heard

arguments this morning dealing with benefits, and heard the incorrect,

uninformed expressions of opinion from the members of the opposition on

the backs of the workers of this province, saying they won't get their

benefits. They brought their argument that the families of the workers

will be affected, and the working working people will be affected by

decreases in the standard of benefits. One comment was that those

people who rely on WCB for their benefits would be affected in such a

way that they could not meet their living expenses.

The

standards of protection, which have been mentioned time and time again

by the Minister of Finance and others, are not to be changed, and that

should again be for the record. I'm only repeating what the Minister of

Tourism has said, what the Minister of Finance has said, and what the

Minister of Forests has said. We must recognize that this is a

short-term interim measure, no different from that for other Crown

corporations and the Crown agencies mentioned in this bill. It's a

challenge to those corporations and those commissions, in this case the

workers compensation commission. It says to them: "Maintain your

assessments within reason on this short-term basis." It doesn't say

anywhere in here that benefits to employees are going to be changed.

find it very disconcerting on this side of the House to listen to the

balderdash that comes from the member for Skeena and the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke. They use the people, and it's not right, Mr.

Chairman. It's unfair to the public of this province to hear that type

of debate. If they want to argue the point as to whether or not you

change the assessment or you should maintain the current assessment,

I'll accept that, but don't ride on the backs of the working people,

the injured and the sick in this province. You do it time and time

again, and it's unfair to the people of this province to hear that type

of business.

Let's look at the rationale of why we're

putting this short-term measure into place. The Minister of Tourism was

dead on. He said that the truck loggers whom he talked to have had

excellent records of safety on the job. They haven't had an increase in

the frequency of accidents or in the cost of accidents, but they've

seen their assessment go up and up. In this particular period of time,

when their revenues are down or almost non-existent, we as government

are saying to the WCB: "Keep your assessment within reason, because the

people who pay the bill — employers, small businessmen, truck loggers —

can't afford to pay the bill. So this year we give you at the Workers

Compensation Board a challenge to keep your increase within reason,

because the man who has to pay the bill in the end can't afford it.

Look to efficiencies to achieve that goal." It's the same with ICBC:

the challenge went out to them. They don't control the accident rate —

but let's look to efficiencies and how we can do it. The WCB has been

asked to do the same thing: try to achieve the goal of no more than a 6

percent increase.

It is a short-term measure and, as the

members across the floor know, it specifies right in the bill that it's

for the next 12 months. It is reassuring to those employers — truck

loggers and other small businessmen — who look at their

revenues.... If we can give them some reassurance that we're not

going to hit them again and again with massive increases, maybe they

can survive the short-term downturn in the economy; then, as their

revenues increase, they can look forward to meeting the costs if their

safety record indicates that they should pay more. They're the guys out

there — the small businessmen and the truck loggers, as mentioned by

the Minister of Tourism — who pay the cheques to the employees. If they

aren't there, Mr. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) — and you don't seem

to understand this — they don't pay the employees' cheques, because

they're out of business and their employees are out of work. One thing

happens then, I guess, and that is that they aren't exposed to

accidents on the job. Maybe that's what you'd like: everybody to go out

of business so there is no risk of accident on the job. Is that what

you want? Would that satisfy you? It probably would, because then you

would think that the government would take care of everybody. You still

don't understand that the government only pays out what it takes in

from an economy that is working. You must recognize that, Mr. Member

for Skeena. It's very difficult to get that message across to

you....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for straying off the particular amendment.

The

point I want to make is that it is a short-term measure. It is put into

place to give assistance to those people who in the end pick up the

tab. I think that not only the employers out there who pick up the tab

but also the employees who work for them should say: "Thank you for a

job well done. You've given my employer some breathing space during

which he can recover."

I guess the key to all this, in meeting this challenge, is that the Workers Compensation Board — its staff, employers and

[ Page 9581 ]

employees

— should look at how to educate the employee or the employer on how to

make the workplace a safer place to live. If we can do that, maybe we

can see some reduction in the cost of workers' compensation premiums,

because we've made the workplace safer.

I support my

colleagues, the Minister of Tourism, the Minister of Forests and the

Minister of Finance. In speaking out against the previous amendment and

this amendment. In trying to put these amendments forward, all that the

opposition has attempted to do is play politics, present their

arguments on the backs of the working people of this province. I'm

against this amendment.

MR. HOWARD: The Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs just now said that he wants to see a

move in the direction of making the workplace a safer place to live.

What does he mean by that kind of insulting remark? Obviously he thinks

that people sleep on the job instead of work on the job. In any event,

it indicates how little he and the minister know about it, especially

when he referred to the Workers Compensation Board as the Workers

Compensation Commission. I think it should go on the record, indicating

that the minister is completely out of touch with reality, talking

froth and foam, hopefully to assist the Minister of Finance in this

shortsighted, not short-term, legislation. If I could put a word to the

Minister of Finance, through you, Mr. Chairman, you'd be better off

without that backbench help from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members,

I'll remind the committee once again that personal allusions and

reflections on a member are not permitted. All members of the committee

are aware of that, Perhaps we can return to some relevant debate.

MR. STUPICH:

I didn't intend to go any further on this, but to hear the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs try to do away with the arguments raised

by the members of the opposition by saying, "That's balderdash; they're

ill informed," and that we're simply playing politics.... I would

suggest to him that the people speaking on this side of the House in

this debate know a good deal more about Workers Compensation Board

problems than does a Toronto-born accountant. Certainly the debate in

this House so far would indicate that to be the case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again, hon. members, personal reflections are not necessary and are not relevant.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I take away the statement that he's an accountant.

wonder if that minister would consider the remarks on the Workers

Compensation Board from the WCB chairman, Art Gibbons, to be

ill-informed — if he would consider those to be the remarks from an

ill-informed person who is simply playing politics. Certainly he had

something to say about the subject as quoted in the Province , Friday,

October 1:

"A government decision to restrict next year's WCB rate

hikes to 6 percent will add at least another $14 million to the deficit. Gibbons

said continued uncertainty over the extent of the proposed 6 percent limit is

extremely frustrating and makes the planning of board operations difficult.

"At the same time, Vancouver lawyer Craig Patterson,

who specializes in compensation cases" — that certainly doesn't

indicate that he's ill-informed on the subject. Mr. Chairman: it would

indicate to me that he has had some dealings with Workers Compensation

Board problems — "said the deficit undoubtedly would skyrocket because

of the assessment restrictions. He said this would have a chilling

effect on decisions by WCB claims' officers."

That's

the concern we have on this side of the House. It's not the concerned

voice of people who are ill-informed, who lack information, who are

playing politics; it's the voice from people who are concerned about

the effect of this on the whole working of the Workers Compensation

Board and in particular upon the claimants. That's why we moved this

amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

NAYS — 27

Chabot

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Waterland

Rogers

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Smith

Hewitt

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Jordan

Ree

Hyndman

Mussallem

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Environment on a point of order.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Could I have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Today in Victoria a group of people are having a convention. One of

them is my former boss, and he's in the gallery. The group is the

Canadian Association of Retired Aviators, who will be meeting this

evening, at the Empress Hotel. I'd like to introduce Captain Art

Adamson, Captain Bill Marr and Captain Russell, all of whom are in the

gallery. There are more, but I don't recognize all the faces right now.

I'll also make an introduction at 2 o'clock. when I expect even more of

their illustrious members to be here. They've invited me to join them

tonight — I don't think there's a secret message in there. Thank you.

[ Page 9582 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

On a point of order, I was just wondering about the division list that

was read out. Only 19 members of the opposition voted, and I'm sure

that there must be more than them around....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order please. That is not a point of order. The division lists were

read out, recording was asked for, and the record stands for itself.

MR. HOWARD:

The opposition knew that the government was going to vote against

workers' compensation probably, and they thought: "Why waste our time?"

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, both points of order are not points of order.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest to the minister's boss that he keep the job open.

With

respect to

Section 2, I indicated earlier I would not move the

remaining amendments because it would not be consistent with the

arguments we've made with respect to the Workers Compensation Board.

However, I would like to ask the minister: since the wording in this

section is entirely permissive, what authority does this legislation

give him in this

section that he didn't have without this legislation?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I'm pleased that the hon. member for Nanaimo has raised the point,

because.... It was dealt with in second reading. We were quite

clearly advised that in a number of areas, without this legislation, an

order-in-council would fail. That does not apply across the board in all

matters dealt with in

section 2, but is sufficient to have indicated

that the need for legislation was quite clear. I trust that answers the

member's question.

MR. STUPICH: It does in the legal

sense, but may I ask the minister: is the cabinet not represented on

every one of these authorities with one or more cabinet members? Is

there not message-bearing back and forth? Does the cabinet not in fact

have control over these situations, even though the legal advice may be

that an order-in-council, as such, would fail if the board of

directors had the temerity to disagree with the cabinet will?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Specifically, the cabinet is not represented on all of the agencies or

Crown corporations listed here. One in particular has been the subject

of relatively lengthy debate this morning. At the same time, the

message, I think, which we wish to carry in this message bill is one

which we wanted to be absolutely upfront with with the public of the

province, with the people we serve, with the chairmen, directors and

senior management of the several corporations concerned. Quite apart

from the legal necessity for this legislation, on the basis of our

legislative counsel and advisers, we also wanted to highlight it in

order that that which we are frequently accused of — that is, decisions

made in the closeted secrecy of cabinet and in the closed

boardrooms.... We wanted to be very upfront with this legislation.

That is why it is before us.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to hold it up any longer.

What I heard the minister saying was that it is really an illustration of deathbed

repentance. Having increased most user rates by something like 50 percent, having

increased all of the other government services and fees of one kind or another

— we don't have a better figure yet, but it's estimated that it will

bring in an extra half billion dollars this year from taxpayers — they've

now said that they've gone so far and they're not going to go any further

for a little while, and this is our insurance that we won't.

MRS. WALLACE:

I get a bit perturbed when I hear the minister talking about this being

upfront. Certainly that's exactly what this bill is: a piece of

political manoeuvring to get this in front of the public at a time when

they're planning an election. I know just how direct the controls of

expenditures were in the years that I worked with budgets at B.C.

Hydro. The government laid it on, and we had to follow those

directions. It came right out of cabinet. I remember the kind of

directions we received during the Columbia River fiasco as a result of

cabinet decisions on how our financing would be accounted for. We were

asked to raise special job orders to charge out to any unexpended or

underexpended accounts that we happened to have so that that money

could be funnelled into Columbia River. That was a direct order out of

cabinet. Those are the kinds of things that the government has always

been able to do with Hydro and with all these organizations. This is

nothing but a political piece of legislation for partisan political

purposes. It really bothers me that the government can come out with

this kind of a bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I

would just say with all kindness to the member for Cowichan-Malahat

(Mrs. Wallace) that times have changed with respect to B.C. Hydro. I

indicated the Workers Compensation Board. In answering the earlier

question posed by the member for Nanaimo, I neglected to mention that

clearly, if you would examine the municipalities and regional districts

with respect to rates imposed under British Columbia Transit, that is

yet another example of where there is not direct control available to

the executive council.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill

81, Rate Increase Restraint Act, reported complete with amendments to

be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Divisions ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mr. Gardom tabled the discussion proposal for a new expropriation act.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 89, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 9583 ]

SCHOOL SERVICES (INTERIM) ACT

(continued)

MR. HOWARD:

This bill, probably more than any other that we have seen, is a

political bill, drafted in political terminology and phrases and not

drafted in the normal, standard legalese used by learned gentlemen who

draft legislation. It's a bill prepared by those evil geniuses in the

Premier's office rather than by people in the Ministry of Education.

Let

me relate a story to you. Mr. Speaker, a week ago this past Sunday,

before the bill was introduced, I had occasion to speak with someone in

the government service who knew what was going on. He said: "If you

think what the Minister of Education" — he used his name — "has done to

education so far, wait till you see what Bill Bennett is going to do to

it."

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Some undisclosed secret source making up stories?

MR. HOWARD:

Well, I know the minister would like me to tell him who told me that

information, because the first thing the Minister of Forests would do

would be to jump on that public servant and have him fired. He wants me

to disclose sources of information so he can visit upon defenceless

public servants the full force of his office — just the same as his

government has done to other people in the public service who dared to

activities.

That's what I was told: "If you think Vander

Zalm has dealt unfairly with education, wait until you see what Bennett

does to it."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MR. HOWARD: I quote what the person told me.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member. I appreciate that, but we have certain rules that we must abide by, and one of them is that....

MR. HOWARD:

All right. I am prohibited then from reading a letter in which the

names of those two gentlemen are included. You see, it's a....

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate that, hon. member, but reference....

MR. HOWARD:

This is what the person told me. That was a week ago Sunday — before

the bill was introduced — from somebody in the inside who knew what was

happening.

It is a political document. Read the phrases in

it. It talks about such things as quality and diversity — beautiful

phrases, not found in law, not found in a statute, nothing unless you

identify what you mean by quality of education. It's of no consequence

in a legal sense or in an interpretative sense of a statute if you

don't identify in the statute what is meant by diversity of education.

In this particular bill, there is no such interpretative

section that

tells you what quality and diversity means. It's unclear. It's

political declaration, which is fine as long as we recognize what it is.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

understand — reading a portion of the bill — that the

definitions in

the School Act and the regulations apply to this act. The School Act in

its definition has no indication about what quality or diversity of

education is. No. Mr. Speaker, it's a political document written by a

politician for crass, partisan, immediate political purposes —

hoped-for political purposes. It didn't come off.

The

political purpose was to divide. They would have such a state of

division out there they would have allies on one side but not allies on

the other, and the government would be able to move in and function in

that kind of atmosphere and expect some support. Mr. Speaker, the

minister probably knows this better than anyone else, but that's one of

the things that the communist party does and that the communist forces

like to function on: chaos, misery, turmoil — and then they come along

as the saviours. In this instance we've got the chaos, the misery and

the turmoil created by the same guy who hopes to benefit by it.

said yesterday that I intended to relate something to the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and how he

has contributed to this. We're talking about a S60 million cutback in

school board budgets, a $60 million cutback in funds normally available

from the government to school boards. Why $60 million — an arbitrary

figure? Is that what the Minister of Finance told us — "you can't have

$60 million" — or what? Let me tell you why it's $60 million. Let me

tell you, Mr. Speaker, the reason for at least $45 million of that $60

million; let's set this out in clear, simple terms.

On March

31 this year, in order to cover up the real costs of northeast coal; in

order to cover the fact that the taxpayers of this province are going

to subsidize the Japanese steel industry and provide jobs for workers

in Japan in the steel industry; in order to cover that up, the Minister

of Industry and Small Business Development on March 31 spirited $45

million out of the public treasury. He wrote a cheque and sent it over

to B.C. Rail on March 31. Never mind what B.C. Rail did with it. They

didn't know what to do with it, because they did not get a covering

letter to say what it was for. Here the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development, intent upon covering up the subsidy that the

taxpayers of this province are making to northeast coal and the

Japanese steel industry, took $45 million out of the public treasury —

took it away and gave it to B.C. Rail. They're $45 million short that

way.

July, along comes the Minister of Education, who

says: "Hey, we're short that $45 million. I wish I had it." He didn't

have it. because it had been given away to B.C. Rail. If he'd had the

$45 million, for argument's sake, that he, the current Minister of

Education — he wasn't the minister then — approved to send to B.C.

Rail, he would't have had to be looking for $60 million here. He could

have found the extra $15 million, and there would not have been any

cutbacks in education or any chaos created and added to or any turmoil

developed within the educational system.

Who's going to pay

for that? School kids, who need to have the best possible education

they can get, and school boards through the turmoil and confusion

that's existed in school boards. I've talked to school board managers,

secretary-treasurers who have done nothing this year except try to

rework their budgets as demanded by the provincial government. They

haven't had time to deal with what they are charged to deal with;

namely, the administration of the delivery services of education. No

wonder they get frustrated.

[ Page 9584 ]

Another order comes along every week: change this, work that out, do something

else. The ones I've spoken with have gotten to the stage of being fed up

with the intrusion. Education is suffering because those administrators and

the school boards themselves have had to put their regular, normal commitment

about the delivery of educational services to one side, all to rework their

finances as demanded by the minister.

Education

demands some careful, rational thought. It demands planning,

coordination and projections into the future as to what we expect will

accrue to children who start at kindergarten, grade 1 or even

preschool. What do we expect will accrue to those children when they

get through their education, at whatever level it might be that they

decide that that's enough and they have reached their objective? That

requires preparation, coordination and planning. It requires long-term

concern and commitment. It requires a philosophic commitment towards

education, ourselves and to our society. That is virtually

non-existent, and has been virtually non-existent in this province

because of actions of this government, going back over quite a number

of years.

In 1975, before this government came to office, we

had an election campaign. Social Credit — that amalgam of the flotsam

and jetsam and leftovers of other political parties like the Liberals

and the Conservatives and the hangers-on and everybody else who wanted

to get in on the act, or sell out their own party — ran an election

campaign. Even the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who at

one time cuddled up to Pierre Trudeau — we have pictures showing that —

felt it was better to divorce himself from Trudeau. I don't blame him.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You lost in '75 and '79, and you're going to lose again.

MR. HOWARD:

We lost in '75, you said. Yes. And the Social Credit government won in

'75. One of the reasons that Social Credit won, Mr. Speaker, is that

they told a lot of falsehoods to the people. That's one of the reasons

Social Credit won. Falsehoods! Here's the 1975 policy of Social Credit

— that conspiracy of anti-democratic forces. This is what they would

do. "We would return authority to local school boards."

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: That's right. Point number one.

"We in the British Columbia Social Credit Party believe

that meaningful educational policies can only be developed in cooperation with

local school boards."

Vote for us and we'll have cooperation, they said. The first thing they

did was appoint that brain from the University of British Columbia as the Minister

of Education — Dr. McGeer. He did more to injure education in this province

than all the Ministers of Education put together since we entered Confederation

— if we had them in 1871. That's the first thing they did.

"It can only be developed in cooperation with local school

boards. After all" — and this is in italics, drawn to your attention so

that it leaps out at you out of this election leaflet of 1975 — "the local

school trustees have been elected by the people of their own area. They know

the area and they're responsive. We would therefore return authority to

local school boards."

Now they're taking it away, not returning it. And it's this kind of

falsehood that was presented to the electorate by the Social Credit Party and

people.... I can't mention his name, Mr. Chairman; that's contrary

to the rules. I'll read it:

"The following is a copy of Blurp, Blurp Talks About Education."

Blurp-blurp currently holds a seat in this Legislature. Blurp-Blurp comes

from Kelowna; he talks about education. This is the statement of the leader

of the Social Credit Party in 1975. It goes along on that kind of theme. How

they would increase direct payments, decrease costs, decentralize bureaucracy,

return things to the local level — "better quality of education for our

young people," etc. Now that's 1975.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member should be advised that his time is nearing the end.

MR. HOWARD:

I'm keeping my eye on the lights. I have to watch those, like traffic

signals, and they don't indicate to me what you were saying just now.

Here's a letter from Brian Matheson, chairman of the board of school trustees.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I advise the hon. member that the lights went on by mistake. There is more time for your speech.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, obviously the government has got control of the lights.

They go on by mistake. That's the whole function of this government —

whatever it does it does by mistake. We're dealing with a bill here

that can't be classified as a mistake. It's a deliberate intrusion.

Here's

what School District 19 says: "Our district staff had to set aside much

of its normal educationally-oriented workload to deal with this

government-generated crisis." That's not me speaking; I'm quoting from

a letter from Brian Matheson, chairman of the board of school trustees,

addressed to the Hon. Blurp-Blurp-Blurp — I can't mention his name —

Minister of Education. In case there is any doubt, it goes to Victoria.

It says: Dear Mr. Blurp-blurp-blurp.... Financial

resources, school districts." The letter goes on at some length: "In

summary, the board was not pleased with your ministry's management of

restraint. We recognize the need to live within our means. We also

believe we have a responsibility to our public and our employees...that

we will honour our commitments and deliver a service commensurate

with our public mandate" etc. I have letters like that from school

districts in my constituency, all saying substantially the same thing —

namely, that this bill is a political document, written by evil

geniuses in the Premier's office, if not by the Premier himself; that

it places education in jeopardy; that it attacks school children and

their possibility of acquiring a meaningful education. It does nothing

in any substantive way to get us on the road to paying attention to

that which we are all committed, at least on this side of the House: an

educational system of which all British Columbians can be proud.

They

are not now proud of the educational system, because there have been

politically oriented intrusions into the delivery of education. They

are not proud of it, because school boards — witness the letter I just

read, and many other letters of that nature exist.... They are not

proud of it, because they see their school boards having to spend all

their time reworking their budgets, as demanded by the ministry I don't

know how many times this year. They are not proud of the type of

educational system that we have, because they see

[ Page 9585 ]

school

boards being forced to put aside their normal commitments to the

quality of education in this province, in order to deal with the

demands placed on them by a government that has scant interest in a

decent educational system in this province. The people in this province

are not proud of the educational system when they see the attempt,

through this bill, to foment trouble and discord between teachers and

school boards, of an attempt being made through this bill to develop

lack of harmony and disharmonious relationships between parents and

teachers and between parents and school boards. That's why they are not

proud of it. That's why I couldn't possibly vote for this particular

bill.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's certainly been a

pleasant change to see the opposition get up and take

part in the

debate for the last day, and for just a little now. Certainly up until

Friday it appeared as if they not only wanted to avoid debate, but

wanted to see the bill passed without their really being attached to

its passage in any way. I guess they got the message over the weekend

from the BCTF, saying: "Look, fellows. Get into the debate. We have to

hear you say that in fact you side with us, the BCTF. In our attempts

to kill the bill so that we'll not have to participate and contribute

to the restraint program in any way, shape or form."

suppose what we saw yesterday and again today was a plea by the members

opposite, on behalf of the BCTF and from the people of British

Columbia, for more money, which the people of British Columbia

unfortunately don't have, but which the opposition wishes not to

recognize. It's certainly good, however, to have them come out in the

open and see that given the choice between the BCTF or the people of

British Columbia and a reasonable approach to restraint and an economic

recovery in British Columbia, they'll give in to the pressures put on

them over the weekend and side with the BCTF.

I want to

continue this debate, Mr. Speaker. However, as we've run out of time. I

move we adjourn the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

81 The Hon. H. A. Curtis to move, in Committee of the Whole on

Bill (No. 81) intituled Rate Increase Restraint Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 2 , by adding, "including any interim rate level, in place"

after "rate level

81 Mr. Stupich to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 81) intituled

Rate Increase Restraint Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 1 , line 2, delete the words "workers' compensation''.

SECTION 2 , line 2, delete the word "may" and substitute therefore

the word "shall".

SECTION 2 , lines 3 and 4, delete the words "one or more".

SECTION 2 , line 13, delete the words "Workers' Compensation

Board."

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada