1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3979 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Expansion of ferry fleet. Mr. Lovick –– 3979

Mr. Gabelmann

Long-term-care user fees. Ms. A. Hagen –– 3980

Admission fees to provincial museums. Ms. Edwards –– 3981

Tabling Documents –– 3981

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services estimates.

(Hon. L. Hanson)

On vote 48: minister's office –– 3981

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Clark

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Miller

Mr. Sihota

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. REID :

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce, from the great

community of Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale, representing the United

Mobile Home Owners' Association: Mr. At Bain, Met Carrico, Lou Pavelick

and Chet Crellin. Mr. Crellin also serves my ministry on the society

for the Historic Transportation Centre in Cloverdale. Would the House

please make these gentlemen welcome.

MR. HARCOURT :

May I take this opportunity to extend best wishes and success to the

many British Columbians who will be involved this weekend on the many

Walks for Peace. I'm sure that members of this Legislature will join me

in congratulating the thousands involved, given our mutual desires to

see the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons in British Columbia as

part of the nuclear weapons–free zone.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I rise this afternoon to ask the assembly to honour the fact that the

B.C. Federation of Agriculture and its directors are in the precincts

today. Would the assembly please make them welcome.

MRS. GRAN :

Visiting the Legislature today are members of the Greater Vancouver

Home Builders Association: Bill Kennedy, David Dreyer, Willis Graham

and Doug McLean. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA :

Speaking of mobile homes, in the gallery today are Mrs. Margaret

Williams, Mrs. Lynn Williams, and Mr. and Mrs. Naylor, from the riding

of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. They are active in aspects dealing with

mobile homes, and hopefully they'll come back tomorrow when we're

debating mobile homes. Would the House please join me in welcoming them

all to the members' gallery.

MR. LOENEN : Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great delight to welcome the clerk of the

municipality of Richmond, who is up in your gallery. As an alderman, I

relied on his wisdom and counsel, and I really appreciate the service

and contribution he has made over the years to my municipality. I'd ask

the House to please welcome Rod Drennan.

MR. BLENCOE :

Today marks the start of the great Victoria jazz festival, which is

becoming a national event, if not international. I would like, on

behalf of this side and I'm sure on behalf of all my colleagues, in

particular the member for Kamloops, to welcome all the bands that are

arriving in Victoria. It's a great event in the city of Victoria. I

know many of my colleagues will be participating in or viewing the

activities. I certainly would like to wish the festival all the best

luck for this year and for the years ahead.

MR. RABBITT : Mr. Speaker, it's with great pleasure today that I

have three guests in the members' gallery who have come down from the great

little riding of Yale-Lillooet; all three reside in Merritt. Before I introduce

them, I'd like to say that it's very fitting they're here, because

two of them are seniors who volunteer and keep our fantastic little regional

tourist centre going 12 months of the year. We have with us Vi Cressy and her

granddaughter Susan MacDonald, along with her friend Mrs. Joan Law. I would

ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

Also,

Mr. Speaker, we have with us today, from the village of Anmore, Mayor

Weinberg. Would the House also give Mayor Weinberg a good welcome.

MR. ROSE :

I'd like to welcome my constituent Mayor Hal Weinberg, the mayor of the

newest municipality in British Columbia. We're pleased to see him here.

I don't know where he is, but I hope he'll come and see me in a little

while.

MR. CASHORE : I would like to welcome two

young women, residents of Coquitlam. One is a constituent of the hon.

opposition House Leader (Mr. Rose) and the other is a constituent of

mine, the first person being Kim Nazaroff and the second person being

my daughter Judith Cashore. They have just completed their first year

at Simon Fraser University, and they're here to celebrate by watching

democracy in action. Would you join me in welcoming them.

MR. MESSMER :

1 would like the House to welcome a constituent of mine from

Boundary-Similkameen, Sue Irvine, who is in the House today. She is the

past chairman of the school board, an active orchardist and an active

grape grower. Would the House please welcome her.

MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Speaker, also visiting Victoria today and seated in the gallery, is

the president of the B.C. Social Credit Party, Hope Wotherspoon.

Oral Questions

EXPANSION OF FERRY FLEET

MR. LOVICK :

My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I was

delighted to learn, as I'm sure most British Columbians were, that the

B.C. Ferry Corporation is apparently going to expand its ferry fleet. I

was somewhat concerned that less than seven weeks ago the minister

said: "Presently, there are no plans either within my ministry or

within the British Columbia Ferry Corporation to acquire additional

capacity...."

My question is: can the minister assure this

House that any new vessels for the B.C. Ferries fleet will indeed be

built in British Columbia by British Columbia workers?

HON. MR. ROGERS :

I will take the opportunity to answer a couple of questions I took as

notice yesterday. The first is about the Squamish Highway. I was just

going to say that the answers are yes and no and refer members to the

Blues. The simple answer to the Squamish Highway question which you put

to me yesterday was that, because of the construction that has gone on

and the concerns expressed by people in Squamish, Whistler, Pemberton

and further up the road, we are having a study done about the major

construction work that still has to be completed on that

section

between Horseshoe Bay and Squamish. When we have an idea of how

extensive that will be, we might be able to better coordinate the times

when we have to close the highway because of the very nature of that

highway.

[2:15]

My remarks about B.C. Ferries are about replacement — not additional —

fleets. We have to retire some of the vessels. We have retired vessels

that we had previously purchased from Quebec and the United States — the case of one of the vessels. I guess there are five or six vessels for purchase that we've retired.

[ Page 3980 ]

are now looking at retirement of the first British Columbia-built

vessels, and to that end we are in the process of designing new vessels

for replacement of the fleet — not to increase the frequency of

service, but to increase the uplift capacity. If we go through a

regular retirement program, that should amount to one keel a year being

laid. This is a little further along: seven weeks isn't what's changed

the timeframe here. It will probably be a year and a half or two years

before we would get into that process, and it would be a new design.

Your

specific question is whether I can guarantee that it would be built in

British Columbia. All of our other vessels have been built in British

Columbia, and all of the other eastern Canadian shipyards are busy

building what I would call Meech Lake destroyers; that is, destroyers

that help convince the local House to vote for Meech Lake — one or

the other. So I'd hardly think that it would be appropriate to have

them built in eastern Canada, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility

that we'll go to tender.

MR. LOVICK : I'm sure that very crisp and succinct answer will satisfy everybody's concerns.

want to ask the minister a supplementary to that if I might. I'm

wondering whether the minister can tell us whether any consideration

has been given by his ministry, as part of that more elaborate planning

timetable that has already been hinted at, to presenting the people

with a timetable for construction, so that we can do something to

prevent that feast-or-famine existence that shipyards and shipyard

workers now undergo.

HON. MR. ROGERS : That's the

very reason we want to get into the process. If you draw a parallel

with the airline industry, which five years ago wasn't buying any

aircraft and now is lining up, and the manufacturers are into a

two-year backlog, and the national airline is in trouble because of its

fleet age.... We don't want to get into that with the Ferry

Corporation. Quite frankly, if we had a nice, healthy shipbuilding

industry that perhaps got 15 or 20 percent of its annual business from

the Ferry Corporation on a regular basis, I think we'd all be better

off.

But that's evolved as part of our planning: the same

age category that the companies.... When you consider the number of

employees who came on very early in age, we're now getting an employee

group that is getting close to retirement. We're going to get a bump

there; we're going to get that kind of bump in fleet utilization and

fleet age too. But on the main runs, routes 1 and 2, we're going to

have to have greater uplift capacity, because the loads continue to

grow. I expect that if not this year, maybe next year we will get

pretty close to Expo peak loads again, and we had not expected that

level of growth to come that quickly.

MR. LOVICK : The question, of course, still remains: when? I appreciate the fact that it's difficult to be more specific.

supplementary to the minister if I might. I am pleased to learn from

the answers and the other statements emanating from the minister that

indeed there is a clear recognition of a need for good and adequate

service on the ferry routes. However, the focus has been — needless to add —

on the main routes. My question concerns the inland ferry system. I'm

wondering whether the minister can provide us with any assurances that

those communities presently serviced by and dependent on inland ferry

routes will continue to have that service.

HON. MR. ROGERS :

Certainly any community where the only method of access is by ferry

will get that. There are some communities that have alternative methods

of access. In some cases that alternative method of access is very

convenient; in some cases it is very inconvenient. The subject is now

being considered by government. No decision has yet been made.

MR. GABELMANN :

A supplementary to the minister. Given the continuing crisis on the

Campbell River–Quadra run, is one of the new vessels being considered

one that will be permanently established on that particular run?

HON. MR. ROGERS : I think we're going to do my estimates in a couple of days; we might wait until we do that.

That

specific run is an interesting run. Our senior captain has tried

another vessel that's not specifically designed for that run, and it

doesn't work. The currents in that particular water create special

problems. It's something the engineering division of B.C. Ferry

Corporation is examining at this very moment. Certainly we can't use

other vessels designed for the lower Gulf islands, or other vessels

from the former B.C. Highways fleet on that run. The amount of power

required to get into Quathiaski Cove — in fact, to get on either end —

is very substantial. So one of the things we'll be considering is a

replacement for that particular vessel. But I didn't think we'd be

dealing with those constituency problems now.

LONG-TERM-CARE USER FEES

MS. A. HAGEN :

Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health. I'm sure the minister is aware

of rising concern among seniors and their families about the

government's announcements about new user fees. Can the minister assure

the House and B.C. seniors that it's the government's policy that

longterm-care fees will be based on income and not on assets?

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Speaker, I think I've said this in the House a number of times: we will be looking at income and not assets.

MS. A. HAGEN :

To the minister. The minister has continued to refuse information about

the basis for the new fees. There is a very persistent perception among

seniors that 50 percent of the income of the senior in care over $705 a

month will be charged in an additional user fee. Will the minister now

confirm that that is not the case and that no senior who is in receipt

of guaranteed income supplement will be paying any additional user fee

for their per diems in care?

HON. MR. DUECK : The

policy has not yet been developed of how much the seniors that have

income will pay. I think I've mentioned to the member on a couple of

occasions that when this policy is developed, which will be in effect

October 1, we will certainly inform you at that time.

MS. A. HAGEN : This question I have raised again and again because of the concern among seniors. The minister's answer — which has to do with a very basic policy on exempting people whose incomes entitle them to GIS — that that policy is not established is not reassuring.

[ Page

3981 ]

Let me go up the scale a little bit in terms of income and see if the minister

can reassure another group of seniors. Long-term-care residents have concerns

that the spouse who lives at home, often the spouse of an Alzheimer's patient,

the spouse that has been the caregiver for many years at additional stress and

cost, will pay 25 percent of income over approximately $ 1,100 a month in addition

to the fee that is charged her spouse. Can the minister reassure our seniors

about that matter and give them some information about what fees they will be

facing in the near future?

HON. MR. DUECK :

Again I cannot comment on something that is not yet policy. I'm not

sure where the hon. members get their information from, but if we have

not yet got a policy that will indicate how much seniors will pay on

income, how can I answer a question that asks: will it not...? The

policy has not yet been established so I cannot answer that question.

I'm saying that when that policy is defined and established and cabinet

has approved, at that point in time I will be very clear on what our

policy is.

MS. A. HAGEN : A final and discouraged

question to the minister. The minister's stalling tactics are causing

concerns that are raised by his inability to get on with a policy that

should have been set before the seniors were told that this was in

store for them. When will the minister come clean and tell seniors in

this province factually and accurately what faces them in terms of

their health and long-term-care needs? When will the minister come

clean?

HON. MR. DUECK : It is well known that this

information came down in the budget speech, and therefore it was

announced that on October I there will be income testing. That

information was put to everyone — to the opposition and to the seniors —

giving them the information in advance. Had we done it the other way

and said, "As of today this is the policy," we would probably have been

criticized more than we are criticized now. What comes first, the

chicken or the egg? I'm telling you that we have not yet developed that

policy. I have said it a number of times and I'll make it very clear:

when the policy is established, we will let you know.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Mr. Minister, will you confirm that the policy will be in effect on

October 1 and, in fact, the homemaker policy may be in effect before

that time? We're not talking about something that's going to start

then; we're talking about something that's going to be in effect at

that time. When do you plan to effect this change, even if you will not

tell seniors what the change is going to be?

HON. MR. DUECK :

I suppose one can go on fencing like this, and I suppose if I were on

that side I'd use the same tactics, because somehow it makes a good

question period. It's very interesting when you try and stump another

minister, or say he should have done something else. Someday, perhaps,

when you are a minister you will have those questions too.

However,

what I am saying is yes, we plan on having the startup date for

homemakers August 1 and for facilities October 1. Again, the

information as to policy will be well in advance of that date. And

again, I will let you know when that policy is in place.

ADMISSION FEES TO PROVINCIAL MUSEUMS

MS. EDWARDS : My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Recreation

and Culture. Last summer when the minister introduced admission fees for the

provincial heritage attractions, he promised the people of British Columbia

that the funds gathered from the admission fees would be used to maintain and

develop our heritage resources in the province.

This

week the minister was quoted as saying that only one-quarter of the $1

million collected at the Royal British Columbia Museum would be

returned to the museum for capital improvements. Will the minister

explain why he broke his promise, and why he has allowed British

Columbia's heritage to be used as just another source of general

revenue?

HON. MR. REID : I thank the member for that

question. I wanted the opportunity to explain to the members of this

House the program of collecting fees around the province at the

heritage sites, including the museum; how successful it was in 1987;

how the customers who came to British Columbia from outside were happy

to pay for the component; and that we even got the concurrence of the

Attorney-General's mother for the fee attached to the museums. To that

hon. member, let me make it abundantly clear that she's very happy with

her son, but not very happy with his ministry. But she has been

convinced that the program did work very well in '87, and it's going to

be in effect in '88.

We did put more money into the facilities in '87 than we ever had.... The two in the periphery; not the one in Victoria. But....

MR. BLENCOE : Answer the question.

HON. MR. REID :

I'm answering the question. We got responses from the people who did

pay. On top of that, we also collected from people who were so

satisfied with the product that they paid an additional $78,000 as a

donation because of the quality of the product and the....

MS. EDWARDS : Considering the question and the non-answer, is that what your promise was worth, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. REID :

Mr. Speaker, I did promise to all the facilities under my ministry that

I would make the best case I could for retaining the funds within the

facilities. But because of the amount of money that I commissioned on

behalf of the facilities to be spent on behalf of the attractions, I

think I won the argument on behalf of the facilities.

[2:30]

Hon.

Mr. Couvelier tabled a report listing the amounts of property tax

remitted or refunded to taxpayers in the rural areas of the province in

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

LABOUR AND CONSUMER SERVICES

On vote 48: minister's office, $272,097.

MR. GABELMANN :

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin this afternoon's discussion on the

minister's estimates with questions relating to the Workers'

Compensation Board.

[ Page

3982 ]

First I want to ask the minister if he was quoted correctly in today's Times-Colonist .

This is not a direct quote; this is how the reporters have summarized

the minister in the lead: "A 23 percent jump in the number of B.C.

workers killed on the job last year is misleading because disruptions

in the forest and construction industries kept 1986 figures

artificially low, Labour Minister" — blank blank — "said

Wednesday." We can't use your name in the House, so I did it that way.

Is that an accurate or a fair prcis of what you said to the press, Mr.

Minister?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN : The minister "said Wednesday." In order not to offend the rules of the House, I chose not to quote it entirely accurately.

HON. L. HANSON :

In that particular case, if my recollection is correct.... As the

member knows, we get a lot of requests for comments. In that particular

case, the reporter asked me if the low number in 1986 could in any way

be attributed to the number of days lost in the forest industry as a

result of the work dispute. Because the forest industry, particularly

the logging part of it, is one of the higher accident industries, I

said it was a possibility. From that you have the comment that you have.

MR. GABELMANN : The comment is very clear. It's a headline in today's Times-Colonist , saying: "Disruptions in Forestry, Construction Distort Industry Death Rate..." — according to the minister. That's the story, and I'm glad to have the clarification of that.

a CBC interview yesterday, the director of occupational health for the

Workers' Compensation Board, in discussing the news-media-generated

issue around the 190 fatalities in 1987, said that.... I'm not quoting

directly here. I didn't hear the report; somebody else did, and they

have given me the notes on what they thought he said. Nineteen

eighty-six was an abnormally low year — the year before we had 154 fatalities as compared with 190 last year— for two reasons: one is that there was a forest industry strike, and secondly, the economics were not as good in 1987.

just want to take a few minutes now to talk about this, and not in a

sensational way. I must say that I think the media, in responding to

the release of the annual report of the WCB, picked up on what was

clearly a problem but left out some greater problems in terms of WCB

activities. Because, in fact, the 190 fatalities last year continue a

trend. Over the last decade we were sitting between 150 and 160 on into

the low 200s in terms of fatalities every year. So we're not looking at

an abnormal number of fatalities, given the trend over the years. In

that sense, I think the media, unfortunately, left an impression that

gave the wrong slant to this issue. The issue should be that we're

killing a couple of hundred people every year. That should be the

issue, not the rate of change between 1986 and 1987.

I wanted

to clarify the numbers, because there appears to be a public interest

in this subject. You can't do this precisely, but if you take the rate

groups out of the statistical information, rate group 1 is forest

product industries. In that rate group in 1987, we had 40 fatalities.

In 1986, a year in which there was a strike and, according to the

director of occupational health, a lower economic situation, we had 37.

There was an increase of three fatalities in 1987 over a year in which

the forest industry was not at full production.

Construction

is even more difficult to extract from the rate categories because

they're not comprehensive nor do they entirely cover a particular

industry in the way we perceive the industry. But you can do

year-to-year comparisons because the comparisons compare apples and

apples.

In 1986, 33 fatalities were reported in rate group 7, which is heavy manufacturing and construction; in 1987 there were 34 —

one more. So what we have in net terms between 1986 and 1987 is four

additional people killed in forestry and construction, and overall we

have 36 more killed in 1987. So from that perspective, there is clearly

a problem out there in terms of other industries.

When you look at yet another rate group, the mining rate group, the fatalities doubled between 1986 and 1987 –– I

think mining activity was roughly comparable. Employment levels were

significantly higher in 1987 –– 25 percent higher. Assessments were not

significantly higher; in fact, overall they're lower. Penalties were

overall lower. But in mining we had double: instead of five deaths, as

in 1986, we had ten in 1987.

I cite these numbers not

to argue with the minister's response to the media questions, not to be

sensational in any way about the numbers. If I wanted to be

sensational, I would do what the media did, which was to pick on the 36

extra people killed this past year. But in historical terms that

wouldn't be the issue; the issue is that we continue to kill up to 200

people every year in this province.

I made a comment to the

press that I stand by, and that is that if at the Vancouver

International Airport a Boeing 767 went down every year with the loss

of 200 people, we would have inquiries coming out of our ears. That

airplane would probably be grounded, and if it continued to happen,

there would be a massive public outcry about that kind of destruction

of human life. Yet for some reason we can't get our heads around the

fact that we're killing these people in our industries.

This

isn't to talk about the maiming that goes on, the number of paraplegics

and quadriplegics, and other kinds of injuries that lead to permanent

exclusion from the workforce and from a reasonable living. That's not

to talk about all of that as well. We have in this province, in my

view, a crisis that has existed for a long time. It's not one

government or another, it's not one Workers' Compensation Board

administration or another, and it's not one year or another; it is a

continuing crisis in workplace health and safety.

priority should be given to this like we would give if we had killed

200 people at the Vancouver International Airport every year. That's

the kind of priority. I'm not suggesting that we can eliminate

workplace fatalities. I hate to say they're inevitable, but to a

certain extent there is nothing we can do that will eliminate them. But

there is a heck of a lot we could do to ensure that those numbers start

to go down, that the trend line is better. We have not had a good trend

line. While we continue to have dramatic increases in claims — this year an 8 percent increase —

and at the same time a 3 percent increase in employment in British

Columbia.... Let me just run that by the minister again. In 1986 we

had — and I use rough numbers –– 1.274 million people employed; in

1987, 1.306 million, a slight increase. These are figures the

government trots out all the time when we talk about the unemployment

levels.

It's true that there are more people employed, 3 percent more between '86 and '87. We've had 8 percent more claims.

[ Page 3983 ]

went to 169,000-plus, almost 170,000, claims in 1987 from 156,000 in

1986. So we've got an 8 percent increase in the number of claims, a 23

percent increase in the number of deaths from one year to the next,

assessments that have gone down, penalties that have gone down — it doesn't add up.

I'm

attempting to make two points in these comments. The first is that we

should be treating the accident rate, the death rate, as a major

crisis; we should be responding in a way that we would to any crisis of

this proportion. We should also took carefully at the board's decisions

in respect of penalties, and I'm going to get to the whole question of

funded liability a little later. In 1987, penalties are down to

basically 2.4 million from 3.1 million, as shown on page 20 of the

annual report tabled yesterday. Penalties are down considerably.

Assessments are down even more significantly — in very rough terms, by more than $100 million, from roughly $400 million to $300 million.

have a situation where more people are killed, more accidents are

occurring, the cost of living is higher, penalties for violation of

standards are reduced and assessments are reduced from, as I say,

roughly $400 million to $300 million. In fact, it's $399 million to

$296 million. What's that? A 25 percent reduction in one year. At the

same time — and I repeat the point — we have more people

killed and 8 percent more claims. Something doesn't ring true here

except and unless workers are receiving less for their injuries or less

is being paid out.

I'm going to be the first person in this

House to say that I don't understand the complexities of the actuarial

basis upon which a lot of this stuff is calculated. I've tried. I don't

have that kind of mind, but I can figure out some basic things. I can

see that there's less money available for current claims, because there

are fewer assessments coming in and the revenue from investments is

close to being the same: if I'm reading this correctly, up $16

million — $230 million to $246 million. It's the same in real terms, concerning what we're talking about.

[2:45]

layman's terms, in my simple-minded view of what's going on, the board

reduced its funded liability by $545 million between 1985 and 1987. If

I add up what the annual statement says, they reduced their funded

liability; they no longer have an unfunded liability. We talked seven

or eight years ago in this House about an unfunded liability at the

board of somewhere around half a billion dollars. We've now got that

turned around to where the board says they don't have an unfunded

liability. In fact, if my memory's correct, they have a $73 million

surplus in their funding for future liabilities.

understanding is that future liabilities are the costs incurred from

claims that have been settled and have future costs attached to

them — pensions and future payouts. We are now in a surplus

position for that, having reduced the amount by $545 million in the

last few years. These are rough numbers, but my understanding of the

annual report is that they're accurate,

The board is saying

it needs half a billion dollars less to pay out future claims. It says

it needs $100 million dollars less, in rough terms, to pay out this

year's current claims, in terms of the assessments it levies. These are

really ballpark numbers, just to make it simple. Why? There are several

answers, I guess. In terms of the funded liability, one of the answers

is that it may have been calculated at a 10 percent inflation rate back

in 1980, 1981 and the late 1970s, and they're now calculating at a 4

percent inflation rate. That's part of the answer, no doubt.

I would like to know — because these annual reports don't tell us —

what the board uses for its actuarial tables in respect of its funded

liability. There is an old line about accountants who, when adding two

and two, will give you four. Actuarial people, when adding two and two,

will say: "What answer would you like?" I suspect what we have here is:

"What answer would you like?"

How much of the reduction has

been achieved because of a different way of calculating and because of

perhaps a different expectation about inflation, and how much of it is,

in fact, because workers are getting less in pensions and in actual

claim settlements from the board as a result of the tight-fisted

administration of that board that really began under Walter Flesher and

continued under Jim Nielsen. Since my time is almost up, I wonder if

the minister would give me some general comments and some specific

answers if he can.

HON. L. HANSON : The member has

certainly covered a wide number of issues. Starting with the deaths: I

don't think that anyone is suggesting there is an acceptable norm of

deaths. I don't think any are acceptable, and I don't think anyone

would argue with that. The comparison of a 747 crashing each year is

not a fair comparison because, in effect, it's an apples-and-oranges

situation in that each of the deaths that happened in the industrial

community last year, as reported in there, were for various reasons.

Some

were accidents of this type; some were accidents of another type. When

you have the crash of a 747, it usually is a mechanical error or

something like that. The cause of that total can be easily determined;

it isn't as easy as it is in the case of a calamity like that. I think

the member would admit that's the case.

His comment about

the forest industry.... When I was asked by the reporter if that is a

possibility, I said: "Yes, it is a possibility." The part the member

has left out of the equation is the fact that when the forest industry

did close down for a length of time, I think even the member, coming

from a community that is so highly affected by that industry....

Because of the length of time of that closure, there certainly were

effects that rippled out into the community and other areas of

employment and industry. Far be it for me to say that that strike in

1986 is the reason there were less.

I was asked if that

could have contributed to it, and it's a possibility that it could have

contributed to it. I think if you look at it in a rational and

practical way, you can see that the forest industry affected far more

than employment directly in the forest industry.

The member

is suggesting that the dollars involved in the number of penalties were

less, and the facts are here to show that. You have to add to that

equation that there was a considerable increase in the number of

penalties, even though the total dollar amounts may not have been as

high.

There is a figure in here that says that the

occupational safety and health officers completed 37,736 workplace

inspections in 1987; compliance orders issued went to 52,900 from

48,193 in 1986, and penalties assessed by the division increased to 568

from 428. So while the member is correct that the dollar amount is

less, you have to add the other

part into that equation, I think, in

fairness.

The accident situation that we are talking about

relates to the Workers' Compensation Board, and because I have some

other responsibilities in the ministry, I'd just like to point out

[ Page 3984 ]

that

we have a difficulty in the increase in traffic accidents in 1986 as

opposed to 1987. If I remember the figures correctly, they were not

quite 600 in 1986, and in 1987 there was something in excess of 600;

that certainly is a problem that we are trying to deal with. I don't

think that this government or any of the members on this side condone

deaths in accidents in any manner, but unfortunately human nature is

such that they are very difficult to eradicate completely.

I'm

sorry, Mr. Member, if I have forgotten some of the questions that you

raised in your presentation, but I do think that there is some

correlation between less economic activity and fewer claims. Whether

that is a total answer, I would not say without some pretty in-depth

analysis of the figures.

In the area of future liability or

the funded and unfunded liability, the member is quite correct that

there was a reduction of about $500 million in the unfunded liability

from 1982 to today. That isn't necessarily all of the story. The member

is suggesting that the unfunded liability has dropped, which is quite

correct. The liability didn't drop $500 million; the amount of funds

that were available to fund liability matched the liability that the

actuarial people.... And in 1982 it was $500 million short, roughly, in

terms of dollars.

The actuarial situation is a little bit

of a confusing thing to a layman, and I suffer from that same

difficulty. I know that the people who the Workers' Compensation Board

consult to do that are well recognized in the insurance industry, if

you will, and from the information that I am able to obtain, the

systems, procedures and standards that are set are well recognized and

accepted standards in actuarial forecasts. But again, I can't get into

the technical part of that actuarial assessment. I do place a fair

amount of confidence in the consultants we use to do that. Their report

is in the WCB annual report, and from as near as I am able to

determine, it is an accepted and proper standard that they use for that

evaluation, and I have to accept that as being a good....

think the member is quite correct in saying that the liability area is

a very complicated one. He's quite correct in saying that one of the

reasons that there has been a reduction in the unfunded

part is a

reduction in the rate of inflation. I think that is probably a

significant amount. There were some gains in investments that I

understand had another influence on it.

The amount of money

collected from the assessment in 1987 is another concern the member

issued. I don't want to talk too much about it, but the $100 million or

$99 million that was issued has raised some controversy and is being

contested in court, as the member knows. I don't want to get involved

in the correctness of that, but I would have to suggest that if those

were credits to the assessment in the year, there would be a reduction

in the amount of the assessment; it would make an arithmetical proper

assumption.

I guess the last thing I would like to point

out is that in the report, the auditor-general has audited the works of

the Workers' Compensation Board and has in fact certified that, in his

opinion, they are correct. To tell what the auditor-general has made of

the actuarial assessment of the future liability I really couldn't

answer, but it has been examined.

MR. GABELMANN :

We'll get into the question of the $99 million.... I recognize the

limitations that apply to us all in the House on that question, and

I'll be careful about that.

First of all, I don't want to

argue the point back and forth, because I don't think we disagree in

respect of my analogy of the air crash, as compared to workplace

fatalities. I'm only making the point that I don't think that we in

this society in general — whether it's the Workers' Compensation Board itself, the government or the public at large —

are paying enough attention to workplace fatalities. I don't think we

give enough priority to finding ways to prevent them. There are a

variety of things we and the board can do, but it will cost money. It

might mean the employers can't get their $99 million back, as they did

last year; it might mean they can't get the payback this year that I

hear might be forthcoming. Whether it is or isn't I can't demonstrate,

so I can't say it's going to happen, but I sure hear the rumours that

there's another payback coming this year.

Whether there is

or isn't, let's leave that aside for the moment. There was one of $99

million last year. This is at the same time that training programs for

new, young workers coming into industries that have high fatality rates

have been diminished. We have fewer and less effective training

programs in a whole variety of industrial activities in which there

should be comprehensive training programs. They have been reduced, and

I make that as a general statement; I'm not being objective about it in

the sense of giving you a detailed list of exactly how they've been

reduced. But everybody out there in the community says to me that the

training programs for new workers are not nearly effective enough and

that people are actually doing jobs — particularly in the bush, but elsewhere too —

that they are not fully prepared to do in terms of the safety

requirements. People are going out to do dangerous work without knowing

what the WCB rules are. That's just a fact of life. People are using

pesticides without knowing the potential damage that herbicides and

pesticides can wreak. That's a clear problem.

[3:00]

think there are questions of lack of enforcement too. The minister says

there were 37,000-plus inspections last year. Last year the number of

employers was 94,000. That means that just over a third of the

employers had inspections. I realize this is a simple-minded way of

getting at a point, because it's not as simple as that, but it makes a

general point. Somewhat over a third of the employers registered with

the board actually had their workplace inspected last year. This means

that 60 percent did not have their workplace inspected, which means

that if you are an employer and not drawing attention to yourself, one

way or another, you're facing an inspection perhaps once every 33 or 34

months. That is not sufficient to ensure that equipment or other

workplace hazards relating to environmental health are up to snuff; it

doesn't ensure that training programs are being conducted in a way

that's adequate. There just isn't enough attention being paid to

prevention, and any one of us, as MLAs who spend some time in our

constituencies, can at a moment's notice point out to a visitor the

good and the bad employers in respect of safety. I can take the

minister to logging contractors who almost never have a compensable

claim — and it's not because they have walking wounded and they hide them; it's because they run a safe show —

and others who are constantly running into problems with safety. That's

true in logging; it's true in the mills; it's true in just about every

area of our society.

To pick on another side of this issue,

what kinds of programs are in place for hospital workers? It is one of

the most serious areas of concern, not for fatalities here, but for

claims, and most of those claims back-related. Very little appropriate

training is being given to orderlies and others

[ Page 3985 ]

who

are involved in lifting patients: nurses, practical nurses, RNs,

orderlies, others in the hospital system who are lifting patients

often — I was going to say almost always — incorrectly. Then

they end up with back problems. And then, to digress entirely from my

prepared notes, they end up at the board and they discover that they

had a pre-existing condition and so their claim is only 5 percent. They

can never work again, but they get a pension of $100 a month for the

rest of their life. It's just a crazy system that we have here.

MLAs, we all end up trying to help the poor worker who's getting that

$105 a month for a pension because he can't work anymore. But let's

spend more time trying to prevent the actual injury in the first place.

I'm just asserting that this does not happen in sufficient measure at

the present time.

I wonder if the minister can answer this

question. This is back to funded liability, in which we have a $73

million surplus right now, as I understand it. When the board considers

its future liabilities for payout, does it include the potential cost

of a 45 percent success rate at the boards of review which are dealing

with claims that predate the current year? Does the funded liability

include a projection for that particular item? The minister may not

know it off the top of his head; I'd appreciate it if he'd find out. I

just wonder what the potential cost to the board is for all claims

before the review boards; in other words, backdated claims. I think the

board refers to them as "unfinalled" claims.

I wonder if the minister would comment on the rumour — nothing more than that; I don't have any source that says it's going to happen —

that there will be another payback to the employers this year. If the

minister doesn't like my term "payback," it’s just a reduction of the

ongoing assessments; I think that is the way the government likes to

characterize these amounts. But another equivalent to the $99 million

of last year — I wonder if in fact we are going to see that.

I'll just see if there are any comments from the minister at this point.

HON. L. HANSON :

First of all, I can assure the member opposite that at this point there

are absolutely no plans to reimburse any surplus that may be there in

the WCB.

As to an answer to his question of whether any

consideration is given to those cases that are before the review board,

I honestly can't answer that, but we will deliver that answer to the

member as soon as we are able to get it.

I guess the only

other comment I would like to make at this time is that the member

referred to the inspections. We could have a complete inspection to the

degree of.... Everyone has seven inspections a year or whatever. I

don't know what level the member is really looking for. I do know that

the members of the board do pay attention to any particular operation

where there is an aberration from the averages of the industry as to

accidents reported or reports of inefficient or unsafe practices in the

workplace. In fact, special attention is paid to those. There is a

system — although it may not be the total answer — the

claims-rated type of assessment, where, if there are a number of claims

that are paid out, there is an adjustment to the assessment rate for

that individual company. It isn't something where a company would like

to totally ignore the safety procedures and regulations, because there

is a penalty involved for them if they do that. Many of the firms that

I have knowledge of do have safety committees and they have them for

that very practical reason. The numbers of skilled or other people who

are not able to come to work as a result of accidents are not only a

moral problem as far as society is concerned in having these injured

people in our society, but also there is a cost to the actual

operation. So it is not in the best interest of business not to look at

safety and be very conscious of safety, and so on.

I know

that we will continue to have inspections. We will continue to monitor

situations where there are unsafe practices being either pointed out to

us, or the numbers of claims point out to us that it is a difficulty;

and we will continue to encourage the employers to pay recognition to

that difficulty if it is in one particular operation or one particular

employer. Actually, if you listen to the other jurisdictions.... I

would not stand here and say to the member opposite that anything but

perfect is good enough. British Columbia's safety record and British

Columbia's inspection methods, our regulations as far as workers'

compensation is concerned, are looked at quite often as the best in

Canada; they are looked at as the example that a number of other

jurisdictions would like to emulate. I would not say to the member that

there isn't room for improvement; always we continue to strive for that.

MR. GABELMANN :

In general terms, the concern that the public and those of us who keep

an eye on WCB issues have is twofold: first, that there are too many

accidents, too many deaths; and secondly, there is too much of a

bureaucratic maze for workers to go through to get their claim

finalled — to use the board's word. Together with that second

point, there is a real problem in terms of pension levels for people

who have effectively ended their working life as a result of being

injured, simply because of the pre-existing-condition argument that the

board uses all the time.

In face of that, in face of the

deaths, in face of the continued cripplings and the trauma that many

people.... And I agree it's 3 percent or thereabouts; 2, 3, 4 percent

of the claims are problematical. Most are resolved easily and I don't

quarrel with those figures. But 3 percent of 170,000 is what, 5,400, to

do it quickly. That's 5,400 people who have problems.

Now

sometimes the problem and the claim were not legitimate. Fair enough;

some of them are in that category. Sometimes they are incredibly grey

and sometimes they're not; the review board says they should have been

paid in the first place. But the trauma that occurs for a good number

of those 5,400 people in the '87 year who are in that 3 percent and

have problems is just immense for too many of those people. We're not

talking about a huge proportion of British Columbia's population; we're

talking about a few thousand people. But a few thousand people is too

many people who have that kind of problem with the WCB.

argument about the $99 million, the payback to the employers, is that

there is much left to be done by the WCB that will cost some money,

including stronger standards, including additional inspection and

including a more sympathetic administration. The $99 million could be

well spent in that area, as opposed to having been spent on giving it

back to the employers.

We have no problem in this province

having as part of government policy a sympathetic administration when

it comes to forestry policy, in terms of meeting the annual allowable

cut, or meeting the percentage of wood you have to actually take out of

the woods. No problem with sympathetic administration there. When it

comes to the hard, bottom-line dollars for the forestry companies, no

problem with

[ Page 3986 ]

sympathetic

administration. But we haven't had any sympathetic administration in

the Workers' Compensation Board for so many years now that it's about

time the government adopted as a matter of government policy some

sympathetic administration, and we don't have that at the present time.

Any

member of this House who deals with casework, or any member of this

House who checks with their constituency assistant regularly to see the

casework they are dealing with, or any member of this House who chats

with the staff at the workers' adviser's office about claims as they

come up, will know that there are too many people going through too

many hoops and being hassled to the point where their lives and their

emotional state are, if not threatened.... In many cases it's worse. In

many cases, as I said last year in these estimates I think it was,

marriages are actually being destroyed. I say that knowing an

individual whom I tried to help. His whole personal life was lost

solely as a result of a continuing battle with the WCB. That's just not

good enough. In the face of that kind of trauma, we have $99 million

paybacks. I just think that our priorities are backwards.

[3:15]

1 grant that many employers were in hard economic times during this last half-dozen years or so — nobody questions that. And I grant that WCB assessments are a major cost of doing business in this province —

there's no question about that. And I grant that they would like to

have had a payback. But we also need to look at the other side of this

coin, and that's those people whose lives are being further damaged.

There's enough damage in the trauma of the accident, much less to have

to go through three, four or five years of trauma dealing with an

unsympathetic administration.

That's why I've been, among

many others, calling for the early retirement of the chairman of the

Workers' Compensation Board. He would have done the workers of this

province a favour if he'd opted into that early retirement program, if

he were eligible.

I'll get to that question of the

commissioners in a minute. But while we're on the whole question of

safety and prevention and those issues, I want to refer the minister to

some comments he made last year in the estimates on June 18, 1987. We

were talking about R and D at the board, and the minister said:

"Certainly one of the issues is research development, further

preventive research, and that is a particularly appropriate project at

this time because of the financial position of the WCB." He was making

reference then to the fact that the WCB was in better financial shape;

therefore research would be appropriate. He went on to say: "I can say

to the member that yes, I am pursuing that" — research — "although I haven't spent as much time with it recently as I should have. "

A year ago or more — and I don't know the date for this —

at least one of the players in this research field, the Federation of

Labour, gave a list to the ministry or the WCB, I'm not sure which, of

members for a committee to oversee a research program. Apparently

nothing has happened. The minister said a year ago June that he hadn't

been spending enough time on it then. People have responded to the

question for more research on prevention. But unless I've missed it,

there doesn't appear to be very much happening in research.

I wonder, as well, about another research request that has been made and apparently

not dealt with, the whole question of cedar dust. UBC is prepared to do research

into the whole question of cedar dust, which is a real problem in cedar mills — obviously — and there's a question about whether or not the WCB funding

for this research will be continued. I know it's a minor question in the

scheme of things, but it's an important question for people affected by

it. I wonder if the minister can tell me about the status of that research project.

Just a few comments, if the minister will, before we move on to another area

of the whole research question.

HON. L. HANSON :

I certainly would not be one to stand here and argue with the trauma

that people face as a result of accidents. That applies to more than

just the industrial scene; it applies in the everyday walk of life,

which may have nothing to do with the Workers' Compensation Board, and

also to motor vehicles and all of the other things that go along with

that.

The member referred to a case he had attempted to

work on personally, and said that it wasn't resolved and the trauma

associated with that has caused a separation or a family difficulty. I

recognize those problems and I recognize them with great seriousness. I

don't want to get into an argument here about the determination of

whether the man or woman — I don't know what the case was —

was hurt as a result of an industrial accident. There's no question of

the accident or the disability that has occurred; there's a question of

where it happened and what the dispute is. The member is saying that

that trauma has ruined someone. I wouldn't argue with that; I've also

seen cases where that is the difficulty. Unfortunately, the

determination of whether it is a compensable injury as a result of an

industrial accident is where the key comes in.

I also would

acknowledge that the weight that has been and is still not completely

answered as a result of applications for review of decisions has been

another contribution to the emotional disturbance, and so on, of the

individual. It isn't always the fact that the determination is not

positive to the individual; it's the fact that it hangs there for so

many months before a decision is made, and that that person can't get

on with his life. Because he can't do that, the emotional problems

related to it make it that much more difficult.

But I have

to say to the member that we have made what I consider to be progress

in that area. We were somewhere up in the 24- to 30-month range for a

determination before the Workers' Compensation Review Board. Depending

on where the claims originate, we're now down to 10 or 11 months. We

now have 3,700 in the system, as opposed to something in excess of

5,000 that we had previously.

We are doing something else

which I think will have some effect on the emotional status of these

claims or appeals: we are advising the appellant, upon the filing of

the claim, of the date of the hearing, so that there isn't an

uncertainty hanging there for six months, a year or a year and a half;

at least the individual knows. But we are down now to something less

than a year.

Some of the things that we have in place: on the filing of an appeal, there

are some waiting periods for a counter-claim to be filed, and so on. We don't

anticipate that we will ever get them down to a ten-day or a 30-day hearing

period, say, but we'll get them down to a reasonable figure, we hope.

certainly can't argue with the member opposite that we do need to take

a long look at our research. One million dollars in 1987 is not an

awful lot. I have to admit to the member that I had been under the

impression that the cedar dust research funding had been resolved, but

I'll check that further and let the member know.

[ Page 3987 ]

Talking

about the review board, we've had an internal group working at the

Compensation Board, with the new chairman in place, at things that we

can use to speed up the process even more and make it more efficient. I

hope that by next year at this time we will have the appeal process

down to what everyone would consider to be an acceptable standard.

I didn't agree that there weren't some improvements needed, I wouldn't

have recognized that need by appointing the advisory board that we

have. I have great expectations of the recommendations that 1 hope will

flow from that group as being a basis for a number of improvements in

the system. I don't think the member opposite — who would be very aware of the names —

could argue that we have anything but a pretty high profile and pretty

highly motivated individuals serving on that committee. I look forward

to some great or at least good recommendations that we can use as a

basis for some improvements.

Labour is definitely involved

with the profile of the individuals who are there. If I've heard any

criticism, it's that maybe the only people represented are the

unionized side of the labour force. I don't think that's a fair

criticism, because I think that the concerns of the employee are the

same whether he happens to be organized or not organized.

the subject of the soft-tissue injuries, that is a very difficult area.

We're facing it every day; the Insurance Corporation is facing it, as

well as the Workers' Compensation Board. Determinations are less than

absolutely clear for not only the problem but the cause of the problem,

but we're hoping that we will have some improvements in diagnosing the

causes of those injuries in the next months.

MR. GABELMANN : My next topic was this whole question of the review panel, and I will get to that in a minute.

I just wanted to make two additional points in response to the minister. It is my understanding — and this was confirmed in the last day or so — that approximately 42 percent of the appeals to the review boards are upheld; the appeal is successful.

HON. L. HANSON : It varies a little bit.

MR. GABELMANN :

Yes. My memory was that it was 45 percent, but we're talking about 40

or 45 percent in rough terms. We're talking here about 5,000 appeals a

year — at least that was back when we had 160,000 claims — so

you're talking about 2,000, or maybe as many as 2,100, successful

appeals. That seems to me an incredibly high proportion of successful

appeals, given appeals in other areas where a comparable system would

exist.

Let me make the point another way: I wonder about

the decision-making about claims that leads to almost half of the

appeals being turned over. I wonder what kind of analysis is being made

in the adjudication process, so that adjudication officers and people

above them in the ranks of the head office would in fact give

instructions about how to determine a particular claim, based on the

history of review board decisions that are overturned. No doubt there

are patterns involved in the kinds of claims that get overturned.

earlier comments about sympathetic administration.... I would have

assumed that the percentage of successful appeals would go down,

because the first level of judgment, the adjudication process, should

be getting better. They should be getting closer to making correct

decisions as they witness the decisions being made by the review

boards. I know there's apparently no improvement in the number of

claims that keep going to the review boards, and I wonder if.... I have

no way of demonstrating this, because I can't analyze it; I don't have

the capacity, obviously. You've at least got a couple of people around

you; I'm here by myself. Nor do I have a computer, like the board has.

I don't have the capacity to do an analysis of the decisions overturned

by review boards. But the WCB has that ability, and I wonder if the

adjudication process couldn't be improved as a result of some study of

that decision-making process.

The other thing I want to raise — and this is back to the funded liability question —

is that it seems to me that the financial statements of the board were

finalized prior to the decision of the courts on the Guadagni case. The

implications of the Guadagni case are several, but one is that the

board has to pay out immediately the review board makes a decision.

They can rehear, reconsider and re-determine later if they wish, but

they have to pay out right away. That has financial implications that

won't have been considered in this annual report in the financial

statements currently available to us.

I don't expect that

the minister could do this off the top of his head at all, and I don't

even know whether the board has really looked at the financial

implications of the Guadagni decision. I'm sure they are significant.

I'd be interested to know — not today, obviously, but at some point — what the board's thinking is on these lines.

[3:30]

want to move on, because time is always a pressure in this House, to

the question of the review panel announced by the minister: the WCB

advisory committee.

First of all, I guess I should say that

it's certainly a highpowered committee. You've got the leaders, a good,

carefully chosen and, I might say, representative cross-section of the

leaders of both business and labour in this province, there is no

question about that. I don't want to criticize — I'm going to be very careful how I choose my words on this —

the establishment of this committee, nor do I want to criticize the

personnel on the committee, but I want to just remind the minister that

we may end up committeeing ourselves to death here.

We've had several ombudsman's reports, particularly including one of last July which I have somewhere in my files — I won't try to reach it right now; ombudsman report No. 7, if my memory is correct —

to which the minister invited response. Among others. I gave the

minister, as the minister remembers, a lengthy five or six pages of

response to that particular report. So did many others in the field. No

apparent action seems to have followed that process.

We are

now in April; we're at least about a year and a half into the term of

this minister, and no real activity has taken place in terms of

cleaning up the board or demonstrating that it doesn't need cleaning

up. The minister may want to demonstrate that. But there has been no

real activity in this year and a half other than solicitation of views,

about which nothing seems to happen, and the employment of yet another

committee, a committee which has an August 31 deadline. I gather that's

a rubber-wall deadline and we can be flexible, so I'm not going to be

critical about that because if I'm critical of the shortness of the

deadline then I argue against myself in terms of the need to get on

with the job. But I do want to make some comments about this kind of

committee without making any negative comments about the people

involved. These are busy people. This is a busy year in industrial

relations in this province. As everybody knows, most of the contracts

are

[ Page 3988 ]

up.

There are people on this committee who are now involved and who will

continue to be involved in negotiations and for whom negotiations are a

priority.

There is almost no one — and I'll be careful how I phrase this —

on this committee who works day-to-day with WCB. The significant

exception to that is the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board,

who is on the committee. He works daily on the issue. The others have

much else to do. I would hope that this process would be flexible

enough that this group, the minister's committee, will be able to

establish subcommittees on any number of topics that they feel require

some in-depth analysis, and that those subcommittees can be made up of

people who are not on this committee but rather are practitioners in

the field.

In other words, if a particular subject needs to

be examined, the representatives of these various organizations which

are represented can be established.... Committees can be established

from these organizations composed of people who work daily with the

issues involved. Perhaps that's a given; perhaps that's just automatic

and the committee has its mandate to do that. If so, I'd like to have

the minister's assurance that that's the case.

Otherwise

the only appropriate recommendation, one of a limited number of

appropriate recommendations that this high-powered committee could

make, would be to establish a royal commission, a full inquiry or some

process to look at detail. This committee, with all the respect in the

world to the individuals involved, does not have the time, the capacity

or the knowledge to look at the details that require analysis.

The minister will have in his files a letter from — and this is one I pull again out of my memory —

Cathy Walker, who, as the minister knows, is very involved in health

and safety matters for the Confederation of Canadian Unions. It is a

letter addressed to the minister's predecessor, Terry Segarty, but

nevertheless it's a letter that's in the files and which contains page

after page of subject material for an inquiry to consider. The need for

an inquiry — and I made this point in question period a few weeks ago —

is overwhelming, the variety of issues is almost unlimited and the

complexity of some of those issues requires very careful analysis.

we need to have that kind of study, and I trust that one of the

recommendations this group will make is that such a study be

undertaken, not to delay implementation of the needed improvements that

can be made — and I think many on this committee can agree on what

kinds of changes can be made. If this committee, for example,

recommends an executive structure, and it's a recommendation that they

all are happy about and the minister doesn't have any serious problems

with, then let's not delay the implementation of such a recommendation

for a full study, or any other comparable kinds of decisions; let's get

on with making the necessary changes.

So I think it's a

great committee. I'm delighted the minister was able to put it together

the way he did and I commend him for that. But I hope it has enough

ability to do the necessary detail work before August 31.

I'll leave that and go on to the next topic, which is the whole question

of the minister's style of appointing commissioners. With all the respect

in the world that I have for the two most recent appointments to the commission,

Erik Wood and Vic Stusiak — I don't know Vic Stusiak, but Erik and I go

back three decades.... At least, Vic had a week of appointment. One of the

arguments many of us make about appointments to the position of commissioner

on the Workers' Compensation Board is that the people appointed have to

have the respect of the communities they represent. Clearly there is an assumption,

which the minister is following — I question that now — that the chairperson

of the board is theoretically neutral; and there are commissioners, normally

a couple from each side, employer and employee. That's a general kind of

rule of thumb of what we have.

But we've had commissioners appointed now for some years — not just these last two ones — who haven't been recommended by the people they're supposed to represent. They have come through some other process —

which none of us can prove, but it isn't a proper process. When you

don't follow a proper process, you run into the Vic Stusiak kind of

problem, where the minister discovers.... A reporter phones him a week

later and says: "Mr. Minister, did you know that Mr. Stusiak doesn't

believe in workers' compensation in principle?" And the minister says:

"Well, Valerie, are you going to run with that story today? I'd prefer

you didn't." And then tomorrow the appointment's rescinded. I don't

know if I have the story exactly right, but I'm close enough for it to

be a way of demonstrating the point.

I think Erik Wood is a

great appointment. But he too doesn't come from consultation with the

parties. In this case that doesn't appear to have led to any problems

and probably won't lead to any problems, because he's a conscientious

guy and will do a good job for British Columbia. But the process leads

to the kind of problems the minister had with Mr. Stusiak.

Let

me just say clearly to the minister that instead of having the

Provincial Secretary approach you in a cabinet meeting or in the

hallway or something and say, "I've got this guy in my riding," or, "A

guy I used to know in Burnaby needs a job and I would like an

appointment," and the minister saying, "Well, I've got a vacancy on the

WCB so I'll appoint him," let's put an end to that kind of appointment

making and, for those key positions, have a process that leads to the

appointment of people who have the respect of the parties they are

ostensibly representing. The minister will gain from that because the

politics will be good. The parties of interest — as a former minister used to always call them — will

be delighted; and the minister won't have any political problems,

because anything that might have been a problem will have been pointed

out.

HON. L. HANSON : The comments the member made

regarding the review board are, from my knowledge, a par in recent

history that is appropriate. The percentage has varied between 40 and

44 percent over the last number of years. There's certainly nothing new

in that.

I would point out to the member that a number of

the reviews are heard a number of times and the determinations made by

the review board are not always a monetary award in the sense that this

should happen. They are usually a recommendation that there should be a

review of the amount or the term or that sort of thing.

The

new chairman of the WC Review Board is doing some research into and

analysis of the process. Quite frankly, I think we're making excellent

progress in the review board area, not only with the numbers but with

the term of wait, and I also subscribe to the fact that the decisions

coming forward are of excellent quality.

It's interesting

to hear the member's concern about the review board. I know the member

did respond to me on the ombudsman's report, and No. 7 is correct. But

I'd have to say

[ Page 3989 ]

to the member that, of the responses I received —

and I certainly received a number of them, because I canvassed a good

cross-section of the labour and employers' community — there

certainly was not any clear direction. As a matter of fact, I guess

there was such a variety of responses that any clear-cut direction was

very difficult to ascertain.

I still think that the best

way to go is the way we're going with the committee. I have to

acknowledge the fact that the committee members are all very busy

people; I would also have to acknowledge that they are all volunteers.

I didn't have to go to those members, twist their arms and say: "Please

do this." They felt that the issue was of an importance that it was

appropriate to spend their time on, as committed as their time was

prior to that. I tried very hard to put together a committee that could

look at things in a very factual manner, keeping the perspective in

place. I certainly have no criticism.

[3:45]

There

are a number of people working in the community who are advocates of

the workers. They are there to ensure that the worker's claim is

upheld. That is certainly a good and justifiable reason. I didn't want

to have terribly biased approaches to this advisory committee from

people who become very involved day to day with those claims. I'd also

have to say to the member opposite that the people who have agreed to

serve on that committee not only will have the resources that my

ministry can provide as they need them, but they do have a lot of

resources within their own organizations, which will be very beneficial

in their serving on this committee.

I guess I should change

that and say to the member that I think the man appointed as the

chairman, Don Munroe, has the ability to make that committee work. I

certainly will provide him with any resources he needs to make it work.

I have to say to the member that given all the approvals, if there

are — and I know there will be — a number of recommendations

that come forward, this government will look very seriously at

implementing very quickly the solutions they come up with or at least

as quickly as is reasonable. We won't be treating those recommendations

very lightly; I guess that's the assurance I have to give.

MR. GABELMANN :

I appreciate what the minister is saying, and I don't disagree. The

people on this committee certainly either know directly themselves, or

have access to staff in their own organizations who do know directly,

what the issues are. I guess what I'm hoping will come from this group

is a series of recommendations about some of the critical issues facing

compensation in this province right now, and a recommendation for a

process that continues on beyond the terms of reference of this

particular group. I don't believe this is a substitute for a royal

commission or a full inquiry, and I just want to make that point. I too

have full confidence in Don Munroe; I've worked with him on occasion as

well, and I have full confidence in the committee. I hope that the

resources the minister makes available to this committee don't all come

from a defensive position within the WCB. I hope that if resources are

made available to the committee, they are resources that don't have a

position to defend, but resources that have some independence and

neutrality in approaching some complex issues.

It's very easy and natural in an institution like the WCB — and, I'm sure, about any other fossilized institution, which I think that one is —

for employees in that system to become defensive about what they do and

about the decisions they make. So I'm delighted there's no more than

one person from the board in there on the particular committee to adopt

that predictably defensive role that will come. The assistance, I

trust, will come through the office of another member of that

committee, a member of the committee who happens to be sitting in the

House at the moment. If the assistance comes through his office, as

opposed to Mr. Nielsen's office, I think it will serve the committee

much better. I just make that point, and I'll leave the issue.

want to move on to the whole question of court cases and the procedure

the board is using for implementation of review board decisions. I

don't intend to take the time to do a review of the three or four cases

that pertain to implementation of review board decisions. The Guadagni

decision, the last in a series of Supreme Court judgments, finally

appears to have prompted an appropriate response on the part of the

board — or seemingly appropriate, and that's what I want to pursue.

wasn't particularly impressed by Jim Nielsen's response to the Guadagni

decision. He took the view that was almost.... He didn't say it, but he

almost said that the courts are taking away from him and his

commissioners the right to make decisions by adopting such a decision.

What the courts have really done is to say to the commissioners: "You

haven't been following the law. You might not like the law; you might

not like the fact that Terry Segarty introduced an amendment in the

House in February 1986 that changed the way in which review board

decisions are implemented, and reduced the powers of the

commissioners." That's what that amendment effectively did: enhance the

power of the review board and reduce the power of the commissioners.

Mr. Nielsen and his commissioners may not like that, but it's the law

of the province. Why it should take three or four Supreme Court judges

to tell that to him before they finally begin — and begin is the right word — to implement the judgments is beyond me.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Nielsen says in a Sun

story that he disagrees with the court's

interpretation of the law.

Well, Mr. Nielsen's job is to follow the law, to obey the law and to

put the law into practice. It's not his job to question Supreme Court

judges in this province as to their

interpretation of the law. If Mr.

Nielsen doesn't like the law or doesn't like the way it's interpreted

by the courts, his clear obligation is to discuss with the minister

legislative amendments to design the law in a way that he wants it to

be written, or to happen. But he doesn't do that. He goes on —

typically, I might say.... I don't like to pick on public servants, but

Jim's not quite a public servant. He is in a different category. and as

a former member of this House I think he's in a different position than

most public servants, who I will not criticize. But this one I will,

because he's a political appointment in order that the Premier wouldn't

have to run with him in a double-member riding in Richmond. That's why

he's in that job. He does not have the right to be as arrogant about

his

interpretation of the law as he has been in the face of these

Supreme Court judges. His continued presence in the WCB offices is a

disgrace, in my view.

I'll take a minute just to describe

what I understand the essential problem to be. The Workers'

Compensation Board does not want review board decisions to violate

Workers' Compensation Board policies. That's essentially the nub of the

problem we have. The board has policies under which it

[ Page 3990 ]

operates,

and on occasion it feels that review board decisions implement a

different policy, in effect, and that the board wants the ability to

review the decision that the review board makes, to be sure that it is

consistent with policy. I understand that, and in the debate that we

had on the amendments to the act, away back when, I made that point. I

understood that, and that there needs to be a mechanism for dealing

with the possible problem where a review board will unthinkingly or

unwittingly — or perhaps deliberately, because it doesn't like the policy — make a decision that violates the policy of the board.

The

ombudsman, in report No. 7, dealt with this problem, and he deals with

it in recommendation 19. That would have been a simple decision to

implement, I think, because the ombudsman recognized both sides of the

problem and proposed a solution. I guess this goes to the committee,

and they'll have to make some recommendation, but I don't understand

why the minister, at the time of the report in July of last year, given

the fact that there had already been court cases and given the fact

that there had been subsequent court cases, couldn't have gone to the

commissioners and said: "Implement recommendation 19. It's

straightforward and clear." In the first place, I don't understand why

the minister would have to do it; I don't know why the board didn't do

it. But they didn't.

It is for me really crucial in terms

of these estimates to find out what the process is now when a review

board decision is made which overturns a WCB decision — in other

words, when the claimant is successful in having a decision overturned,

or, on the other side of the question, when the employer is successful,

because that does happen too. Presumably, the review board decision is

sent to the Workers' Compensation Board for implementation. Presumably,

the decision of the review board — be it a payout, be it a recommendation that the board do something — immediately happens. That's what the Guadagni decision required.

The

review board decision arrives at the WCB office. The staff look at the

review board decision and they determine whether or not it's consistent

or inconsistent with policies. They then implement the decision,

effective the date of the claim or, if the review board determines,

some other date. As I understand the process, they implement it

effective whatever date it is the claim was filed or appropriately to

be paid, or another date if the review board so determines. If the

staff think the review board has made a mistake, they can refer the

decision to the commissioners, and the benefits continue to flow.

That's my understanding of what happens.

I'd like the minister's confirmation that what happens from here on in —

just to summarize what I think I've said, from my own convoluted

language here, because I was reading from notes as well as from my

memory — is that the review board decision is made, it goes to the

board, it's implemented, it's analyzed by the staff. If the staff feel

it should go to the commissioners for review, it does, but the benefits

continue to be paid. The commissioners can make a judgment later on, if

they choose to, to upset the review board decision, and at that point

the benefits stop — should they choose to do so.

[4:00]

What happens to the decisions prior to now — all of the review

board decisions pre-Guadagni? How are those decisions of review boards

in favour of workers turning over a WCB claim dealt with? If the

minister can answer this now, I'll sit down and get the answer, because

this is a very crucial point.

HON. L. HANSON : Just

one short comment on some of the earlier remarks of the member. The

advisory committee that was formed is a committee of the ministry, not

a committee of the Workers' Compensation Board; so you're right that

the resources will come through my ministry. The report will be to me

rather than to the Workers' Compensation Board, so that's fairly clear.

Yes,

you're correct that, as a result of the Guadagni case, the decision of

the review board is implemented. I suppose in some decisions, where it

calls for a review of something, the review is part of it. That doesn't

necessarily mean that there is a monetary payment or something started

immediately.

The Workers' Compensation Board is now in the

process of reviewing the other cases of the review board that the

Guadagni decision would affect. I'm sure that the member is aware that

the effects of the Guadagni decision I have referred to the advisory

committee as an immediate priority to assess. I'm not sure if the

member is aware of that or not.

MR. GABELMANN : I'm

going to ask the minister to do me a favour, and that is to extend his

microphone a little bit so that I can hear too. We both have the same

problem.

MR. LOVICK : Too gentle.

MR. GABELMANN :

No, I was very unfair to the minister last year, and I'm still paying a

penance for that on that question. For the member's benefit, I accused

the minister of not listening to me when it was in fact a different

problem. It wasn't a question of not listening at all; it was a

question of my not clearly speaking into the microphone so that he

could hear me.

Fair enough and good that the whole question

of the implementation procedure is being referred to the review

committee for some comment and discussion, and maybe they will come in

with the same recommendation as the ombudsman, who knows? We'll wait to

see, fair enough. But what about those workers who have had a

favourable review board decision prior to Guadagni, who have had the

review board decision not implemented because staff have said to the

commissioners: "This should be reviewed"? My understanding of that

situation now is: if the worker writes to the Workers' Compensation

Board and refers to the Guadagni case, then the board will pay in the

same way as they pay in Guadagni while the question is being

considered. If the worker does not write to the Workers' Compensation

Board, no payment or implementation of the decision.... Let's use that

word, because it isn't always payment, and I acknowledge that. If the

worker does not write to the board and refer to the Guadagni case in

respect of his or her own claim, then the board does not automatically

implement the decision as I think is required by Guadagni.

If I am correct in this understanding —

and it has been my understanding since Guadagni or since the board

dealt with how to implement Guadagni. I didn't do it directly myself;

someone on my behalf confirmed with the board earlier today — or perhaps yesterday, but recently —

that this is in fact the case: that workers who ask that the law as

determined by the Guadagni case be applied to them, have it applied to

them if they ask for it in writing. But workers who don't ask, or who

don't know about it, don't have it applied. That's my understanding of

what is currently happening, and I wonder if the minister would confirm

or comment on that.

HON. L. HANSON : Yes, the member is correct. That is the position of the board: subject to an application, I guess,

[ Page 3991 ]

an appellant who may have been affected, and subject to the

circumstances of the decision, yes, they will pay it out. I have to say

to the member that there is a continuing discussion between my ministry

and the board on that subject.

MR. GABELMANN : I hope

the continuing discussion is soon concluded, because it is appalling

that justice, as determined by a Supreme Court judge, only applies to

those people who are alert enough to know that they have to ask or who

have representation. It should be automatic.

I have no way

of knowing, and I don't ask the minister to tell me secrets between him

and Jim Nielsen or whatever other communications are going on. But 1

just want to establish clearly and firmly that I think it is an

appalling decision on the part of the WCB commissioners to say that,

yes, if you find out about this Supreme Court judgment, we will pay

what they require and we'll implement the decisions that the board is

required to implement by law — but only if you find out. So the privileged ones are people who are astute enough to read the newspapers and figure this out.

would maintain that not many people would have figured this out on

their own. It took me a while to figure it out, and I've got some

familiarity with the subject. The only people who, in fact, are going

to find out about it are those who have a lawyer who happens to know,

or a representative, a business agent or whatever who finds out about

it. Let me tell you, most business agents working day to day with

Workers' Compensation don't yet know about this.

It's

appalling that those workers.... We're not talking about a lot of

people. We're in the hundreds, not tens of thousands here; maybe a few

more than hundreds, but not a lot of people.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN :

Since 1986, I overhear. We're not talking about very many people, but

we're talking about a fundamental principle in law, in my view,

untrained as I am at the law. But it's pretty clear that if the judge

says, "This is the law; this is what must happen," and it does happen

from here on in to anybody who happens to find out about the law — and

asks for it to be applied, but it doesn't happen to everybody else....

I think on this issue the minister could stand up and say that he

intends to direct commissioners to implement the Guadagi decision in

full, retroactively where it properly applies.

I don't very

often, in estimates for this minister or in previous estimates over the

years, insist that the minister make immediate declarations on policy

or on my questions. I don't think it's fair for the most part, because

the question of being government and of policy-making requires more

than just sitting here and dealing across the floor with the cut and

thrust of debate and making decisions. Bad decisions would be made, if

that's the way they were made. But on this question the minister has

had an opportunity to canvass it, to think about it and, I gather, even

to have some discussions with the WCB about it. On this question I

think the minister can make a declaration in this House now that he

will instruct the Workers' Compensation Board to, on its own

initiative, implement the Guadagni decision retroactively for those

people to whom it applies. That is not too much to ask, is it?

HON. L. HANSON :

It's an interesting comment. Certainly I have some sympathy for his

position, but the direction to the commissioners.... I've already told

you that I'm in discussions with them, and suffice it to say that those

discussions haven't been completely resolved yet.

MR. GABELMANN :

This issue, Mr. Chairman, symbolizes better for me the problems with

Workers' Compensation than any other issue that has come up. I'm not

here to beat up on the minister; that's not my style, anyway. I'd

rather have an intelligent discussion leading to some improvements in

the way things work, and that's what I see these estimates to be about,

in large measure. But here we have a situation where it's clear from

the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board's — Jim Nielsen's —

initial reaction to the Guadagni judgment that he doesn't like the

judgment; he doesn't agree with it. Even after that clear and

specific — and fairly harsh in some ways — judgment, we have

the board still trying to find ways to get around it. They're not

trying to get around it with claims that are coming in now — thank

God. I guess they realize they could not possibly do that without being

in contempt. But we now have a situation where, I think, if not on the

merits of the case itself, then on symbolic grounds, the minister

should say to the commissioners: "Either you implement this decision

properly and fully, including retroactively, or you're gone. I'm going

to find five other people to do this job."

This is not a

question, Mr. Chairman, of the minister having discussions which are

inconclusive to date, if I can put what I heard him say in my words.

This is an important principle — affecting a small number of

people, no question; but the law should not apply in one way to those

who find out about it and in another to those who don't know. The law

of the province today is that review board decisions are implemented in

full when they're made, when the judgment comes down. That's the law of

the province, and the board is getting around it. It continues to adopt

this head-in-the-sand view about this issue in the face of four

different Supreme Court justices, and in the face of what appear to be

urgings even from the ministry if not the minister.

Fire them if they won't do it — all of them —

and start from scratch. If you have problems finding a group of people

to replace them, I can bet you that this review committee you've

established, Mr. Minister, will be happy to provide half a dozen names

for your consideration within the next few weeks, if not the next few

days. I'm saying to you that this issue is too important in principle.

The minister must say to Jim Nielsen and his friends over there:

"Implement this decision fully or you're gone."

Well, I'll

relax about it, but I'm not relaxed about the question. If the minister

wants to comment further, I'd welcome that. But I've made my little

speech about how important I think this particular issue is.

want to move on to decision 320 of the board. Decision 320 is dated

spring/summer 1980. This is a decision that I think the minister has

had correspondence from various groups on.I don't know whether he has

actually had an opportunity to deal directly with this correspondence.

It comes from groups such as the Friends of Injured and Disabled

Workers, for example, who have recently written a letter to the

minister, with a copy to me. Others have also written recently. The

letter I am referring to at the present time is dated January 28, 1988,

and it's signed by Margaret Barlow, a registered nurse who is president

of Friends of Injured and Disabled Workers. She wrote to the minister,

as I say, on January 28, ten weeks or so ago.

[ Page 3992 ]

[4:15]

Decision

320 deals with the question of the time between your wage loss....

You're injured and the claim is accepted. You get your wage loss, and

then your wage loss ends and you move onto pension. There's a gap of

months; six or seven months is not uncommon. Decision 320, which was,

as I say, rendered in 1980 is still not being implemented. When I first

encountered the issue, I thought: wait a minute, it's a decision of the

Workers' Compensation Board; it would be implemented. But I had to read

more carefully. It's in fact a practice directive, issued by Adam

Little and Sam Brown as commissioners at the time. It dealt with the

whole question of eliminating the gap between the wage loss termination

and the commencement of pension. I'm not going to make a big deal about

this one, but it's something I want to draw to the minister's

attention. It's something that, hopefully, the committee will have an

opportunity to look at. I trust they'll have Hansard

referred to them, to see whether or not some of these issues we're

raising are relevant for their consideration. and I trust that decision

320 will be part of that consideration as well.

Decision

410. This one is October 8, 1987, just last fall. In this case, it's

not a practice directive; it's a board directive. Therefore it is

policy as opposed to the practice directive, which isn't policy. It is

a curious anomaly which I don't understand. I haven't talked to anybody

to find out how a board decision isn't a decision, but there it is.

This one — 410 — is a decision. This is entitled "Disclosure

of Board Files," and signed by Jim Nielsen, Bev Korman and Joan Nutter

on October 8, 1987.

It deals with a complicated and

difficult question which can't be dealt with in black-and-white terms,

and I wouldn't pretend to try. It's the whole question of disclosure of

files or access to files, which raises yet another question I won't get

into: what's in the files and what isn't in the files, and whether

there are two sets of files, and notes that suddenly appear which

aren't part of the files, described as "personal" notes. Joan Nutter's

name is a case in point there. There are so many of those issues which

I don't intend to pursue, but they're there.

There's a more

fundamental question: employer access to files. As the minister knows,

decision 410 allows an expanded disclosure of information to employers.

There's information in these files that can be used by employers in a

way that would be to the detriment of employees. I'm not here to cite

specific examples of that; I'm dealing with the theory and the

principle involved in this particular issue. In Workers' Compensation

Board files there is inevitably information that is totally relevant to

the claim, but which could be prejudicial to the employee in the eyes

of the employer. It's entirely inappropriate that employers have access

to that kind of information.

In a letter dated January 5,

1988, which went to the Campbell River Courtenay and District Labour

Council, the chairman of the board, Mr. Nielsen, said that the board

"is actively considering ways of dealing with such cases, including

denial or restriction of future disclosure to offending parties and

proposals for amendment to the Workers Compensation Act."

Here again, we're getting a suggestion that there are a variety of amendments

to the Workers Compensation Act being encouraged by the commissioners. I want

to ask the minister if, in January, the chairman was saying that they were talking

about proposals for amendments to the Workers Compensation Act in respect to

access to files; whether or not the minister is considering that; whether or

not he's had representation from the commissioners about amended legislation

in respect to access to files; and what his values are in respect to the priority

in determining who has a higher right to access to these files. Is it the employer,

in dealing with a review of a claim? Or is an employee's file the employee's

file and nobody else's, other than the people making decisions at the board?

I'm curious to know what the minister's views are on this question,

and whether or not the whole access question has been referred by the minister

to the committee he has established. I note in his press release one line in

which he says they'll have to consider issues that he refers to them.

I wonder if, in these issues I've raised, the minister has some

thoughts, and whether or not he has referred some of these questions to

the review committee.

HON. L. HANSON : Yes, that

issue has been raised; I am aware of it. There is a problem that the

member would certainly be aware of. During the appeal process, when an

employer learns information that he didn't have access to prior to that

appeal, it isn't really a fair disclosure of information. I also

recognize that there may be some things in the file that the employer

could use in another context, in an unfair manner. I think that's

recognized. And yes, there was some discussion of that by the

commissioners. I chose not to look at any statutory amendments until we

have the review by the advisory committee. It will be one of the things

reviewed or referred to the advisory committee.

I have to

say to the member that in part of the earlier discussion I neglected to

mention that the review committee will be given those observations that

the member, for one, made on the ombudsman's report. Along with all of

the other briefs, they will be given that material for their benefit

and use during their deliberations.

Yes, I understand the difficulty. No, we're not looking at legislation until we have this review process completed.

MR. GABELMANN : I have three issues left, and then I think other members will have some comments they want to make in WCB areas.

The

next is the whole question of safety regulations for the fishing fleet

on the west coast. Over the years, we've been told that it's

inappropriate for the Workers' Compensation Board to do on the fishing

fleet what it does for B.C. Ferries. With respect to B.C. Ferries, the

Workers' Compensation Board establishes standards and enforces them and

is responsible for compensation. They don't do the same thing with the

fishing fleet, and I think it's about time that that did happen in this

province.

There was an exchange in the House some time ago, and it indicated that other ministers — not this minister —

didn't understand that compensation regulations don't apply to the

fishery simply because the financial benefits do apply. Obviously,

fishermen and fisherwomen are covered for injuries, but the board has

no ability to deal with the problems in the industry, because it

doesn't establish the regulations.

I recognize that it's a

complicated problem, and I recognize that it's not simply answered. I

raise the question because I'd like the minister to give some

consideration to that question about regulations in the fishing

industry, and ask that his advisory committee look at this one too. I

feel a bit reluctant about pushing it all off to the committee, instead

[ Page 3993 ]

having

the minister just make some hard-nosed decisions, but we've got that

committee, and that's the way it's going, and that's fine for the

present time, I guess. I won't make a further speech on the subject at

this point; perhaps I will later. But I would urge the minister to give

serious consideration to the whole question of safety regulations in

the fishing industry.

I would like him also to give

consideration to the question of mine safety in this province. The

Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) announced a few weeks ago that the

responsibility for governing mining is going to be partially

privatized. That may not be the right word in this particular case; but

rather than the ministry running the show, a board composed of people

from the industry and government will be running management of mines,

which includes the whole question of safety inspections.

The

minister, in response to questions from the second member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Clark) and me, indicated that he thought there were far more

inspectors in mines now than there would be if the WCB had

jurisdiction. But when you look at the actual work that these

inspectors do, they do more than just health and safety regulation;

they do a whole variety of other things as well.

I think it

makes sense for the mining industry to be administered by the WCB. The

reason there hasn't been a clamour for that in recent years is that

people are so unhappy with the way the WCB is working, they don't want

to have it come into the mines as well. But in principle it's

appropriate that mine safety be regulated by the WCB, and I hope we get

to that day before too long.

Another issue is the whole

question of farm safety regulations. We've been going through a

stalling exercise on farmworkers' safety for years now. I don't know

which year I first raised in this House the issue of farm worker

safety, but I felt then that I had to make a speech about the fact that

I grew up on a farm and I have two brothers who operate farms in the

Okanagan. I've operated tractors and other equipment and I understand

the unique nature of the farming industry. I understand how many

thousands of employers there are — I see the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage), who has also driven a tractor in his life — is in the House now. I understand all of that.

The

fact is, particularly with the use of pesticides in an increasing

quantity and in increasingly heavy dosages, we've got some serious

problems out there. The farming community's response has been to the

perceived threat to have regulations imposed on them by the WCB. In

fact, it doesn't work that way. The industry gets together with the WCB

and works out the regulations. But they see it as the hand of big

government imposing regulations on them. They have said. "Well, we'll

do it ourselves," and they haven't done it properly.

[4:30]

Anybody

who looks at the industry recognizes that, and I just think that the

board has to move with a little bit more vigour with respect to getting

proper health and safety standards on the farms in this province. I

worry about the fact that in this province so-called pesticide

legislation — in farm use, it's more often insecticides that we're dealing with — doesn't apply to private property.

The

pesticide appeal board deals with its jurisdiction not very

satisfactorily, in my view. It deals with its jurisdiction, but doesn't

have jurisdiction over private property. It can't tell me not to use a

particular spray that I can buy in a chemical shop on my potatoes. They

don't have the right to say that to me as a home gardener. Nor do they

have the say on a 200-acre farm in the Fraser Valley or a 20-acre

orchard in the Okanagan. They don't have a say there either because

it's private property — in the same way as they have no say over me as an individual.

Because of that, I see — and I'm sure other people who have spent time on farms see —

incredible personal abuse of chemicals. I don't mean just by unthinking

employers against poor workers who don't know any better; I'm talking

about farmers to themselves. I hope the Minister of Agriculture is

listening as well. I want to cite one particular case. I see my brother

on an orchard in the Okanagan using weed killers that I can't buy in a

store — systemic poisons for weeds, systemic poisons for control of other insect infestations —

and without any training. He knows the stuff is deadly; he knows the

litany of lung cancer deaths over the years in the Okanagan, of farmers

in their forties, fifties and early sixties dying of lung cancer,

unquestionably because they act out there with the spray gun and they

zap these chemicals on their trees. I know this for a fact because I've

done it too, and I watch people like my brother do it. I'll use

personal examples so I can't be accused of attacking the farmers. They

use chemicals in ways that are totally inappropriate, totally damaging

to one's health.

This happens by farmers to themselves and it also happens — and here's where it's even more unforgivable —

by farmers to their farmworkers, many of whom often cannot speak or

products really mean or what those warning signs really mean.

People go out and use the chemical — and I don't think anybody in this House would disagree with this —

almost indiscriminately in higher doses, because if a 10 percent

solution is good for killing the bug then a 50 percent solution is

going to be five times better. That's how people think. 1 see home

gardeners thinking the same way, and it's totally wrong and

inappropriate, and it's dangerous. We don't have an ability to educate

people about these chemicals. We don't have a training program and we

don't have regulations enforced by the WCB.

I guess you

could say to the farmer who does it to himself: "Well. it's a free

world; go and kill yourself with this particular systemic insecticide."

I don't like that, but in the final analysis you can't stop stupidity

when it comes to chemicals. But we can say something and we can do

something about those kinds of chemicals and insecticides when they're

being used, or when people have to deal with the crop or the trees or

the plants, people who don't even read the language and don't know

about these chemicals, and don't know to wash their hands before they

have a sandwich or whatever else. We've got to do a heck of a lot more

than we've done to date.

The B.C. Federation of Agriculture

some years ago pledged that they would implement a program on their own

that would be better than the board could do; it would be self

directed, self-administered and effective. We aren't there yet. Year

after year goes by and we're still not there in an effective way. I say

that not to attack the farming industry. This in fact is in the best

interest of the farming industry, if they could only see past their

chemical-scarred lungs.

The final issue that I want to raise — unless there are some comments I want to make in respect of a response from the minister — is the continuing question of what I've been

[ Page 3994 ]

describing as the good Samaritan legislation. The minister may remember we've exchanged correspondence — it goes back some years to the minister's predecessor, Terry Segarty —

about the need for compensation coverage for volunteers in rescue

situations. The minister's last comments to me were on February 10 of

this year, which I grant isn't very long ago in the scheme of things.

The minister said to me in this letter: "My staff are currently

preparing an option paper on this subject, and I will be in touch with

you further when I have received my requested briefing from them."

The issue has been outstanding for a couple of years at least. The constituent in my riding who first raised the issue — whose name is on some of the correspondence, so the minister will know who it is —

is, I think, baffled by how long this takes. It's not simple, but it is

a problem that can be dealt with in a time-frame short of several

years, I would think. I hope we can get on with this particular

subject. I know another of my colleagues, who isn't in the House at the

moment, wants to deal with a related subject, which is the whole

question of volunteer firefighters quitting because of regulations.

There is a whole series of questions that need to be addressed in

respect of volunteers and coverage; but I ask that the minister put a

bit of a higher priority on getting this particular issue resolved.

HON. L. HANSON :

Certainly the issues that the member covered were quite numerous and

require a lot of consideration. I just say to the member opposite that

it is rather appropriate that at the moment I have a senior member of

my staff in the Far East discussing with federal government people the

fishery and coverage for them.

A comment on the ferries. We

have put it in place. We are the employer in the case of the ferries,

and when you are the employer you can do some things that are not

always possible in the fishery.

The issue of the

farmworkers. I have the Minister of Agriculture here beside me, but I

can say that yes, we recognize the regulation problem has been

discussed in this House for a number of years, certainly long before I

arrived on the scene. All I can say is that we are working, and working

vigorously, on that at the moment. I can't make much more of a comment,

other than that I do accept that there is a requirement that has in the

past been recognized in this House, and that we are working to put that

in place. The situation is that most farmers — I don't know whether most, but certainly a number of the farmers —

are not employees; they are owners. They are a mother-father type of

operation and maybe a son or something like that. Farmers are a very

independent group of people, as is good and appropriate, and it is a

subject that I and the ministry will canvass further to seek a

resolution for.

The only other one is that I will be discussing with my colleague the mining-inspection issue that the member raised.

MR. LOVICK :

I think it's appropriate that my colleague from North Island ended his

remarks concerning the WCB as part of the minister's estimates by

making reference to the business of our use of chemicals. I want to ask

the minister for an update on that matter of TCMTB that we talked about

before. Just for practice's sake I think I'll state the word again, Mr.

Minister. Okay? TCMTB, as we all affectionately know it otherwise, is

2-(thiocyanomethylthio) benzothiazole — as I work at this I get better all the time.

The minister will recall that on March 23 I

posed the question regarding permissible levels of the concentration of

that particular anti-sapstain chemical. The minister took my question

on notice, and to his everlasting credit responded to my question on

April 6 with a formal note informing me that the WCB is closely

monitoring locations using TCMTB and has set a tentative permissible

concentration level for TCMTB. He also mentioned to me that UBC's

health care epidemiology department is presently working on a study.

We called UBC to find out a little bit more about that study —

a study, I might emphasize, on the short-term health effects of TCMTB,

and that's clearly the focus for today, because we're talking about the

WCB and the responsibilities thereof. The answer I got from the

University of British Columbia about the study that is being conducted

is this. The study will not begin until the summer. The reason the

study will not begin until the summer is apparently — and I'm quoting what the person said on the other end of the telephone line — that "not enough mills have been using TCMTB."

wonder, first, whether that is an acceptable kind of logic. In other

words, we're talking about using something we know is incredibly toxic.

We know, at least on the basis of all the evidence we have at the

Harmac mill in my constituency of Nanaimo, that it apparently is

causing health problems for workers. Yet the epidemiology department

study that is looking into short-term effects of using that chemical

tells us that the study won't begin until we have more people using it.

It seems to me there's a kind of perverse and bizarre sort of logic

there. In other words, we're not sure it's good for you, and it's

apparently hurting you, but until we discover that more people are

being hurt we're not going to carry on the study. That's logic that is

bizarre, to put it mildly.

The second part of the answer I

received in response to our questions has to do with how long we have

to wait for these results. I'm sure you share my concerns that ideally

we ought to be getting answers as quickly as possible, knowing, of

course, that these kinds of things — i.e. scientific studies, empirical evidence-gathering —

take time. But having said that, I think we can both agree that we

ought to get answers as quickly as humanly possible. Unfortunately, the

information I received from UBC is that the study is estimated to take

three to four months to gather data, another three months to analyze

the data, and then the results are estimated — again according to the source at UBC — to be available by December, 1988.

[4:45]

With all due deference, Mr. Minister, that is quite a while to wait,

given the apparent dimensions of the problem. I would just remind the

minister again, if I could this read into the record, of the apparent

dimensions of the problem. You will recall that when I first raised the

question in the House, I talked about 27 alleged cases of discomfort

and illness in workers caused by the use of this chemical at the Harmac

mill. Let me quote you today's news, just in terms of an update. It's a

longer story, but just one worker's story will do. I'm quoting now a

story concerning one Harmac employee, a sawmill employee for 12 years,

who said he had "a severe nosebleed a week after Harmac began using

TCMTB in February. 'It took two weeks to get over, ' he said Tuesday.

'The next nosebleed was two days later, the same thing."'

am prepared to acknowledge that we don't have a clear,

scientifically-arrived-at, cause-and-effect relationship. I have enough

of a scientific background to know that we can't make that instant leap

and say: "TCMTB is the necessary and

[ Page 3995 ]

only

possible conclusion and cause." But given the kind of evidence we have,

Mr. Minister, it seems to me that we ought to be encouraging UBC to

hurry up its process. We ought to be devoting a lot more of our

attention and energy to establishing that TCMTB does not have a very

devastating and, in a word, bad effect on workers.

I wonder

if the minister can (1) give me some assurances that that study might

indeed be sped up and that we can give assurances to workers that we

are indeed looking after their interests; and (2) inform me whether the

study results will perhaps serve as an appropriate framework for

decisionmaking — in short, whether what the study tells us will

become the basis for the new rules regarding permissible levels of

TCMTB in mills throughout the province. I'm wondering if the minister

would be kind enough to respond to those questions and concerns.

HON. L. HANSON :

Yes, I have a bit more information on it, because I have been following

up the concern. You have information about the UBC study that I was not

aware of, and certainly we will look into the timing of it. The

standard of permissible concentration — and I won't attempt to follow your example of pronouncing the chemical — has been at 0.5, as the member mentioned.

MR. LOVICK : Per cubic metre, 0.5 milligrams.

HON. L. HANSON : That's right. I said 0.5.

MR. LOVICK : Per what?

HON. L. HANSON : Oh, I'm sorry. Okay — milligrams per cubic metre.

Workers' Compensation Board hygiene officer did test some airborne

samples at Harmac and found that the concentration was measured at 0.01

milligrams per cubic metre, so the level was lower.

1 also

learned that this particular chemical has been used in Wisconsin for

about 15 years without any reported problems. It's being used in

Finland, although I don't have any definite time for which it has been

used. But my information is that it has been used for several years.

I'm sure the member is aware, with his scientific background, that it

has been used in the leather-tanning industry for a number of years

without reported problems. But that certainly is not to say that we

shouldn't be concerned and that we shouldn't follow up as closely as

possible any difficulties, or even evidence of difficulties.

We also contacted Harmac in Nanaimo. They haven't seen any information on the new product —

Ecobrite, I believe, is the trade name. Certainly they were interested

when they saw the information on how effective it is in treating the

lumber and so on. The statement was, I believe, that if it's safe and

effective as a wood preservative, Harmac would be most willing to look

quickly at the switch to that product. So we are aware of it. I wasn't

aware of the UBC study; we will look into that.

MR. LOVICK :

Just to follow up the minister's response ever so briefly, the argument

about the use of TCMTB in the tanning industry, I think, Mr. Minister,

with all due respect, is not really germane or relevant, simply because

in the tanning industry, if we're talking about dipping hides, we can

do so in a mechanical way and simply hang the things out there and

leave them for as much time as we need to before we have to use them.

The

predicament with TCMTB-treated lumber, of course, is that the process

is done in the open, despite our efforts at ventilation, and that we

then package that lumber for shipment overseas. It inevitably

necessitates some handling. That's a problem.

Also, the predicament is that the job sites vary considerably throughout the

province. Some mills are considerably cleaner than others, meaning that they

are much more able to contain particular chemicals and their spraying facilities.

I think it doesn't entirely hold up, but again I would simply ask the minister

to perhaps check that information out a little.

The other thing is that I don't have the Wisconsin data, I'm sorry to say, I had some data from the United States — I believe it was from the International Woodworkers of America from the state of Washington —

saying that yes, indeed, they had some concerns and were also paying

close attention to what might be happening in British Columbia. I think

the only conclusion to draw from all that is that we are clearly

dealing with something that has the capacity, or the potential at

least, to be very frightening, very alarming. Or it is alarming and has

the potential, I should say, to be very dangerous and perhaps have

long-term residual effects. We just don't know enough about it.

I recognize

the exigencies of the marketplace and especially our export customers

and so forth. I'm not saying we should stop the world and put an end to

everything, but I hope we can get assurances from the minister that we

will take whatever steps we can as quickly as we can to try to allay

the fears and concerns of those people working with this stuff. Because

they are concerned, and I think with every justification.

MR. CLARK :

I want to raise a specific concern about one aspect of WCB. It has to

do with how wage benefits are calculated. I gather that the member for

North Island raised this last year.

I received a letter

very recently from a constituent. Essentially, it's this: when someone

is injured and has in the last year been on unemployment insurance

benefits, they don't calculate the benefits as earnings for the

purposes of calculating wage loss benefit.

This individual

wrote to me, and I'll just run through it as an illustration of the

kinds of problems people have with this aspect of board policy. This

individual was an installation installer and had worked steadily at a

good job for many years, was unemployed for five months and then went

back to work. He worked for three days and had a very serious

accident — he was burned extensively over 30 percent of his body.

What happened was that the WCB did not take into consideration UIC

earnings for the purpose of calculating wage loss benefits.

I'd

like the minister to explain that policy, because it seems to me

extremely unfair, particularly for building trades members or others

who are working at jobs moving throughout the province and are on UIC

periodically over the year, that the board uses zero as the earnings.

They calculate it as zero.