1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd 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)

FRIDAY, APRIL 18, 1986

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7847 ]

CONTENTS

Private Members' Statements

Esquimalt graving dock. Mr. Mitchell –– 7847

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. McClelland

Liability insurance. Mr. Cocke –– 7848

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Employment benefits. Mr. Nicolson –– 7849

Hon. Mr. Segarty

Log exports. Mr. Reynolds –– 7851

Mr. Stupich

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

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

On vote 54: minister's office –– 7853

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Michael

Mr. Cocke

FRIDAY, APRIL 18, 1986

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are two guests

I would like the House to join with me in welcoming: my brother Jack

Gilmore and his wife Dorothy.

MR. REYNOLDS: Today I would like the House to welcome back to

B.C. a famous British Columbian, a man well known as an artist, but

probably more famous today for the fact that he arrived back from

Ontario with a new heart: Mr. Daniel Izzard, one of my constituents in

West Vancouver.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

ESQUIMALT GRAVING DOCK

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, my statement today is actually a

followup to a question I asked the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development last year, and also in answer to a letter that he

sent me on December 4, 1985.

Basically, the Esquimalt graving dock first became an issue in June

1985, when the federal government reported that they were going to

privatize the drydock. At that particular time they set out certain

guidelines — what they were going to do. In June they announced that

July to August 15 they were going to do an appraisal of the drydock.

Between August and October they were going to attempt to negotiate with

the present users of the drydock for one of the users to take it over;

failing that, they were going to put it out to tender to either sell or

to take over the drydock.

At that time they had a deadline of December 15 for one of the

Canadian industrialists to take over the drydock, and that deadline

passed. The next deadline was then set for March 31. The drydock was

going to be offered for sale to an international buyer.

Now a lot of people in Esquimalt from the trade unions who are

involved in it, the municipal council and the chamber of commerce felt

that this is a utility and is paid for by the taxpayers, and that it is

necessary to maintain our shipbuilding and ship repair industry and

that the drydock is an important part of it. A committee was set up in

Esquimalt headed up by alderman Moe Sihota and including the president

of the chamber of commerce and representatives from various unions who

are involved in the shipyard. They have notified the federal government

that they want the drydock to remain as federal property and to be part

and parcel of the shipbuilding and ship repair industry. They have

brought their concerns to all the three local members of parliament and

to various ministers in Ottawa.

The reason the federal government is saying they must sell it is

that they lost money. Last year they lost $1.2 million. The interesting

part, Mr. Speaker, is that this is a business, a drydock. If you are

going to run any operation, you have to have rates that are comparable,

(1) to make money and (2) so that they should be comparable and

competitive with other drydocks in the area.

The nearest drydock of comparable size and accommodation is the one

in Portland. It is interesting when you review the rates charged in

Esquimalt by the federal government and the rates charged in Portland.

I guess first you should compare what the rates are. In 1971 the rates

for booking fees in the drydock were $300. In 1985 the booking fees had

only risen to $327.60. Accommodation for freighters or any type of

ferries was rated at two cents a tonne, with a minimum charge of $50.

In 1985 it was still two cents a tonne with a minimum charge of $54.60.

To rent a 50-tonne crane in 1971, it was $12 an hour. At that time, Mr.

Speaker, wages were $3.07 an hour. In 1985 to rent the same crane it

was $13.10, but wages for the operator are now $14.60. So it's quite

obvious that it's going to lose money if there is not some proper

business administration.

What I'm asking this government to support is the proposal made by

the committee and endorsed by the municipal council and the business

community: that this particular enterprise, the Esquimalt graving dock,

remain as a public facility. It is part and parcel of our industries,

and it does protect jobs. The rates should be set comparable to the

rates at the Portland yard. When you go through the same rates that

I've given in the Portland yard…. The accommodation rates are 25 cents

a tonne, compared to two cents a tonne. A crane is $35 an hour, and

storage is a little different, but it works out to 75 cents per foot.

But if we are going to make any business competitive and economically

viable, we must be able to charge rates that are comparable to similar

situations.

[10:15]

I'm asking the government to support that particular program — to

write, to phone, to do anything to get some action from Ottawa — and to

endorse the policy that the people of Esquimalt have recommended, and

to take a strong businesslike approach to it that we must maintain it.

We must preserve not only the 32 jobs of the employees working within

the drydock but the hundreds of jobs that are dependent in our

shipbuilding industry. The most important thing to this House is jobs.

I ask the government for their support.

MR. SPEAKER: Do we have another speaker, hon. members? The member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll yield the floor any minute to

the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr.

McClelland). I'm sure that he's the one who would be interested in jobs

and the maintenance of a facility here. If the minister would just nod

his head, I'd be only too happy to yield so that he can answer a very

serious question from my colleague from Esquimalt about the possible

loss — as a matter of fact, the imminent loss — of a facility that has

been a real paying proposition for our province. We're saying: "Let the

United States and Japan, let anybody else who has drydocking

facilities, use facilities there — but not here." People will be out of

work. Is this government not interested in getting people actively

engaged in useful occupations? I'm sure that the minister would like to

get up and say a few words about his position vis-a-vis the B.C.

government putting pressure on the federal government to maintain this

facility one way or another. I don't think that whether it's in private

or public hands is the question; it's one of at least maintaining that

facility in the province of British Columbia. I'll just give the

minister ample time to get up and let us know just how he feels about

this question.

[ Page 7848 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that the member

is so kind to give me all the time I need to answer that question. I'd

like to thank the member for Esquimalt for the information. We've

talked with Sinclair Stevens and the mayor of Esquimalt on a number of

occasions about the drydock. I would just ask the members to refer to

the newspaper story in the Times-Colonist this morning.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I have to confess that I have not

read the newspaper

article in the Times-Colonist . I'm asking the

government to give a positive endorsement. I have the minister's letter

dated December 4, and basically what it says is that they'll do nothing

until the deadline of the sale to the local users. It's hard to accept

that kind of wishy-washy statement from the minister, when yesterday

the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty) said that the opposition do

not bring positive proposals to this House that are going to create and

protect jobs.

We cannot afford to wait until we have a crisis. This sort of

situation should not be allowed to develop. We do have an asset there.

Our Minister of International Trade (Hon. Mr. McGeer) should be out

selling that drydock, should be bringing jobs to the Esquimalt area,

and producing employment that is not only maintaining the facility we

have but also encouraging new jobs. Every one of us in this House on

the opposition side has continually brought proposals to the House, and

we get very lukewarm, unconvincing support from the government. We

cannot afford, in the times of unemployment we have today, to misuse

any of the taxpayers' investment, which that drydock is. We must sell

it, we must keep it in operation and we must be very effectively going

out into the international community, the shipping community, to keep

that facility operating full time and bringing in more business and

creating more jobs.

We have to build on our local economy. We have to build on our local

resources, and we have to utilize the type of skills that have been

developed in Esquimalt and the greater Victoria area to protect not

only that facility for the Yarrows shipyard, the Point Hope shipyard

and the naval defence establishment. All these things must be

protected. They must be enhanced, and I think the main job of this

Legislature is to provide jobs, jobs and jobs. I know that the

suggestions that come from the opposition are all positive. We hope

that we get hard support from the government.

LIABILITY INSURANCE

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that the minister

responsible for ICBC is in the House. I'm pleased also that the former

minister for ICBC is no longer in ICBC or has anything to do with ICBC,

because he goofed.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: Goofed? On what?

MR. COCKE: He got rid of the general insurance aspect of

ICBC, and then suddenly, within a few months, we're faced with

insurance prospects that everybody is reeling from. Let me just give

you some numbers from Florida. In Miami Beach, their liability

insurance went from $750,000 a year to $2 million a year. One shot.

There was a construction company that, after 30 years without a claim,

had its insurance premium increased from $16,000 to $140,000. A day

school operator, who had no claims in 18 years but who was dropped by

his insurance company, found another that charged 300 times as much as

he had paid previously. This is going on, Mr. Speaker, all over the

world.

It's a proposition that, as far as I'm concerned, in British

Columbia we could have safeguarded ourselves against. It was as

follows: when we set up ICBC in the first place, we debated for some

time within caucus and within cabinet whether or not we should go into

the general insurance business. The thing that finally turned it around

— and we felt that it was absolutely necessary — was that schools in

this province were unable to procure general insurance; people who

lived outside of fire zones could not acquire fire insurance. People as

close as Chilliwack, but outside the fire zones in Chilliwack, were

unable to insure their possessions, their houses, etc.

We went into general insurance and afforded all those people access

to insurance. Lo and behold, all of a sudden the general insurance

companies were reborn. They walked the road to Damascus, they saw the

fiery bush, or whatever. They suddenly said: "Oh, but we can compete in

that market." They would not even go near that market in the first

place, until they saw the statistics of ICBC, where we were able to

show that (1) the schools could be insured quite readily through ICBC;

(2) fire insurance outside of fire zones was not that much more of a

risk; and on and on.

Now we're into the liability situation. Liability insurance is

becoming prohibitively expensive. They give us the reasons of Bhopal,

of air disasters, and all sorts of things that are not relevant, as far

as I'm concerned, to British Columbia. ICBC had, because of the

structure, the underwriting capacity. They had the skilled staff. They

had everything going their way, and they could have offered —

province-wide — when this extortion began.... I can call it nothing

but extortion. Insurance companies have been stupidly run. As a matter

of fact, they've made some crummy investments over the years. They were

the big losers in real estate. Remember when real estate peaked and

then started to dip off? What they're doing is saying: "We're going to

take it out of our policyholders instead of our shareholders." Good old

free enterprise. We could have combated that. We probably still could

if we had any courage and would reopen that whole area of general

insurance being offered by ICBC.

Included in general insurance, of course, is liability insurance.

Think of the market in British Columbia: offering an affordable package

to municipalities, to schools, to private citizens, to trucking

companies, to construction companies. Think of what we could be doing.

Not only would we be giving access to our businesses and our

municipalities and school districts, and so on, and giving them a lot

better price, but we would have that much more money invested in our

own economy, because the premiums would be here. One of the motivating

factors that got us to set up ICBC in the first place was, yes, giving

people access to cheaper insurance, but also giving the province — the

whole province; I'm not talking about the government — access to an

investment pool that was significant. It's $600-and-some-odd million in

car insurance alone. It would be well into the billion-plus if we were

offering this other package.

We goofed, and I suggest that we should get right back in there.

That's my proposition today. I do hope that the government will

recognize that. I think our present minister responsible doesn't have

that hard-nosed attitude that the previous minister responsible for

ICBC had.

[ Page 7849 ]

[10:30]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member for New

Westminster has spent a great deal of his working life in the insurance business

and has a long-standing understanding of that particular business. The ICBC,

as all would know, is exclusively now a vehicle insurance company, and is functioning

very well. The general insurance portion of ICBC was sold some years back to

a company now operating in that field of general insurance. The conditions of

the sale prohibited ICBC from re-entering general insurance for whatever the

terms of the conditions were. There are some terms in the conditions of sale

whereby the agreement could be null and void if certain things happened, but

if the company continues to maintain its profile and function as agreed in the

agreement, then ICBC is prohibited from entering general insurance as a term

of the sale.

The attitude was that ICBC was a vehicle insurance company and

should not be in the general insurance business. It was deemed at the

time of sale that the replacement company that purchased it would be

able to offer the same service to the public as ICBC could through

their program. So it's a question of whether the private sector

insurance companies can provide the service to the general public or

whether there is a need for a government-controlled program to play a

role in that.

As the member for New Westminster said, some years back the decision

was that they had a role to play in general insurance. Some years later

the decision was that it could be handled otherwise. So there's a

difference of opinion or a difference of analysis of the situation at

two points in time.

I'd like to say that ICBC, as a corporation in British Columbia

involved in vehicle insurance, as they are today, I believe has shown

extremely competent management and work by those people employed with

ICBC. I think it is functioning today in a very excellent manner. I

know that the general public is certainly far more pleased with the

performance of ICBC now that it has matured as a corporation over the

past decade.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: With respect to general insurance? As I

said, it's a different point in time, a different attitude prevailing

and a different decision made.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that and, as a matter of

fact, now have even less respect for the former minister than I did. He

sold the farm and everything that goes with it, obviously, when he made

an agreement that we wouldn't go near it with a ten-foot pole in the

foreseeable future. I would like to know what the years were, because

when we have an opportunity, let me tell you I hope that our government

will take a second look at that whole situation, particularly when we

have been blackmailed.

The casualty business.... Look, I was in the life business, and the

attitude in the life business is an entirely different situation than

the general business. For instance, the life insurance companies

operating in this province, almost 99 percent of them, have a

proposition in their policy that their investments in this province

will be in proportion to the premium income that they derive from it. I

say hurrah. But that has never been the policy of the casualty

companies. The casualty companies are buccaneers, as far as I am

concerned, in the whole industry of insurance. What ICBC can do,

however — and here the minister should listen — is offer reinsurance to

any company operating within the province, and I am talking about for

liability only, only for British Columbia clients, i.e. municipalities,

schools, etc.

That is one way to breach this thing. Failing that, then we are

going to have to continue to do what we are going to do, and that is

self-insure. We cannot put up with this preposterous stupidity of

paying for all.... Listen, after what the United States has got us

into now, you think that liability insurance is expensive today! I'll

tell you something. Airlines are going to be flopping out of the skies

unless we can find some way to identify a plastic bomb.

I am terrified of our getting involved in this whole situation of

the money aspect for the people in British Columbia, because we are

paying for other's mistakes. Bhopal, sure — it was an utter disaster.

But there is no reason why we in B.C. should be part of that. We don't

need to be part of that. We live in a peaceful part of the world, and I

hope to God it is going to continue to be peaceful.

Mr. Speaker, we have to do something to protect those purchasers, and particularly the small ones.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I am standing on a point of personal

privilege. I take offence at the remarks made by the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. McClelland) in

response to a question by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr.

Mitchell), when he suggested...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, explain it then. Please proceed briefly.

MR. BARNES: ....that the member refer to the newspapers

when a question was asked. Perhaps it is a point of order, but I take

it as an offence to this assembly when a cabinet minister refers a

member to the newspapers, which we have no knowledge of. Since when

have we been required to go to the newspapers in order to get

information from the government? In the past the House has suggested

that the newspapers were out of order as evidence in the debate. It

seems that this morning we've seen a degree of arrogance that should be

called into question.

I am asking the Speaker to take this matter as a complaint rather than as a motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, reference by a member of this

House to a newspaper item in debate is not a point of order. Pursuant

to standing orders, the Chair recognizes the member for Nelson-Creston.

EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, the topic I would like to bring up

today is unemployment insurance for forest fire fighters and temporary

workers and also some of the other employment benefits that are denied

to them.

The year 1985 was a year of record unemployment, and also one of the

worst years for forest fires. There were more hectares consumed by fire

in 1985 than were logged in the previous year, 1984. Thousands of

British Columbians, many of whom had been unemployed up to that time,

were then employed for several weeks and months, at considerable

personal risk, in the dangerous work of trying to protect our

[ Page 7850 ]

forests, the most important of our natural

resources. Several of those firefighters died when a helicopter

crashed. Others suffered permanent injuries. I know that one person

suffered some damage to the cornea of his eye when a red-hot branch

brushed across his bare eye in the course of his work. His sight was

saved. But this was just a kind of daily occurrence. I think that all

members of the House admired the courage and dedication of those people

last summer.

The issue is whether British Columbians who fight fires should be

entitled to the provisions of the Employment Standards Act, and whether

they should be entitled to coverage by the federal unemployment

insurance legislation. This issue is really pertinent at this time, I

think, because this week marks the first week of the 1986 fire season.

There are really two things in question. One is unemployment

insurance. Claimants on benefit who are recruited to fight forest fires

are placed in a curious catch-22. If they do not accept the job, they

can be cut off benefits for refusing work. If they do accept the work,

the time served does not count toward establishing a further

unemployment insurance claim.

The second issue is that of employment standards. Because

firefighters are hired by an order under the Forest Act, the rates are

set by cabinet and the rates are straight time. The Employment

Standards Act, which sets out the minimum conditions which this

Legislature says should apply in the workplace, does not apply unless

the cabinet specifies it in that order, a copy of which I have here.

The act provides for overtime at the rate of time and a half when more

than eight hours are worked in a day or 40 hours in a week — under the

act, but not under this order-in-council.

As a result of some of the representations that were made to me, I

wrote last summer to the Hon. Brian Mulroney, Hon. Perrin Beatty and

Hon. Michael Wilson. I urged that

section 14(

h) of the unemployment

insurance regulations be amended so that we could.... These

regulations said that persons who were working to abate a disaster were

exempted from the provisions of unemployment insurance and could not

qualify for unemployment insurance. I'm pleased to say that I finally

received a response from the Hon. Elmer MacKay, in which he said that

he was pleased to inform me that by order-in-council the Minister of

Employment and Immigration amended this paragraph 14(

h) of the

unemployment insurance regulations, the effect of which is that persons

abating a disaster — who were previously exempted — would now qualify;

that requirement is no longer a bar to their qualifying for

unemployment insurance credits. But he also went on to point out that

in respect of provincial government workers, the requirements of

section 8 of the unemployment insurance regulations — namely, that

these workers must be appointed and remunerated under the civil service

act of a province — must still be met. However, each province may bring

these employees within the scope of

section 8, even though they are not

employed under the above-noted acts, by proclaiming an order-in-council

which would recognize them as employees of the province.

Mr. Speaker, for some reason this government has not chosen to take

that route. They have indicated no intention to do so this year. l

think that it is really a very sad commentary that these people have

been doubly penalized — that, in fact, some of them were simply

disqualifying themselves from other employment while they were out

fighting fires — that this very simple act could be taken. It is the

federal government that will be having to make up any shortfalls to the

unemployment insurance fund. But it is right, in this year 1986,

surely, that we treat people a little bit more fairly than we did in

1908. Really, through all of the amendments to the Forest Act.... You

can trace this back to previous acts, and the same wording, almost

virtually identical wording, occurred back in about the year 1908, when

some of these regulations and the legislation were first drafted.

I think that it's time we brought things into the latter part of the

twentieth century. I think it's time that we treated these people

fairly. I repeat: people gave up their lives trying to save these

forests.

[10:45]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I thank the member for his question this

morning. The question that he raises is a little bit more complex than

he would lead us to believe, Mr. Chairman. The Ministry of Labour staff

have been working with the Ministry of Forests in this matter for a

been able to make it easy for us all by just amending the unemployment

insurance regulations to include forest-fire fighters under the

schedule of UIC payments, they didn't do that. They left the

responsibility to the government.

In this province the responsibility for making people public

servants is under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Secretary (Hon.

Mrs. McCarthy), and has conflicts with our public servants' labour

negotiations and acts, and other areas dealing with the Public Service

Act of the province of British Columbia. There is some belief in the

Ministry of Labour that some provisions of the Employment Standards Act

do apply to people who are out fighting fires, and there are

discussions taking place at the present time between the Ministry of

Forests and the Ministry of Labour staff in that area.

The member talked about individuals who go out and fight fire. I

come from the area of British Columbia where most of the fires took

place: in my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of my

colleague from Columbia River. Mr. Chairman, most of the people who

fought fire were taken out of plants, mines, mills and municipalities

in that area, and were already covered under the benefits that are

derived to them by their traditional employer. They would get

unemployment insurance benefits. Even if they went back to their

traditional area of work and got laid off, they would have the required

period of time in, should their job disappear down the road somehow due

to other circumstances. They would be eligible for unemployment

insurance benefits.

What the member is talking about is taking people off the street,

putting them into an area where there is a forest fire, and the

province paying money to the unemployment insurance fund to compensate

them should they be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits,

should they have the required number of weeks in. That's a

philosophical argument that will take place for a period of time, I

must say. For a hundred years in British Columbia, or many years in

British Columbia, people in British Columbia have responded to the need

to go out and fight fire, particularly in our vital forest industry,

which is the backbone of our provincial economy. At a time of crisis we

all respond to the crisis. Whether we've got unemployment insurance or

other benefits or not, we respond to the crisis; that is in an effort

to save our forests and the jobs in our forests for industrial

development and economic benefit of the province. Generations have

responded to that call, Mr. Speaker, and will continue to do so.

[ Page 7851 ]

Whether or not they receive the benefits will be the subject of a

debate for at least the foreseeable future. As I said earlier on, the

Provincial Secretary is looking at that one area of it at the present

time. The Ministry of Labour staff and I are looking at the other area.

We hope we'll have it sorted out pretty quickly.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm a little disappointed in the

minister's response. I'm happy to see the Minister of Labour respond to

this, rather than the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), because

I agree that it is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour. I

don't think that the minister understands the concept of the

Constitution in Canada, which has governed us since the British North

America Act, and under our new constitution, and that is that the right

of the Crown provincial shall not be imposed upon by the right of the

federal Crown. Her Majesty in right of the Crown federal is something

different. The area of labour and employees of a province is something

that they cannot come into any more than the federal government could

come in and take income tax in 1941 until the provincial governments

agreed to it. We have federal-provincial agreements that enable the

federal government to come into areas of jurisdiction that are

constitutionally those of the Crown provincial. In this instance they

have actually amended the regulations, but they cannot come in and do

this without permission of this government. So it is not something that

the federal government can simply do. They have done what they can do,

and they have shown good faith, and it is up to the Crown provincial to

make that change.

The minister says that most of these employees were taken out of the

mines, mills and plants. A lot of them were unemployed millworkers that

hadn't had work for up to two years, and construction workers. A lot of

them were high school students, some of them going on to university,

but others going into the workforce — the unemployment force might be

more accurate.

There is no excuse for denying these people. To say that whether or

not they should get these benefits is going to be a philosophical

argument — my goodness! These people were not conscripted into this.

Everyone was given a choice, but they certainly felt a duty to go out

and fight these fires. They were also burning in my riding, and indeed

1 could look up and see some of them burning within just a couple of

kilometres of my home this past summer.

The dollars are going to come from the federal government. There is

nothing that.... Well, if you bring in full employment standards

benefits, yes, that's something else. But in terms of UIC, my goodness,

all you have to do is pay the small amount in terms of their fees.

MR. MOWAT: Four hundred grand.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm glad to hear that the price has come out:

four hundred grand, says the member. If that's what it is, then I say

that in these emergencies we should spend more time preventing forest

fires and then you won't have to worry about paying for them after the

fact.

LOG EXPORTS

MR. REYNOLDS: Last Monday and the previous Monday, we in the

Legislature were treated to a little direct democracy as a couple of

busloads of loggers came down from Port Alberni a couple of Mondays

ago, and some loggers came down from Squamish and the coast to join us

in our afternoon deliberations. They were concerned about the effects

of the new log export policy, which restricts but does not eliminate

such exports. I greatly sympathize with those of them who are now

facing the possibility of layoffs, at least in this cutting season.

We all understand why the new policy has been put into place. It is

a key part of the economic strategy of our Social Credit government to

encourage the growth of value-added manufacturing in our forest

industries. Many argue that in the long term you may place limits on

the increase of your sales of manufactured products if you ship raw

logs to manufacturing plants in your market countries. In the short

term, however, the export of surplus logs made sense and under certain

clearly defined circumstances still may.

The logs being exported were not used in our own manufacturing

plants, and with the economic downturn, many logging operations,

particularly on the coast and on the island, needed these sales of raw

logs to support their manufacturing operations. As a result, in

November 1984 the Minister of Forests, after much study and examination

of all sides of the question, announced that a new log-export policy

could come into effect at the end of March 1986. A full year was given

before implementation of the new regulations in order to allow logging

operations sufficient time to adjust. The government, in the face of a

lot of heat, stuck to a policy of fairness. The policy itself was fair

and reflected the considerable amount of consultation on the part of

the government that went into its formulation.

What the announced policy did was to redraw the conditions under

which those logs could be exported. A new timber export advisory

committee replacing the log export advisory committee will be formed to

deal with the export of logs under very specific conditions. For

instance, a percentage of lower-grade hemlock-balsam can be exported as

necessary to make the harvest of higher-grade stands for use by

domestic manufacturers economically feasible. Logs can be exported from

remote and decadent stands in which the premium log export price would

help to pay for the forest rehabilitation work. Logs can be exported if

they are the species which must be harvested as part of other logging,

forestry or land-clearing operations and for which no manufacture

facilities exist in the province.

The change in log export policy, Mr. Speaker, is part of a larger

transition from a policy based on consideration of the supply of

harvested logs to one based on standing timber. That policy was derived

from extensive consultation and cooperation between the government and

the industry.

We are open to all views. We are working to put together the best

package that satisfies both short-term concerns and long-term economic

strategy. We are approaching a complex problem with sensitivity towards

all concerned. As a result, the government is continuing to examine the

issue and refine the policy with input from many sources.

What this province did not see, Mr. Speaker, was any understanding

of the issue from those in the opposition. We did not see from them any

sympathy for the logging operations on the coast and the island, or for

their employees who needed log exports to get through a very tough time

— not even from the very MLAs who represented those workers in this

House.

Their contribution, or lack of it, was an insult to their constituents, in particular, and to the working people of

[ Page 7852 ]

British Columbia. I quote the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) in the Hansard

of March 14, 1986, page 7336. He said: "That's what this log export

game has been about on the coast of British Columbia: to pay off bank

loans, overlending, overleveraging by Mr. Doman and others on this

coast."

Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Doman was borrowing money, it was to pay the

salaries and wages of his workers. But the member opposite, as he looks

out of his Vancouver townhouse, doesn't care about them.

For the worst performance by an NDP MLA on this issue, Mr. Speaker,

we have to look at the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) and the leader

of that uncaring party. What does he have to say about the export of

logs. He says: "It's absolutely insane," according to the

Times-Colonist of September 26, 1984. He also said, on May 2, 1984,

according to Hansard , page 4454: "We should make every effort possible

to stop the export of raw logs."

Mr. Speaker, that leader of the NDP party isn't even willing to give

the forest operations in his own constituency time to adjust to the

phasing out of log exports. In 1982, the NDP provincial convention

passed a resolution that if elected they would immediately implement

legislation to ban the export of raw logs from British Columbia.

What the NDP is incapable of understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that you

can't overnight create markets for products. The even greater irony is

that they criticize all the efforts of our Social Credit government to

develop and expand overseas markets for British Columbia manufactured

products. They dismiss the efforts as junketing, through their COPE

comrades, and are strangely quiet about the trips outside the country

by their brother Mikey.

It comes as no surprise to me, Mr. Speaker, that when the loggers

from Port Alberni came down to Victoria, they wanted to meet the Social

Credit ministers. They knew that they would listen. They knew that

there wasn't any point in going to speak to their MLA. They knew that

he didn't care one whit about them, and they're going to remember the

absolute lack of sympathy they got from the NDP They're going to

remember the insults hurled at them by that party.

They will also remember that the Social Credit government helped

them during their hard economic times in our forest industries. They

will remember that Social Credit understands their concerns and is

willing to listen and discuss.

The Social Credit Party, Mr. Speaker, and this government, is making

every effort possible to assist them to make the transition to steady

jobs in a forest industry with a stronger emphasis on value-added

manufacturing.

[11:00]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to hear something from

the minister on this subject, but perhaps he has nothing to add at this

time. May I say that to give them their credit, the one group in

society that has been most adamant in refusing to agree to increasing

log exports and would like to see log exporting stopped entirely are

the very workers that the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound talked

about — the people who are working with their hands in the woods,

falling the trees. They're the ones who are trying to stop the export

of this. They realize that while there might very well be short-term

gain, the IWA has consistently opposed the export of logs —

consistently.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the minister had an opportunity to speak and chose not to, so I'll make my speech and there may be time for him.

The IWA has consistently opposed the export of logs, because they

know that while there may be short-term gain in exporting logs to other

nations so that they may be processed in other plants in other parts of

the world, in the long run there will be a loss for the province of

British Columbia.

To too great an extent in this province we have been hewers of wood

and drawers of water. We're prepared to ship out our resources to

anywhere in the world that wants to take them, add value to them and

ship them back to us. We've been doing that for decades in this

province. The first copper smelter to be built in this province in 50

years was one that was obliged to be built because we weren't ready as

an NDP administration to let them have the ore unless they were

prepared to smelter it in the province.

Other provinces have taken action to make sure that there would be

value added to the raw resources we're producing in this province, but

the Social Credit administration turned that back. It was only because

of the very large degree of criticism of the increase in the export of

raw logs that the Minister of Forests finally came down with a new

policy — new a year and a half ago. The industry certainly had the time

to adjust.

Yes, we can ship our logs out so that other nations can use the

profits that they are making on our raw material to upgrade their

plants. One of our problems in B.C. right now in the forest industry is

not that the loggers are getting too much money, but rather that we

have allowed our processing plants to become so outdated that we can't

compete anymore internationally. We can't even compete with eastern

Canada. We used to be ahead of eastern Canada when it came to the

technology that we adopted here, the efficiency with which we processed

raw material. We used to be ahead of them. Now we're behind, even

behind eastern Canada, behind every major producer of softwood in the

world. B.C. has gradually dropped back.

I can recall — and I have said this previously — a discussion with

leaders of the forest industry in B.C. In the short time that I was

Minister of Finance. They admitted they were falling behind, and that

was 1975. They said they would like to be able to borrow the money to

improve their plant, but they couldn't do it at that time. They've had

good years since, and with the rare exception, they didn't do it. B.C.

is hopelessly behind the rest of the world in its technology. Its costs

are high, not because the labourers are being paid but rather because

our plant is so outdated. Until we deal with that question, we are

never going to improve our standard of living here in this province by

continuing to ship out of the province our raw materials or almost-raw

materials.

Mr. Speaker, the IWA has been very firm in this. The NDP conventions

have been very firm in this. The government has reluctantly come into

step....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, he'll have time.

The government itself is at fault. The industry is at fault. The

workers in the IWA generally have supported their organization in

saying: "Stop raw-log export."

[ Page 7853 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I think what has been

interesting and what's happened in the last two or three weeks is that

we're going to get the real issue of the exporting of round wood out on

the table so everybody can see exactly what has been going on.

First of all, the statement with respect to the IWA. Yes, they have

made a statement. We are against the export of round logs, but they

didn't say total exclusion of export. That is very clear, and my

discussions with the members of the IWA make that abundantly clear.

AN HON. MEMBER: Game over.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You mean the hook?

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, with leave....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I regret, hon. member, but our standing orders are clear.

Any other members have a maximum of five minutes, and the member for Nanaimo

and the Minister of Forests have taken it. I now recognize the proponent in

reply, the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I would allow the minister to take my five minutes to reply.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The standing orders are clear.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'll just close up. The minister was getting

into the point the member for Nanaimo.... I quoted him as saying that

the IWA has consistently opposed the export of logs. The IWA has not

consistently opposed totally the export of logs, Mr. Speaker — and the

member knows that.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I wish you'd call to order that member for Victoria, who doesn't know very much about the forest industry anyway.

The previous minister had great consultation with the forest

industry, including the IWA, and came up with a policy that's agreeable

to most sides, and a policy that, I think, will work. It shows that

this government can talk to the industry, can talk to the workers, and

get something done.

If you want to listen — and read through Hansard —

to what the policy of the NDP is, Mr. Speaker.... The second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace) — in fact, all of them — are totally opposed to log exports,

period. In fact, the member for Nanaimo said, and I quote from his

party's 1982 convention: "Be it resolved that the B.C. NDP adopt the

policy that, when elected to form the next provincial government in

B.C., it will immediately implement legislation to ban the export of

raw logs from British Columbia." We know that's their position. They

talk about banning log exports to create jobs. By saying that, they

show they don't understand the industry.

I would like to quote, Mr. Speaker.... I'm not going to go on for a

long time, because they don't listen anyway. The people out there in

the industry are listening. They know we're doing a good job. Just let

me quote what their leader said at the IWA convention, when he was

pressured to agree with the NDP policy of "creating jobs by banning log

exports." The Vancouver Sun

of Thursday, November 7, 1985 said: "But New Democratic Party leader

Bob Skelly this week refused to accept an IWA request that an NDP

government prohibit log exports. Skelly said a ban would cost jobs."

There's the NDP saying one thing in here, but when it gets down to the

nitty-gritty of the facts, they refuse to do it. They know that some

log exports will create jobs for British Columbians, and will not cost

us jobs. There's the leader of that party — "Skelly said a ban would

cost jobs."

Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker, and I brought it up today to get that message across.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 54: minister's office, $205,714.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I

appreciate the fact that you're allowing me just to wrap up some

remarks that I started yesterday. There are just a few things that I

didn't get a chance to say, and I would like to take that opportunity

now. I think it's apropos, because it follows along the lines of the

discussion that just happened in this House with the member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound.

As most people know, our primary industries — namely, forestry and

mining — fell on some very difficult times in the last few years,

mainly due to world markets, interest rates, depressed markets, world

prices, competition, etc. This government, recognizing that they are

the critical industries of this province, decided to appoint a critical

industries commissioner because of the number of jobs related to these

industries, and realizing that something had to be done to preserve

these jobs. Speaking to the Minister of Labour's estimates, I think

jobs are what we're all concerned about. In fact, it seemed to be what

the opposition was concerned about yesterday, although I only see two

of them in the House at the present time, so I doubt very much if it's

high on their priority list. However, this government made a very

innovative and bold move, and appointed Mr. Art Phillips as the

commissioner of critical industries, to restore and preserve jobs in

those primary industries — hundreds and hundreds of jobs. In fact, to

date, by bringing all parties to the table, Mr. Phillips has been able

to either restore or preserve over 1,500 direct jobs in the primary

industries in this province. I'm sure that I don't have to tell the

members in this House that when you add on the spinoff jobs that

support those direct jobs, we're talking many hundreds more. The theory

on which Mr. Phillips works is that these jobs are critical, not just

to the province, not just to the industry involved, not just to the

workers, but to the overall well-being of our economy. They're vital to

the economy of this province.

So I think the theory is correct, and he's being proven correct that

everyone must be concerned with restoring or preserving these jobs.

This is why he has set about to restore them in a manner that I think

is in keeping with the trend in our society, and that is to bring all

the concerned players to

[ Page 7854 ]

the table so that everyone concerned can be

involved in the discussions. It has worked very well. He has brought to

the table management, labour, government, financial institutions, Crown

corporations, everyone involved with the wellbeing of a company. His

success record is absolutely tremendous. He has reopened mines and kept

sawmills from closing down. In my constituency alone, the constituency

of Kamloops–North Thompson, he has prevented two sawmills from closing

because of his ability to bring all of the players to the table, where

everyone gives something.

The days are long gone when one party in this equation can look at

it in isolation and say: "That's their problem, not my problem." When

these companies get into trouble it's everyone's problem. l

congratulate this government and Mr. Phillips for recognizing that and

getting the job done.

In my constituency alone, in the little towns of Clearwater and

Barriere, small towns that depend on these sawmills for their very

existence, the commissioner of critical industries has kept these

industries alive, with hundreds of jobs in the mills and in the bush

that are just vital to the towns of Clearwater and Barriere. I'm

speaking of Clearwater Timber Products and Gilbert Smith Forest

Products of Barriere. So when the members opposite say, "You haven't

done anything about jobs in this province," I would just point out the

success rate of Mr. Phillips, the commissioner of critical industries,

and that innovative move by this government to keep those jobs intact,

or to restore them — over 1,500 to date.

I just want to touch on one more aspect of job creation, which

seemed to be the topic of the day yesterday, and that is Expo and the

business visitors program. We've been talking quite a bit about it, but

maybe some members are not aware that through the Minister of

International Trade and Investment we have invited over 32,000 leaders

of industry and business throughout the world — the decision-makers —

to come to British Columbia during Expo; not just to see what we have

to offer at Expo in the British Columbia Pavilion, which is

considerable, but to then take these leaders wherever possible

throughout this province to show them why they should be investing,

relocating, building plants in British Columbia.

[11:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, we are on the Minister of Labour's administrative functions, and maybe you are straying a bit.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your remarks,

but I'm trying to relate it to the discussion that came from that side

of the House yesterday accusing this Minister of Labour and this

government of not having a plan for the future for jobs in this

province.

The Leader of the Opposition went on at great length about not

having a crystal ball and not caring about jobs in the future. Jobs in

the future is exactly what I'm talking about by bringing to this

province the leaders of industry and business from around the world,

the ones who make decisions, and taking them throughout this province.

We already have in place a partnership program with the municipalities

so that they can be competitive when we take these leaders to the

cities of New Westminster, Kamloops, Nanaimo, Cranbrook, Prince George

and all the others, can have something to offer these world leaders and

show them why they should be locating in British Columbia and therefore

creating jobs in this province. I am relating it back exactly to the

comments of the Leader of the Opposition, who is not in this House at

the moment. He won't talk on log exports and now he doesn't want to

talk about job creation, the very thing he was criticizing this

minister for.

Mr. Chairman, the Expo business visitors program will benefit this province

for years to come. I could go on and on about the benefits for tourism and the

jobs that are created in the service industries. We're talking about creating

jobs: more jobs will be created in the service industries in the next few years

than in all other industries combined in this province. We have the plans in

place right now to take advantage of it.

We're not putting Expo on as just a five — and-a-half-month show,

which it will be — very spectacular. We're using it as a marketing tool

for years to come in this province, and I think it is important that

people know that. It is not just a five-and-a-half-month spectacular —

it is that for sure — but goes well beyond that for creating jobs for

many years to come in this province. I think we should make that point

wherever possible.

I will close by reiterating some of the things I said yesterday.

When you total up the projects that have been done and are being done

in this province right now by this government, I shudder to think what

would have happened without the projects I mentioned, and the thousands

of jobs, if this government hadn't been in power — if that opposition

had been in power. For those who weren't here yesterday, I'll quickly

run through them again.

The convention centre and cruise ship facility in Vancouver, the

automated light rapid transit system, the stadium, which is the finest

in Canada, Expo 86 and all the construction it has triggered.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You tell me, Mr. Member from New

Westminster, where your building trades would be without those

projects. Then add the Coquihalla Highway, the Annacis bridge,

northeast coal, the port at Prince Rupert that had been promised for 50

years. And they say that this government is not interested in providing

jobs. What a bunch of nonsense!

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The Minister of Tourism outlined the job

creation and development projects of the government of British Columbia

and showed too that the government acts in a coordinated way in terms

of the development of jobs.

Yesterday the member from Skeena selectively quoted a 1917

section

of the ministry of labour act. His question was, what have I done to

attract industry to his constituency and what investigations have I

done with respect to the location of industry in his constituency. He

selectively quoted the ministry of labour act where it says to inquire

and report as to the establishment of new industries in the province

where it appears they can be profitably carried out. He forgot to

mention, Mr. Speaker, "where it can profitably be carried out." It is a

section of the act.

This Minister of Labour is administering the act in the same way as

the former member from Shuswap-Revelstoke, only I would hope a little

bit better. The government at that time brought in an industry and

small business development act where they gave the same powers

primarily to the Minister

[ Page 7855 ]

of Industry and Small Business Development. In 1985

the current government of British Columbia expanded on that by the

establishment of a minister responsible for international trade and

investment. Just to show how the committee system worked, as I pointed

out yesterday, that reporting process is done through the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development, and perhaps it's a worthwhile

exercise for us to explain how it works, since we've got so many young

people in the gallery this morning who come from other areas of British

Columbia.

What happens, Mr. Chairman, is that the Ministry for International

Trade and Investment goes out around the world and sells the products

in partnership with industry and working people in British Columbia;

they sell the programs of the government of British Columbia, be these

tax reductions over a three-year period, municipal partnership

programs, Ministry of Tourism programs, the critical industries

commissioner or any other areas that they feel will attract industry to

British Columbia. That Minister of International Trade and Investment

may meet somebody in Japan and talk about the opportunities that are

available in British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I note that there were more cabinet meetings carried out at the Union Club during the NDP term in office than anywhere else.

The Minister for International Trade and Investment goes out around

the world and finds somebody who wants to do business in British

Columbia. They come back to the economic development committee of

cabinet, and the economic development committee of cabinet is

represented by a variety of ministries: the Minister of International

Trade and Investment, the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development, the Minister of Transportation and Highways, the Minister

of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Minister of Finance, the

Minister of Forests, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and the

Ministers of Labour, Tourism, Municipal Affairs and Agriculture and

Food. All of those ministries report at regular weekly meetings in

terms of trade development and opportunities in British Columbia. It is

in that process, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Labour gets

involved in terms of the development of educational programs, training

programs and a variety of programs that are carried out by the Ministry

of Labour. I mentioned yesterday that the Ministry of Labour provides

such services as consultation and manpower services to industry and

indeed union people, the vocational rehabilitation program, the

apprenticeship training act, the private schools act, remedial

apprenticeship training, general upgrading, work-simulated programs and

a variety of journeyman upgrading programs and other opportunities in

British Columbia.

I mentioned yesterday, too, that the Ministry of Labour responds to

all of those industry requests, and at the present time we're

mind that the umbrella agreement was a British Columbia concept. Under

that agreement are a variety of programs that will be worked out with

flexibility as possible in terms of being able to respond to requests

for industries that come to British Columbia wanting to make their

investment plans in our province.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I also mentioned yesterday that for the first time the government of

Canada and province of British Columbia are looking at the

establishment of regional offices in British Columbia, because the

biggest complaints that we get from Labour is that there is duplication

doing. What we're attempting to do is set up four one-stop shops across

British Columbia, to provide the opportunity in that one-stop shop for

all of the employment development programs that can be carried out in

British Columbia to assist all of those industry and business

enterprises that want to come to British Columbia to establish new

opportunities in our province and create employment for our people.

That is how that process works, Mr. Chairman. It's not one that is

duplicated in any one area. It's one that is coordinated on behalf of

all of the ministries involved in the development of industry and

business and trade in our province, and the Ministry of Labour is a

very important component of that committee.

MR GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, the government reminds me of the

Vancouver Canucks — 15 years of failure there, but you've only had 10

years of failure. It's a little bit like the Canucks' management

saying: "We're all right. We can score goals. We score goals almost

every game." But they never score enough goals. That's what has been

wrong with the government's economic strategy too. Sure you score the

odd goal, sure you play the odd good game, but you don't win very many,

and it's a pretty unsuccessful season and you miss the play-offs year

after year, just the way the Canucks do effectively.

Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to some discussions that we had

yesterday. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Labour — and I'll quote

from the Blues: "I wonder if the minister thinks it's appropriate for a

Minister of Labour to take a position favouring one side or the other

in a set of contract negotiations." The minister replied in part by

saying that nobody can accuse this Minister of Labour of ever taking

sides. I want to go back a page earlier in the Blues and quote the

Minister of Labour talking about, and I quote, "those who are involved

in the construction industry." He's talking about the employees who go

and work away in camps to build megaprojects and the like. He says, in

respect of these people:

"...they have a general recognition that they have

out-priced themselves in the marketplace, and I hope that they will

approach the next set of collective bargaining with the general

realization that they have. It is my belief that once that set of

negotiations has taken its course, they will come out of that in a far

more competitive position than they are today."

Chuck McVeigh could not have said it better.

Mr. Chairman, when I accused the minister yesterday of taking sides

in the construction negotiations, the minister denied it. He went on

and tried to confuse the issue by attempting to say he was talking

about fair wages. He very clearly and very specifically said that they

will approach the next set of collective bargaining with the general

realization that they have, and I quote, "out-priced themselves in the

marketplace," and that they will come out of the set of negotiations in

a far more competitive position than they are today.

Now, Mr. Chairman, it is essential anywhere in this province, in any

province or in the country itself that ministers of labour remain

neutral in disputes between employers

[ Page 7856 ]

and employees. I think it is even important that

critics on the opposition benches remain neutral, and as a result I

have not taken a position one way or the other in that set of talks.

I've made no comment whatsoever publicly about what should happen in

construction industry talks.

But damn it anyway, it is important for the Minister of Labour to be

neutral. Yet he clearly and definitely came out, like all his

colleagues have in various ways at various times, on the side of the

employer in that set of talks. That is inappropriate, that is the

greatest transgression that the Minister of Labour can possibly make in

this province, and it is grounds for his resignation. It is grounds for

his resignation, and he should forthwith resign. I haven't, in all my

time as opposition labour critic, ever called for the resignation of a

Labour minister. I have not called for the resignation of a Labour

minister.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: And I don't need those interjections. I have

not called for the resignation of a Labour minister no matter how much

I disagreed with their particular positions, as I certainly did even

more with the former Minister of Labour than I do with this one on a

number of issues. But on this issue, coming out on the side of one side

or the other.... I don't care which side it is you come out on; it

is wrong.

[11:30]

The Minister of Labour has no ability to participate as a neutral in

talks when he has taken a particular position which clearly favours one

side, because when you boil it down in the construction industry talks

today, the dispute basically is about the employers asking for

concessions and the workers saying no concessions. That is, boiled

down, what the dispute is all about. The minister in this House

yesterday during his estimates comes out and says they should have

concessions, and "I expect when the negotiations are concluded there

will be concessions." Now he didn't say....

MR. REID: Hear, hear!

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, it is all right for the

back-bencher — the permanent back-bencher until the next election —

from Surrey to take a position. He has no responsibility nor is he

responsible, and so if he wants to take that kind of position, fair

enough. If I weren't the labour critic for the official opposition, I

too would feel more able and more free to take a position one way or

the other on various disputes — far more free. So the member for Surrey

can take his management position and can say it all he wants, but the

Minister of Labour cannot and should not. The Minister of Labour has,

by those statements yesterday, completely and totally impaired his

ability to act as a neutral in labour management relations in this

province.

I don't know how to say it stronger, Mr. Chairman. The minister has

no right, and if he has any sense, he would never come out one way or

another on a set of negotiations that are currently underway in this

province.

Now it might be that as a matter of government policy, some

ministers might be attempting to adopt a particular economic strategy

which might impact on those negotiations, but in that respect the

Minister of Labour has to remain neutral. He has to remain away from

his cabinet colleagues on those issues, in the same way as the

Attorney-General has to remain as a neutral on legal questions

affecting the government; the same way that the Attorney-General must

be above the politics, in terms of being the chief law enforcement

agent in this province. In the same way, the Minister of Labour has a

responsibility to keep clear, to keep a distance from any government

activity which appears to be favouring one side or the other in a

bargaining situation. But not only has the minister failed to keep

clear, he has clearly and specifically, as quoted here in the Blues,

taken one side in those negotiations.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the sixth time you've said it.

MR. GABELMANN: Do you want me to say it a few more times?

Mr. Chairman, there are members on that side of the House who should

understand this issue. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael),

before he turned traitor to his class, used to represent workers.

MR. REID: Libel!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. GABELMANN: That's the management position.

MR. REID: You don't care about management. You'd have the whole province go down the drain. You never met a payroll in your life.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Member for Surrey, come to order, please. The

members will all have an opportunity to participate in this debate if

they wish to do so. But in the meantime, the member for North Island

has the floor. If you would address the Chair, sir, perhaps there would

be fewer interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman. I've never turned an odometer back either.

MR. REID: You turkey! You don't know what it is to work for a living. You've had your snout in a trough all your life.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, I've never gone to court for anything I've done either.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, I haven't. Why should I withdraw the fact that I've never gone to court for turning odometers back?

MR. REID: Hey, go get yourself a rubber ducky with the rest of your partners. Go out in the hall if you don't like that statement.

MR. GABELMANN: May I say to those visitors in the gallery

that it isn't always like this in here. It's only when the member for

Surrey is around.

MR. REID: It's only because you don't know what a real job is, you turkey. Like the rest of your birds.

[ Page 7857 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is a list of

unparliamentary words and we're getting awfully close to being on that

list. Perhaps if the member for North Island could be allowed to get

started on his debate, then we can have a few less interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I'll say it once more: I would

ask the Minister of Labour to make it clear to this House that he

either apologizes and retracts what he said yesterday or he resigns.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, like the member for Skeena

(Mr. Howard), the member for North Island selectively quotes. I asked

that member for North Island yesterday when he brought up the issue of

fair wages not to draw me into a dispute between the industry and their

unions. I asked you to do that yesterday. You proceeded. I have an

obligation to the House, when you ask a question, to answer it the best

way I can. You can take what you want out of it, hon. member, as the

NDP is so good at doing. But I stand on my position that this Minister

of Labour will not take sides in any dispute in any area of conflict in

this province. I can hold my head up anywhere and do that. The

individual that brought the government of B.C. Into this dispute in the

debate yesterday is the member for North Island. He should hang his

head in shame. Because clearly, hon. member, that is an issue that both

parties would like to see the government develop in our province: a

fair wage in the construction industry.

I asked the hon. member yesterday not to bring that before the

House. He persisted. "Yes," he would say, "in general terms." But I

stand on my position of yesterday: the government is not going to bring

in a fair-wage regulation package, and we will not interfere in the

bargaining process. Yes, I hope that both parties come out of the

bargaining process in a strong position to retain the traditional area

of responsibility in pioneering B.C. for all British Columbians as

they've been accustomed to doing for 50 years and beyond. As a member

of the operating engineers I am proud to have been associated with them

in the past, in the development of those projects and programs on

behalf of the people of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke was first on his feet.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you wouldn't mind taking your seat, hon.

member, I'll let this continue. I'd appreciate it if the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) would either volunteer to sit in the chair

or refrain from coaching the Chair.

MR. GABELMANN: This is the only issue I want to pursue this

morning. Once we've settled this one, then I'm going to take my place

and let others carry on the debate. I agree, Mr. Chairman, that the

minister asked me not to quote.... To quote the minister: "I would

hope that the member for North Island would not draw me into that

debate." That's on page 17 of the Blues. His involvement in the debate

and the issue that we're talking about is on page 16 of the Blues.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Persisting.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm persisting because you broke a fundamental

rule that the Minister of Labour in this province must obey, which is

neutrality in bargaining. You cannot effectively use your office to

assist parties in negotiating if you have stated publicly that you

favour one side over the other. It wasn't me, Mr. Chairman, who drew

the minister into this discussion. I was following a line of

questioning on fair wages, which is another issue altogether. Then the

minister, as he always does — he gets carried away with what he says —

started to make a speech about the great construction industry and the

great construction workers who've gone around this province building

megaprojects, and how proud he was of them. But, he said, they've

overpriced themselves: "...they have out-priced themselves in the

marketplace." I'll quote again: "...they will come out of that" —

referring to the collective bargaining that's now proceeding — "in a

far more competitive position than they are today." That was said in

this House before I made any reference in any way, directly or

indirectly, to the bargaining that's taking place between CLR and the

BCYT at the present time. I was very careful.

In my questioning about fair wages, I talked about the legislative

action and the cabinet action that was required. The minister chose, in

his response, to go beyond the fair wage issue and talk about the

current set of negotiations. He didn't know he was doing it; because

he's so incompetent, he doesn't know what he says half the time. Then

on the next page, when I asked why he did this, why he took this

particular position, why he supported one side, the minister said don't

"draw me into that debate." My response to that was: "It doesn't take

me to draw the minister in, Mr. Chairman; he voluntarily walked into it

himself before I even raised the question." That's a direct quote from

the Blues.

The minister himself, without any encouragement or request from this

side of the House, decided to make a statement about a sensitive set of

negotiations that are taking place, and made a clear indication that he

thinks a certain set of conclusions should be achieved at that

bargaining table. I might accept that from another minister. I

certainly would accept it from a back-bencher. Fair enough. But the

Minister of Labour has a responsibility to maintain his credibility. In

order to do that, he needs to remain a neutral in collective bargaining

issues; and he has not, by that statement yesterday.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, enough has been said about

this already. It's unfortunate that the member for North Island has

taken something else out of it than was intended. It would be nice to

go into the fair wage issue and discuss it with the member, but I

can't, in the interest of the bargaining process. Maybe at another

time, in another debate, we may be able to do that, but I'm not going

to get involved in a fair wage discussion or in any other discussions

involving the collective agreement that are going on between the

construction industry and their employees, or any other collective

agreement that might be negotiated at this particular time.

It's unfortunate that the member for North Island has taken so much

out of this. I'm not going to comment on it any further, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm going to recognize the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke as he was the first on his feet. He has

[ Page 7858 ]

deferred to you and to the minister previously. I'd like the member to continue.

[11:45]

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly interested in this

particular debate as it pertains to neutrality in the collective

bargaining process. I would suggest to you and the House that if the

Minister of Labour should resign for what he has said, perhaps the

entire opposition should consider resigning, as they will never be able

to appear to be — or in fact be — neutral in collective bargaining,

when the vast majority of their funds are paid and donated by the trade

union movement in the province of British Columbia. They receive

hundreds of thousands of dollars from trade unions every year and are

at the beck and call of the union bosses, the union leaders in British

Columbia, and they know that...

MS. BROWN: You're a liar.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MICHAEL: ...at any time the B.C. Federation of Labour decides to control their convention, they can do so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have to ask the member to stand and withdraw that, in the event that Hansard heard your remark.

MS. BROWN: Hansard , I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds withdraws the remark that you are a liar. Thank you.

MR. MICHAEL: In going to a subject other than that of

neutrality in the collective bargaining process, I would like to speak

for a while about job creation in British Columbia. I thought it might

be of interest this morning to do some checking on the types of

question that the federal NDP members of Parliament ask in Ottawa

concerning job creation in British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, it's

unfortunate that the critic for Labour has decided to leave the House

and not listen to some of the facts of what his colleagues are doing

back in Ottawa, but I asked the researchers to check Hansard for question period for the month of March in Ottawa.

Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that in the month of March, 1986, there were 26

questions asked by federal NDP members in Ottawa. The questions we had had to

do with housing and Expo, the situation of farm women, the effect of the budget

on women, women's programs, and — here's a dandy — Quebec farmer program

abolition. B.C. members were talking about Quebec farmer program abolition.

Here's another one asked by Ray Skelly on March 18; he's inquiring about the

Nova Scotia fish allocations. There's a lot of interest on the unemployment

situation in British Columbia. We go on. There was one asked by Pauline Hewett,

March 20, about Nicaragua. Another one by Ray Skelly is on acid rain and the

effects on the Atlantic fishery. There are a lot of questions here about jobs

in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. Another one, asked by Waddell on March 21,

was on the Canadian assets of Marcos. These people are really interested in

the unemployment situation in British Columbia. Another one here, asked by Fulton

on March 21, was on national sovereignty in the Arctic. Another one was asked

by Hewett on NORAD. Here's one, Mr. Chairman; here's the glaring example of

the interest of the federal counterparts of the NDP members opposite. It's a

question asked by Svend Robinson on March 4 about the Canadian armed forces

and its policy governing homosexuals and lesbians. Boy, that's sure good job

creation stuff back in Ottawa by members opposite.

If you look at the entire list of the 26 questions asked by the

members of the NDP representing the province of British Columbia back

in Ottawa, there was one member of Parliament who had concern for jobs

in British Columbia. That was Nelson Riis, the MP representing the area

that I represent provincially. He was the only member that zeroed in

and asked some good questions having to do with jobs in British

Columbia. The rest of them back there are more interested in whether or

not the Canadian armed forces are going to make some policy changes

regarding homosexuals and lesbians, and the situation in Nicaragua, and

what have you.

Mr. Chairman, the members opposite were asking yesterday about the

strategy and policy of this government regarding job creation in

British Columbia. Certainly one of the top priorities of this

government is to provide the infrastructure, the base, for the private

sector to create long-term, meaningful jobs. It is my view that the

Social Credit government has done a first-class job in servicing

communities with hydro, in building first-class road systems throughout

the province of British Columbia, and in providing the necessary rail

links to encourage the private sector and industry to get on with the

job. The port facilities are second to none in Canada. We have gas

lines serving all major communities except the island, and we're trying

to get that through in cooperation with the federal government. We have

airports, and they are continuing to be expanded and improved

throughout the province of British Columbia. We have cruise ship

facilities, again providing the infrastructure for the private sector

to spend dollars in British Columbia. We have industrial parks in all

the major and many of the minor communities throughout the province. We

have facilities to attract the movie industry. We have the

infrastructure in place to attract those dollars, to attract the

industry, to attract the private sector to come to the province and

invest their money.

I could go on and on about the types of programs that this minister

and the minister of trade and industry and this government have

developed to attract business, to assist them along the way in creating

jobs. I've said it before and I'll say it again: in the month of March

1986 the province of British Columbia created 23,000 jobs. I'm the

first to admit that those were not all full-time jobs; there were some

part-time in there. But 23,000 jobs in one month — more jobs than in

any other province in the Dominion of Canada. As a matter of interest,

the province of Manitoba came up with the magnificent sum of 1,000 jobs

in that same month. The program's in place and the program is working.

There are better things to come, because the ERD agreement has now

entered into its second year. The first year of that agreement called

for $22 million to be spent in the area of reforestation, terminating

March 31, 1986. This year that figure will be doubled: some $44 million

will be spent by that agreement on reforestation on top of all the

money being spent by the private sector and government through normal

budget allocations. We all know that the Forests minister's budget was

increased by 21 percent this year.

Better things are yet to come, because clicking in next year for the

next three years, ERDA calls for the spending of $78 million in each of

those three years. We will be reaching a

[ Page 7859 ]

plateau of 200 million seedlings being planted

every year, and that's a far cry from the years of 1972-75 when it was

more like about 60 to 70 million seedlings. We've come a long way.

As a matter of interest, someone may wish to go and check with the

province of Manitoba to see how many seedlings they're putting in the

ground in that great province. The fact is that fewer trees were

planted last year than in the year before that, and fewer the year

before that. The record will show that that great province.... And

by the way, while we're talking about 200 million trees being planted,

they're talking about four million trees being planted.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I wonder when I listen to members opposite criticizing the programs

and strategy, because I look at the programs that have been introduced

in the last few years by this government. I'm looking at the results

clicking in; I'm looking at activity, new announcements, new

industries, diversification, the types of industries that are going to

be adding value to the end-product in the forest industry: furniture

plants, the chopstick plant in Prince George, the grinding-ball plant

in Kamloops; new diversification and brand-new industry. I look at my

own community and I'm seeing a rice-cake plant opened. I'm looking at a

pewter plant being opened. I go to Armstrong industrial park in

Spallumcheen, and I see an operation there manufacturing hot-tubs and

exporting them all over Canada and areas of the United States. I look

at the processing plants being opened. I see a lot of positive signs, a

lot of good activity. I have a file here an inch and a half thick from

which I could read about all the things that are happening in British

Columbia. But I know that time does not permit that.

When I look at the federal members representing the political party

opposite, I have to wonder where their interests are and whether their

interests are truly in job creation in British Columbia. I would have

expected to look at Hansard

for the question period and see at least one member of the NDP from the

province of British Columbia stand up in the House of Commons and ask

the Minister of Finance and the leader why it is that British Columbia

came up short $607.8 million in equalization payments in 1985-86. Why

are those members back in Ottawa not representing their constituents

here in British Columbia, and arguing and pointing out the inequities

that exist in these funding formulas, whereby we in British Columbia

are not getting our fair share? When is the last time a member opposite

representing the province of British Columbia in Ottawa stood up and

talked about the gas line for Vancouver Island? It's incredible — no

interest whatsoever in getting additional dollars from Ottawa into the

province of British Columbia. As I say, when you read in Hansard

the questions being asked back in Ottawa, it really makes you wonder.

There's more interest in Canadian Armed Forces policy governing

homosexuals and lesbians than in job creation in British Columbia. And

then we have to listen to members opposite in this chamber talking

about what is being done and what is not being done for job creation in

British Columbia.

The trend line is positive. Look at the charts, and you can see

solid growth in British Columbia. You don't see that in all the

provinces in the Dominion of Canada, but you see it in British Columbia

— solid growth since 1982 in job creation and economic activity. Mr.

Chairman, you are going to continue to see that because the private

sector, the people with investment, the international investors, have

confidence in this government. They have confidence in the things that

we are doing. They have confidence in our Premier. And we will go on to

build a better British Columbia and provide more jobs in the future.

One of the previous speakers, the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr.

Richmond), was talking about Expo. Well, let me tell you that there is

going to be a lot of exciting things happen in 1986 because of Expo.

But I am just as excited about 1987 and 1988 and 1989, because I know

that as a result of the good job that this government and the Expo

corporation are going to do in entertaining and in selling British

Columbia to those tens of thousands of interested investors visiting

our province during Expo, they will come back and invest dollars in our

province. We have the infrastructure in place, we have the programs in

place, and we have the government that is dedicated to work through the

private sector to create longterm, meaningful jobs.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it took a good deal of time and

patience to listen to the previous speaker. I was hoping that maybe he

would say something that made sense. My wish came true. He made one

statement that made sense: there are better things to come. Let me tell

you what it is: the defeat of the Social Credit government. That is the

only salvation for this province, despite all those glowing words we

heard from the hollow Minister of Tourism, proving that he had no

capacity whatsoever to understand the economy of this province. We have

heard other speakers from that side of the House deliver in their

speeches the reality that we all face today: a province that is

depressed beyond words when you consider where it came from, a province

that in the days of the former NDP government, in the days of the

W.A.C. Bennett government, was a rich, prosperous, well-run province.

Now we've seen it run into the ground.

[12:00]

HON. MR. VEITCH: You didn't say that then.

MR. COCKE: You know, that member wasn't even here then. As a

matter of fact, it's an accident that he's here now. But that accident

will not continue too much longer. When you people have courage enough

to call an election, he will be gone just like most of the rest of you.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is probably time that we changed course. I

think that what we should do is maybe have a little chat with the

Minister of Labour about workers' compensation. There have probably

been more horror stories coming out of workers' compensation.... and

I call as witness every member of this Legislative Assembly. Each one

of the members of our Legislative Assembly gets the same kind of mail

that I do from people who somehow or other get caught in that

no-winning situation of the workers' compensation.

Workers' compensation was set up very early in the century to

obviate the necessity for workers who are injured on the job to sue

their employer. It's a no-fault insurance vehicle, and with that in

mind we have to say to ourselves, therefore, being no-fault, being an

opportunity provided so that it is not necessary to go into court,

which would be just absolutely stupendous in terms of.... It would

be monumental in terms of the court cases. So in order to get away from

that we've set up a Workers' Compensation Board,

[ Page 7860 ]

finally accesses to appeal and so on and so forth.

And time after time after time after time we find an injured worker

unable to work because of that person's disability, as a result of an

injury on the job, receiving compensation for a while, and then

ultimately being cut off, or the compensation being reduced to a

trickle — an inadequate amount to live on — with an appeal process

available, but not for years to come.

Now the minister is trying desperately to put it together so that

the appeal process can be shortened, but in the two years that one

waits for an appeal, one loses their home, their car and oft-times

their family, as a result of an inhuman or dehumanized process that is

actually wrecking the whole concept.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we've got to move a lot faster than we're moving.

In the first place it would be impossible for that minister, his deputy

or anybody within the process — or a new commissioner, if one is

appointed in the next while.... We have an acting chief

commissioner, but we don't have a head of the compensation board at the

moment, other than acting, but it would be impossible for any of them

to restructure to the extent that is necessary. No one in that group

has the time to do the job that's necessary.

There is only one way to save workers' compensation and to again

provide some credibility to the process, and that is to have a royal

commission on the subject. It's utterly necessary. We are beyond the

pale in terms of workers' compensation at this point. In order to

provide for a vehicle that can give the service fairly is to give

access to all information to a royal commission on that subject. The

royal commission should be instructed to get to work as quickly as

possible because of the disaster and the chaos that we see before us.

Mr. Chairman, everyone I talk to — the legal profession, the trade

unions who are directly involved in fighting compensation claims on

behalf of their members — say the same thing. They cannot tolerate this

disaster that is supposed to be providing an even-handed judgment and a

fair compensation to injured people.

Let me give you one priceless area that I see in all this. Remember,

not too long ago a worker was not reassessed, providing he or she was

still disabled, for 13 weeks. Then an assessment — an income evaluation

— was done and they might reduce the compensation because of a work

experience situation. That is now reduced to eight weeks. People can be

receiving compensation to the tune of three hundred and some dollars a

week, and suddenly, because of an unemployment situation that occurred

the year before, be reduced to $50 or $60 a week because of this

averaging process.

What does that have to do with anything anyway? I don't believe in

the eight weeks or the 13 weeks or anything. Who is to say — speaking

of those crystal balls that we were talking about yesterday — that that

worker now engaged won't be there for the rest of his or her life? But

instead we say that because that person was unemployed for a period

last year — and I contend that that unemployment was largely because of

this lousy government — the person will not be employed for years to

come. A person suffers an injury, and now all of a sudden, after eight

weeks, the compensation is reduced from $350 a week to $60. That person

has an appeal, but that appeal takes place a couple of years down the

road. Meanwhile, that person winds up broke and on welfare, unless they

have some very good fortune and kind parents or have managed to save a

large amount of money over the years.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Stand up straight.

MR. COCKE: You know, when one is speaking about a very

serious situation, and a minister of the Crown — the member for Central

Fraser Valley — comes into the House and starts making remarks like

that, no wonder we're in trouble. Insensitivity such as that is beyond

words. Insensitivity to the needs of the people in our province is the

reason that we're in such dire straits.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You're leaving a sinking ship.

MR. COCKE: It's interesting that a member on board the Titanic would say to me that I'm leaving a sinking ship. Hah! Mr. Chairman, members across the way....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The members will come to order. The member for New Westminster will address the Chair.

MR. COCKE: It would be very remarkable if an intelligent

remark could be moved from one side of this floor to the other, coming

from right to left of the Speaker. We would all be very amused if we

heard something amusing, but unfortunately that is not amusing. Mr.

Chairman, what I'm talking about is a very serious situation.

I call for a royal commission for a number of reasons — because

there is a dearth of safety regulations at the moment. Where are the

safety regulations in the fishing industry? There aren't any. Where are

the safety regulations for the farming industry? Where are the proper

safety regulations for the mining industry, Mr. Chairman? They don't

exist.

Mr. Chairman, there are so many areas of WCB that are wanting.

Surely by now the minister can take a case.... And I realize he

can't go unilaterally out on this particular issue. He can't go

unilaterally out and order a royal commission; he's going to have to do

it with the assent of his cabinet colleagues. But he can take this

cause celebre to his colleagues and, if they would listen, there is no

question that they would agree with him that the time is long overdue

that there should be a royal commission on WCB.

Mr. Chairman, it has happened before in this province. It's the kind

of a process that from time to time requires coming to grips with

changes that are necessary to bring it up to date and also bring it

into line. This is an area that becomes far too removed from its

clientele. We forget that the clientele of WCB are injured workers. Mr.

Chairman, they have to be brought back to where that is the prime

motivation behind WCB. I see WCB today as a vehicle that, rather than

assisting injured workers, has as its prime motivation denying claims

if at all possible. How self-serving can you get?

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of privilege. The

member for North Island made a statement referring to some fraudulent

actions on the part of this member. I'd like that statement withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member may wish to do so. Your Chairman did not hear it, and it is....

[ Page 7861 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, if you'll recognize me, I'm

quite happy to withdraw all the comments I made, in exchange for his

withdrawal of some of his comments.

MR. REID: The fraudulent comment was that I turned back an odometer on an automobile. I take exception.

[12:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the comment wasn't heard by the Chair. The

member for North Island has indicated he withdraws any statements he made. It

was conditional, but I accept that he has withdrawn the statements that purportedly

offended the member. I consider the matter dealt with.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The member for New Westminster made some

interesting comments with regard to the operation of the Workers'

Compensation Board. I want to take this opportunity to introduce to the

assembly Glenn Hall, acting chairman of the Workers' Compensation

Board, who is in the gallery today. I'd like the House to give him a

warm welcome.

Nobody can deny that there were some problems dealing with the

appeal process at the Workers' Compensation Board. I mentioned that in

my opening remarks to the assembly. I also mentioned the corrective

action that has been taken with respect to the backlog of appeals and

so on. Yes, indeed, it is unfortunate that the backlog has grown so

much. We have received in this year's budget an increase in the number

of personnel that we will be able to assign to remove the backlog.

We're also taking extra steps to have those appeal committees be

representative of the regions of British Columbia by having appeals

heard by people who live out in the interior and are accustomed to

working conditions and climates in the interior, and indeed, the

hazards of the workplace in the interior. I also mentioned that we will

be able to finalize that process over the course of the next few weeks.

I met with the chairman of the review boards on Wednesday, I think

it was, and he gave me a good report on how he is proceeding with the

setting up of the new process and the review boards' operation, and the

administration of them is coming on very well — in fact, better than I

thought it was, because I thought that all the new people assigned as

chairmen and panel members would require a significant amount of

training, but that is not the case. A lot of good people have come

forward and will be able to work in an effective way with the review

board chairmen in removing the backlog.

As I said earlier on, it is unfortunate that the backlog got out of

hand, and attempts are being made to correct that. It's no comfort to

the individuals who have had to wait two years, but the structure and

process is in place, and we hope we can get through that as quickly as

possible. That is dealing with the administration of the review boards.

The other area where we see some difficulty arising is in the

backlog of the medical reviews, and additional panels are being set up

now to deal with that backlog. I hope that we have caught it in time to

prevent further delays in that area.

The member called for a royal commission into the operation of the

Workers' Compensation Board, and I have to say that the last royal

commission that was established in British Columbia took four years to

complete and cost a considerable amount of money.

I still hold the view that we have the expertise in the employer and

the employee community, and I trust the individuals who use the system

to come up with some recommendations on how we can best administer the

Workers' Compensation Board, how we can best involve the employer and

employee community in the development of policy that will assist their

particular constituents of interest. That task has been given to

Caldwell Partners. Kevin McBurney, who works with Caldwell Partners,

has been meeting with the employer and employee community, asking for

their ideas on how we can best achieve a sound administrative system

for the Workers' Compensation Board, and how we can best involve the

employer and the employee community in matters dealing with the

administration and policy decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board.

The member talked about regulations, and the member will know that

there is at the Workers' Compensation Board an acting chairman who has

been asked by myself not to change any major policy decisions that he

might think are worthwhile until we have appointed a new chairman and

have a new structure in place where those policy decisions will have

the input of the employer and the employee community in terms of their

impact on the community. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, some good

decisions have been made in the operation of the Workers' Compensation

Board over the course of the past year. The runaway costs of the board

have been dealt with, and they are under control. The accident rate is

down in British Columbia, the benefit levels are up, and costs are down

to the employer. When I say costs, the assessment rate, in spite of all

of the difficulties that the board has faced and challenges that it has

faced over the course of the past few years, all of those things have

been dealt with and they're all positive.

The member talked about the 13 weeks versus the eight weeks, or

whatever the case might be. It's my hope, when we appoint a new system,

and Caldwell Partners come back with some ideas on how to best

administer the Workers' Compensation Board, that the employer and the

employee community would make some recommendations to the board on how

to best compensate disabled and injured workers in keeping with the

administration of the act. I hope that they then would be able to put

their particular points of view forward to the new chairman of the

Workers' Compensation Board, who acts independent of the government and

this Legislature, with the Legislature only having the authority to

change statutes, appoint a chairman and commissioners, and appoint

review panel members and so on.

Without question, more consultation and cooperation is required from

the community. I know that there are some people out in the community

who would prefer not to sit down or cooperate or consult with the

Workers' Compensation Board, or indeed the government, because of a

political agenda, but I would hope that they would put that political

agenda aside in the interest of their membership and disabled workers

across the province and sit down and cooperate with the board and have

input into the decision-making policies of the board. I know that if we

can work in that area and direction, we will be able to have a sound

workers' compensation system in British Columbia, one that will reflect

the needs and aspirations of the employee and employer community, and I

look forward to further developing that process in 1986.

Interjection.

[ Page 7862 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is the line of questioning from the member for New Westminster, and we'll let him continue.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The minister talks about the Tysoe commission lasting four years. I

know that in 1915 there was Pineo, and then there were the two Sloan

commissions in 1942 and 1952, and then Tysoe in '66. I guess maybe it

is because of the kind of process and the fact that there are the two

sides very firmly entrenched: the employer who feels that the less

claims, the less premiums, because the employer pays the shot; and of

course the trade unions who represent their people in as tough a way as

they possibly can. Really, neither of those two are hurting that badly.

Let me tell you who is, however. It is the unorganized person who

has the sad happening who is the one who really is defenceless. What do

you do? You go to a lawyer. Some are fortunate enough that they realize

that maybe they can get in touch with their MLA, and if their MLA gets

off his or her butt, maybe they'll have something happen. But you know,

the vast majority of those people out there are without help. They

don't even know that there is a workers' advisory. They don't realize

the access that they might have. So as I say, that group, in my

opinion, has to have an awful lot more attention. I believe, for

example, that every person that is injured should have immediately a

program handed to that person, indicating all the various accesses that

one can have — workers' advisory and all the rest of it.

I think I have to go further than that and just say that I believe

we are in a situation now where a real study has to happen. It can even

take four years. I realize it is complex, but sooner or later....

Look, I wish the minister all the luck in the world for WCB in its

present form to provide as much as possible, with the vehicle that we

have, of the services that are necessary. But I go beyond that and say

that in the long run, I believe the only way we can tailor WCB is to do

it through an inquiry to look at all aspects of it, an independent

inquiry, an inquiry that is based on people that are not affected in

any way, shape or form; enlightened people who can look at it and say,

look, this is the way it can provide for the needs of the people in

this province in the proper manner. You know, we're not structured for

it.

For instance, I see correspondence between certain people and the

minister, and so on and so forth, on

section 90(3) of the act, and of

course this is where an appellant wins an appeal and then the board

overturns what the appeal board has done. That was just happening time

and time again. Now I understand it is improving somewhat. But you see,

when you have that kind of process, then you realize that surely we're

going to have to restructure this organization so that it can better

serve the needs of the people. I contend that the Ministry of Labour

cannot do it. I contend that the acting chairperson cannot do it, or

the new chairperson, whoever that might be, because everyone is

involved to some extent directly within the process.

I believe that it has to be an outside.... I realize the

appointment of the consultants; it's not enough. It has to be a

full-blown inquiry, in my opinion. This is a major, major Crown

corporation, a very significant Crown corporation. I felt, for example,

that there has to be something amiss when I saw one year.... I

can't remember the figures exactly, but something in the order of a

$500 million deficit, or facing a $500 million deficit. The following

year suddenly we're jakealoo. Now what happened in that intervening

period?

[2:30]

AN HON. MEMBER: Two hundred million.

MR. COCKE: Two hundred million. You don't improve $300

million unless there's something haywire with the way you derive these

figures. I guess you could just change horses, change courses.

Anyway, I believe this is a very important organization. I think it

requires more than.... I will admit the minister has tried

valiantly to get something going here, but it's a very tough process to

move an organization that has become hard and crusty. That's all I can

say.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

There was a comment along these lines — and I'm going to paraphrase

— by one of the commissioners that if a person was hurt in an accident

and had a wound that made that person look rough, disfigured, the

disfigurement would have to be to the extent that it would make one

barf before WCB would pay for the surgery that would correct that

situation. Talk about insensitive. When that comes out of the highest

area in WCB, then it strikes me that something has to be done so that

these people realize what kind of an obligation they have.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the minister should jump up and say:

"Look, we're going to do the best we can in the interim, but I'm going

to try valiantly to have this process studied and have some corrective

measures produced by some people who are at arm's length, or beyond the

WCB or the Ministry of Labour, for the very simple reason — one

particular reason anyway — that the people I'm naming now do not have

the time, they're so totally immersed in the problems. As I said at the

outset, every MLA in this chamber has had not one but a number of

horror stories emanating from disputes between WCB and an injured

party. As a matter of fact, it's getting so that even the press, who do

a lot of sleeping in this province, notice from time to time that these

things occur, and you'll find descriptions of them in the newspapers.

I think I've made my point. If we don't do it now, it must be done

someday. It is far too large a problem for us to go on ignoring. Tinker

with the system all you like, but tinkering is not going to be good

enough. Oh yes, it's going to improve a little bit here, a little bit

there. But fundamentally, when you get a no-fault insurance program, it

has to be just fine-tuned and running perfectly, because there's so

much at stake.

When I think of the number of people that I have seen — and that

you, my colleagues on both sides of the House, have seen — that have no

access to the courts, can't sue WCB, can't sue their employer, and are

absolutely dead broke, it becomes too much. I've been in crowds where

I've heard conversations such as, "Oh well, there's a whole bunch of

people out there that swing the lead," all those kinds of remarks.

Sure, there are people who will prey on any situation. But the average

person wants desperately to work, provide for their family, provide for

their needs without any assistance from anybody. But to deny them that,

and then to deny them compensation that otherwise they would have

access to through the court system, is just a bit much. This

organization has to become an awful lot more sensitive. We desperately

need that in B.C.

I ask the minister again: do your best. Call on your colleagues for a public inquiry or royal commission on the

[ Page 7863 ]

WCB. It has been tried and been found wanting. I'm

talking about WCB. The verdict is in. It has been found wanting. It has

not been doing the job that it was set up to do, and there are too many

people out there suffering as a result — and I mean really suffering.

With the green light, I will let the minister respond.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The member talked about the need to

communicate more with those people who don't have the benefit of

unionization or any areas of opportunity of that kind. What we're

attempting to do is revise the worker advisory service, and the

administrative chairman of the boards of review tells me that he would

like to set up some sort of regional office where we may be able to

expand services that would be of assistance to people requiring WCB

assistance dealing with their appeals and their reviews. That matter is

under review at the present time. The worker advisory service will be

expanded. It's interesting to note, too, that a lot of the services

that the worker advisory service provides are to unionized people in

British Columbia. That's from their own studies. The member says that

those people who don't have access to unionization need the help of the

worker advisory service, and we'll be expanding that service in this

fiscal year.

The administration of

section 90(3) has been the topic of discussion

over a period of time with the employer-employee community and senior

staff in my ministry, and with myself and the acting chairman of the

Workers' Compensation Board, along with the commissioners. They have

put a process in place now. It's my belief it is a better

administrative procedure; I'm advised it's working out quite well. I

have asked the employee and employer community to give me a report on

how they see the

section 90(3)s being administered, and to advise me if

it needs further streamlining. I will take my advice from the employer

and employee community with respect to the administration of the

section 90(3)s, so long as it complies with the Workers Compensation

Act.

So changes are being made in those areas. I believe they're

worthwhile changes, and will be reflected over the course of the year

as we continue to reduce the backlog of appeals to the boards of

review. Again I have to say that I won't be making a recommendation to

the cabinet on a royal commission at this time.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to pound that one to

death. I think it is going to be necessary. If the present minister

doesn't do it, then certainly the subsequent minister might, or

something might happen somewhere down the line. It needs to happen now,

but obviously it is not going to happen for a while.

Okay, so then we have to start talking about tinkering. Here is a

major tinker. We've discussed this before and I'm sure we're going to

discuss it again: that is, the whole question of who is looking after

the health and safety of the fishing fleet. Fishing season has just

begun, and if it's a year like any other we're going to have inadequate

health and safety rules out there aboard those vessels. What does that

matter? It matters thus: that not only are there unacceptable levels of

mortality connected with that industry, but there are also unacceptable

levels of morbidity.

The former Minister of Labour — and I'm going back a couple of

ministers — when he turned the jurisdiction over to the Ministry of

Transport or the federal government in 1976, promised sincerely at that

time that if they did not live up to their obligations concerning

regulation of health and safety on the fishing fleet, he — or this

government — would reinstate what had been the case: the whole process

back to the provincial government and the WCB to regulate and to police

the industry. The last time I spoke about it, I talked about people

being locked in cabins, because of welding, and so on and so forth; no

access to the outside; drowning; ill-equipped vessels. We hear the

major stories about a person getting caught in a net and being crushed

to death as it's being reeled in. We hear about those, but we don't

hear about the innumerable injuries.

Here's the irony of it: who pays? WCB, unless they duck out of the

claim. If we're paying the shot for the injuries that occur, then

shouldn't we see to it that the workers we're protecting, in terms of

compensation, are also protected under our health and safety

regulations and programs? Who is demanding from this government that we

stay out of that? Is it the large fishing companies? Are they prepared

to sacrifice people because they don't want to fix up their boats?

[2:45]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Things go better with Cocke — so say the doctors; ask any one of them.

Anyway, I don't suggest that every one of them feels that way, but I

suggest that there's an awful majority that do. So I guess there are an

awful lot of liars out there. That's neither here nor there. That's not

what we're here to talk about. As far as I'm concerned, it's not part

of my future either.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It has been one that seems to have been quite

successful, Mr. Minister. You stay here as long as I have, and get

around as much as I do, then you can start making some talk.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the minister take another hard look at

this whole question of health and safety in the fishing fleet. Don't

give us the runaround that you gave us last year, that there's no way

you can get into that area; that it's another jurisdiction. If the

other jurisdiction isn't taking care of the needs, then we should. In

any event, were the Department of Transport doing it, all they would

care about would be seaworthiness of the vessels. That's only one

aspect of health and safety. Mr. Chairman, the other aspect of health

and safety is the safety aboard a vessel that could float forever and a

day. But if there are hazardous aspects, then they should be removed.

It's a logical place for it to rest — at the WCB level.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister, will he reinstate our jurisdiction in this area?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the member leaves the false

impression that we had jurisdiction in this area. It is true that we

claimed jurisdiction in the area by our own decision, not without

that I have received from the legal people is that we don't have

jurisdiction in that area. It is true that the Workers' Compensation

Board has the authority to pay out claims to disabled or injured

workers in the fishing industry, but we don't have legal jurisdiction

to establish regulations in the industry. Since the Workers'

Compensation Board pay out those claims, they would like to have some

authority to be able to deal with regulating the

[ Page 7864 ]

industry, because no doubt that would save them

some money. But the advice I have is that we don't have jurisdiction in

that area.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, out of sheer frustration, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:49 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada