1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3725 ]

CONTENTS

Statement Correction of statements on payments to Mr. Swanson. Hon. Mr. King

— 3725

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Error backlog in ICBC computer. Mr. McClelland

— 3725

Investigation of ambulance dispatch service. Mr. D.A. Anderson —

Liquor Administration Branch transfer from Victoria to Vancouver. Hon. Mr.

Hall answers — 3726

Reasons for corrections deputy leave of absence. Hon. Mr. Hall answers —

Ambulance dispatching from Langford fire hall. Mr. Wallace — 3726

Parking outside Legislature. Mr. Gardom — 3727

Government hiring freeze. Mr. Fraser — 3727

Accidents caused by children on minibikes. Mr. Wallace — 3727

Rock-scaling in Fraser Canyon. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3728

Work on Mayne Island ferry terminal. Mr. Curtis — 3728

Limitations Act (Bill 8). Third reading — 3728

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 77). Third reading —

Coroners Act (Bill 87). Third reading — 3728

Liquor Distribution Act (Bill 93). Third reading — 3728

Liquor Control Provincial Court Act (Bill 100). Third reading —

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 102). Committee, report and third

reading — 3728

Renters Resource Grant Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 104). Committee stage.

section 1. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3729

Report and third reading — 3729

Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 105). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 1. Hon. Mr. King — 3729

section 1 as amended. Mr. Steves — 3730

section 8. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3731

Amendment to

section 12. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3732

Amendment to add

section 14. Hon. Mr. King — 3733

Report stage — 3735

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 108). Committee stage.

section 4. Mr. Morrison — 3735

Amendment to

section 4. Mr. L.A. Williams — 3738

section 4. Mr. Morrison — 3739

Amendment to add

section 5A. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3740

section 6. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3740

Amendment to

section 6. Mr. L.A. Williams — 3740

Public Service Superannuation Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 112). Committee, report

and third reading — 3741

Municipal Superannuation Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 113). Committee, report

and third reading — 3741

Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 114). Committee, report and third

reading — 3741

College Pension Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 115). Committee, report and third

reading — 3741

Public Services Medical Plan Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 116). Committee stage.

section 1. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3742

Report and third reading — 3742

Public Service Group Insurance Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 117). Committee stage.

section 1. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3742

section 2. Mr. Morrison — 3743

Report and third reading — 3743

Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 135). Second reading.

MR. Gardom — 3743

Division on second reading — 3749

Public Service Amendment Act(Bill 136). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Hall —

Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources Amendment Act (Bill 127).

Second reading. Hon. R.A. Williams — 3749

THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I ask

leave of the House to make a brief statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct an

erroneous impression I left in the debate of the day before

yesterday, the afternoon sitting of June 17, and again in that

evening sitting. The remarks appear at pages 594-3, 595-1 and

601-3 of the Blues.

I indicated that perusal of public accounts for the year

1965 indicated that Railway Appliance Research Ltd. received

$10,000 payment from the British Columbia Railway. That, Mr.

Speaker, is untrue. That did indicate that payment had been

received from the B.C. government, but not the B.C. Railway. I

made similar references at other points that inferred that

payment had been received from the railway.

I have no evidence whatsoever that payments were ever

received by Mr. Swanson from the railway, and hence I wanted to

correct that impression. Now there is no question but my

position was made clear that if such payment were received from

the railway while Mr. Swanson was the chief engineer under the

Department of Commercial Transport and hence the regulatory

authority over the railway, that undoubtedly would be a

conflict of interest. But I have no evidence whatsoever that

Mr. Swanson received payment of that kind. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. That will be noted, of course, in

Hansard . I think it is probably too late for the edition that

took place, but I'll check into that as well. Corrections can

be made in a subsequent issue, and it will be shown today.

Any introductions? Nobody in the gallery?

Oral questions.

ERROR BACKLOG IN ICBC COMPUTER

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): My question is to the Minister of Transport

and Communications. About a year ago, the Minister will recall, there was some

concern about error backlogs in the computer system at ICBC with perhaps some

400,000 individual items being rejected by the computer, Would the Minister

confirm that that is a continuing problem and that there may be an effective

backlog today of at least 300,000 individual items, individual applications?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and

Communications) : I would have to check that out.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister is checking

that out, would the Minister also check out whether there are

80,000 errors left over from 1974, and could the Minister tell

us what the additional cost to ICBC will be to handle all of

these applications by hand?

INVESTIGATION OF

AMBULANCE DISPATCH SERVICE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Health:

could the Minister indicate whether he's launched an

investigation of the ambulance dispatch service in the light of

the fact that the ambulance dispatched to the scene of an

accident where a man was killed at Goldstream two days ago was

dispatched from a more distant station that the volunteer

Langford crew which was on duty at the time, resulting in a

20-minute delay in the ambulance reaching the scene of the

accident?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,

certainly, I'm looking into the matter. One of the problems

with any new service is the normal administration problems that

do develop. With a global service across the province,

naturally you're going to run into unfortunate circumstances.

But generally, I've found that across the province the response

to the service has been tremendous. If a situation as the

Member describes was avoidable, then I certainly am sorry that

it did occur.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I thank the Minister for that statement.

I wonder at the same time whether he could look into the more

general problem of the ambulance crews being unfamiliar with

the territory to which they're assigned. Finally, would he look

into the co-ordination between the volunteer services which are

still being provided in some parts of the province and the

professional, full-time crews which are dispatched by the

ambulance dispatch headquarters?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, our province is a province that

varies in density, and some areas lend themselves to the

volunteer ambulance administration. As you know, we've changed

the volunteer concept somewhat, because they are paid per trip

and have to be available on that basis. So in developing this

kind of programme, there are those grey areas of — should it be

one, or should it be the other?

[ Page 3726 ]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I'd like to say is that generally,

according to the reports and all the mail I get, the service

has been tremendously well accepted and has also provided some

kinds of services that were never available prior.

LIQUOR ADMINISTRATION BRANCH

TRANSFER FROM VICTORIA TO VANCOUVER

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Yesterday I took as

notice three questions: two from the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A.

Anderson) and one from the Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace). I

have answers to the two questions from the Liberal leader. I

would like to report to the House in answer to those questions.

First of all, the question of the transfer of the Liquor

Administration Branch from Victoria to Vancouver. Discussions

concerning the relocation of the Liquor Administration Branch

employees have been going on for well over six months in the

department itself, and have not been the subject of any

meetings or negotiations between the component of the BCGEU and

the Public Service Commission. It's all been within the

department itself. Not all employees have elected to move to

Vancouver. The Liquor Administration Branch will be located in

Vancouver in the present Broadway facilities. The Liquor

Control and Licensing Branch will remain in Victoria. Those

employees who elect not to move to Vancouver have been

guaranteed other employment in government service. I should

tell the Members that there's no question at this time of any

use of aircraft for commuting. That would not be allowed,

unless there was some particularly individual case for some

small period of time to tide us over — some normal

labour-management easement to get over the difficulties.

REASON FOR CORRECTIONS DEPUTY

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Second reason. Regarding the Deputy Minister in the

Attorney-General's Branch in charge of corrections, Mr. Edgar

Epp: Mr. Epp met with the Attorney-General last Monday. That's

the Monday of this week, three or four days ago, at which time

he was requested to take a three-month leave of absence. He was

advised that when he returned to public service, it would not

be with the corrections branch. At that time he was told the

reason for this action was that there's been a loss of

confidence in his ability to manage the corrections branch.

AMBULANCE DISPATCHING

FROM LANGFORD FIRE HALL

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a supplementary

to the Minister of Health on the ambulance service question and preface it by

saying that I agree with him that the initial results of the service are good.

But when he's looking into the issue raised by the Liberal leader, could he

also look into the question...or is he aware of the fact that the Langford

fire hall is not allowed to dispatch an ambulance without first of all phoning

the Richmond Road downtown centre, even though the RCMP who live next door,

can lean over the fence and say that they need an ambulance right now at such

and such a location. They have to get on the phone and contact the Richmond

Road office prior to sending off the ambulance. They're not allowed to send

off the ambulance and then.... Now this kind of thing seems picayune, but when

you're dealing with accidents where minutes make a difference, and telephones

don't always function right on the button.... Was the Minister aware of that

kind of problem which is causing distress to the volunteer firemen and to the

staff?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in the ambulance service we

made a decision that there would be dispatching on a

centralized basis. If we decide that one small area within a

major area does their own dispatching, then you might very well

be served with two ambulances going to the same call, and at

the same time having someone in dire distress, within the same

area, not being served at all.

Mr. Speaker, as I say, it's a relatively new service and I'm

pleased that the Members are bringing up these questions,

because they'll all be put before our administrators in this

area.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): On the same

subject to the Minister. With regard to ambulance service,

province-wide, under the Emergency Services Commission I wonder

if the Minister could confirm that although the service became

a provincial function as of July 1 last year, a number of

regional districts have not yet received — according to very

recent information — operating funds or capital funds or

reimbursement for capital expenditures. Specifically,

Bulkley-Nechako, Central Kootenay, Comox-Strathcona,

Kootenay-Boundary and Fraser–Fort George are just a few. Is

there some delay in transmittal of funds?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we are now in the process of

picking up all of these capital expenditures. I know of no real

delay in operating expenditures other than one or two that have

been brought to my attention which weren't billed properly. But

as far as capital, our authorization has gone forward. The

approvals are being given to picking up the capital assets of

the ambulance services. You mentioned a number that are

relatively peripheral. It's unfortunate if they're not one of

the

[ Page 3727 ]

first, but I'm sure that they will be receiving their just

dues shortly because certainly I know it's going on

presently.

PARKING OUTSIDE LEGISLATURE

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): It's too beautiful a

day, Mr. Speaker, to be adversarial, so I've got a kindly

little question for the Minister of Public Works. This has

nothing to do with the battle of the tiles which he's waging

with Mr. Jim Nesbitt, but one which I've been waging with him.

Last year the Minister of Public Works informed this House that

steps would be taken to remove the parking privileges from the

front of these buildings. The cars are still there. They're

fouling up the scenery and they're seriously impairing the

aesthetic qualities of these very lovely buildings. I can

assure all Members that Mr. Rattenbury never contemplated that

the front of this assembly would become a third-rate parking

lot.

I think it's high time the Minister gave his assurance to

this House and to the many thousands — indeed hundreds of

thousands — of visitors who come to this province and take

pictures of these buildings that he will eliminate parking

today.

MR. SPEAKER: That was quite a speech!

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): That was a

pretty good speech. I should be able to give a short answer to

that. The first step is that we've inaugurated a wonderful bus

service. I realize that people living in the Empress don't even

have to use the bus, but they shouldn't park their cars in

front; they should park it elsewhere.

MR. GARDOM: No, no! Get rid of the parking.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The first step is a proper bus system. I

think you can appreciate that with the increased number of

public servants and the increased services that this government

is giving to all the people there are more cars. We are

concerned about this.

MR. GARDOM: Get rid of it!

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I appreciate the Second Member for Point

Grey raising it again. When we have other parking space, the

cars in the front will be removed.

MR. GARDOM: Well, a supplemental if I may, Mr. Speaker. A

supplemental.

MR. SPEAKER: Congratulations! A supplementary.

MR. GARDOM: A supplemental. Is there any Member in this

House who's prepared to put his hand up right now and say he

favours parking in front of these buildings?

There's your answer, Mr. Minister. There's your answer, Not

one Member. Get rid of them today!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: Have you a car outside?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, my car's not outside, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to ask the Minister who among the flacks in his

department is responsible for the captions to that photo and

picture display in this building which gives the Minister the

credit for putting up that barricade around the tiles instead

of Jimmy Nesbitt? I think that he should certainly give credit

where credit is due, and I think that while I might

congratulate him on that nice purple rope that he's suddenly

discovered and his new wooden supports for it, I think that he

should take disciplinary action against the person who gave him

credit when the credit was due to Jimmy Nesbitt.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to give the

press under Mr. Nesbitt full credit and the leader of the

Liberal Party credit for having raised it here at different

times. I'm pleased that you acknowledge that great progress is

being made in the renovations of these buildings.

GOVERNMENT HIRING FREEZE

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, we'll get down to

some serious business here now. I have a question for the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. In view of the

freeze placed on the Forest Service for hiring additional staff

some two months ago, and in view of the fact the Forest Service

has several vacancies that require filling, will the Minister

advise the House that the freeze will now be lifted so the

Forest Service can be permitted to fill the many vacancies that

now exist in this very essential public service?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

The matter is something that is always under review, Mr. Speaker.

ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY

CHILDREN ON MINIBIKES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Health

could tell the House if he is aware of any particular increase

in the number of injuries being treated in the province because

of the use by

[ Page 3728 ]

children under the age of 16 of mini-motorbikes.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that

question as notice.

ROCK-SCALING IN FRASER CANYON

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Highways, Mr. Speaker.

Could I ask the Minister, in light of the tourist traffic which

is increasing, whether the department intends to carry out any

further rock-scaling on the Jackass Mountain

section of the

Fraser Canyon highway this summer?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): I'll take that as

notice, Mr. Speaker.

WORK ON MAYNE ISLAND FERRY TERMINAL

MR. CURTIS: To the Minister of Transport and Communications

with regard to the Village Bay ferry terminal on Mayne Island

in the Gulf Islands. In a memo dated June 17 of this year, just

two days ago, one of the Minister's executive assistants, Mr.

Peter Louden notified me — and I thank him through you, Mr.

Minister, for the notification — of the following: "This

project is now being re-examined."

Would the Minister inform the House if this work is being

reduced in scope? Considerable construction has taken place

there. What precisely is meant by the term "This project is now

being re-examined"?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll have to "re-examine" it to find

out.

Orders of the day.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): By leave of the House,

I move we move to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, may I ask then for a report on

Bill 8?

LIMITATIONS ACT

Bill 8 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. HALL: Report on Bill 77, Mr. Speaker.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Bill 77 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, Bill 86 on orders of the day says "not printed."

I am having the Queen's Printer look into that at this moment. Therefore may

we move to Bill 87, Mr. Speaker? Report on Bill 87.

CORONERS ACT

Bill 87 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. HALL: Report on Bill 93, Mr. Speaker.

LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION ACT

Bill 93 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. HALL: Report on Bill 99, Mr. Speaker.

LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING ACT

Bill 99 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. HALL: Report on Bill 100, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL COURT ACT

Bill 100 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. HALL: Committee on Bill 102, Mr. Speaker.

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 102; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 102, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1975, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Committee on Bill 104, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page

3729 ]

RENTERS RESOURCE GRANT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 104; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, on this bill we

were promised, by the Premier, some amendments to deal with the

problem of senior citizens not getting the full $50 of the

resource grant.

It is a complicated business, but what is happening here, as

I understand it, is that when you take out the homeowner grant

for senior citizens, and a special homeowner grant, and then

you get into the resource grant, there is absolutely no way a

senior citizen can collect anything more than 60 per cent of

the $60 he should be collecting. I wonder whether or not the

Minister responsible for this, the Minister of Housing, could

give us some special insight and light on what they are going

to do to get that resource grant up again.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, is there an amendment coming up? Oh,

I'm sorry. Perhaps you could explain how these two Acts work

together, Mr. Minister of Housing.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Chairman, this

Act is quite independent of the school tax resource grant. The

amendment is to another Act — I can't remember the name of it —

but one that is in the name of the Minister of Finance.

Section 1 approved.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I move the committee rise, report the

bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 104, Renters Resource Grant Amendment Act, 1975,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MR. HALL: Committee on Bill 105, Mr. Speaker.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

section 1.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): I am very pleased to be able to

support this amendment. It makes the Workers' Compensation

provisions for fishermen retroactive to January 1 of this year.

It particularly applies to a very tragic occurrence dealing

with a family in my riding, a family well known in the

community, where the father and two sons were lost at sea early

this spring. They were not covered by compensation, and this

has left the wife and family members, the surviving members of

the family, very shattered with the loss of their loved ones

and also in need of financial help.

This small amendment will not alleviate that loss to the

family, but it will help in some way to alleviate the financial

burden caused by this tragic occurrence.

The people I am referring to, the Goshko family, are

neighbours of mine in the Steveston area, and well known in the

community. Mr. Goshko, as a matter of fact, was very active in

the Conservative Party. I can recall many interesting

discussions on politics that I had with him over the years, and

I knew the family well.

I am very, very pleased, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister

agreed to make an amendment so that this family would be able

to benefit by the new legislation we are presenting to the

government today, and that in the future all fishermen, when

tragic occurrences occur, will know at least that their

families and loved ones will be looked after in the future. At

least when they go out to sea they know they will have some

assurances that if mishaps occur, such as happened in the past

spring, their families will not go wanting in the future.

I am very pleased to support this, Mr. Chairman, and happy

to congratulate the Minister for bringing it in.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my appreciation

of this amendment. A representative of the Fishermen's Union called in my office,

not in relation to the incident mentioned by the Member for Richmond, but simply

pointing out that the speed with which this legislation could be introduced

is all important. The halibut fleet is at sea right now, and by the end of June

all the fleets will be fishing.

[ Page

3730 ]

This particular union representative, no doubt feeling that

he would get a sympathetic ear in the Conservative Party — that

has been mentioned already today in relation to the fishermen —

felt that he should give me the message. I was meaning to ask

the Minister how soon the legislation would be proclaimed, but

I guess proclamation is not important if this amendment, which

is retroactive, will apply. But perhaps the Minister will say

when the bill will be proclaimed.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, there is a problem in terms of

proclamation of the total extension of coverage to fishermen.

Obviously, it is a new area of coverage. The Members will note

that for those independents and for those fishermen who were

not either employees, and therefore covered in a compulsory

way, or those independents who had obtained voluntary coverage,

the Act provides that we deem someone, the purchaser of the

fish, to be the employee for purposes of compensation.

Obviously, under that kind of arrangement there is a good

deal of administrative work that has to be done inside the

board to determine assessment ratings and so on. I can't give

any precise timeframe as to when the totality of the extension

of coverage to fishermen will be achieved.

I can assure the House that the chairman of the board has

assured me that they will give it top priority and proceed post

haste to give effect as soon as possible. In the meantime

though, there were certain tragedies which occurred and there

is the possibility of additional tragedies. In those

circumstances I have introduced the amendment to retroactively

cover fatalities from January 1 on up to this point there was

only the one fatality, which the Member for Richmond (Mr.

Steves) has mentioned, who was not covered either in the

voluntary or compulsory way. Of the, I believe, 13 or so

fishermen who drowned in the current fishing season, one of

those casualties belonged to a foreign fleet, so would not

qualify in any event. But we want to assure that, certainly in

the cases of fatalities and in the case of permanent and

serious disability, coverage will be extended retroactively so

that no one is penalized or suffers during the interim while

the board is gearing up to change the system to comprehensive

coverage for everyone in the fishing industry.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, two questions

to the Minister. In determining the January 1, 1975, date, did the Minister

or the board make any assessment of loss of life prior to January 1, 1975, to

determine whether we are not unfairly excluding someone who might have died

in the previous year? I know we can't go back to the beginning of time with

this, but I wonder if the Minister could indicate that some care was taken to

ensure that we didn't inadvertently exclude someone who might also be entitled

to enjoy the coverage on the same basis the Minister has announced.

Secondly, can the Minister indicate whether or not this

amendment is indicative of a direction being taken by the

Workers' Compensation to provide a much broader coverage of

workers in the province than has ever been the case before. I

am thinking about other people who are currently in

non-compensable occupations. Are we moving to extend this

coverage? I think that there are injuries and deaths occurring

in the course of work which are affecting people who don't fall

directly within the classifications of the Act.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Member for his

concern for other areas. I am not really familiar with other

areas, except one which we are now studying. It's an area where

there is quite a limited number of people and, again, a problem

in determining employer-employee relationships. I think we will

be able to move there, hopefully, within the next year. It is a

little more complex, quite frankly, than the fishing

industry.

The excuse that has always been given for not extending

coverage to the fishermen was that it was too administratively

complicated. I am now confident that the board has worked out a

proper criterion. It is going to take some time to establish

the regulations by which the effect is given and to ensure that

they are ready to change over from the existing process.

You see, one of the complications that comes in is that some

of the people at sea now have already taken out voluntary

coverage. We have to ascertain the amount of that, to what

point in time they have paid those voluntary payments and

whether or not there will have to be rebate once the new system

is effected under compulsory coverage and so on. So that kind

of administrative change-over is necessary.

As I say, if a Member has a particular concern on areas that

he can identify in terms of people who are now excluded, I'd be

interested in having them from him. We are looking at a number,

but they're certainly not as wide as the fishing industry.

Amendment approved.

section 1 as amended.

MR. STEVES: Mr. Chairman, on the

section as a whole, I'd

like to say again that I'm pleased that this amendment is being

brought in. I used to fish myself, and I worked in a fish

cannery. I was raised, of course, in a fishing community and

quite often saw personal friends, or parents of friends either

perishing at sea or being badly hurt in fishing accidents,

people being caught up in nets and wrapped around the

[ Page 3731 ]

drums and so on, and having limbs broken and being badly

harmed. So I'm pleased to see that, after we've been trying for

years to get some kind of compensation for the fisherman, both

from the previous provincial government and from the federal

government, to little avail.

What I would like to ask the Minister at this time is with

regard to those that are on voluntary coverage. I think there

may be some amount of confusion as to whether people would go

onto the voluntary coverage this year once this bill was

introduced initially in the House. I wonder if the Minister has

something to say as to the timing — aside from the death

benefits which are now retroactive — of when the general

coverage will be coming in, so that fishermen who may not have

applied for their voluntary coverage should be encouraged to do

so. If the Minister were to make some statement to that effect,

perhaps the fishermen would be aware that they are not yet

covered, and that they should get coverage until such time as

the Act is proclaimed and able to be put into effect.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I can tell the House that it's

impossible to give total effect to the extended coverage in

time for the commencement of the fishing season. So this is one

reason why I felt it imperative to act in extending retroactive

coverage to the fatalities and to the serious disabilities. I

have instructed the board immediately on passage of this bill,

to contact not only the shore fisheries, but the fisheries at

sea with every avenue available to them, so that the fishermen

of the province will be alert and aware as to how they should

be phased into the system and so that we don't leave anyone

there without voluntary coverage prior to the appropriate

moment for the changeover.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There's a point here, Mr. Chairman, which

I wonder if the Minister could clear up. It appears that

section 8 deals with

section 33(5)(

d) and it appears where

someone is conscious but requires to have.... The board

nevertheless puts aside the money involved. If the person

thereafter dies, the money doesn't go to the estate; it would

remain with the board. Would this be the case under that

section? Or would the estate be entitled to the money?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, this

section is a bit of a complicated

one. The board has encountered problems here and seeks to clear up the situation.

The present Act doesn't make it entirely clear what the authority of the board

is or what the board is supposed to do with regard to compensation payments

when a worker is receiving total custodial care for long periods of time.

The normal system is that custodial care is paid for as an

item of medical aid, but compensation payments are made to the

worker and are normally used for the maintenance of his family,

or the maintenance of his home outside of the institution. But

there's a difficulty of what should be done when the worker has

no family outside the institution and no home elsewhere, and

that the institution has, in effect, become his home. The

amendment clarifies the authority and the responsibilities of

the board in that kind of situation, to consider the

circumstances of the individual and to apply whatever portion

of his compensation to his comfort in the institution, where

there are no benefits and where, otherwise, the totality of his

payments would accrue to an estate where there are no

dependents.

In other words, the board should have the jurisdiction and

the flexibility to apply some of those payments to the expenses

of his custodial care, to the comforts of the worker, rather

than just paying it out to be distributed to a non-existent

estate in some distant future. Now obviously there has to be

some discretion in the particular circumstances of the case; so

it's enabling to that extent.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I thank the Minister for that

explanation, but there may very well be a person who's not had

children or family in the traditional sense, and he would

otherwise like to have this money that would go to his family

in normal circumstances to his heirs and successors. I wonder

whether the Minister would object to an amendment which would

delete everything following "or in case of a permanent

disability," et cetera, et cetera, et cetera — after all,

the discretionary power is still with the board — and add there

"or otherwise to his estate." This would tend, I think, to give

a little more flexibility in the very rare cases the Minister

describes coming to pass.

If he is amenable, or indeed, while he is thinking about it,

I'll propose the amendment. It's just to add the words "or

otherwise to his estate" just after (d). So it would read:

"Periodic payments of compensation...in a case of temporary

disability of the worker may be accumulated by the board for

payment to the worker on his recovery or otherwise to his

estate."

HON. MR. KING: Was that "or otherwise to his estate"?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes.

[ Page 3732 ]

HON. MR. KING: Well, of course, that's really implicit in

the Act. The whole point of the amendment is to give the board

some flexibility in terms of allowing them to expend those

funds as support for the custodial care and support for the

comfort of the worker. As it is now under the Act, they have no

option but to let that money accrue to the estate. So that's

already inherent and I don't think it requires an amendment,

Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Waive the amendment then. I withdraw

it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is withdrawn.

Section 8 approved.

Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman,

section 12 amends

section 73. If you

look down to

section 73(3), it has: "Decisions of the board relating to procedure,

administration or any other matter not specified in the subsection (2) shall

be made by the chairman...." I wonder why we're granting these powers to the chairman

instead of to a quorum of the board, which is, of course, two. The board, in

my mind, should not be downgraded and the chairman's position boosted, which

is the essence of this. I would request the Minister to consider an amendment

to delete in 73(3) the words: "or any other matter not specified in subsection

(2)." Then of course you add the word "and" between "procedure" and "administration."

The reason is that there is a tremendous amount of autonomy

to the chairman and this would allow the chairman, apart from

procedural or administrative matters, to make decisions in many

areas which have been the area of the board and require a

quorum of two commissioners. Any decision in this area might

affect labour relations. It might well, in theory at least,

allow the chairman to conduct labour negotiations for the board

without any prior consultation with the other commissioners or

indeed anybody else knowledgeable in the field. It might affect

major internal organizational changes, it might affect changes

to board property, it might affect publicity, it might affect

financing. In all those areas I believe that a quorum of two of

the commissioners rather than the chairman should be involved.

I think that the Minister would agree that this amendment would

be very, very helpful.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would disagree with the reasons proffered

for the amendment. In reality, what is being done here is an accentuation of

what has been the arrangement for many, many years. It was never spelled out

in legislation. The Workers' Compensation Board is becoming an extremely large

corporation with over 800 employees. The Hon. Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson)

is quite correct — they bargain collectively with their employees.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There were 1,100 employees as of....

HON. MR. KING: Right. It's gone much beyond that now. Many

of those are regional, but in terms of the administration of

the board in Vancouver, it's very large. I think the number of

employees in that location or in the immediate Vancouver area

is probably between 600 or 800.

The terms of reference of the board for dealing with many of

the matters the Member referred to are spelled out in specific

sections of the Act. I think the House can appreciate that it

would become administratively impossible and chaotic if the

authority of the chairman were diluted in any way to the extent

where he had to consult on every one of the thousands of issues

that are raised daily in terms of policy statements, in terms

of instructions and direction to staff if there had to be

convened a meeting among the three commissioners.

It is spelled out clearly in

section 2 that the

rehabilitation and compensation and assessment areas are

clearly matters for a majority of the commissioners to sit and

decide policy on. Really all it is is an affirmation of the

system that has prevailed for many years.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, in an attempt to sway

others unconvinced by the Minister's words, I would point out

that the chairman does indeed have full administrative

responsibility in the remainder of subsection (3) which I have

not amended. It would read: "Decisions of the board relating to

procedure, administration...shall be made by the chairman or

as the chairman shall direct." But in the case of all other

matters not specified in subsection (2), I think we are

widening the whole field far too much.

Subsection (2) reads:

"Decisions of the board on the final disposition of any

appeal relating to a claim for compensation, a rehabilitation

expenditure or an assessment, and decisions on the content of

regulations under sections 59 and 60, shall be made by a

majority of the commissioners present...."

So that is clear. Two commissioners constitute a quorum.

[ Page 3733 ]

We are leaving procedure and administration to the chairman

with my amendment. I agree that the Minister is perfectly

correct. There are lots of people. He said more than 800 — in

actual fact, I believe that as of December 31, 1974, there were

1,162.

HON. MR. KING: But not in Vancouver.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Not all in Vancouver. Of course not. But

all under the chairman and commissioners.

It would appear to me that to give this discretionary power

to the chairman would not be a continuation of past practice,

but would be indeed a reduction in the role of the board

vis-à-vis the chairman. I would most strongly urge

Members to support my amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Section 12 approved.

Section 13 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister on a

section to follow

section

HON. MR. KING: I move the amendment standing in my name on

the order paper, Mr. Chairman.

On the amendment.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the amendment repeals the Blind

Workmen's Compensation Act. We have talked earlier in this

session about the fact that blind workers have felt that they

have every right that other workers do and that their

conditions of work and so on should not be under the exclusive

jurisdiction of the CNIB. I notice that in the bill we are

repealing by this amendment it also says: "Upon the

recommendation of the board, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

may designate any other organization or institution to exercise

the powers and perform the duties," et cetera.

What I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, is if the Minister could

tell us where the blind workman will be in the period of

transition between the repeal of this bill and presumably

changes which are being studied by a committee at the present

time, I understand.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the point is that we have had an investigation

made regarding the number of blind workers in the Province of British Columbia

and what their reaction was to the present rather autocratic control that was

legislatively vested in the CNIB. We found an overwhelming reaction against

that kind of control. I think it should be said that undoubtedly that legislative

control initially was well-intentioned and well-motivated. It came in another

era. Perhaps at that time there was some justification for it, but not in today's

society, of course. Things have changed. Blind workers have come to a decision,

and I believe rightly so, that they have a disability and they should be treated

in the same way as any other worker who suffers a disability. So it is anticipated

that through the normal rehabilitative processes of the board, we can bring

great help.

There is nothing to prevent the CNIB from playing a very

positive role of assistance also. It simply means that it won't

be visited upon a captive group but that there will be a

voluntary relationship.

I think that under this system it may well be that the

rehabilitative branch of the Workers' Compensation Board will

perhaps extend the kind of interest and the kind of coverage

that should be extended to blind workers.

We are very interested in, and in fact I had a paper

published a short time ago in the workers' compensation monthly

publication on, this whole question of does the employer's

obligation end simply through payment of disability payments,

or does he have some continuing social obligation to a worker

who is partially or even totally disabled on the job in terms

of the rehabilitative process, in terms of trying to find an

opportunity for that partially handicapped individual to get

back into the mainstream of society? We have some dialogue

going on that.

I hope that the board will be paying a great deal of

attention in the future not only to workers who contract some

industrial disease or who lose a limb, but blind workers

also.

I don't think the amendment, which simply abolishes the

Blind Workmen's Compensation Act, jeopardizes the level and the

opportunity for services and rehabilitation that blind people

now have.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I was most interested in

the Minister's comments, because recently the Association of

Concerned Handicapped sent me a copy of a report entitled "The

Unmet Needs of Blind Canadians: the British Columbia and Yukon

Division." It was a fascinating study and I think that while it

is critical of the CNIB there are areas of this report where

the CNIB is praised, and rightly so. In one area in particular

it talks about vocational counselling. I wonder whether the

Minister has any special ideas about what might happen in the

area of vocational counselling for blind people.

There are 3,800 blind persons in this particular area and

about 1,000, I might add, were consulted when this report was

put together; so it's a pretty good report. The greatest need

for the blind person apparently is employment, and apparently

at the present time there's no vocational training

[ Page 3734 ]

programmes for the blind available in British Columbia. So

we're into a situation where there is clearly a great deal to

be done. I wonder whether the Minister could indicate to us

what the changes will be in terms of his department, what the

beefing up will be.... I should say the Workers' Compensation

Board. What will the beefing up be to take over from the CNIB?

What will be done in the area of vocational counselling and in

particular rehabilitative training?

The subject might well be discussed — I'm discussing it

somewhat gingerly — under the estimates, perhaps, of the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) or Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi). But certainly as we are now wiping

out

an Act, a specific Act, for blind people, as we are now

seriously affecting the role of the CNIB, I wonder whether we

could have just a little bit of latitude and allow the Minister

to comment upon programmes that he might have in mind for, in

particular, vocational training and, secondly, for

rehabilitation of blind people.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I don't think I'd agree that

we're eliminating any interest or any participation by the CNIB

simply by eliminating the Blind Workmen's Compensation Act.

What we are doing is eliminating the virtual control that that

organization had over the lives of blind people. That does not

mean that the CNIB cannot continue to play a positive role in

terms of the kinds of services they have historically provided

the blind people. It just means that in the future blind people

will have an opportunity to find their own jobs if they so

choose, without being vetoed by any organization.

Now I did indicate that the board will undoubtedly, in light

of this amendment, be looking at the extent of their

rehabilitation programme for blind people, and will undoubtedly

seek to co-ordinate their facilities and their programmes with

those already offered by the CNIB. So the blind people will

have the best opportunity to seek counselling and to seek

rehabilitation and also to seek assurance that they will have

some job opportunities.

Now we can counsel these people all we want and we can

rehabilitate them. But unless someone is prepared to hire them,

we haven't solved the problem. I indicated to the House that

we're having a hard look at what the obligations of society

both in the private and public sector should be in terms of

making employment opportunities available for these people.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister, I think rightly, pointed out that the

CNIB will continue to play a useful role and has in the past. I'm sure that

even those who are critical of it would not wish it to disappear. But there

are about 700 employable blind people in the province. Their annual income is

for men about $5,600; for women it's only $2,700. That's pitifully small, below

the poverty line. I wonder whether — again I'm showing a slight bit of latitude

in this debate — we could get from the Minister of Labour, who really is responsible

for these 700 employable blind people, not any other Minister, since these people

are employable...whether he would indicate to us what steps he's thinking

of in terms of vocational training, in terms of leaning on corporations. Perhaps

some of those large, monolithic Crown corporations that are in existence in

this province might be squeezed by the Minister of Labour — he's so good at

squeezing people — and forced to hire, or at least encouraged to hire, blind

people. When blind women are earning only on the average $2,700, they have a

major social problem, a major area of discrimination — double discrimination

in all likelihood. I'm sure the Minister is as concerned about that as anybody.

He might just throw in a few little comments, Mr. Chairman,

about the handicapped persons income allowance, and whether or

not some flexibility can be worked into that so that indeed it

would be possible to use that as a supplement rather than as it

is now, a rather bureaucratic impediment to work, because if

you get a job and you are at the wrong income level, it is a

dollar-for-dollar deduction and it becomes pointless to go

through the frustrations of working when you are blind, or at

least it becomes much less of an incentive.

So those sort of quick points:

(1) What is he doing as

Minister of Labour to hire or get hired the 700 blind people in

the province?

(2) What is he doing to make sure that the income

discrimination that exists at the present time is wiped out?

(3) What is he doing to make sure that those who deserve it get

the handicapped persons income allowance? What is he doing to

make sure that it is administered in a flexible manner? If I

had a fourth, I have forgotten.

HON. MR. KING: Well, the point is well taken, Mr. Chairman.

We have, in fact, a study underway. I think the Member will

recall that in the debate on my estimates the question was

raised regarding the employment, the contract that a certain

lady in Victoria here, who is herself handicapped, got. She is

commissioned to do a report for the Department of Labour with

respect to affirmative action plans, if you will, within the

government service — not only through the Public Service

Commission but with respect to Crown corporations also. That

pertains not only to blind people but handicapped people, for

whatever reason.

I'm informed by my colleague the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon.

Mr. Strachan) that he in fact has a blind person running the data processing

machines in his department, and I certainly welcome that.

[ Page

3735 ]

I think it is quite true, and I think it is very important,

that the government set an example to the private sector. I

mentioned the paper that was published in the Workers'

Compensation Board monthly publication — I forget the name of

it at the moment....

AN HON. MEMBER: The Reporter .

HON MR. KING: Yes, The Reporter . I would suggest to the

Members that they read that. It is rather an interesting,

provocative

article regarding the various advantages and

disadvantages of an employer obligation to continue to employ

some of these people who are injured and disabled

partially.

So we are looking at that, and I expect that we will receive

a considerable feedback from the private sector, from the trade

unions, and so on, with respect to that kind of proposition. In

the meantime, the government is doing something very positive

through the employment of Helen Austin to ensure that there are

no unnecessary obstacles in government to the employment of

handicapped and blind also.

With respect to the wage levels of blind people, I would

suggest that that was one of the obvious reasons for the

abolition of the Blind Workmen's Compensation Act, because that

organization did have control over the kind of jobs that blind

people could undertake. We found that as a rule they were

pretty well relegated to the sheltered-workshop kind of

employment where, in certain cases under previous legislation,

not even the minimum wage was available. So we've had to take a

pretty broad look at what, as I say, was undoubtedly

well-intentioned protection for these people initially, but

protection that was far too all-pervasive and far too

autocratic, and which mitigated against the best interests of

the handicapped people, in my view. So there are a variety of

those things we have had to look at and are in the process of

straightening out.

Now when we assess, through the board, the kind of services

we have to counsel and to train blind workers to get back into

the work force, then we are going to have to assess very

carefully the job opportunities that are opened up for them. I

would far sooner proceed on a persuasive, voluntary basis in

trying to re-establish these people. But industry in the

private sector must be sensitive; otherwise we will have to

look at more compelling methods.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister has been

most responsive and I don't want to continue to push this, but

we have at the present time no real vocational training

programmes for blind people in British Columbia. I hope the

Minister will pay serious attention to this, bear it in mind

and keep Members informed.

I have a personal interest. For the last decades of her life my grandmother

was blind. I feel that the Minister could do a great deal in this area. I urge

him to do it, and I trust we will be informed of affirmative action.

I congratulate the Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) for his interest in this and making sure

that blind people are employed in his department. More interest

of that nature is needed in the government and in the private

sector, and I just commend him for taking that interest.

New

section 14 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 105, Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, 1975,

reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next

sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. HALL: Committee on Bill 108, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR-VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 108; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman,

section 4 is a

section which removes sections 29 to 35 of the old Act and

replaces them with similar numbers. It is

section 30 of that

section 4 V which I would like to refer at this moment. That is

the

section which says that a dealer shall not sell or

exchange, offer, or advertise for sale a motor vehicle without

registering it.

I've had considerable conversation with a number of dealers who are concerned

with this section. They are concerned about a number of items. First of all,

it's a cost item; it involves an additional cost to the dealer because he must

register each new vehicle as it is received. Then there is an additional cost

as that vehicle is then transferred to its, theoretically, first owner — in

this case it will now be a second owner. It means that he has to send someone

from his staff

[ Page 3736 ]

down to the registration office to, in fact, get the number,

even though they are simply getting the first registration number for it. Then

they have to come back and record that number somewhere in their files so there

is no possibility they could end up by double-registering. That could easily

happen if that number is mislaid or applied to the wrong vehicle. So there is

not only the cost of the registration, there is the cost of the transfer when

it is sold to — I don't know whether you want to now call it its first or its

second owner because in this case I guess you're going to call the dealer the

first owner. Therefore the next individual who buys the new car — is he a first

or a second owner? There's the cost of the people doing it — the extra paperwork

that's required for it. So the cost is a factor.

The other problem is, I am informed, that, sort of on an

average, return in getting that registration back from Victoria

is about 90 days. So a vehicle that arrives this morning in a

dealer's place of business, and is unloaded from the truck

transport, or wherever it came from, is then registered. Before

he, in fact, gets the paperwork back there could be quite a

long delay. That vehicle could be prepared for delivery and

delivered on Friday, but he still doesn't have the paperwork

back which enables him to transfer it again to the second or

the first owner, depending on how you want to look at it.

I'm curious as to what purpose it serves, because dealers

obviously don't want to keep new vehicles in stock any longer

than they have to. This appears to be some delay for them.

The third item which is causing a lot of concern is that

when the vehicle is sold to its, again, first or second owner,

it's the obligation of the owner to see that it is insured and

transferred. But there's no way that the dealer can be assured

that the customer, in fact, has done so, short of going back to

the motor vehicle registration office and asking to determine

who the then-registered owner is. Even that normally takes

three days and on a rush basis takes two, plus an additional

cost. So they're concerned as to why the need for this section.

They can't see any reason or that it improves the system; they

can't see that it improves the ownership of it. It just seems

to be an additional cost item with no real rhyme nor reason to

it. I'd like to leave that in the Minister's hands if he could

give us an answer for it.

I have some other items on this section, but I think on this

one it might be simpler if I sit down and he gives me an

answer. Then I'll proceed.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications):

Section

30 requires the motor dealer to register but not licence the vehicle prior to

offering it for sale. This will refer to new vehicles and to vehicles coming

from other jurisdictions on which there is not a record kept by the motor vehicles

branch. They require that it be registered and such a record

created.

It will provide for the examination of vehicles coming from

another province before they are offered to the public. It will

create the documents of registration to be carried in the

vehicle at any time it is operated on the highway. A record of

the vehicle, of course, may be used to identify stolen vehicles

and will show the continuity of ownership of the vehicle by

identifying the motor dealer who first registered it. It's part

of the process that....

As you know, one of the first things I did on motor vehicles

was get rid of a lot of the red tape which was related to

salesmen, licensing of salesmen and so on. I don't really

believe in red tape just for the sake of red tape. I am told

that this will give added protection on what is a growing

problem — car thefts are increasing. This will help the branch

with its complete records.

MR. MORRISON: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I appreciate what

you're saying. I hope you understand that the dealers don't, at

this point, agree that it will, because of the time delays in

the registration and the time delays in getting the

documentation back.

Even though it may be a used vehicle which is brought into

the province and registered, the odds are that if it's stolen

within the first week of arriving, you wouldn't find it anyway

because you're not going to have the documents back in time to

have them in the vehicle. I know in my own case, I have one

where it took nearly six months before I got it back, and I

wouldn't have got it if I hadn't gone following after it.

The next item which I would like to talk about is item

34(a). That's concerning the change of the dealers' licence now

going to the Consumer Services department. Again, they're a

little concerned as to the need to have another department

become involved in the dealer licensing and looking after that

department. They're concerned about the extra fee which would

be charged. It's my understanding now that there is no extra

fee charged to licence the dealer. In fact unless he buys a

licence plate for a vehicle, a D number, there's no fee charged

to licence a dealer. So they wonder why the need for that.

Although they wouldn't want me to suggest that there is some

likelihood that this could be used as a club over the dealers,

there's always that possibility. They want it to go on the

record that they hope that's not what it's designed for. I

assured them I didn't think it was, and I'm sure the Minister

will confirm that that has nothing to do with it. But again,

they would like some explanation as to the reasoning behind

that transfer to another department — out of the motor vehicle

administration, and now into the Consumer Services

department.

[ Page 3737 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can assure them that there's no intent

and no application of this Act will be used as a club over the

dealers. It was something that was discussed between the two

departments. Again, as we know, and we know from other

sections, there is some protection requirement to the public,

related to motor vehicles. They are commercial operations, and

both departments were of the opinion that the dealer, who is a

retail business really, could be better served under the

Consumer Services department than under the motor vehicle

branch. The licensing and so on will still be handled from the

motor vehicle branch. But it is a commercial enterprise,

selling something, and we thought it would be better under

Consumer Services than the motor vehicle branch. By

proclamation, at a time suitable to both, it will take

place.

MR. MORRISON: Could I assume then, that it's probably the

intention that any retail business ultimately will come under

Consumer Services. Is this the beginning of a long trend of

control, regulation and licensing of all consumer businesses? I

see one shaking his head and the other nodding.

HON. MR. HALL: You asked two questions. (Laughter.)

MR. MORRISON: The answer, I think, should be the same to

both.

Further on, in

section 34(c), as I mentioned in second

reading, concerning the odometers, I appreciate what the

Minister is attempting to do. But I think it should somehow get

to the onus that even the owner of a vehicle cannot turn back

the odometer prior to trading that vehicle in, or prior to

offering it for sale to someone else. That loophole still

exists, as I understand it, that as an individual, if you own a

car you can take it out and have the odometer adjusted then

offer your vehicle for sale or as a trade-in on the purchase of

another vehicle. There's no onus upon the man who adjusted the

odometer but there could be some liability upon the dealer who

sells it later if the customer finds that it has been done.

That loophole is still there, and I think that it is one that

has to be looked at pretty carefully.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think there is protection there. It

says: "No person shall disconnect or tamper with the odometer...." Then subsection (2)....

MR. MORRISON: Two is the one I refer to.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. "No person shall alter, or cause to

be altered, the odometer with which the motor-vehicle is

equipped for the purpose of misleading, or with the intent to

mislead, a prospective purchaser of the vehicle as to the registered

mileage of the vehicle on that odometer." I think that's it —

"no person." It's as simple as that.

MR. MORRISON: You would then say that if he were offering it

as a trade-in, that it's not.... Okay. I hope that's the

intent, and I hope you've covered that loophole.

MR. STRACHAN: That's the

interpretation — no person is no

person.

MR. MORRISON: Well, that's not the

interpretation we got

back from our....

MR. WALLACE: I sometimes feel that I'm a no person around

here, but that's just an observation, not to do with this

section of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I'm just interested, as a non-expert in this

field, about 34C(4) where it states: "...the owner or

dealer...is personally liable to the penalties prescribed for

the offence as a principal offender...." Now one of the

common jokes often made when you're talking about the integrity

of a person is: "Would you buy a second-hand car from that

person?" It seems to me there are many people within the

business of selling motor vehicles, but there's usually only

one dealer. I guess this

section clearly means that if I'm a

dealer, and I employ 50 salesmen, and one of these salesmen,

unknown to me, tampers with the record of mileage on the

vehicle, then I'm personally liable. I can, to some extent, see

what this

section is trying to do. I've checked the former Act

and there's nothing like this in the Act as it now reads. The

section on the odometer is just basically l(

a) and (

b) of the

new section.

I wonder if the Minister really feels that a dealer and

owner should be responsible personally to-this degree for the

variety of people specified under subsection (4), which says:

"Where an offence is committed by an employee, servant, agent

worker of, or any other person entrusted by the owner or dealer

with the possession of the motor vehicle." That is a very wide

definition of just about anybody and his brother who could be

in possession of the vehicle at a certain time. They tamper

with the odometer — and then I, as the owner or dealer, get

nailed because this other person broke the law. There may be

some evidence the Minister has to offer to justify the

introduction of this section, but it seems to me a perilous

path to be going on to hold an employer or a car dealer so

totally and completely liable for possible breaches of the law

by his employees.

I have been trying to think of other examples in other

sectors of the business world where you are held responsible to

this degree. I know we can be held responsible for mistakes

that employees make under your supervision, for example, but

when an employee

[ Page 3738 ]

chooses to break the law, I just wonder if it is fair to

hold the employer responsible.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The one other example I know of is of

course the liquor control Act, where the owner of the hotel

loses his license because some employee has broken the law.

I don't know about the Railway Act, which my colleague talks

about. I suppose it's a difficulty faced in many areas. You

have to be sure that the employer accepts responsibility so he

can't say he didn't know about it and get off free. It doesn't

relieve the individual. I imagine any court would look pretty

carefully at what had happened in determining or apportioning

blame.

It used to be that every salesman was licensed by the

department; we abolished that a year or so ago. As long as the

man who runs the business has a license, that is all that is

required. I think that was the situation here: every salesman

had to have a license, and records were kept of him in the

motor vehicle branch. It is my opinion that the dealer, the man

who owns the business, is licensed and he is responsible for

what happens within his business. So he can't, as in the liquor

Act, say he didn't know it was happening.

Now it doesn't relieve the individual who did it. I expect,

as does happen in the liquor Act, that any court would look at

it very carefully in assessing the likelihood of the owner

being a party to an illegal act.

MR. WALLACE: Just a quick follow-up. I don't quite agree

with this analogy of the liquor control situation, because

there is sometimes a measure of discretion in determining

whether a person is of drinking age and whether he is producing

his own ID card or facsimile or what-have-you,

whereas here we

are dealing with a willful, calculated action of an employee to

break the law in order to make a sale, which is basically what

it comes down to.

I am very apprehensive when we consider that the court will

exercise discretion, and we always hope courts will, but the

way this

section is written.... Again, I am not a lawyer, but

or dealer is personally liable; it doesn't say "is personally

liable at the discretion of the courts" or some such

extenuating phrase, it just says that the owner or dealer shall

be deemed to be a party to the offence so committed, and is

personally liable.

as day that if I in ignorance employ a crooked salesman, I can land up being

penalized and so on for an action that I had no part of and did not contribute

to and didn't even know about. So I wonder if one couldn't consider putting

in the words "may be held personally liable" or some extenuating word that at

least doesn't make it sound as though regardless of the circumstances the dealer

is liable. I would like to see some phrase that under circumstances the dealer

may be held personally liable. I wonder if the Minister would consider that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would like to see it tested the way it

is. Let's see what happens. I would prefer to leave it the way

it is and we'll see how it operates. If it proves inoperable or

obviously unjust then of course we will take action.

MR. MORRISON: I was leading up to the fact that there is

still the loophole that the individual could do so and

therefore the dealer who handles this vehicle unknowingly could

personally become liable — not even corporately liable, which

would be bad enough. Here is a case where an individual could

knowingly do what he is doing, trade that vehicle in to a

dealer who sells it unknowingly to an innocent purchaser, and

ultimately the dealer becomes responsible for

an act over which

he had absolutely no control. That was the item I was leading

up to on this section.

I do think the Minister should take a good, long look at it,

or give us some assurance that should this thing be tested in

court, it was not the intention that an individual should be

placed in that position where he is personally liable for

things over which he has no control.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In the case you gave where some

individual could turn the odometer back and then trade the car

in....

MR. MORRISON: It happens every day.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is only "some servant, agent, or

worker of, or any other person entrusted by the owner or dealer

with the possession of the motor vehicle...."

MR. MORRISON: But you still don't know.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The dealer would not be in that position

at the time the odometer was turned back. The individual who

turned it back was going to bring it and trade it in, so he

wasn't "a servant of," he wasn't entrusted with the car

by the dealer. It was his car. I would say the dealer is

perfectly clear...

MR. MORRISON: It is still an area of doubt.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: ...if the act takes place before the

individual goes to trade it in.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the point raised by the

Member for Oak Bay is an appropriate one and I suggest to the

Minister that the solution that the Member put forward and

indeed the solution that the Minister himself referred to could

be very

[ Page 3739 ]

simply cured by adding the words "prima facie" before the

word "deemed." Then it is implicit that while there is a prima

facie liability, it is one which the dealer can discharge on

proof. If he is charged and he has an answer, he can make it.

He is not automatically deemed to be guilty because of the acts

of his employee. If he can't answer the charge, then of course

his guilt is as complete as it would be under the words as they

presently stand. It only gives him the right to establish

it.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that in this

new

section 34(c)(4), in the fourth line, the words "prima

facie" be added before the word "deemed."

On the amendment.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I am reluctant to accept the amendment,

Mr. Chairman, because I accepted an amendment to a piece of

legislation last year and I was quite sure in my own mind what

that amendment that I accepted from across the way would do,

and it did exactly what I was quite sure it would do. It put me

in a position where a group who had a responsibility simply

told me that they were going to walk away from that

responsibility. So I am reluctant to accept amendments because

the staff have looked at it. I can assure you that if it

doesn't work out.... Dealers have to accept

responsibility.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Don't commit yourself for a minute

please, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Perhaps I could say one more word.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Go ahead.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, this is a matter which concerns the

vicarious responsibility of an employer for the acts of his employee. The common

law is quite clear as to what the consequences may be. We have other similar

statutes in this province. I refer specifically to the Real Estate Act, for

example, whereby, in the event of a breach of the statute by a salesman, the

owner, director, officer who is in charge of the real estate office out of which

that salesman works is, by statute, made prima facie responsible for the offence

and punishable as a principal offender. The reason those words "prima facie"

are there is because there may be circumstances in which the owner, director,

officer — whatever the case may be — has a defence based upon lack of knowledge,

willful disobedience of orders by an employee, et cetera. That is all the words

"prima facie" do to the constitution of the employer as being a principal offender.

Without those words, there is an absolute liability on the owner and he is precluded

from making his defence.

I am not suggesting that a dealer should not be responsible

for his work force, for his employees. A dealer, if he has got

mechanics who are performing this kind of responsibility,

should certainly be accountable. But if it is done without the

knowledge of the dealer, the dealer happens to have a fairly

large operation and he finds that some employee has been doing

this at some other place of business, then I don't think he

should automatically be made guilty for the offence. If he.

knowingly allows the practice to continue, then of course he

should be, and even with the addition of the words "prima

facie," he would be counted the principal offender.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. I will certainly give it a good look

and watch it very closely in its months of operation.

Amendment negatived.

MR. MORRISON: Continuing on on

section 4 — 34E(2):

"A dealer shall at all times during business hours, on

request of a peace officer, or person authorized in writing by

the registrar, permit the peace officer or authorized person to

enter the dealer's place of business to inspect the books,

records and files of the business, and to enter any premises in

which any vehicle owned, possessed, or controlled by the dealer

for purposes of the dealer is kept or stored, and to inspect

all vehicles on the premises."

I can understand why you might want someone to come and

inspect the vehicles, why you might be concerned about the

registration. But it's pretty broad coverage that any officer

walking in off the street or any person authorized should be

instructed to look at the books and records. I want to know why

that sort of broad coverage is necessary.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, evidently it's a repeat of

authorization that's now in the existing legislation.

MR. MORRISON: We didn't agree with it then.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's a repeat of existing authorization

that's been moved into this

section rather than where it was.

"At all times during business hours." You know, I think we have

to be reasonable people. The peace officer usually would have a

reason to want to inspect the records or the books.

MR. MORRISON: I could understand if you asked

[ Page 3740 ]

for an accountant or somebody like that, but....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, you know, there are a lot of

offences related to the motor vehicle, or related to the use of

a motor vehicle.

MR. MORRISON: I appreciate that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As I say, the authorization has been

there right along. I don't know of any undue use it's had. When

you were in business, did a peace officer ever walk into your

business and want to inspect your books?

MR. MORRISON: No, never.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. So it's the same.

MR. MORRISON: But he didn't have the power to, either, if

he'd asked to then.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Pardon?

MR. MORRISON: He probably didn't have the power to then.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, he did. This authorization is already

in the existing statutes. It's just being moved.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 5A.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the amendment standing in my name

on the order paper —

section 5A.

Section 5A approved.

section 6.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman,

section 6 is a

brief

section which says that

section 121 is amended by

striking out the definition of bicycle and substituting:

"bicycle means a device having any number of wheels that is

propelled by human power and on which a person may ride."

language.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I got that yesterday....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, well, the Hon. Member is about to speak. He

has an amendment. I have an amendment. I do think that we must make if perfectly

clear that a multicycle may well be deemed a bicycle for the purposes of the

Act; but a tricycle may well be deemed a bicycle for the purposes of the Act.

But to say a bicycle means that is to cause large numbers of children to realize

that we just don't know what we're talking about, that we've never passed any

I think that the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. L.A. Williams), who I believe has an amendment to put

forward — he nods affirmatively — has some excellent proposals.

If his isn't accepted, I'll try one too. I think this is just

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Debate of yesterday arose in this matter.

I've had a large number of calls from constituents of mine and

from other Members' constituents who are very skilled at riding

the unicycle. Only one wheel! It take a great deal of skill,

and they're offended that they should be included with those

people who are bicycle riders who have two wheels and even

tricycle riders who've got three wheels. I just think, aside

language, that we are really downgrading the great skill it

takes to mount yourself on that precarious perch and go forward

and backwards and round in circles on a single wheel. Therefore

I propose a very simple amendment that in the third line we

delete the word, in quotes, "bicycle" and we substitute the

word, in quotes, "cycle."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A cycle would mean any device having any

number of wheels that may be propelled by human power. Then I

think that unicycle riders, bicycle riders and tricycle riders

and all others may not be offended by the section.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Again, you throw these things and we

don't know what it's doing to some other

section of the Act;

motorcycles, you know....

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It can't be a motorcycle, because that's

not propelled by human power.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We'll leave

section 6 for a while and go

on to the other sections.

Sections 7 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 6.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I just want to be sure it's not doing....

[ Page 3741 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I understand the Minister's point.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again later this sitting.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 112, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 112; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 18 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 112, Public Service Superannuation Amendment Act, 1975,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker,

committee on Bill 113.

MUNICIPAL SUPERANNUATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 113; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Section 1 to 16 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 113, Municipal Superannuation Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete without amendment, read a third

time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 114.

TEACHERS' PENSIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 114; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 14 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 114, Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act, 1975, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 115.

COLLEGE PENSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 115; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 115, College Pension Amendment Act, 1975, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 116.

[ Page 3742 ]

PUBLIC SERVICES MEDICAL PLAN

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 116; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I wonder whether the Provincial Secretary

could assure the House that in cases where these amendments

come into effect and people are barred by thee

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council from taking advantage of the

medical plan in question it will always be the best medical

plan that they will be left with. In other words, if they are

under some outside plan at the present time and they come into

the public service and the public service plan is there, will

it always be a question of choosing the most comprehensive and

richest plan in terms of the actual individual concerned?

HON. MR. HALL: Yes, that was negotiated into that

contract.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you.

Section 1 approved.

Section 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 116, Public Services Medical Plan Amendment Act, 1975,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 117.

PUBLIC SERVICE GROUP INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee; Mr. Dent in the chair.

section 1.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I did pose a question to the Provincial

Secretary yesterday. The question was about life insurance and whether or not

it would be possible to have more than one policy. The Provincial secretary

is clearly anxious to answer that question of yesterday and I wonder whether

he could do so at this stage.

HON. MR. HALL: During second reading of the bill, Mr.

Chairman, the leader of the Liberal Party questioned why the

amendment made provision for rescinding the eligibility of

employees covered by a contract of group life insurance other

than under this Act. By way of explanation, I should point out

that under the present provisions, all employees of the

government, Members of the Legislative Assembly, and other

contributors to the Public Service Superannuation Fund are

covered by a single contract with coverage and premiums that

have been determined by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The

master agreement between the government of B.C. and the British

Columbia Government Employees' Union, the registered

psychiatric nurses and the Registered Nurses Association of

B.C. has made provision for the establishment of a joint

committee to study the provision of a mutually acceptable plan

to cover group life insurance and other benefits in order that

the members of these groups may have some share in determining

the level of coverage, cost sharing, the carrier, and other

matters related to such plans. When such mutually acceptable

plans are developed for these groups, there will be a

continuing need to provide group life coverage for those now

covered by the contract on this Act who are not members, who

have not been involved in that process. This amendment will

give the negotiating parties freedom in developing a mutually

acceptable plan while continuing to provide coverage for those

persons who are not members of the groups, like excluded

personnel, personnel officers, those excluded both by statute

and negotiation. We have got to move ahead in locked step until

we come up with some better ideas.

Mr. Chairman, at the same time yesterday on the same bill,

the Second Member for Victoria, the Liberal leader, asked a

general question regarding coverage in terms of pensions and

insurance and so on. I perhaps should have handled it earlier,

but let me answer it now if I may. The Member inquired

regarding the position of common law wives under these general

umbrellas.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Common law spouses. You can't use that

"wife" term any more — you'll be accused of sexism.

MR. GARDOM: No, spice — it's plural.

HON. MR. HALL: I'm sorry. Common law

[ Page 3743 ]

partners. When an employee is active — before the pension is

granted — the employee has the option of nominating the common

law partner or any other person to receive a refund of the

credit in the fund should the person die before the allowance

is granted. This payment would be in lieu of a monthly pension

to the partner, to the spouse. In the absence of such a

nomination, if the employee dies before the allowance is

granted, the spouse is automatically granted a pension for life

if the employee has served for 10 years or more. At retirement,

the employee has a full choice of plans and may include any

person, including a common law partner, as a joint beneficiary.

At that time the pension is adjusted in accordance with the

choice of plan. Where that plan is joint life and last

survivor, the agent or the person selected as a joint

beneficiary or the superannuation allowance is then taken into

account.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. MORRISON: I wonder if the Minister could give us a

little general comment on this

section 2 about rescinding the

eligibility of employees. Is there any way that an employee who

is rescinded could have a hearing or some recourse if there

were some hard feelings concerning it? It does give the cabinet

great powers. I see that even the eligibility of individual

MLAs and employees is included, so I would like some general

comment on that section.

HON. MR. HALL: I'm not so sure the wording we could use

could contain all the Member's worries, but frankly if somebody

has agreed to take some other course of action, there has to be

a remedy to get them out from this umbrella. That is what

section 2 of this bill and

section 4 of the original Act

do.

What we are saying is that given the action taken by a group

of employees, the Lieutenant-Governor must have the power then

to terminate the eligibility of those people who ask for

it.

MR. MORRISON: Then it is by request.

Section 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 117, Public Service Group Insurance Amendment Act,

1975, reported complete without amendment, read a third time

and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second

reading of Bill 135.

PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR RELATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

(continued)

MR. GARDOM: I would like to make some comments about this

bill, this amended statute, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to make it abundantly clear that some of the

provisions contained in it I am in favour of, but I am

continuing contrary to the principle that there should continue

to exist the privilege for strike and the privilege for lockout

in essential services. I think until and unless society is

prepared to accept without challenge and without complaint a

collision course to chaos it has got to develop some more

contemporary and needful concepts and mechanisms to enable

society to effectively function, and for that purpose

governments must lead and not just silently and inarticulately,

and shall I say perpetually, vegetate and watch the potential

for a crisis slowly formulate.

The news and the headlines over the past while have not been

good. We have found some 600 air traffic controllers in this

country shutting down air traffic, inconveniencing hundreds and

thousands of people, causing layoffs, and thousands and

hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars of general

economic loss to the country. We found the grass cutters in our

own province shutting down our schools. We found the ICBC work

stoppage mangling the insurance programme that this government,

oddly enough, is so very proud of. ICBC has been a complete

headache to this government from the very start, in a financial

bog from day one. Already it is experiencing a $36.5 million

loss and far, far greater losses will be contemplated as a

result of the procedures that are underway at the present

time.

There is no earthly reason that I can see, Mr. Speaker, why

the grass cutters and the custodians should not be under

arbitration provisions as are the teachers and the trustees in

this province. Also, ICBC is a new plan and a new programme,

and the employees all came there of their own volition, and

most of them I'd say would have been new to the public service,

if not all of them. They are not participating in a high-risk

or exceptionally onerous type of endeavour. It is a service

industry, and there is no reason why those employees could not

have come to that organization accepting the same terms and the

same conditions of employment as do teachers and as do

trustees.

I'm talking, of course, about compulsory

[ Page

3744 ]

arbitration instead of the continuing threat of work

stoppage, lock-outs and strikes, and the cessation of those

services completely disrupting the effective functioning of

society. Bills are not being paid, jobs are not being done,

justice is not being administered, and the spin-off suppliers

and services have all been affected with their pay cheques.

Rights and privileges change, Mr. Speaker, and this is the

concept that the government has got to consider. They are not

static rights and privileges; they are dynamic. What was

formerly considered to be a right to drive has, by virtue of

the interdependence of society, the multitude of motor vehicles

and the damage that they can cause, become a privilege. I say

the right to strike and the right to lock out in the public

sector has similarly become a privilege.

I say that any concept and

interpretation less than that

would be a dereliction of the philosophy and overall concept of

public service, because public service is supposed to mean

service of, for and by the public. The public sector has got to

function in order to permit not only the private sector to

exist but all society to exist. I make no bones of the fact,

Mr. Speaker, that we have got to have operating without

question in those areas which are essential for the well-being

and the health and the safety and the commercial life of all of

our people.... I am talking about the public sector here which

this bill is of course concerned with, Mr. Speaker.

The news and the headlines don't bode well at all. The

outgoing president of the B.C. Teachers Federation, whom I hope

is expressing more of his own views — and if there are any of

the views of the federation I would assume that they would be

by far the minority opinion of the B.C. Teachers Federation

said this referring to the Province of June 16, 1975:

"The outgoing president of the B.C. Teachers Federation

called Sunday for the formation of a B.C. council of public

sector unions to co-ordinate contract and political demands.

Besides co-ordinating demands for wages and working conditions

MacFarlan said he felt the council could push for political

change. It would not be a matter of joint negotiations but the

general council could formulate overall policies as to rights

of collective bargaining, MacFarlan said."

If his concept and the concept of CUPE...and here's a

quotation here:

"The B.C. division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees

will try to improve co-ordination between locals in future

contract bargaining, but at the same time as the union was

banding together it called for the provincial government to

prevent municipalities from forming co-ordinated bargaining

units."

A union spokesman said it wouldn't be fair for municipalities to do this because

it would mean elected bodies delegating their responsibilities to non-elected

ones. But if the concepts of Mr. MacFarlan and of CUPE are to be accepted, Mr.

Speaker, are they not paving the way to complete and almost utter general stoppage

in the public sector?

If it happens, who will be protecting the citizen, and who

will be protecting the taxpayer? There is going to be an

ultimate right to hold the taxpayer up for ransom but no right

to the taxpayer to withhold taxes.

Is that to be his only and ultimate remedy? If we are going

to have to run into those kinds of alternatives, Mr. Speaker,

the only way to prevent complete close-ups would be the

withholding of taxes and the refusal to pay them and there

would be no way to enforce collection, because those whose

responsibility it would be to enforce collection of taxes would

not be there to do it. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, if society

has to face that, that would be an exercise in anarchy.

This afternoon I overheard the Minister of Labour in one

remark saying that government should set an example to the

private sector. Indeed it should, but it is not, because

governments are compounding the problem. Government employee

unions versus governments are not supposed to buckle

governments or hamstring the operation of public service and

services that in the main are required by law. They are paid

for by law and payment for the same are enforced by law,

because if the taxpayer doesn't pay his taxes he can lose not

only his land, his goods and his assets but he can face the

loss of his liberty as well. But to this point the taxpayer

doesn't even have the barest of assurance that the public

services he is legally compelled to pay for will be provided.

It is a coin, Mr. Speaker, with two sides but with indeed very,

very different sides.

I would like to refer here to another quotation of Mr.

Anthony Westall, I believe it was, in the Daily Colonist . It's

a recent

article and it talked about the situation in Britain.

He says this:

"Three guesses to identify the source of this current quotation. 'British trade unionism has thus become a

formula for national misery!' The London Times at its most

reactionary? Wrong. The federation of British industries, which

is the voice of big business? Wrong. An aging Tory Member of

the House of Lords? Wrong. The quotation is from a remarkable

article in The New Statesman , the most respected journal of the

left in Britain, by the former editor, Paul Johnston. In what

must strike most members of the Labour Party as the most

appalling heresy, Johnston declares trade unionism is killing

socialism in Britain and it is time socialists did something

about it. Johnston goes on.

"The trade union movement may be dressed

[ Page

3745 ]

up with economic committees and so forth but its only real purpose

is to bargain for better wages within an all-powerful capitalistic system.

"The British trade union movement has now been taken out of

that context and placed in an entirely new one. Yet it is still

carrying on doing the only thing it knows how to do — ask for

higher wages. As it has beaten all of its opponents, and, as it

is for all practical purposes the state, it naturally gets

them. A subject government prints the money and the result is

inflation on an unprecedented scale."

Surely to goodness we can

benefit in this province from that horrifying experience in

Britain.

The

article goes on: "In fact, the once and future leader of the

party, Ed Broadbent...." Mr. Westall tends to have written off the

Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown). I guess you're a little too

far left for him.

"In fact, the once and future leader of the party, Ed

Broadbent, used to advocate industrial democracy until the unions made

it clear they didn't want any of that nonsense. The unions see

themselves as adversaries of management, and if industrial democracy

worked out, they might be out of business."

But when unions, Mr. Speaker, are the adversaries

of management, and management is the people, then something surely has

got to be done to mollify that concept.

Now Senator Ed Lawson came out with a pretty remarkable statement.

He's now referred to as Lone Voice Lawson. He says this: "We have a

responsibility as trade union leaders to warn our members of impending

economic disaster." There certainly, indeed, is a message there for

this B.C. government as well.

Now there was an

article in the Colonist

bearing the headline: "Do we want to bring the province to a stop?"

It's written by Warren Carogotta, I trust that's the correct

pronunciation.

"'The 35,000 members of the B.C. Government Employees Union

will have to decide whether they want to bring the province to

its knees as a part of a massive confrontation to back wage

demands in the coming round of negotiations with the

government,' the union's general secretary said here Saturday.

John Fryer, addressing 235 delegates attending the union's 31st

bi-annual convention said the union has powers almost beyond

comprehension. Do we want to bring this province to a

stop?"

Then he urged caution, and I say great commendation to Mr.

Fryer for doing that.

"The only way we're going to negotiate the same type of

contract as last year is through massive confrontation. How high do we want

to aim? We have to ask ourselves that question. Our power is almost beyond comprehension."

Now, Mr. Speaker, should anyone have that kind of a power? The taxpayer does

not have that kind of a power.

"'We need some authority,' he says, 'to mount the barricades quickly.' The delegates endorsed several

resolutions giving the union's provincial executive increased

control over strikes and policy negotiations. Under a

resolution passed with little discussion, and little

opposition, delegates gave the executive the power to authorize

a strike of any of its union's 14 components."

So now I suppose

the power is there to have strike by executive.

"The executive also gave the authority to determine the number and location of picket lines. The

intent of the above policy, the resolution said, is not to

restrict positive action or stifle militancy within the BCGEU,

but rather to protect the union and the membership as a

whole."

Well, I would suggest it's stifling moderation, this kind of

a resolution. We find this union exercising ultra-delegatory

powers the same was as the backbenchers of this government are

doing unto their own cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, would not binding arbitration be a more

satisfactory and a more remedial mechanism? It has successfully

worked: it has been tried, it has been tested with the

teachers, with the trustees and for the taxpayers under the

Public Schools Act. It is acceptable; it has done a job in this

province.

In the event — hopefully, the unlikely event because we have

very, very law abiding citizens in this province — of a work

stoppage, a strike or a lockout following a binding arbitration

proceeding, which I think would be exceptionally unlikely,

should it not be the function of government to compile

information, and publicly disseminate it, indicating the effect

that the work stoppage in question could have in the public

interest?

Mr. Speaker, times are changing, but the attitude to the

requirement and the need for public service, which is a greater

need today than it ever has been because the public are so

reliant upon its public services function, has not changed at

all. It's old fashioned; it's not working today.

I would strongly urge the government.... And I know that

this will be unacceptable to them. We differ in philosophy

there. I know that it's going to be unacceptable to them. Their

philosophy is inconsistent. They don't seem to have any quarrel

whatsoever with the situation of the teachers, the trustees and

taxpayer. But move it one step forward, as they could have

readily done with ICBC and provided arbitration there, and that

would have been

[ Page 3746 ]

a condition of service for all of those new employees coming

into that organization. Then the government wouldn't be in the

soup that it's in today concerning that strike, and the public

would not be suffering the degree of hardship it's suffering as

the result of that work stoppage.

Mr. Speaker, it's time that we tried new ways.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it's nice that the Hon.

Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey has not forgotten all of

his Liberal speeches.

MR. GARDOM: You forgot to mention that they rejected it at

the convention. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The point to be made deals with

exceptions to collective bargaining. With this bill we are at

the present time extending the exemptions to a number of other

categories of people.

We had the experience in this House of coming back on August

9 to settle a strike in the public sector in what has to be an

emergency service, namely firemen. At the time we got

doubletalk from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) who said

that the right to strike would not be taken away, but it would

not be exercised because a three-week cooling-off period would

be brought in — and that three- week cooling-off period would

not be a cooling-off period, it would be a three-week period to

assemble the Legislature so that we could pass legislation

before any strike could take place.

The conclusion was obvious: this government will not permit

firefighters, policemen or others in essential services of that

nature to strike. Yet they are continuing the fiction that they

will allow them to strike. The result is that there is no

proper system of compulsory arbitration, there is no proper

system to set up, quiet ly before any difficulties arise, the

mechanism to deal with a dispute when tempers are short and

tempers are frayed.

When they get this bill before the House in committee stage — after all, we are extending the principle of exemptions — I

urge the government to consider widening the number of persons

who are excluded from collective bargaining in this area.

The government itself has made perfectly clear that

essential services will not strike. I just refer you once more

to that debate we had and the doubletalk of the Minister of

Labour. It is, therefore, unfair and unjust to continue to

suggest that people have that right, because a right that

cannot be exercised is no right at all.

I trust that at the committee stage we are going to see the Minister come in

with further amendments under this

section because it is clear that his experience

has been that the exemptions must be widened. I would have thought that our

experience in the summer with the firefighters has made it clear that the exemptions

should be widened to at least include certain of the essential services — firemen,

ambulance crews and policemen.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, very briefly I wish to

associate myself with the remarks and the position presented to

the House by the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

Gardom). I think the time has clearly long since passed when we

can continue to allow the public service union — this also

includes those unions that are engaged with other levels of

government as well — to have the freedom which has been allowed

in the private sector.

We have, I think, a clear example in this particular bill of

the confrontation which is about to begin between the

provincial government and the union of its employees. The

statements quoted by the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey,

appearing in the Colonist , with respect to the remarks made by

the general secretary of the B.C. Government Employees' Union,

must be read very carefully. You will note that in formalizing

the present union policy, the B.C. Government Employees' Union

has endorsed giving to the union's provincial executive

increased control over strike policy and negotiations, and gave

the executive power to authorize a strike of anyone of the

union's 14 components, a matter which the government is, in

this particular bill, frustrating.

I'm not going to deal with this section, I will in

committee, but we have an amendment in this bill which runs

headlong against the union's policy which was formalized by

resolutions at their recent meeting. With this kind of

confrontation implicit in this bill, I think we can seriously

wonder what will happen in the negotiations which are about to

commence between the Government of British Columbia and the

employees' union.

I read Mr. Fryer's remarks. I trust that what he said was

his clear meaning, that he was indicating caution to his union

members with respect to the demands which they will be making

for this coming year. It is possible, Mr. Speaker, to read into

what Mr. Friar says something more than just a caution to the

union members — indeed, a threat to the government.

Mr. Fryer said the union has, and I am quoting: "...powers almost beyond comprehension." Is this the kind of power we are

giving to this union under this legislation — powers almost beyond comprehension?

Certainly no union in the private sector has powers almost beyond comprehension.

Mr. Fryer continued: "Do we want to bring the province to a stop?" That's the

kind of power this union now has, and it seems to me that it is inappropriate

for this government, indeed any government, to clothe a union organization with

the power to bring the province to a stop.

Now while Mr. Fryer was cautioning his members,

[ Page 3747 ]

as he says he was, he goes on to point out in his remarks to

the convention that things are going to be more difficult in

the coming year than they were in the last. I trust that is the

case. I trust that the province, in this coming year, is going

to be less open-handed in the way in which it gave in to the

unions during this last year and will take an entirely

different position with regard to negotiations in the coming

year.

Mr. Fryer, anticipating that, goes on to say: "The only way we are going to

negotiate the same type of contract as last year is through massive confrontation."

Now massive confrontation to me, Mr. Speaker, means the expression of a willingness

on the part of the union to use these powers which are almost beyond comprehension,

powers that could bring the province to a stop.

We have experienced in this city and in other communities in

this province the consequences of strikes in the public service

at the local level. We have seen the consequences of those

strikes. We have seen the consequences when one municipality

saw fit to give in to the union and to provide them with wages

and working conditions which were apparently not acceptable to

other local governments in the area. The consequence of that

for those other governments has been to increase the cost of

running local government, a cost which can only be paid by the

local taxpayers.

The people of this province, whether they live in

municipalities or in unorganized territories, have got in their

possession today their tax bills, and they are recognizing what

the cost of government means to them. If the indications which

come to me are any judge, I gather that the taxpayer is

distinctly dissatisfied with the way in which government is

conducting itself and, in particular, the way in which

government is conducting itself in relation to members who are

employed in the public service.

We have seen the giving in of this government to the ferry

workers. We have seen the giving in of this government to the

workers in the public service. We are seeing the consequences

of that in the demands which have been made upon other Crown

corporations, the recent settlements in B.C. Hydro and the

strike that is currently going on today in ICBC when, in my

view, exorbitant demands are being made by that union on that

Crown corporation.

Indeed, I would not hesitate to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the offer that has

been made by management in the case of ICBC is indeed exorbitant. The government

should be concerned. ICBC was established just a year and a half ago. The salaries

were determined by taking a careful examination of salaries which were paid

in B.C. Hydro, in MacMillan Bloedel, B.C. Telephone and, I believe, one other

major industrial concern in British Columbia, and the beginning salaries were

established for ICBC on that basis. During the time that there was a dispute

between a number of unions as to who was going to represent the employees of

ICBC, the government went to the Labour Relations Board and got approval for

increasing those salaries by 10 per cent. On top of that we now find the government

being prepared to offer 28 per cent, and the union demanding much, much more.

Mr. Speaker, we need the public service, there is no

question about that. But we need a public service only within

our ability to pay that public service. It seems to me that in

this bill the government is again avoiding its responsibility

in coming to grips with the problem that faces the public

service at the provincial level, and thereby to show an example

as to what must take place at the local level.

I'm not suggesting that the members of the public service

should not be properly paid for the services they perform. No

question about that at all. There is no question that people in

the public service, for comparable jobs, should receive pay

similar to what they are paying in the private sector. But when

we are warned by people in the private sector that what the

government has done is to place the private sector of our

economy in some jeopardy, where the wage rates that have to be

paid in the private sector may result in us being unable to

compete...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: ...in the world markets. The Provincial

Secretary says it's wrong and we know it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go back to Britain!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It is made abundantly clear by the people

who are currently negotiating in the private sector that the

direct consequence of what this government has done is to raise

the level of expectation among all workers, and indeed we are

full flush into what the Premier of Manitoba calls a wage

hysteria.

The government has the obligation and it has the opportunity

of resolving this difficulty so far as the public service is

concerned by establishing formulas by which people in the

public service can have their wages and working conditions

subject to periodic adjustment. But it does not need to give to

any group outstanding powers, powers to shut the province down,

in order to bring about that result.

What the government has done, Mr. Speaker, is to place

itself in the position that if it does not give in to the

demands of a union, then that union is in a position to stop

the functioning of this province. Government has therefore

given away what is really its primary responsibility; to ensure

that this province functions for the benefit of all the

citizens and is not

[ Page 3748 ]

run for the benefit solely of a union group.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary closes the

debate.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I'll attempt to respond to the

basic points that were raised by the Members of the

opposition.

Basically, the two Members who are independent raised the

same point, I think. That is that nobody in the public service

should have the right to strike. They also say that they

should, however, have the right to fair wages commensurate and

comparable with the private sector. That's what they've

said.

They thrashed a man of straw; they deliberately intermingled

their words about right to strike and right to get wages. They

choose their words rather carefully. Indeed, they choose their

words with almost as much care as they choose their press

cuttings.

I'd like the Member to make the same speech, only instead of

brandishing the Vancouver Province in his hand, brandish The

Vancouver Sun , which published Mr. Fryer's remarks. You would

have no speech, Mr. Member. You would have no speech.

It seems to me that careful selection of alarmist propaganda

doesn't do anything for the public service, for the public good

or the continuation of the kind of relationships that we have

managed to build over the last 10 months in the public service.

As a matter of fact, if you read the Sun ...and I'm going to

read the Sun . I'm not quoting Mr. Fryer, I'm quoting a

newspaper just as you quoted it. Mr. Fryer....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: I listened quietly. Just shut up for a minute

and listen to somebody else.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fryer advised the members to scale down

their expectations for a master agreement to replace the one

that expires on September 30. Now you could have read that

cutting, I suppose, but you chose not to do. Because you choose

to pick one over another, really your remarks shouldn't take an

awful lot of time in answering.

Mr. Speaker, the first speaker, the Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) said they should comport

themselves like schoolteachers, like other people who don't

have the right to strike. Mr. Member, where were you when the

teachers went on strike? What were you saying when the teachers

went on strike? You said: "Do what the teachers do. Don't go on

strike." But the fact is that the teachers went on strike, and

there's no way you can stop people going on strike if they

really want to go on strike. You know it and everybody else

knows it.

In places where they've done just what you wanted them to do, the rate of strikes

has gone up. Just look at the figures. Your own Members in 1966, '67, '68, '69,

'70 and '71 said the same things. The then Member for North Vancouver–Seymour

(Mr. Clark) said the same thing. Your leader...I can't remember which one

that was — that would be the senator, Mr. Perrault — said the same thing. You've

all abandoned the Liberal Party. You've abandoned Mr. Trudeau, who also happens

to say exactly what I've said. So I suppose you've really found your spiritual

home — nowhere — in the sense that you can now take the best of the cuttings,

the best of the speeches and the best of your actions.

Now the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams) said: "I want the Provincial Secretary," if I

may paraphrase his remarks, "to pay good wages, to pay

comparability." I did it and you've hit me over the head.

(Laughter.) I did exactly what you said. There isn't one single

component in the negotiations of the BCGEU that is ahead of the

private sector in terms of comparability. And you know it. You

know it. So in other words....

AN HON. MEMBER: You gave in.

HON. MR. HALL: He says I gave in. I did exactly what he

wanted me to do! I did exactly what he asked me to do. I gave

them comparison with the federal civil service, and you say I

went too far. Now you say that we gave in. Now you say that the

private sector has now been faced with incredible demands

because of what I did. Nonsense! You thrash strawmen. You

strike poses. You carefully choose your words to deliberately

leave a confusion in this House that the right to strike means

that the government gives in.

This government has said over and over again what its

position is; the Minister of Labour has said it as well. If the

essential public service of this province is threatened, this

government will act. It has acted; you know that. That's what

the Liberal Party used to say; I don't know what it says now. I

can't even find it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's mute.

HON. MR. HALL: It's mute, really. Mr. Speaker, the fact of

the matter is that those people that that Member says are now

without the right to strike do go on strike. In Australia they

go on strike; in all the jurisdictions where they prevent it

they go on strike.

At the same time he says that we're inconsistent. He says

we're inconsistent because we allow compulsory arbitration and

that by allowing compulsory arbitration we're not fulfilling

our basic philosophy as socialists, as people who believe in

free collective bargaining. Mr. Speaker, the free collective

bargaining aspect of the teachers is agreed to by the

[ Page 3749 ]

teachers. Anybody who comes along and says they are prepared

to accept that kind of arbitration, who sits down at the free

and full collective bargaining table and says they're prepared

to accept binding arbitration — binding, non-binding, third

party, final-offer election — so be it. We'll sign the

contract, whatever is agreed to around the table. Mr. Speaker,

that's not being inconsistent at all.

We looked at the situation where the health of the community

of Kamloops was threatened and we acted; we looked at the

situation where the safety of the lower mainland was threatened

and we acted. We'll act in every single case where the public

safety is threatened.

Then at the same time that he says the teachers are okay

because they opted for compulsory arbitration, he will also, if

he chooses to go through his newspaper cuttings, come in here

under the Education estimates and say that the salaries the

teachers are getting are exorbitant. You say the same thing;

you say whatever you want. Pick your newspaper cuttings. Do

what you want.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 36

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Gorst

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Dent

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Smith

Bennett

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Anderson, D.A.

Wallace

NAYS — 3

Gardom

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

Bill 135, Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act,

read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill

PUBLIC SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River adjourned

the debate. Does anyone wish to speak on second reading of this

bill?

HON. MR. HALL: I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 136, Public Service Amendment Act, read a second time

and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill

DEPARTMENT OF LANDS, FORESTS