1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 29, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6471 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Labour dispute at Insurance Corporation. Mr. Hall –– 6471

Ministry of Tourism automobiles. Mr. Hall –– 6472

International Year of the Disabled grants. Ms. Brown –– 6472

Government employment of George Lenko. Hon. Mr. Wolfe replies –– 6472

College funding. Mr. Stupich –– 6473

Conversion of Barclay St. apartments. Hon. Mr. Hyndman replies –– 6473

Tabling Documents

BCSC annual report for the year ending March 31, 1981

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 6474

Metro Transit Operating Company annual report for the year 1980-81.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 6474

Civil Rights Protection Act (Bill 32). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6474

Mr. Barnes –– 6475

Mr. Barrett –– 6476

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6476

Civil Rights Protection Act (Bill 32). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

section 2 –– 6477

Mr. Lauk

Third reading –– 6477

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No –– 2) 1981 (Bill 31). Second reading.

Mr. Barrett –– 6477

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6479

Provincial Debt Repayment Act (Bill 14). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

section 1 –– 6479

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Nicolson

Division

Third reading –– 6480

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

On vote 140: minister's office –– 6481

Mr. Hall

Mrs. Wallace

Ms. Sanford

Division on an amendment

On vote 141: ministerial management and policy development –– 6489

Ms. Sanford

On the amendment to vote 141 –– 6489

Ms. Brown

Division on the amendment

On vote 142: industrial relations and occupational safety –– 6489

Ms. Sanford

On the amendment to vote 142 –– 6489

Ms. Brown

Division on the amendment

On vote 143: manpower –– 6490

Ms. Sanford

Division on an amendment

Mr. Nicolson

On vote 147: building occupancy charges –– 6490

Ms. Sanford

Division on an amendment

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations estimates. (Hon. Mr.

Gardom)

On vote 137: minister's office –– 6491

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Mr. Hall

Tabling Documents

Auditor-General's annual return for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1981

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 6491

Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act. Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading –– 6491

An Act To Amend The Guaranteed Available Income For Need Act. Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading –– 6491

Erratum –– 6492

Appendix –– 6492

MONDAY, JUNE 29, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would like to

ask this assembly to join me today in asking you, Mr. Speaker, to

convey our deepest sympathy to the family of that outstanding and

courageous young Canadian, Terry Fox. Following my remarks and those of

the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I further request that all members

observe a few moments' silence in tribute to Terry Fox's memory.

might say that not just British Columbians but all Canadians are very

proud of Terry, and they are also proud of this family. The

difficulties he experienced and the courage he displayed must certainly

be attributes that he learned from his family. For their courage in

helping him cope with his illness and their determination to encourage

him when he chose to inspire all Canadians to find their conscience in

fighting cancer, certainly all of us should be proud of the whole Fox

family.

When I learned of Terry's death, like every other

Canadian, I was saddened, yet it made me think of a few lines from a

song that was made popular a few years ago. It went something like

this: "You light up my life; you give me hope to carry on." Terry

certainly lit up every Canadian's life with pride. He set an example

for every Canadian, young and old. In a country where quite often we

are so well blessed that it's our nature to be petty and critical and

sometimes bitter, he gave us a larger perspective of life. I think of

thousands of sufferers of the dreaded disease, cancer, to whom Terry's

determination and courage gave hope to carry on. His fight wasn't just

against cancer but against all disease. He touched the heart of

Canadians in a way that no one has before nor, I believe, will in the

future. They rediscovered their generosity and concern for one another

and responded in a monetary way with millions of dollars; they also

responded in a human way, which is far more worthwhile for them.

Terry

has passed away and his spirit is living on. I think it would be timely

if all the young people in this country examined their own motives and

standards against those set by Terry Fox, and it might be a way in

which they could guide their lives in the future. Families should

re-examine the way they live and work together in light of the courage

displayed by the Fox family. Perhaps that also will be a worthwhile

memorial to Terry Fox, for Terry Fox has taught us all a lessen in

humility, determination and raw courage, and we must not fail him.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I can't think of another time when so many words have been

spread across this nation — and perhaps North America — related to one

person. It is very unusual for one so young to have accomplished so

much. To me the most lasting memory of young Terry Fox will be his

commitment to the dignity of the human spirit. The particular struggle

this young man had with a crippling disease became a focus for his

extending his life beyond his particular personal problem, and it

became a challenge for all of us to examine our own course in life and

our own influence on ourselves and people around us.

At a time when we fear many things in this world and are unsure of anything

beyond this world, it is important that we examine our own faiths, commitments

and philosophies about life and the purpose of life. That young man had no problem

in defining his purpose in life; that young man demonstrated that there is hope

in life, that there are challenges that can be overcome and that the purpose

of existence is obviously beyond anything we can gain materially. My memories

of Terry Fox will be those of a young man, clean, pure and simple, committed

to restoring faith in the dignity of humankind. In such a short period of time,

his message went beyond any nation and any continent — it was universal.

There

is in our Judaeo-Christian heritage a joy in death. I would think that

Terry Fox would ask us to examine that joy in death today, with a

commitment to tomorrow and the future. All of us, young and old, have

missed something that that young boy had in his short life. We have a

commitment to attain that goal that he attained. I want to echo the

Premier's statements to the parents, to the medical staff and to his

friends. The parents, Dr. Antonik, Dr. Heffelfinger and that whole

community gave an expression of love to Terry Fox that was unequalled.

There's nothing more that any of us can say except a public commitment

that we shall never forget the simplicity, the sincerity and the

dignity of that young man and his statement about life that meant so

much to all of us.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall we all rise for 60 seconds?

The House observed a one-minute silence.

Oral Questions

LABOUR DISPUTE AT

INSURANCE CORPORATION

MR. HALL: I'd like to address a

question to the Minister of Labour. The ICBC labour dispute has now

gone on for 150 days. Could the minister advise the House if he has

acted personally at any time to achieve a solution in this dispute, as

on several occasions he requested his federal counterpart, Mr. Regan,

to intervene in the B.C. Tel dispute?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, the problem in the ICBC dispute closely parallels a

difficulty which occurred approximately five years ago. In that

particular dispute, with respect to time, the union requested the

appointment of an industrial inquiry commissioner. Such an appointment

is very seldom made, unless there is the consent of both parties. In

that particular case, the management did not feel it was appropriate. I

can advise the House that extensive meetings have occurred and are

presently occurring. The last memorandum on my desk, the contents of

which am not at liberty to disclose, would indicate that the parties

have come a considerable distance within the last 72 hours.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, the minister, in a somewhat circuitous answer, indicates

he has not acted personally in this dispute, as he asked his federal

counterpart to do.

I have a supplementary question for the

minister responsible for ICBC. There is substantial evidence that

additional costs are being paid by ICBC because adjusters are not able

to check repair costs. Has the corporation in any way double-checked on

these repair estimates which are being done without ICBC personnel

checking costs?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the member that the approximately 200 management people who

[ Page 6472 ]

are

attempting to provide service to the motoring public are doing the best

they can to ensure that claims estimates are realistic. Secondly, if,

as he indicates, the member has evidence, would he please provide me

with it? We will take the necessary action to correct the matter.

MR. HALL:

Would the same minister, responsible for ICBC, advise why the board of

ICBC refused to arbitrate the final two items in the dispute so that a

settlement could have been achieved some weeks ago?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

There is a negotiating team, if you will, of management that meets with

the union negotiating team, and those matters are discussed between

those two groups. Any issues that are resolved are resolved between

those two bodies and not with the board of directors of ICBC.

MR. HALL:

Again to the same minister, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister compiled in a

study, in his capacity as a member of the board of ICBC, or has he

information he could give to the House regarding the loss of skilled

personnel to the corporation? If so, and if there is such a study,

could he tell the House how many skilled people have been lost to the

corporation as a result of this dispute to date?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Speaker, I don't have that detail with me. I'll be glad to take the question as notice.

MINISTRY OF TOURISM AUTOMOBILES

MR. HALL:

I have a question for the Minister of Tourism, Mr. Speaker. On May 27

this year I asked the minister a few questions about automobiles used

by the ministry: the number, the insignia on the automobiles and so on.

I'm sure the minister remembers, and she will probably remember taking

the questions as notice on May 27. My question today is this: has the

minister now decided to respond to those questions taken as notice on

May 27?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Hon. member, I'm sure you

will forgive me; I have a bit of laryngitis. I'm glad you asked that

question. I have the answer: there are 25 vehicles in the Ministry of

Tourism fleet. There are 23 vehicles in the Ministry of Tourism, with

the Tourism colors and markings. There is one vehicle in Victoria which

is not painted with the Tourism colors and markings; this vehicle is

assigned to the Minister of Tourism. There is a second unmarked vehicle

located in Vancouver which is used by the ministry and other senior

officials of the ministry on special assignment.

MR. HALL:

Can the minister confirm that people who were not employees of her

ministry were allowed to make use of those government automobiles?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: To be the best of my knowledge, no one who hasn't been especially assigned the use of the vehicles has ever used them.

MR. HALL:

This is my last question to the minister. Can the minister confirm that

one of the vehicles has recently been transferred from Vernon to

Victoria?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: No.

INTERNATIONAL YEAR

OF THE DISABLED GRANTS

MS. BROWN: I have a question

for the Minister of Education. Can the minister advise the House why

the grants programs for the International Year of Disabled Persons,

announced by the minister on December 19, 1980, and again on February

25, 1981, has been reduced from the $3 million to now only $2.35

million, as was announced on June 19, 1981?

HON. MR. SMITH:

I can bring some figures back to the member, but the $3 million was a

total amount that was put into the International Year of Disabled

Persons program. All of that will not be distributed by grants. It will

be less than that. Some money will be spent for administration and

public education. I can give the member the details of that later.

MS. BROWN:

Can the minister confirm that he has received requests for $12 million

in grants to be handled out of this $3 million program which was to

commemorate the International Year of Disabled Persons?

HON. MR. SMITH:

No, I can't confirm that. The member may be right. I certainly know

that it was a very healthy spate of applications. I can't confirm the

exact amount. I will be receiving the recommendations of the committee

for the International Year of Disabled Persons very shortly. Again, I

will confirm what the total figure of applications was. She may well be

right.

MS. BROWN: Can the minister assure the House

that all of the colleges and provincial institutions with programs for

disabled persons will be able to at least maintain those programs in

September 1981?

HON. MR. SMITH: A number of colleges

will be putting on different and expanded programs, certainly in the

field of the adult handicapped. Some programs may be changed and

altered as the boards of the colleges and institutes see fit. I can't

give any such guarantee. I don't have the power to do so. It is

certainly true that one of the priorities this year that we placed in

the funding of the colleges was handicapped education. The councils who

allocate the money and the boards who run the colleges have taken that

into account.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I wanted to respond to a question I took on notice.

MR. SPEAKER: In question period?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes.

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT

OF GEORGE LENKO

HON. MR. WOLFE: Regarding George

Lenko and his departure from his previous position, the second member

for Surrey (Mr. Hall) asked whether there had been any severance pay or

any special bonuses paid. On examination, Mr. Speaker, the answer to

the question is that there was no severance pay nor any bonuses of any

kind. He did receive vacation pay, which would be the standard practice

with any employee who leaves the employ of the government.

[ Page 6473 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Well, the normal vacation pay which he would have accumulated through his office.

COLLEGE FUNDING

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. Malaspina

College administration has announced that the ministry's cutbacks to

colleges will result in the elimination of the equivalent of 12

teaching positions. In addition to that, six support staff positions

will have to be lopped off next year's budget. Can the minister tell

the House whether he has decided to reverse these cuts to Malaspina

College?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, he has not decided to do

that, Mr. Speaker, and would not decide to do that, but he has met and

discussed the budget with the board of Malaspina College. These

decisions have been made on the basis of priorities by the college, and

where programs have been terminated and changed, it has been done on

the basis of priority and demand by the student body. But it's

inevitable that some programs and colleges are going to change and that

colleges are going to bring in new programs. I would hope that would

continue to occur.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, these

are not just changes; the cuts in the Malaspina budget total $443,000.

Has the minister not given some consideration to replacing this money

so that the level of education provided at this community college will

not deteriorate irreparably?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, there haven't been cuts of $443,000. There is a figure of

money that is short of what the college wants to do all its programs of

last year plus new programs. That, of course, is described by the

gentleman opposite as a cutback. A 19.4 percent increase in college

operating costs is not a cutback.

MR. STUPICH: Mr.

Speaker, if I might observe, a 20 percent increase in the provincial

budget has been put into effect. So a 19.4 increase in college

operating costs is a decrease. In any case........

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's hear the question.

MR. STUPICH:

Last year the minister expressed surprise at the low level of literacy

shown by post-secondary students in B.C. Now he plans to cut back over

the rationalization or whatever, if you like. That's more than to any

other single field of study, with the exception of mathematics. In view

of his concern about illiteracy, has the minister decided to intervene

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Speaker, I have given this answer one or two times, and I won't be

repetitive. The member well knows that the college makes those

decisions on the elimination or reduction of a course or section. It

has been a priority of the college and institute funding this year to

increase support for adult basic education. That priority has been

recognized not just in budgets but also in a change to the student aid

plan, which for the first time makes student aid available to students

in adult basic education, I do not acknowledge that there is any lack

of commitment to improving the literacy or level of adults in the

post-secondary field.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the

Powell River mentally disabled programs at Malaspina face a cutback of

nearly $20,000. The minister says that this is all decided by the

college, but the member for Nanaimo knows that the budget has to be

approved by the minister and his officials. Has the minister decided to

maintain funding for these programs in this International Year of

Disabled Persons?

HON. MR. SMITH: I will look into that particular program. Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, may I reply to questions taken as notice in question period?

Leave granted.

CONVERSION OF BARCLAY ST. APARTMENTS

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

I would like to reply to questions from the first member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk), taken as notice by me on June 11, 1981, in

connection with an apartment block at 1967 Barclay Street, Vancouver. I

was asked to confirm if some tenants in that apartment block have been

served eviction notices for the purpose of "converting ostensibly to

condominiums." A number of tenants have been served with notices under

section 17(1)(e), but the notice does not specify any intention to

convert into condominiums.

The member asked next if

section

17(1)(

e) was "introduced as a result of representations made by the

property speculators — the investor community in the city — as

indicated by the Hansard speech of the minister's predecessor." First of all, the Hansard

speech of my predecessor indicates no such thing. Upon investigation I

find that the suggestion for the amendment to

section 17(1)(

e) came

forward internally from the office of the rentalsman itself.

The

member further asked if the law firm of Farris and Co. was in any way

involved in work relative to the amendment in question or the bill

containing it being prepared. The answer is no. The member also asked

if the law firm of Clark, Wilson and Co. was in any way involved in

work relative to the amendment in question or the bill containing it

being prepared. The answer is no.

With respect to the

current situation, a number of tenants have appealed the notices served

under

section 17(1)(e). The office of the rentalsman has scheduled a

hearing for July 7 at 6 p.m. so as to be convenient to tenants who work

during the day. One of the senior rentalsman officers, a lawyer by

training, with considerable experience with landlord-tenant

legislation, will be hearing the matter.

Since the matter is

in effect under appeal and on the way to a hearing, it would be

improper for me to offer detailed comment at this time. However, may I

assure the hon. member that promptly after the decision has been

announced it will be personally reviewed by me. I should also add that

although there have been reports that the Vancouver city

[ Page 6474 ]

council

has officially adopted a position or motion in respect of this

particular matter, my office has not received particulars of any such

official position or motion.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Systems Corporation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1981.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

May I file an answer to a question standing in my name on the order

paper, and may I observe that another one which is being sought is on

its way.

AN HON. MEMBER: Number 58?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Bingo!

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm tabled the annual report of the Metro Transit Operating Company for the year 1980-81.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 32.

CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

In rising to introduce second reading of this bill may I say that while

I am proud to have the opportunity of doing so, it is nonetheless with

some regret that in 1981, with all that we have to enjoy and to offer

to each citizen of British Columbia and each person who may come to

this country to reside as a citizen or other lawful position; in a

democracy of which we so often speak with pride in a country which has

on other occasions entered into major armed conflict with other

countries for the purpose of suppressing terrorism and the attitudes of

persons who would destroy the democratic way of life.... With all these

things in our mind it is with some sadness that we would be obliged to

introduce legislation to eradicate or to assist in the eradication of

conduct by some who fail to recognize the basic tenets upon which this

nation was founded.

We have in our midst in this country

people who have come from all corners of the world seeking at least two

things. They are seeking to share with us the freedom which we wish to

enjoy, and seeking as well the opportunity to make their contribution

in a free and democratic society. Yet there are those who by their

conduct would seek to distinguish, to discriminate, and thereby to

interfere with the civil rights of those people who are among us and

who will join us in years to come.

I believe, and I am

satisfied that all members of this House believe, that every citizen of

this province has the right to go about his business, his or her lawful

pursuits, free from fear. We have laws today in this nation which

provide a measure of protection against conduct which we deem criminal.

We find fear of physical harm to persons or to property and fear with

respect to our lives protected in our criminal law, yet the fear

persists — fear not of physical violence, fear not so much of violence

to property, but fear that the dignity of the human spirit is subject

to attack.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

In his

remarks at the beginning of these sittings the Leader of the Opposition

spoke of the dignity of the human spirit which was evidenced by Terry

Fox. I wondered, as I listened to what the hon. Premier and the hon.

Leader of the Opposition had to say with respect to Terry Fox, why it

would be that a nation could be so aroused by the single act of courage

of one young man in one particular way and yet be unable to provide

adequate protection for those who in many other areas find the dignity

of the human spirit under attack.

This legislation addresses

itself to that problem. It does so by proscribing conduct or

communication — which is certainly one aspect of conduct — which has as

its purpose the violation of the civil rights of others, and in a

particular way, conduct for such purpose and to achieve such purpose as

would hold citizens or classes of persons in our community up to hatred

or contempt, and the other side of hatred and contempt, the attempt to

establish that one is somehow or other superior or inferior to another

all because of race, colour, creed, ethnic origin or place of origin. I

suggest that conduct which is proscribed by this legislation is an

affront to the dignity of the human spirit and humankind and an affront

to any citizen of this country who is an advocate of our democratic

system. One day we must achieve — but always strive to achieve in the

interim — the goal that whatever you may be — whatever colour, race,

religion, ethnic origin or place or origin — you, your children and

your children's children can walk down the streets of this land and

participate in all the opportunities that we have without fear.

This

bill may not achieve it. As one of the hon. members said following

introduction of the bill: "It's a first step." Of course it's only a

first step. This problem that we face is not new. The resolution of it

we will not solve by this bill alone. The kind of courage and

dedication exhibited by Terry Fox will have to be directed in this way

by every man, woman and child in our community before we will come

close to achieving the goal. But the time to start has surely long

passed, and we must begin now even with this first step.

The

pursuit of freedoms and civil rights is not new to any of us. It is not

new to the courts of this land or courts upon whose decisions we have

seen fit to rely in the past. Dealing with another problem in the

1900s, the Privy Council had occasion to consider this question of

freedom and what it means. I would like to read briefly from a

statement of Lord Lindley on the subject of freedom and the law: "Every

person has a right under the law, as between himself and his fellow

subjects, to full freedom." He was then speaking of a matter which

dealt with trade and labour and the right to engage in occupations. He

says: "It follows that every other person is subject to the correlative

duty arising therefrom and is prohibited from any obstruction to the

fullest exercise of this right which can be made compatible with the

exercise of similar rights by others. I am not aware that the rights

thus stated have ever been seriously questioned."

At the

beginning of this afternoon's sittings we were led in prayer as we are

each day. As we listen to the message of the prayers that are offered

at the beginning of each day's sitting, irrespective of the

denomination or the creed of the person who so leads us, we must surely

recognize the importance of those freedoms, which require each of us to

observe the correlative duty which arises from the existence of those

freedoms.

[ Page 6475 ]

There

is the concern among citizens that the law does not provide them with

the opportunity of having redress against those who by fear and

intimidation, however motivated, would interfere with the freedoms of

which I speak. Therefore may I state what was stated by Lord Watson in

1900 on this matter of remedy for the invasion of such a right when he

said: "Any invasion of the civil rights of another person is in itself

a legal wrong, carrying with it liability to repair its necessary or

natural consequences insofar as those are injurious to the person whose

right is infringed." It is that which we seek to do with this bill, Mr.

Speaker — to provide an opportunity in this province for the civil

rights which are interfered with in any of the ways proscribed by this

legislation, an opportunity for the righting of that wrong.

trust that this first step will be seen to be a move directed against

those persons whose attitudes and whose conduct resulting from those

attitudes is something that this province and its citizens are

unwilling to accept. It would be my pleasure if this legislation never

had to be used and if those who would so conduct themselves would

realize at long last the pain and the suffering that their attempted

indignities produce and would be dissuaded from conduct which has such

result. But I fear that will not be the case. Therefore this

Legislature is being asked today to afford a means of access to our

courts, a means of remedy which is currently absent in our law, as part

of a conscious program aimed at achieving the objective to which we

must all commit ourselves.

As has been said in other

circumstances in this House, the passing of legislation and having the

words on the paper will not themselves achieve our objective. It will

require the wholehearted, sincere commitment of citizens throughout

this province understanding the nature of our democracy, understanding

the value of the freedoms which are ours to enjoy and understanding

that whenever we diminish the freedom of one citizen, the freedom of us

all is diminished. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a rare opportunity for us in the

Legislature to be sane and calm, having heard those remarks made by the

Attorney-General — something of a first, I would say, coming from that

particular minister — on behalf of his colleagues. He is describing a

condition, as he said, which was not created just yesterday, but which

has been with us for a long time. Certainly those of us on this side of

the House applaud the effort of the government to recognize a problem

finally that I personally, and my colleagues as well, have attempted to

bring attention to for at least two years. I think it only appropriate

to agree with the Attorney-General when he suggests it is unfortunate

that, in 1981, it is necessary to introduce a Civil Rights Protection

Act in a free and democratic society that has enjoyed freedoms for so

long. We now find it necessary to take aggressive action against those

who would undermine that system. I suppose that my parallel comment to

that observation by the minister is that though it may have been

difficult for him to make the move, it was twice as difficult for those

of us who have been trying to get his attention concerning the problem.

Too often those of us not directly affected by adversity and difficulty have

to undergo considerable personal experience and demonstrations of events and

circumstances that eventually begin to enlighten us. So perhaps this is an occasion

to recognize the strength of our democratic system, because clearly this is

an example of collective action on the parts of individuals and groups who insisted

that the democratic process be put to the test, respecting the security and

integrity of our traditional customs of freedom and justice for all. Clearly

we were experiencing a void in the justice system, a lack of leadership and

direction, and in fact a questionable degree of commitment on the part of those

charged with the responsibility of ensuring everyone equality under the law

in fact — not just in a customary way that was unenforceable when the chips

were down.

my view, the people of British Columbia are here in spirit, if not in

person. on behalf of all members of the Legislature. I think that all

of us can give personal testimony to petitions and representations by

individuals to us with respect to this menace — the deliberate design

to undermine the sensitive nature of a multicultural and multiracial

society.

Mr. Speaker. I don't believe that there is much

point in reviewing all the things associated with the problem. Most

members will recall my early statements in which I tried to bring

attention to this issue prior to Christmas. It has taken considerable

time to bring the government's attention to the need for law

enforcement, the need to demonstrate to freedom-loving and

freedom-respecting citizens of this province our commitment to their

right to live in peace, dignity and harmony — those things which we

have always had, but which suddenly we find have not been protected in

the courts through sufficient laws and strategies ensuring that people

know how to use them and would have access to them through due process.

These

are some of the things that please me about the act, late though it may

be in coming. I'm quite pleased and gratified to be part of that

process — to know that even where there are partisan politics involved

we do come to our senses. This particular issue is one that makes

everything else secondary. If we fail in our attempts to maintain the

integrity that we have enjoyed for so long, and if we fail to instil a

sense of confidence in the minds of those many cultures, races and

various minorities in the community, if they fail to have confidence in

our system of justice and our democratic process, and if they fail to

believe that it is possible for them to achieve an effect upon that

system through their demonstrations and efforts, then just about

everything we're discussing and dealing with in this Legislature will

be for nought.

Human dignity is a personal thing to most

people. It means different things to different people. In our society

we believe that they should have the right to make that determination

for themselves. As long as they can do it within the parameters of our

so-called freedoms, then they recognize their responsibility to

everyone else, not only to themselves. That's what this bill is

attempting to protect, as I understand it. It's an attempt to say that

there are lines beyond which this society will not tolerate any force

whatsoever. In other words, our society has to recognize what the

bottom line is with respect to the fair share that all of us as

individuals expect as citizens in this society.

While this

is a first step, I hope that it will not be the last. I hope that the

Attorney-General, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and other associated

ministers will take the necessary actions within their ministries to

ensure that the institutionalized racism that has existed in this

society since day one will also receive some of those blows that are

needed in order to make those ministers more accessible on an equal

opportunity basis to all our citizens in this province.

I recognize that when you say "institutionalized racism" you are talking about the very underpinnings and the very

[ Page 6476 ]

nature

of this society in a broad, sweeping generalization. I say that with

respect and as a matter of observation. I think it is a matter of fact.

It's about time we became aware of and began to gain some insights into

the structure which we've all adopted for better or for worse. We know

the faults. One of the problems, however, in recognizing faults is your

own personal, vested interest. It depends on what it costs to see that

we become more egalitarian; it's the price tag. Clearly, if we are

going to enjoy the coexistence and the dignity that we spoke of, that

Terry Fox attempted to promote among Canadian citizens, then we have to

recognize the consequences of that human spirit that has been jaded and

that no longer has confidence in those principles which we have made as

men and women in this society. None of those principles work very well

unless they're adopted by the people who will become subject to them.

I'm saying that this is not just a first step in the field of law

enforcement, but also in the field of education, in the economy, in our

industrial way of life and every nook and cranny of our culture and our

society. We have to recognize that the initiative taken today is truly

only a first step.

Perhaps we made a big thing about that

"contentious" McAlpine report that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich) talked about. Mr. John McAlpine really just put into

summary

form what has been known by most of us who have been in the field

fighting on behalf of groups of individuals who have complained about

the injustices which exist because of their race, colour, religion,

place of origin, etc. The McAlpine report may well serve as a first

important textbook in all schools, as required reading and as perhaps

an insight into what we were. It puts quite clearly the perspective

from which most of us have known — but perhaps the government needed to

see it in black and white — what had become a serious, cancerous,

malignant, contagion that seemed to never end and was affecting all of

us all the time, every day and in every walk of life. I think there is

some philosophic content, and some review of the kinds of attitudes

that are needed and the kinds of institutional programs that are needed

in the education system, in the marketplace and in the workplace. The

McAlpine report, I think, has perhaps been seen as a threat to the

government because it was critical of their lack of policies with

respect to the things that need to happen.

The

Attorney-General has indicated that his colleagues can learn. Although

they may have been indifferent, they can learn. Let's hope that we will

have citizenship as a required subject that deals with the realities of

a multiracial mosaic of all of us, as Canadian citizens. It's about

time we began to know what that identity really is. I'm sorry that for

so long so many Canadians are still somewhat uncertain as to what it is

to be a true Canadian. I think we've paid far too little attention to

the need to inform young people and really everyone — parents,

institutions and leaders in the community. Every one should be very

much aware of the importance of interhuman relations and understanding

the need to have as many people as possible on that team in buying that

concept of freedom and democracy. It's not good business to have people

jilted, confused, disagreeing, angry and hostile because they're not

getting a fair share in society.

The most important

resource, notwithstanding the importance of tapping our natural

resources in the ground, such as coal and forest products, are people.

People have been neglected too long. We need to rationalize our

statutorial laws to fit with those traditions we've enjoyed for so

long. It's just not good enough to count on people's good will

indefinitely when matters are tied up with competitive society and the

ruthlessness of trying to survive in a culture that is basically

materially oriented. We're asking people to have a human spirit, and at

the same time we're asking them to take their chances in a very vicious

marketplace, and many people get hurt. Some of them are hurt

permanently. We have to become more humanized and more sensitized to

the human condition. Whatever we may do technologically, industrially

or in any field, let's keep in mind there are people out there who

matter and who we need on the team.

My colleagues and I

support the second reading of this bill. As I say, I want to be

positive in the sense that this is a first important step, but I want

to caution the government that this is only a first step. We certainly

do not expect to forget that we're here working on behalf of the

people, and as such those members in the opposition have a duty to

point out the faults of the things the government does or doesn't do.

In so doing and in so acknowledging I would say we'll be keeping a

close watch on how this legislation fares in the courts. We hope that

we will be hearing many more announcements on that side of the House

with respect to programs that will improve interrelationships among

human beings in this province.

MR. BARRETT: I do not

intend to speak very long. I think this bill needs speedy passage and

certainly will be given that by cooperation from the opposition. This

is a rare debate and a rare moment in this House, Mr. Speaker, in that

there is unanimity in the thrust of this bill and an agreement with

both the Attorney-General and the member for Vancouver Centre that the

law itself will not be enough to deal with this problem, but it is an

attempt at a legal statement on what we feel about our freedoms and

opportunities.

I just want to add a few words in praise to

the member for Vancouver Centre, who at times felt somewhat lonely in

the process of the long struggle to get this bill to the House. It was

a long struggle, and we can all give reasons why it was and wasn't, but

that's past now. We're here, we're dealing with a bill and we welcome

that. I just want to thank the member for Vancouver Centre for not

giving up the struggle and for continuing to meet with people in the

community who have been faced with the problem of racism. He has given

them his support in a positive, useful, building manner, at the same

time interpreting, especially to new Canadians, the importance of

having understanding and faith in our British parliamentary system. As

a naturalized Canadian the member from Vancouver Centre probably has

more appreciation of Canadian citizenship than those of us who were

born into that citizenship. The member has done a good job for the

people of his constituency and the people of this province. Today all

of us are sharing in that job well done along with the

Attorney-General. I say to the member for Vancouver Centre, keep it up;

it's been well worth the effort and there's more to be done.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

In closing this debate I trust that the people of this province will

recognize that when we are speaking of matters as fundamental as those

which are involved in this bill, it is not necessary for members

throughout this entire House to rise in their place and address

themselves to this matter. It seems to me that some of the most

important things we do are often those which require the least to be

said.

[ Page 6477 ]

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 32 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill

32, Civil Rights Protection Act, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 32; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. LAUK:

If some of us are going to be taking these cases, Mr. Chairman, I want

to ask the Attorney-General some questions. I want him to help me to

prepare my first brief.

The question I have for the

Attorney-General is this: there is a difficulty in bringing on such

actions in terms of the experiences of the court with respect to that

which is outlined in

section 1. Is it the Attorney-General's intention

to make clear — through interventions initially in such civil actions —

that what is intended by the Legislature is that there be a liberal and

exceptional use of exemplary damages to demonstrate clearly a public

policy issue brought through such an individual civil action? In other

words, will the force of their argument be that the ordinary rules of

exemplary damages are not to be applied here, but the intention is that

individuals brought to court through civil action will be made an

example of as an extension of the meaning of the word "exemplary"?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The member could have raised that in

section 3, but I might as well

answer the question now. The intervention by the Attorney-General is

because of the clear public interest there can be in such lawsuits.

There may be those who would wish to abuse this legislation — for

whatever purpose may best serve their interests — by bringing actions

which are frivolous and vexatious. Because of the concern which has

been expressed on all sides of this House, we would not wish that to

occur. So that's one reason the Attorney-General would wish to

intervene.

The member has also questioned whether it is the

intention to visit upon people who conduct themselves in any of these

prohibited ways exemplary damages in order that an example will be

made. That is one of the purposes of the intervention provision.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 32, Civil Rights Protection Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 31, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1981.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1981

(continued)

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, the debate was adjourned by the member for Skeena (Mr.

Howard), and I will continue debate briefly by pointing out that

debating second reading of this bill is really impossible, because in

second reading you are supposed to deal with the principle of the bill.

There are two

interpretations of that, Mr. Speaker. One is that there

is no principle in this bill, none whatsoever; and secondly, the 126

sections that are involved will be debated separately.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's principle.

MR. BARRETT:

It is unprincipled. I don't know, Mr. Member.... You would know more

than anyone else how unprincipled this is because they'd never do

anything like this in Ottawa, and it's the first time that it's

happened here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, normally in

the omnibus bill we get bus transfers, we get bus tickets and other

related subjects that are not matters of state importance. But for the

first time in this House we are getting the stealthy erosion of the

normal process of up-front legislative responsibility by sneaking parts

into this bill that should be separate bills on their own. This is not

by accident. This is a government of stealth and sleaziness that has

deliberately met in cabinet and used this method to shove into a bill

what they don't have the courage to face as separate legislation in the

House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would caution

the member that parliamentary debate and language.... I would say that

the member has strayed somewhat from that.

MR. BARRETT: Stealth is acceptable. I withdraw sleazy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: I will not use the word sleazy because it is not permitted in this chamber. If it were permitted, I'd use it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, it's not, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT:

Yes. But it is stealthy and it is a deliberate attempt to avoid the

ministers in this House having to face one by one direct accountability

of taxpayers' money. This day we're going to pass into second reading a

bill that has sections in it to allow the corporations — the spoiled

children of this government — to borrow over $1 billion at

international interest rates bordering on 18 and 19 percent that will

[ Page 6478 ]

be a burden on the taxpayers of this province for generations to come.

have evidence that this government is going to take bills and shove

them in the drawer and hope that future generations will pay those

accounts as they lead us into a quagmire of debt on Crown corporations

that normally were under pay-as-you-go. Who was it, Mr. Speaker, who

stopped the process of paying for government buildings out of general

revenue and put us into debt on mortgages on government buildings? It

was that coalition group over there. For the first time in the history

of this province we now have mortgages on government buildings. The

next thing you know they'll be slapping a mortgage on the legislative

building if they're allowed to get away with what they're doing.

MR. LAUK: We'll be owned by Las Vegas pretty soon.

MR. BARRETT:

Well, that's possible. This year alone B.C. Hydro is in Europe cap in

hand looking for $900 million. But that's not dealt with in this bill,

so I won't speak about that. British Columbia Building Corporation is

going to ask to borrow $400 million more on top of already paying for

assets, and then selling them off — like the B.C. ferry that was

recently built. The taxpayers paid $30 million for that ferry and it

was sold to Royal Trust for $24 million, and we have to pay almost $90

million to buy our own ship back.

MR. LAUK: That's good business.

MR. BARRETT:

Good business? This government is driving this province into a massive

debt load that has been unequalled in its history. Six years ago the

per capita debt in this province was $1,900 per person, with assets

that were later thrown away in the BCRIC to balance those debts. That

asset situation has changed, and under six short years of Social Credit

the per capita debt has risen from $1,900 per person to $3,900 debt for

every man, woman and child by the end of this year.

Mr.

Speaker, the one minister who should be facing in this House a separate

bill is that minister from the north, who is the one who apologizes for

the overwhelming debt loaded on us through B.C. Rail with his massive

tunnel plans. He's the only man in cabinet anywhere in the Commonwealth

who admits that he believes in tunnel vision. That tunnel vision is

going to cost us $500 million to subsidize a coal project. But does he

stand up in this chamber and bring in a separate bill? No. He went into

the cabinet, used his influence, pounded his colleagues into line, and

stealthily said: "Let's just dump this teensy weensy little couple of

lines in this teensy little statute."

He's been waving so

many things past his desk with accountability that his arm is

automatically flopping around in response to it. You're not selling

used cars. This is debt that you're dumping on the people of British

Columbia, and you're doing it in a stealthy way. B.C. Rail is going to

sell $800 million of shares to itself. That's a sneaky way of borrowing

money. And then they're allowed to borrow another $400 million on top

of it.

In this chamber, in the hallowed memories of the

traditional Social Credit pay-as-you-go theory.... The member is

amused. Are you waving the money goodbye, Mr. Member? Is that what

you're doing?

There is $1.2 billion snuck into this omnibus

bill because we're not faced with a separate piece of legislation. It's

money borrowed in the international marketplace — Lord knows from where

— at 18 percent, and the taxpayers of this province have to pay it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Middle East.

MR. BARRETT:

Shall we examine that deal? The Minister of Finance will tell you that

was a good deal. We borrowed that money in Canadian money at 9.75

percent, not in American money that now costs $1.18 for every dollar.

I'll tell you that if that minister could find some of those

petrodollars at the same deal right now, he'd be the first one to sign

on the dotted line. Yes, he would.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Secret deals.

MR. BARRETT: Is it secret to you?

HON. MR. CURTIS: You wouldn't tell us where it came from.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, was it the government of Kuwait? Were the conditions not

known publicly that it was.... They talk about a secret deal. All

right, let's deal with the secret deal. It was public and at 9.75

percent in Canadian money. Anything else hidden from the public, Mr.

Member? Anything missing? Not a thing. Notice how silence overcomes

them, Mr. Speaker. Don't leave the House now, Mr. Member. Don't run out

now when you should be facing the heat over a sneaky attempt to avoid

responsibility in this House for borrowing money. They run around this

province saying that they're running a debt-free operation. You're

borrowing money faster than a guy on a losing binge in Las Vegas trying

to make up on the last roll for every loss.

People's homes,

people's tax structures and municipalities are being threatened by how

you're forcing taxes up in this province just to service the debt

you're piling on the backs of the people of British Columbia. On B.C.

Hydro bills 30 cents of every dollar goes to pay interest alone. Every

time you pay your light bill — and you're one of the few who can afford

to pay the light bill under this government, Mr. Speaker — 30 cents of

every dollar goes to pay off debt from the foolish deals that this

government has gotten into.

Debt, debt, debt is the name of

this bill; borrow, borrow, borrow. Borrowing your way into the future

is no way to build British Columbia. Mortgaging the future of British

Columbians is no way to prosperity. Only backward businessmen would

think of squandering the equity we have in this province through

massive international borrowings and then bringing it in in this bill.

Tucked

away in the 126 sections are little things that are tidied up and

cleaned up and have to be paid attention to in an omnibus bill. But for

the first time in the history of this province major borrowing bills

are being slipped into an omnibus bill. Do you know what they thought?

They thought: "Oh, well. It's the end of the session. The opposition

will just look at it and let it go by. The people of British Columbia

won't pay any notice." I've got news for you in the government. People

in this province are getting concerned about the borrowing that's going

on with the lack of accountability by separate bills dealing with that

borrowing.

Why has the government decided not to make the

minister face up to this House and deal in detail, bill by bill, with

the borrowings? In the case of the Minister of Industry and

[ Page 6479 ]

Small

Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) I can understand it. They've

told him to stay off television because he's inclined to go off the

deep end. We weren't sure what they meant by going off the deep end,

Mr. Speaker, but now we know — $1.2 billion worth off the deep end.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not his money.

MR. BARRETT: Well, what does he care? "What's a billion?" says the minister.

Taxpayers'

money is being borrowed at an unprecedented rate. The debt of this

province will be up over $10 billion by the end of this year. And who

was responsible for doubling this debt in six short years? That

government over there. That once-proud party that brought in the system

of pay-as-you-go has now reversed the policy. It's debt every day under

Social Credit. Debt every way. Things are getting debtier every way in

British Columbia.

Who initiated this policy? Is it that

group of Liberals over there who have understood that the Liberal Party

in Canada has raced this nation into debt at a gallop — and they

brought their goofy Liberal finance policies to this government? Is it

the Liberal group within the government which endorsed this plan to

bury this big-spending, debt-borrowing bill in this omnibus method?

Wasn't the Socred minister overwhelmed by the influence of the

sophisticated urban Liberals who out manoeuvred him in cabinet?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

City-slicker debt, indeed, Mr. Chairman. What do those Liberals care?

They haven't changed one iota since they walked across the floor. They

were a debt party when they were in opposition, and now they're a debt

party in government, influencing what little is left of the traditions

of Social Credit pay-as-you-go — a mortgage on every government

building, a mortgage on every government ship. Pretty soon this

building will be under mortgage too. They'd rent this building out if

they thought they could get away with it.

MR. LAUK: They'd be foreclosed by the Arabs.

MR. BARRETT: Well, it could be. We could rent out this hall for community meetings, or for a casino, the way things are going.

MR. MACDONALD: Or a disco palace.

MR. BARRETT: No, this could never become a disco

palace. But I tell you, as much as we jest, and as much as we examine

what's going on, it is tragic that our debt position has doubled in six

short years under Social Credit. There is an increasing lack of

accountability as to how this debt is being accumulated on the backs of

the taxpayers of British Columbia: $1,900 per capita debt in 1975,

$3,900 per capita debt in 1981. Going, going, gone.

The

government of the day has its will. The government of the day can make

the moves that it wants. But it will be evaluated on the way they make

their moves and the moves themselves. This is sneaky, Mr. Speaker.

During committee we intend to deal item by item with it, and we expect

accountability at that time. So we say clearly that we'll go along with

second reading, but in committee stage every one of these sections will

be scrutinized in detail.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr.

Speaker, I fail to understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Leader

of the Opposition with respect to the form of the bill which is before

us. Not only are the sections dealing with each particular statute

clearly headed up by the statute which is to be amended, but we have

gone to the trouble of providing extensive explanatory notes so that

any member of this House who has any interest in any of the matters

which are contained in this omnibus bill has the opportunity of

understanding what is taking place and thereby taking

part in the

debate. The bill is one which is not unique to this session. It has

been traditional in this Legislature for many years. There will be an

opportunity to deal with it as extensively as members wish, without the

usual time constraints on the length of their speeches when they get

into committee. Therefore we are extending to you a greater opportunity

than ever before to debate any parts of the bill which are of concern,

rather than fixing you with the limit under our standing orders of one

time only. We're happy to hear what the member for Coquitiam-Moody (Mr.

Leggatt) may have to say on any of these matters which interest him as

many times as he wishes to speak.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL DEBT REPAYMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 14; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MR. STUPICH:

I just invite the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) to comment on

this

section briefly. As I read it, the effect of this will be that

$26.1 million that was borrowed from trust funds at 9¼ percent will now

be paid back to those trust funds out of cash on hand, and those trust

funds will then be invested at something like 17 percent or 18 percent.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The member for Nanaimo observes that $26.1 million of debt which was

incurred between 1972 and 1975 inclusive is being repaid on an annual

basis. This is the third of ten instalments to repay that. The interest

rate at which the money will be invested is, of course, a matter that

none of us in this chamber or this committee can tell at this point in

time.

MR. STUPICH: I guess the minister missed the

first part of my question, and that is that these funds were borrowed

from trust accounts, and these trust accounts are receiving only 9¼

percent on this total amount, including the $26.1 million being repaid

with this bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think we canvassed

that in second reading, and I believe at that time I concurred with the

observation of the member for Nanaimo in virtually every aspect of the

point he made.

MR. STUPICH: Just one more point. In response to my first question the minister said that the debt was incurred

[ Page 6480 ]

between 1972 and 1975. Will he agree that the debt was incurred on March 31, 1976?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I think that point has been very thoroughly canvassed too. The debt

gathered over the period of the former administration and was dealt

with at the conclusion of the fiscal year 1975-76.

MR. STUPICH:

I think the minister agreed with me that the debt was actually incurred

on March 31, 1976. I think that's what he said. For example, the $175

million that was paid to ICBC on March 31, 1976, made up something like

75 percent of that $261 million. So I think the minister will agree

that the debt was not actually incurred between 1972 and 1975 but on

March 31, 1976, when some $250 million was paid out to various Crown

corporations, the largest payment being to ICBC.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Aye.

MR. STUPICH: Let the record show that the Minister of Finance did say, "aye." I accept that as his answer.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Let the record show that I was calling for passage of the section, Mr.

Chairman. I was not speaking from my seat with respect to what the

member for Nanaimo said.

MR. STUPICH: Nor were you arguing. You're embarrassed about it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, not in the least.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, this is very interesting. We're dealing with one very

small

section of a bill, and you'll notice that it's a bill. It happens

to be a political bill, and this is a political section. We debate that

by itself, and yet on the other hand we've got a massive borrowing by

this government buried in two statute law amendment acts. One is B. C —

Hydro's $900 million borrowing, and now we've got BCR and the Buildings

Corporation, which used to be Public Works. This afternoon we have seen

political hypocrisy beautifully exampled for us right before this

committee.

MR. HALL: In living colour.

MR. COCKE:

Yes, as the member for Surrey says, in living colour. I suggest to you

that this outrageous way of doing business should not be condoned by

anyone in this province.

MR. NICOLSON: I would just

like to remind the Minister of Finance that as years go by, and as this

government sells off the land bank that was acquired under the previous

government and brings millions of dollars into revenues, that also

exposes the lie of this particular piece of legislation.

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 21

Macdonald

Barrett

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. REE: I noted that the member for Atlin's (Mr. Passarell'

s) name was called, and he's not present in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The correction is noted.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 14, Provincial Debt Repayment Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK:

On Friday last, a report was moved, read and received from the Select

Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills. I'm referring

to report No. 6. I refer the Speaker of the House to standing order 115

of our Standing Orders , which

states: "When the committee on any private bill reports to the House

that the

preamble of such bill has not been proved to its satisfaction,

or otherwise reports unfavourably on the bill, the committee must also

state the grounds upon which it arrived at such a decision. No bill so

reported upon shall be placed on Orders of the Day ...." The committee "must" state the grounds upon which the bill is rejected.

Report

No. 6 states, Mr. Speaker: "Your Select Standing Committee on Standing

Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows: the

preamble

of Bill PR403,

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, has not been

proved, as the assertions in the petition are not substantiated."

Patently, on its face that cannot be, Mr. Speaker. The statement "the

assertions are not substantiated" means inclusively that all the

assertions aren't substantiated. Surely the committee has a

responsibility under standing order 115 to provide the grounds. This is

not providing the grounds. This is a cop-out. This is a piece of

parliamentary language. The full meaning of standing order 115 is that

the grounds be stated. People

[ Page 6481 ]

have

brought a private bill for passage. If the committee turns it down, the

members of this House are entitled to hear from that committee why.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Thank you, hon. member. The point raised by the member has been made.

The Chair will undertake to review the matter without prejudice to the

member, but I must advise as well that we cannot enter into debate at

this particular time.

MR. LAUK: He didn't even have the courage to move adoption of that report so that it could be debated.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

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

MR. HALL:

As we rose for the weekend on Friday, I indicated to the minister my

intentions to discuss the current situation at the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia. In so doing, I am as concerned and as

conscious as the minister is over the fact that there is an industrial

dispute there. I have no intentions of involving, by any stretch of the

imagination, this House, this chamber or this committee in any of the

negotiations that may be going on this afternoon, tomorrow or maybe the

next day. I have no intention of getting involved in the merits of any

of the positions that have been taken by either side in the dispute.

avoid discussion of the dispute and of this important industrial sector

of our community when the minister's estimates are up would be, in my

view, an abandonment of our responsibilities. The minister must seek,

of course, to answer the questions as he sees fit. I'm sure he will

take the necessary caution that I'm going to take in dealing with a

sensitive situation, as I had to do on occasions when I was sitting on

that side of the House. Nevertheless, this dispute has been going on

for some 150 days, as I mentioned during question period today at 2

o'clock.

What bothers me in this dispute that's gone on is

that I've seen little or no pressure brought onto the parties by the

Ministry of Labour or by the Minister of Labour. There's been little or

no pressure put onto the Crown corporation of this province and its

employees to get to the bargaining table, stay at the bargaining table

and stay in a hotel or some accommodation to work towards a settlement.

At this point in time in this chamber, at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, I

don't particularly care about the details of the settlement. That's not

what I'm here about. I'm talking about getting towards that settlement.

A settlement is going to be reached. I want to know why we haven't got

to that settlement earlier than today, tomorrow or the day after.

Because as sure as shooting, we're going to get to a settlement.

The point I want to make is that the minister was quick some months ago in

sending telegrams to his federal counterpart, Gerald Regan, to get involved

in the dispute at B.C. Tel. "Get involved," he said to Gerry, "knock heads.

Get them in a hotel room; get them around a table. Come to British Columbia

from the east. Come west. Get involved." It's 150 days, and by his

own admission at 2:15 today, the minister has not become personally involved.

The pressure has not been on those parties. Mr. Albertim has been involved and

Mr. Gilmour is involved. But the real clout and pressure has not been, in my

view.... I'm speaking for myself and myself only. I'm not speaking

for the corporation or the trade union. I'm talking about my perception

as the second member for Surrey. There has not been pressure involved and brought

to bear on the parties. There's not been phone calls or real pressure put

on these two sides by that ministry or that minister — the kind of pressure

that this minister knows can be put onto the sides in industrial disputes.

Mr.

Chairman, you'll be interested to know that on May 21 or thereabouts,

there was a suggestion put forward by the corporation that they could

negotiate and then some binding arbitration could be used. There was a

response by the trade union involved that said that after some five to

seven days of intense bargaining, all the outstanding issues could go

to binding arbitration. It was unusual that a trade union voluntarily

agreed to go to binding arbitration. That was around May 26 or 27. I

read in the media about the rejection of those proposals; they're not

carried forward by the industrial inquiry commission or by Mr. Gilmore;

the corporation makes its statements to its employees through the

media. They replied through the media on the 27th. A Crown corporation

of this province replies to its employees, who offer themselves up for

binding arbitration, through the media. Colleagues of this minister who

sit only one chair away from him — that's next door to him — who are

responsible to this House for the operation of ICBC, reject those

proposals.

Mr. Chairman, I'm very conscious of the fact that

now there is a drawing together of positions. The good offices of the

ministry staff are being used. But it has taken 150 days, when I

maintain that it should have taken less than that. Clout and pressure,

all the techniques the minister knows about, should have been used. On

May 21 and 27 both sides said that they were prepared to use binding

arbitration. One can argue that they didn't say the same thing at the

same time and in the same place, but that's what the skills of

negotiation are, the skills of corridor diplomacy, the skills of

pressure at 11 o'clock at night or at 2 o'clock in the morning, the

skills of 24 hours of continuous negotiations. Those are the skills the

minister knows.

Mr. Chairman, I'm also concerned about

what's happening to the corporation. This Legislative Assembly is

steward of millions of dollars of investment in that corporation.

What's happening to the conduct of the business? I tried to get the

answer from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) today to my

questions regarding the conduct of the corporation. It would be out of

order in this debate, but I'm trying to find out what's happening to

the corporation and to the personnel. Are the personnel going

elsewhere? Are we losing the electronic data processors? What is

happening? I am told, for instance, that as long ago as March 28 the

trade union involved in this dispute made an offer to the general

insurance sector of the corporation that they would continue to work,

provided some accommodation could be made that would enable them to

keep that general insurance sector going. Those kinds of offers have

been made.

I don't want detailed responses from the

minister. All I'm saying is that there will be opportunities in a

number of instances down the road for skilled intervention. The

pressure that only the minister or an industrial inquiry commissioner

could have brought in terms of getting the sides to-

[ Page 6482 ]

gether....

Last year when the minister was brand new and had a rather easy ride of

it I said that he wouldn't have such an easy ride of it during

estimates this year. Here is the very example I'm trying to bring to

the minister's attention: that just because it happens to be a dispute,

there is no reason for us not to discuss it.

In my view, the

ministry was not used correctly; the minister did not use his own

offices correctly. I'll repeat it now for the last time: if he was

correct, if he was confident, if he really meant what he said about the

federal Minister of Labour, then I say to him that what is sauce for

the goose is sauce for the gander. He should have involved himself in

this 150-day dispute a long time ago. We all know that sometime in the

next few days there will be the beginnings of a settlement of this

dispute, and it makes one realize that if he had done himself what he

wanted his federal counterpart to do, probably weeks ago we could have

reached that happy day that is coming along this week or next week.

Mr.

Chairman, I think that it's only fair to say that the whole trade union

movement looks upon this dispute as characterized by a hands-off

situation on the part of that cabinet in contradiction to some of the

other disputes. That disturbs me, because I think that the Labour Code,

which is an admirable one, should be used even-handedly. In fact, one

could argue that because a Crown corporation is involved in this

dispute there was an admirable opportunity for the Labour Code to have

worked beautifully, and yet I see no evidence that it has.

Those

are the comments I wanted to make about the dispute, comments that I

forewarned the minister about on Friday. I hope I have met his worries

and concerns by not getting involved in the dollars and cents, hours of

work and the return-to-work negotiations which are currently going on,

because I've no wish to do that. I'm talking about the anatomy of the

dispute, if you like, over the last 150 days.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

My only comment is that it seems to me that the dispute has been going

on for a period of three months. I don't know quite where he gets 150

days. It makes me think of many years ago when he had some difficulty

in agreeing on the time of day.

First of all, in the B.C.

Tel dispute the contract expired on December 31, 1979. The member well

knows that that dispute carried on for a period of 14 or 15 months.

With all due respect, I would point out that distinction with some

emphasis.

Secondly, it's been the policy and the practice of

the government and the ministry that those people who are responsible

for making their own agreement be allowed to do so. I mentioned in the

House last Thursday that parties should not be under the delusion that

what they cannot get from each other they can make overtures for to

government in the first instance.

I'm not prepared to go

into detail on the ICBC case. If I'm to be the clay pigeon with respect

to the comments from the member opposite, so be it — that's the task at

hand. I've no intention of negotiating that particular dispute in this

House. The matter is before the mediator, and when I answered a

question during question period today I advised the member that there

are intensive negotiations being conducted. They may not be going on at

this very moment, but they certainly did over the last 72 hours, and I

don't think it's proper for me to mention to the House the degree and

extent to which those deliberations are being carried on.

The

member raised the Labour Code and said that it would work beautifully.

I only wish that were the case. Remember that the Code contains nothing

but a number of tools to assist the parties to resolve their dispute.

would also respectfully point out to the member the history of ICBC

going back to 1975. Perhaps I could acquaint the member.... I won't do

it, but I suggest he make reference to the clippings from 1975, with

which he was so intimately involved. Again, I would ask the member to

look at 1977, and I would suggest that if, in fact, the employees of

ICBC support what we have come to know and respect as collective

bargaining in the traditional sense, they and their employers should

follow suit.

With respect to the item under arbitration, if

the member were to look again, I think he would find it was abundantly

clear that neither side could agree on those matters which would be

referred to arbitration.

I appreciate the concerns which the

member has — we in government have them as well — with respect to those

employees who may not be accounted for now and those who who have had

considerable training with the corporation. But, of course, that

happens in every dispute, whether it's in the private sector or the

public sector. My wish is that perhaps management and the union in the

ICBC could make their own agreement. I think they ought to be given the

opportunity to do so. If the member has any suggestions with respect to

the appropriate provisions of the Labour Code which would work so

beautifully and which do not undermine the process of free collective

bargaining, I would appreciate receiving a memorandum from him.

repeat, I am quite prepared to be the clay pigeon in the House and

outside, but I think that is my function in order to preserve the

integrity of the process.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I'm

not going to belabour this point with the minister. He disappoints me

greatly. If he thought that we wanted to make him a clay pigeon, does

he not think that I would have been up here at 2 o'clock every

afternoon over the last 35 days if I had wanted to? I could have been

up here at 2:15 every afternoon. I'm in this House for a reason. I've

been a member of this House for a lot of years, and if I had wanted to

I could have made your life an absolute damn misery about the ICBC

strike. For you to come here with that mewling, puerile sort of stuff

about making you a clay pigeon is a bit pathetic; that's all I can say.

Nobody is trying to make you a clay pigeon about anything.

I had wanted to talk about the industrial climate in this province, I

could have taken is strike by strike for all the time you've been

Labour minister, but I've not chosen to do that. Neither has anybody on

this side. We have never taken advantage of an industrial dispute to

give any minister of any government a bad time, nor will we. We didn't

expect people to do it when we were over there either.

When

I opened up the questioning I went to some lengths to say I wasn't

getting involved in a dispute from a technical point of view. What I

did say, however, was that I first of all took your own words vis-à-vis

Gerald Regan. That was the first thing I did. The second thing I

pointed out was what happened in the past regarding the offers made by

both sides about arbitration.

Having got that off my chest,

I'll now refer to a number of the answers that you gave me. The concern

we have on this side is simply that the time to start to bring parties

together is a very tricky time. The minister knows that as well as I do.

[ Page 6483 ]

You

can move too quickly and you can move too late. It is this member's

opinion that this particular dispute has gone on longer than it needed

to have done. That is the only criticism that I have voiced in this

chamber to this minister. I stick by that criticism. I stick by it

because I've tried to indicate to the minister that he has more clout

than he knows he has. It is perhaps the tragedy of this minister and of

that government that he doesn't realize just exactly how much pressure

and goodwill and how much people really do want to get together.... All

they're short of is a bit of a nudge in the right direction, a bit of

pressure, or a bit of a reason to say to their respective sides: "Look,

I've got to get in that room. The whole of the province is waiting for

me to get in that room." That is what I was trying to indicate to the

minister.

Perhaps the sadness of this afternoon's debate at 4:15 is that it is not understood.

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly sorry that the minister has taken the

attitude he has to my colleague's remarks. I'm sure that the minister

is aware, as are all of us as members of this Legislature, of the kind

of problems that have occurred to the average citizen as a result of

the long delays apparent in this outstanding labour dispute. It is

certainly true that the minister has certain powers and

responsibilities that he could utilize. I'm always concerned when I

hear that there are difficulties in getting both sides to agree to

compulsory arbitration on outstanding items. I certainly hope that the

point has now been reached where they will agree to go to compulsory

arbitration on those outstanding items.

I rose to deal with

another matter entirely. The remarks I want to make this afternoon have

their beginnings very locally in the Crofton pulpmill. We have had an

experience there with a mercury spill that has caused a lot of concern

to the people who work there and to the people who live in the valley

as to just how many safeguards are being taken in our industrial

centres relative to the use of chemicals. That particular instrument

shop at the Crofton pulpmill has been operating for something like 24

years. In that mill there are 23 instrument shop technicians who use

mercury. The history there is that there has been little if any concern

relative to the use of that mercury. Eventually there was a major spill

— an obvious leak — of nine pounds of mercury seeping from equipment

stored on the mezzanine floor above the workshop that brought the thing

to a head. The concerns are over what appears to be a very

lackadaisical attitude by the mill operators and, as a result, by the

people who work in that mill. Certainly the Workers' Compensation Board

lays down regulations for mercury under their hazardous chemical

guidelines, which call for ventilation, storing in separate rooms,

secure containers and a separate eating area away from the mercury. Yet

all those things were going on for some 24 years and nothing happened

to stop those hazardous practices from being continued until there was

a major spill. The WCB is now monitoring the situation, but where were

they during the last 24 years? How can a situation go on that long?

We're supposed to have labour legislation. We're supposed to have

safety legislation in this province to protect workers from these kinds

of hazards. It certainly wasn't applied in that area.

don't very often hold up B.C. Hydro as an example, but it just happens

that B.C. Hydro has an installation very close to Crofton in the VI

Terminal. That particular terminal is one of 12 power stations in the

world that use mercury converting current — AC to DC. Precautions there

have been very, very good; they have been above the standards set by

even WCB. One of the things that happened there is that their readings

are well below the standards set by WCB. Inspections are more frequent

than even the requirements by WCB. They have done a job in assuring

that the workers are protected. I'm sure they have been prodded a bit

perhaps by the union and the workers there in B.C. Hydro. but they have

done a good job. Yet at Crofton, where mercury is used, we have a

situation that has some scary connotations. How much harm has actually

been done to those instrument technicians, who have worked maybe not

the whole 24 years but certainly some of them have been there for long

periods of time? Has irreparable harm been done to them?

course that particular incident leads into my concern generally

relative to the use of chemicals. I believe my colleague from Victoria

dealt earlier with the studies undertaken in the United States by the

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, which dealt with the

high incidence of Hodgkins disease in pulpmill workers and mill

workers. According to a study done by Samuel Milham Jr. at Johns

Hopkins. the incidence in paper mill workers is something like 12

compared to 3 in the control group. The fatalities are much higher.

It's been found that pulp and paper workers in the mills…that cancer of

the small intestine and cancer of the lymphatic and haernopoietic

tissues show excess deaths — also Hodgkins disease. What are we doing

about it? Are we really making any moves to try to ensure that the

people who work in those pulp mills are protected, or are we content to

make a few regulations and hope that they'll be adhered to?

I've

spoken about PCP, which is the material used as a preservative in

lumber. I had a chap in my office in Duncan on Friday who had a case

before WCB because of a skin rash resulting from, as far as he and is

doctor are concerned, the chemical. There is a real problem with

Workers' Compensation as to whether or not they are going to accept

this. It is of grave concern. We are using more and more chemicals in

our industrial centres. Every year there are new chemicals that come

into use and we allow that without really considering whether or not

they have a harmful effect. We make some regulations....

When

I worked at B.C. Hydro, I remember we used to buy gallons and gallons

of cleaner — it was a hydrocarbon — and there were no restrictions put

on it. I guess somewhere there may have been something in the small

print on the containers, but the people who did the cleaning — both of

electrical equipment and in the janitorial work — used gallons of that

stuff. They used it very indiscreetly, without any precaution as to

how. Yet in Hydro's own safety manual they had pages of documentation

outlining the hazards and problems — particularly the problems with

sclerosis of the liver — that could result from using those very

chemicals that we were ordering by the gallon. I've given one example

of a place where I think Hydro has done a good job: on the mercury, and

the clean room at the VI Terminal; but they're not completely clean in

other cases. That business of using hydrocarbons in cleaners was

certainly one. Their indiscriminate use of 2,4,5-T in spraying was also

a concern.

Of course all this relates to the Workers'

Compensation Board, and ties right in to the tremendous files that I'm

sure all of us have of WCB cases. I don't intend to repeat; my

colleague from Comox (Ms. Sanford) has dealt with a great many of the

problems with the WCB. I'm sure that every MLA has a heavy workload

based on claims and problems

[ Page 6484 ]

that workers are experiencing with the Workers' Compensation Board.

During

the last few years it seems that the

interpretation of the legislation

has somehow become much tighter. The intent of the legislation

certainly is to support a worker who is injured in the course of his

duties. Yet we find that workers are having to go to some expense —

many of them have to hire lawyers to take their cases to Workers'

Compensation. We have seen unanimous decisions by the board of review —

that's supposed to be the appeal body that a worker can go to —

overruled by the commission. That commission is the body whose

appointees made the original decision that is being appealed. What kind

of an appeal is that? If you have the right to appeal, only to have

that appeal overthrown by the body that made the original decision,

it's not much of a right of appeal. It is something that hasn't

happened previously; it has been happening in the last few years.

The

pensions. Now I know there is a very complicated formula: you get a

certain percent disability and you relate it to your possible earnings

as a result of your disability, and you tie in a cost-of-living factor,

and you come up with a figure. Well, I don't know about that formula,

but I know about the result. It means that people who would like to

work cannot live on that pension, because it's only 10 percent

disability. I had another case in my Duncan office where a logger had

an injured leg — 10 percent disability, I think it was. He had $131

pension. He was supposedly unable to work as a logger any more, and

that certainly was proven, because when he couldn't get any other work

he went out and tried to work as a logger, and had his other leg

damaged. He was off work with that.

If a person is injured,

and if the WCB decides on a certain pension, then I believe the WCB has

some responsibility to ensure that that individual is able to earn the

difference from the paper figure. Simply to say, "That's your pension,

$131; you should be able to work as a benchman or something," or

whatever they come up with.... If there are no benchman jobs or

anything equivalent to that, then surely Workers' Compensation has a

broader scope of reference and responsibility than that. That's what

happening, Mr. Chairman; that's my concern and the concern of those on

this side of the House. The worker is getting a raw deal from the

Workers' Compensation Board, and every year it seems to get rawer and

rawer. I believe that minister has some responsibility to ensure that

the Workers' Compensation Board is put back on the track so that people

get a fair deal when they're injured on the job.

MS. SANFORD:

I had sort of hoped that the minister might get up first thing today in

order to answer a number of questions that were posed to him by the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) last week. I hesitated just now,

hoping that he would get up and answer some of the questions raised by

her as well as by my colleague for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), who

just took her seat.

I have a few issues I would like to

raise with the minister at this point. I won't raise too many of them

initially, hoping I can get some answers from the minister and then

carry on with others.

I must express my disappointment to the minister with respect to the regulations

brought down in relation to farm labourers. Not too long ago the minister brought

in regulations which set out a given

schedule for payment to farmworkers who

are working on a piece-rate basis. Unfortunately, despite my pleading last year,

no provision has been made for an assured minimum wage. I'm assuming that

when, for instance, raspberries are plentiful and fairly easy to pick, people

who work at those very difficult jobs can earn at least the minimum wage. But

when the berries become scarce it's going to be difficult for workers to

ensure that they are covered by that minimum wage. When the minister initially

brought in his employment standards legislation, he indicated that farmworkers

would be covered by the minimum wage. Well, they are not, because there are

cases.... And I assume it happens fairly frequently that these farmworkers

find that they are being paid less than the minimum wage. In addition to the

piecework rate, quite often these farmworkers are asked to do additional cleanup

jobs and tasks which are not covered by the piece-rate work. So while they're

picking berries they may be covered, but if they're asked to do other jobs,

there's no provision whatsoever that they will be paid for that time.

The

other major problem I see with the system that has been drawn up by the

minister is that so many of the farmers do not have scales. If you're

being paid 15.5 cents a pound to pick raspberries and there are no

scales, what guarantee is there that you will in fact be paid at least

what is called for in the regulations that have been passed under the

employment standards legislation? Some of the scales that are there are

so old that they're completely unreliable, and the farmworker who is

out in the field has no alternative but to accept the weight shown on

the scale, or in some cases to just guess because there are no scales

provided. I'm wondering whether the minister will ensure that scales

are provided for these workers if he's not going to ensure the basic

minimum wage for them, and whether he will also ensure that the scales

are checked periodically so that they are accurate.

Secondly,

I would like to know what steps the minister is taking concerning

accommodation for farmworkers. We've had severe problems in the Fraser

Valley, as well as up in the Okanagan, related to farm labourers —

particularly of a transient nature — and the accommodation that they

are required to put up with. It's very substandard accommodation. Is

the minister doing anything to improve the accommodation for

farmworkers to ensure that there is some basic minimum standard set as

far as sanitary facilities and everything else is concerned?

The

other thing is that in spite of the minister's promise we still have no

regulations that relate to the farm labour contractors who are supposed

to be licensed and bonded under that employment standards legislation.

We kept being promised earlier that once we got towards the farming

season we would ensure that all of these regulations came in. There

were a number of regulations that came in, but nothing that relates to

farm labour contractors as far as the licensing and bonding is

concerned. Even though you have legislation that now states what some

of these farmworkers must earn, there is nothing to protect them from

the farm labour contractor. We know the kind of problems that some of

those farm labour contractors presented to the farmworkers, taking as

much as 40 percent of their earnings in return for a job and

transportation to and from the job. There has been nothing yet, Mr.

Chairman. I would like the minister to comment on some of the issues I

have raised.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: First of all, there

were a number of questions asked by the member for Cowichan-Malahat

(Mrs. Wallace), and I think I'll make reference to those first.

[ Page 6485 ]

far as the boards of review are concerned, if you looked at the annual

report, you would find that there were 129 — you've heard of

section

90(3) — and 26 were not implemented. The question you ask yourself is

why they were not implemented. The WCB, like the Labour Relations Board

or courts, operates on precedent. If a decision is not supportable in

law, then, of course, the boards of review may have been or were in

error, and a higher tribunal may so find. If you want to draw a

parallel, I think it would be very easy to appeal and then go to the

Supreme Court of Canada. I might also say, in drawing the parallel —

and it's very easy to draw, Madam Member — that 129 board of review

decisions were referred for reconsideration and 91 were implemented.

You saw that in the annual report. I'm sure you've read it. Three were

partially implemented, 26 were directed not to be implemented and 9

were still outstanding.

I think that I will have to take the

question of mercury as notice, consult with the appropriate officers of

the WCB and provide a report. I'm advised by the board that it has

funded two health studies on pulpmills: one at Powell River, which is

completed and has been available to the public for several months, and

one at Woodfibre, which is expected to have its report released in the

fall of this year. In addition, I think the member would probably be

interested in knowing that the board committed $365,300 annually for

five years of research into industrial disease and for training of

occupational health physicians. I think you'll find reference to that

in the annual report of the WCB for the year ending December 31, 1980.

would refer the member as well to page 91 of the annual report. The

heading is entitled "Laboratory Analysis Report." If you look down,

you'll see the number of substances identified as inorganic, the number

of requests which were made for analysis and the number of decisions

which were given. You'll note also that both the number of analyses

required and the number of determinations given for mercury are

relatively small when you compare them to something like copper

fluoride or particulate. In other words, I think the board is obviously

very much aware of the concern the member has raised. Also there was a

biological surveillance program conducted in 1980. As far as mercury is

concerned, you'll see on page 95 of the annual report that there are

eight companies and 280 workers were surveyed. Of course, it would

probably be most helpful — and I suspect the practice is followed to

some degree — if there is a concern in a working environment, that that

concern were always brought to the attention of those responsible.

a number of the questions raised by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford),

it is my understanding, after reading the regulations, that when

somebody working on a farm is assigned another task, the minimum wage

then comes into play, and they're not on piecework. With respect to

whether or not the crops are heavy or light, I'm going to have to have

another look at that item.

Accommodation. As you know, the

Ministry of Labour sponsored an interim ministerial committee with the

Ministries of Health, Municipal Affairs and.... I've forgotten the

other one. There was a fair amount of work done on that to set out

guidelines for accommodation. I might tell the member that, probably

within the last three months, I visited two farms in the valley, and

one of the farms I visited was the one where the young baby lost her

life. I was particularly interested to see what in fact had come to

pass at that farm since that unfortunate event. It was rather

interesting to note that we found what I refer to as Robertson

buildings. They're metal-clad. There was a new building up, and all the

rooms were properly dry-walled; there was lots of copper pipe and

running water; there were eating areas, cooking areas and showering

areas. So there is a significant difference as a result of some of the

emphasis which was placed upon the farmer involved. They are camp

conditions, and I don't think we should fool ourselves about that, but

they have been considerably improved. I also went to an older farm

where there are berry pickers' quarters. I am advised that they are

there anywhere from four to six weeks. The conveniences are there. They

are not exceptional by any stretch of the imagination, but they are

acceptable. They knew what I was looking for.

I will mention

to the member that there has been a committee struck. Some guidelines

have been prepared. They are in draft form now, and I can't advise you

as to exactly where they stand. I don't think they've been implemented

yet; but copies have certainly circulated among those who are

responsible for accommodation so that they have some idea of what their

goals and objectives should be.

As far as farm-labour

contractors are concerned, the legislation provides for bonding and

licensing. The discretion is placed on the director of labour

standards. When somebody comes in, he'll find out just how many people

there will be and the licence will be given for that number of farm

labourers. What we are primarily looking for in something like this is

protection — to ensure that they are paid. So the bonding requirements

are going to be commensurate with the number of people they are

licensed to contract out. Then you can anticipate or project what wages

will be earned and set the bonding accordingly. Before someone is

issued a licence, they're going to have to establish that their carrier

is properly insured for the protection of those involved.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

There

were a number of questions asked last Friday. The members made

reference to them again today. I thought I would check up over the

weekend and get some notes that might be of assistance. One question

was raised with respect to technological change. We know that this is

going to receive increased attention during the 1980s. Several months

ago, the research branch of the Ministry of Labour. at our direction,

undertook an inquiry into technological changes in major industrial

sectors. The first report covers the plywood and sawmill industries,

and I expect the report reasonably shortly. It is going to focus on

manpower as well as collective bargaining implications. When that is

completed, we can then form some conclusions with respect to the

adequacy of technological change, provisions in the Code and collective

agreements, That's the general question of technological change. There

were a few other questions: I can't really answer as far as secretaries

are concerned.

There was another question with respect to

health hazards to children whose parents have been exposed to radiation

or toxic substances. The occupational environment branch of our

ministry has been promoting a personal hygiene program in this area

where exposure occurs. An example is the smelter at Trail, where the

branch ordered the clean-up of a situation where workers who are

exposed to lead and other toxic materials were bringing this material

home in their clothing. In this case the program included ensuring that

the employer and employees were aware of the problem. A laundry service

[ Page 6486 ]

was

put in at the mill, there was a renovation of locker and shower

facilities with the imposition of a compulsory requirement for

showering and there was an improvement of the air-filter system at the

lunch rooms. Apparently it's working well; the costs associated were

naturally borne by the employer. I'm also advised that the occupational

environment branch conducted an inquiry at the Afton smelter near

Kamloops into the personal hygiene work clothing program similar to

that in Trail; it was successfully implemented and apparently it has

spread from the mill-site to cover the mine workers in the same

location. These programs to prevent workers from taking home toxic

materials in their clothing to other persons have been made through the

Workers' Compensation Board.

MS. SANFORD: Are you reading news releases?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

No,, I'm not, Madam Member, but the question was asked and I thought

that perhaps we would get the appropriate answer. If you're not

interested, I can always sit down.

One particular program is in place in a number of lead acid storage locations in the province.

One

of the areas raised by the member for Burnaby Edmonds (Ms. Brown) is

something that perhaps more should be done on by the branch as well as

the Workers' Compensation Board, and that involves exposure of an

unborn child. I think the short and sweet of it is that I'm not so sure

that much has been done, and perhaps the member who raised that

question raised a good one and we should have an inquiry and look into

it in more detail. There is some work which has been done on it.

There

was another question involving complaints on sexual harassment. I'm not

sure whether it was the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) or the member

for Burnaby-Edmonds who asked it. Anyway, the report says: "Prior to

1980 complaints of sexual harassment were not distinguished from other

sex-discrimination complaints in the records of the Human Rights

Branch. However, in 1980" — if you're particularly interested, and I

believe you asked this question — "there were eleven harassment cases

settled." Four were unsubstantiated; four were not pursued; two were

withdrawn and one was referred to me to appoint a board. As I recall, a

board was appointed on that particular item. That's a total of 36. In

1981, six were settled; three were settled, they were unsubstantiated;

four were withdrawn, and apparently there are nineteen now open to some

form of investigation. Also, as you are probably aware, there has been

a brochure prepared on human rights and sexual harassment. I'm sure the

member has seen it.

One other question was raised with

regard to the women's office mandate which we have in the ministry. The

objective of this particular office, which is under the jurisdiction of

Virginia Greene, and the manager is Jule Morrow, is to improve working

conditions for women and expand women's employment opportunities by

broadening their participation across a wider range of occupations.

Since that time, through some advertising, publicity, preparation of

informational brochures, kits and articles, the women's office looks to

heightening the sensitivity of individuals and groups to women's

employment issues.

There are a number of items on there

which I think are important. I'm not so sure it's really necessary to

raise them all. I suspect the member knows very well what in fact the

branch has been doing and its objectives.

I'd like to go

back to one other item. I'm going to took into the matter of scales. I

was under the impression that scales were mandatory, but you have cast

a seed of doubt. I will make the appropriate inquiry into that.

MS. SANFORD:

I'm interested in how the minister gets these guidelines out to the

various farmers in the province, and whether they include the Okanagan

as well, where there have been serious problems with respect to

accommodation. Have they gone to the Okanagan as well?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

With respect to those guidelines, accommodation doesn't come under the

jurisdiction of the Ministry of Labour; it comes under the jurisdiction

of the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Health has been involved in

this; how far they have gone I can't answer. That's why I was somewhat

reluctant to pursue that. But I know we have pushed this considerably —

there is one employee in our ministry who has taken quite a lead in

this thing. As to their status now I don't know, but they are going to

go through another ministry.

MS. SANFORD: The other

question that I had related to farmworkers. I raised this the other

day, and the minister didn't answer it. It relates to compulsory

coverage by workers' compensation. They are one of the many employers

in the province — I'm talking about farmers — who are not required to

have their workers covered by WCB. I realize that this is one of the

most dangerous occupations, particularly in view of the large number of

pesticides and herbicides used on farms. I am wondering whether the

minister has considered extending compulsory coverage to those

farmworkers.

Some time ago I asked a question in the

Legislature related to human rights and a particular case. This is the

Janice Hope case, dealing with Denis Gray-Grant, the publisher. I did

not receive an answer to that.... Oh, he's got four pages to read on

that one. He's all prepared, this minister; he has it all typed out for

him so that on any question that any member could possibly ask he just

goes through his massive briefcase and hauls it out so he can read the

answer for us.

I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that in this

case the penalty was waived and it was unusual for a penalty to be

waived where it was such a clear-cut case of discrimination. The

minister never did bring that answer to the House, and I'm wondering if

he is prepared to deal with that now.

The other thing, Mr.

Chairman, is that the branch really is suffering because of low morale.

It is largely because the minister himself has not taken an interest in

human rights. We had the McAlpine report sitting around for I don't

know how long. The Human Rights Commission has made a number of

recommendations with respect to changes in the Code, and we still have

seen none of those changes. Apparently the only change is as a result

of a court case — that's to cover a loophole. The Human Rights

Commission has been doing some work in recent times. It has been

holding public hearings and coming up with recommendations, and the

minister is not taking any action in that area.

We also have

the director, Nola Landucci, ordering silence out of the human rights

branch. I think if that human rights branch were comfortable with the

work that it's doing, with the attitude of government towards the issue

of human rights, and with what the minister himself says and does in

terms of the protection of human rights in this province, we

[ Page 6487 ]

wouldn't

have the headline saying that Landucci orders silence out of her own

staff. Human rights are really too important to have a mouthpiece put

on the various workers so they cannot even discuss the issues of human

rights in this province.

It's because this minister does not

take enough interest and does not show enough leadership. I remember

reading an

article at one point where the minister indicated that he

did not even like to appoint boards of review, and it was a terrible

decision that he had to make. So when a human rights issue cannot be

resolved by the branch, the director refers the issue to the minister

to appoint a board of inquiry. Mr. Chairman, there are as many boards

of inquiry waiting to be appointed as he has appointed. He is not

taking any leadership there, and it's only because of pressure that he

got involved to the extent where he at least commissioned a report.

Finally the whole thing was turned over to the Attorney-General, even

though the report recommends that changes are needed in the Human

Rights Code.

I have a few other issues that I would like to

raise with the minister. One of them relates to the youth employment

program. We have already made reference to this program; I expressed my

concern about it. The minister gave a long, convoluted explanation the

other day about why they have cut out awarding jobs through the Work in

Government program to all those volunteer agencies which in the past

have turned to the youth employment program in order to get some

assistance in hiring students to help them in what are really very

worthwhile projects in this province. The fact that the minister has

given these organizations no lead-time has made it very difficult for a

number of them to carry on with the works they have been doing in this

province. It seems to me that if the minister is going to cut out a

program.... I have here just a partial list of the non-profit societies

in the province which relied on the provincial government's youth

employment program to provide them with from one to eight students to

ensure that they could carry on the work that they were doing.

Based

on the information that the minister gave the other day, I cannot

understand why it cost $3,529 to hire a student through the Work in

Government program in 1980 and $878 per job in the private sector. Is

it because those in the private sector are basically at the minimum

wage rate? I know I'm putting the questions thick and fast. Maybe I

should give the minister an opportunity to consult with his staff,

because he doesn't have anything prepared on this one to read. Is it

because they are largely minimum-wage jobs and the cost of the job is

lower in the private sector that they have gone to the private sector

this year? He talks about jobs of a more permanent nature that are

being opened up through this new employment opportunities program which

replaces the youth employment program. Surely there are many jobs in

Work in Government — in parks, with municipal councils — that can

become permanent. I don't accept his explanation that in order to have

permanent jobs he's worked out the Work in Government program and the

work being done through the societies.

We have many lists of

people who had been approved and who have just been eliminated through

that Work in Government program: the Campbell River and District

Association for the Mentally Handicapped, the John Howard Society, the

Comox Valley Children's Day Care Society, the Point Holmes Recreation

Society, the Hornby Island New Horizons Society, and on and on. There

are pages and pages of them that have just been eliminated, with no

lead-time. Suddenly it's all going into the private sector. I wonder if

the minister would comment on those issues.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

In your first question, as I recall, you were concerned about the case

of Hope v. Gray-Grant. I can tell you, I never felt very good about

that case. In fact, I think that's going to be an albatross I'll pack

straight to the end of the road. I disagree, frankly, with what's

involved. However, the law is the law, and I had no alternative. The

concern is whether a penalty should or should not have been assessed in

addition to the consent judgment.

MS. SANFORD: That's normal.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, it is not.

MS. SANFORD: According to your staff, it is.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

The statement that it is normal for a cash penalty to be assessed

against the respondent where a board of inquiry finds that there has

been a clear violation of the Code is incorrect. Since 1975 boards of

inquiry under the Code....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: We might

as well be very clear about this, instead of chattering on and not

saying anything, Madam Member. Do you want the facts or not?

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: All right then, let's get right down to it.

Under

the Code there were findings of discrimination in 39 of 56 cases

referred. Monetary damages were awarded to complainants in 22 of those

cases. Costs have been awarded the branch in only six, notably in the

1979 case of Misty's and the 1981 decision of Chelsea and the Alkali

Braves. If you recall, that particular case involved native Indian boys

and a hockey team.

In the case of Janice Hope v. Denis Gray-Grant, the publisher of Western News ,

no damage award under the

section could be established because the

nature of the violation was such that no identifiable victim could be

demonstrated. I would ask you if you wouldn't mind looking at the

appropriate provision of the Human Rights Code,

section 17(c). That

requires the victim to have suffered aggravated damages in order to

assess a cash penalty for a contravention. The respondent — in this

case Gray-Grant — was willing to consent to a cease and desist order.

It was not necessary to have a protracted hearing, only to obtain an

order for costs.

The object of the Code is not to seek

revenge or impose penalties just for the sake of it. The

section says:

"where the board is of the opinion that the person" — and we're talking

about punitive damages on two restricted conditions — "(

i) who

contravened this act did so knowingly or with a wanton disregard; and

(ii) discriminated against suffered aggravated damages in respect of

his feelings or self-respect, the board may order the person who

contravened this act to pay to the person discriminated against

compensation not exceeding...." As a matter of fact, that was made

clear by the director of the human rights branch.

[ Page 6488 ]

With

respect to the amendment to the Code you made reference to.... I'm not

sure whether you said it was a housekeeping amendment, but it really

wasn't. What it did was make.... I can't speak to legislation in

estimates so I'm not saying anything. But as far as the Human Rights

Code is concerned, you are as aware, as I am, Madam Member, that the

Human Rights Commission is filing its recommendations today. Why would

anybody in their right mind bring in massive changes when in fact three

years ago a commission was requested to search the community, travel

and make recommendations? It doesn't really add up.

The

number of boards appointed is seven. Of the 16 cases which came across

my desk, seven were appointed, there are five outstanding, and the last

two, I think, arrived on June 11. To make a decision on those is not

necessarily that easy.

As far as farmworkers and the WCB are

concerned, that is subject to a thorough analysis and investigation

right now. As a matter of fact, about eight weeks ago I requested my

staff to have a good look at it.

I think that answers all the questions, Mr. Chairman.

MS. SANFORD:

You didn't mention the costs of the youth employment program, Mr.

Minister, but I won't pursue that at this moment. I would just like the

minister to know that the external affairs coordinator for the Alma

Mater Society anticipates that some 500 positions are going to be lost

because of the changes that have been made. These are lost to

university students who obviously have to get back to school next year.

He's handled that very badly, Mr. Chairman. If he wants to make the

kinds of changes he obviously has made, he should give lead time and

ensure that there are alternatives available for those people that are

going to be affected.

The essential services group that sits

over in Vancouver is an advisory agency he set up under the act. We

have never been able to determine what on earth they do. I know that

appointment was made for seven years, but I wonder if the minister can

tell us what reports he receives from that group. How does he ensure

that the money being spent each year through that essential services

advisory agency is well spent? As the minister, what sort of checks

does he have on it? They don't file an annual report in the House, and

we don't know what on earth they are doing. I would like to know how

many reports the minister receives, whether he is satisfied with those

reports and whether he would consider releasing them. What check does

he have on the kind of work apparently being done? I say "apparently"

because I don't think anybody really knows.

I have another

question. Have the companies involved in the northeast coal deal given

assurances to the government that they will be training their own

apprentices? Have they filed a manpower plan? Is there an assurance

that these companies will be training from the outset the kinds of

skilled people that they need, or will they have to pirate them from

other companies that have already been involved in training? Has the

minister been involved in ensuring that the development of the

community at Tumbler Ridge is going to ensure adequate numbers of jobs

for women, for instance? Is that an issue that he has looked into, or

addressed, as he likes to say?

I'm wondering if the minister

has decided to initiate a levy-and-grant system in the apprenticeship

training program. He talked about taking some action. We know that

there are more apprentices being trained than there were before. We

know that he's been attempting to meet that critical need. But he's

also saying that he has to take some further action, because what he's

done has not been successful enough. We certainly concur with that. Is

it a levy-and-grant system that he is considering at this moment? I

would like the minister to answer that.

I have two further

questions. First, does the minister feel that people who work in

British Columbia today should earn enough money to meet the poverty

line? If so, is he prepared to make an immediate change to the minimum

wage? Because people who work at the minimum wage do not reach the

poverty line in British Columbia. Does the minister feel that those

people who are employed as full-time employees should earn enough money

to meet the poverty line? I hope the minister has that question.

last question has to do with his federal counterpart. I'm wondering if

the Minister of Labour here has been in contact with the Minister of

Labour federally in relation to the labelling of chemicals. We still

don't have a proper system of labelling of chemicals in this country.

As I understand it, it has to be done on a nationwide basis, rather

than just provincially. What conversations and discussions and what

action has the minister taken to ensure that will happen in Canada?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I thought I answered the question with respect to chemicals the other

day. I'm concerned very much about the levy-grant system. It's very

difficult. Regarding all of the other matters which you've raised,

Madam Member, I appreciate the sincerity of your concern and I have

taken note of them. We'll see if we can do a better job, okay?

MS. SANFORD: I have to comment, Mr. Chairman, that he obviously knows nothing about what's happening with northeast coal.

The

minister has disappointed us in many ways, because we don't feel that

he has the self-confidence and the capability to make the important

decisions that have to be made in that minister's office. Obviously the

response that he gave to the second member for Surrey today indicates

that he is completely unwilling to face u