1984 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3125 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Hospital user fees. Mrs. Dailly –– 3125

PCL Privatization. Mr. Passarell –– 3125

Dynatek Electronics. Mr. Nicolson –– 3126

Habitat conservation fund. Mrs. Wallace –– 3126

Coal slick on Stuart Channel. Mrs. Wallace –– 3127

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. A. Fraser)

On vote 76: minister's office –– 3127

Mr. Rose

Ms. Sanford

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

On vote 58: minister's office –– 3130

Hon. Mr. McClelland

Mr. Gabelmann

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Stupich

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services estimates. (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

On vote 67: minister's office –– 3138

Hon. Mr. Chabot

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Michael

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Davis

Ms. Sanford

Division

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications estimates, (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

On vote 85: minister's office –– 3149

Mr. Nicolson

Tabling Documents –– 3149

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1984

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

MR. GABELMANN: I'd like the House to welcome some special

visitors from New Zealand in the gallery this afternoon: my wife's

sister and her husband and two children. I'd like the House to welcome

Christine and Phillip Bell-Booth and their children Anna and Emily.

MR. STUPICH: I'd like the House to welcome one of my more

charming constituents, raised in the Cassidy area and returning to the

coast after a 17-year term entertaining in Toronto and a tour of Europe

and North America: Miss Lynn McNeil, piano player and singer, in the

members' gallery.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, of particular interest to the Minister of

Labour, she specializes in a collection from the Big Band era, and has

a collector's comer — which may remind the minister of something — that

she's currently showing in the Bengal Lounge, evenings, for the rest of

the month.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I note in the members' gallery

today some distinguished visitors: Dr. Gibson, who is chairman of the

Universities Council; Dr. Saywell, the new president of Simon Fraser

University; and my own acting deputy and careful tour-guider, Andy

Soles.

MR. LAUK: In the public galleries today, I want to introduce

Joe Jacoy and his daughter Chris. Mr. Jacoy is the master treasurer of

the Giuseppe Garibaldi club in British Columbia. Would the House

welcome them both.

Oral Questions

HOSPITAL USER FEES

MRS. DAILLY: My question is to the Minister of Health. Is he

aware that the Nanaimo General Hospital has been forced, as a result of

Social Credit government policy, to require all hospital patients to

post a $60 deposit on admission?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I'm not aware of that, nor do I believe

the hospital would be able to impose that upon a person who doesn't

have the opportunity of putting up $60. I'll check into it; I haven't

been made aware of that.

MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate the fact that the minister will

check into it, but I would also like to give him some supplementaries

to consider when he's checking. Is he aware that the seven-day deposit,

which increases from a minimum of $60 if one goes into a semi-private

or private room, applies not only to elective patients but also to

those who are there for emergency? I wonder if the minister would also

check into that for me.

The further supplementary to check on is this. I understand that a

number of hospitals have said that they are seeing more seriously ill

patients, especially those who are unemployed, putting off hospital

visits because of the user fees imposed by Social Credit. I would like

the minister to come back and give us a report on that, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'll be pleased to bring back a report

on the material that is factual — the conjecture and nonsense I probably won't

be able to respond to.

MRS. DAILLY: I am referring to government policy. I've always

thought most of their policy was a myth, and now the minister is

admitting that it is.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it is not government policy

that a hospital require patients to post a bond. That would be a

hospital policy, and we'd be pleased to look into it.

MRS. DAILLY: We are not discussing the posting of a bond. We

are discussing the imposition of user fees, which is the policy of the

Social Credit government. So when the minister checks into this, Mr.

Speaker, will he please check on the imposition of user fees that are

being imposed to the extent that people who are ill can now no longer

even show up at the hospital because of the imposition of that user fee.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). First, may I ask the House Leader whether

or not we may expect the Minister of Finance during question period?

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're suggesting he's expecting? I don't believe so, no.

MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I obviously caught the

House Leader asleep. I wanted to ask a question of the Minister of

Finance, and I would like to know whether or not the Minister of

Finance is expected in the chamber during question period.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hopefully.

PCL PRIVATIZATION

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Human Resources, who is responsible for transit in the

province. Will the minister confirm that Mr. John Kelly of Killarney

Management Corp. has been reappointed president of PCL and had his

contract extended to complete the liquidation of PCL?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I will confirm that this is true. The contract has been extended.

MR. PASSARELL: In view of the fact that one of the bidders

for Pacific Coach Lines is Conmac Stages, will the minister at least

agree to a moratorium on the sale of PCL pending a full public inquiry

into bus safety and safety precautions?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I am unaware as to those who have

tendered bids or will be the successful people in that transaction. I

have a commitment to wind the company down, and we're in the process of

doing that. I am sure that any concerns regarding safety will be dealt

with by the board of directors, which concern is of course being

expressed now by the member in asking the question. I'll see that this

is taken into consideration by the board.

[ Page 3126 ]

DYNATEK ELECTRONICS

MR. NICOLSON: To the Minister for Universities, Science and

Communications: because of media manipulation by the minister last May,

thousands of unemployed Victorians lined up just prior to the election

campaign to sign up for promised jobs at the Dynatek Electronics plant,

which is sponsored by the minister, and which he said would be open

last summer. Will the minister explain why the plant has not yet opened

its doors?

HON. MR. McGEER: In replying to the question, I think the

member should recognize that the people who lined up were lining up at

federal employment centres.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On your word.

HON. MR. McGEER: Not on my word, I can assure you. I think

much of that is merely wasting the taxpayers' money, but it does

indicate the desire and necessity of our encouraging, by all government

policy possible, the location of new and productive industry in this

province. While one might have hoped that the federal government would

have been far swifter in initially indicating its support for Dynatek

equal to what it had already given to other industries located in the

province of Quebec and eastern Canada, nonetheless that has happened.

It is our hope on this side of the House — I trust shared by Her

Majesty's Loyal Opposition — that that great plant will soon be

functioning at full capacity. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I anticipate

that it will not be very long before it will be underway, providing not

all of the hoped-for employment on Vancouver Island but at least more

than the policies of the NDP were able to produce.

MR. NICOLSON: I have a supplementary to the same minister.

The government has had a couple of extensions of the deadline for

Dynatek to arrange its financing. The federal government, I think, has

been on board with the provincial government since August 31, and then

there was an extension from the August 31 deadline to December 31,

1983, and Dynatek requested another delay. Can the minister confirm

that this government has further extended the financing deadline to

March 31, 1984?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm that, and I

will bring information back to the member, but I say that if not, we

certainly should, and I would so recommend.

MR. NICOLSON: If the minister is going to recommend that, on

the basis of what assurance? How firm will it be then if that deadline

is extended to March 31, 1984? How much longer can we keep moving the

goal posts?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I would hope we would never

relax in British Columbia in attempting to stimulate new industry to

locate in the province. If it isn't tomorrow in this industry — and I

think it will be very soon and it will be this industry — it should be

others in addition to this, because with the unemployment situation in

British Columbia in an unsatisfactory state and with government not the

prime provider of jobs in this country, anybody else's statements

notwithstanding, we have to get behind the private sector as the only

way to provide true wealth. That's what this government is going to do,

Mr. Speaker.

[2:15]

MR. NICOLSON: A final supplementary. I agree that we have to

get behind the private sector. I'm not asking the minister when you are

going to stop. When are you going to start?

MR. LAUK: What about the tunnel? Is that private or public money?

HON. MR. McGEER: You always resist the obvious ones, and I'm going to pass that one by.

I will say that that's the first time I have heard a member from the

New Democratic Party opposite give a ringing endorsation of private

enterprise, and I support him for leader.

MR. HOWARD: I understand the Minister of Science used to be a leader at one time himself.

I'd like to direct a question to that neglected minister nobody

seems to ask questions of, and that's the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations in his capacity as government House Leader. When in this

session does he intend to call notice of Motion 32 on the order paper,

which is a motion of censure against Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Out of order, as usual.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Cowichan-Malahat.

HABITAT CONSERVATION FUND

MRS. WALLACE: My question is for the Minister of Environment,

and it has to do with the habitat conservation fund. I wonder if he

would be able to give the House — and I don't expect an exact figure —

a ballpark figure of how many dollars he has taken into that

conservation fund since April 1 this year to the present date. While

he's about it, how many dollars has he expended?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the question is one

that requires some detail and, with all respect, would be best placed

on the order paper. I don't think it's fair to assume that any member

would have that information without taking same on notice or putting it

in written form.

MRS. WALLACE: I asked for a ballpark figure, and the minister

appeared to be prepared to give me that figure. If not, he can

certainly take it on notice, but because of the length of time it takes

to get an answer on the order paper, and I'm a bit anxious to get this

figure, I was taking this method.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, the information was actually

contained in my estimates, which were passed last fall. However, the

ballpark figure has ranged in the neighbourhood of $900,000 to about

$1.3 million per year that comes in from the $3 surcharge on the

hunting and fishing licences. It varies, of course, according to the

number of licence purchases, but it's right around a million, plus or

minus. It seems to be ranging right over a million dollars now.

[ Page 3127 ]

MRS. WALLACE: The second part of the question: how much has he expended this fiscal year to date on habitat conservation from that fund?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That I would have to get details on,

because it is an ongoing fund. There is a habitat advisory board that

approves projects as the expenses are attributed to each of those

projects, so at any given point in time it would be difficult to say

exactly how much has been expended. I can assure the member that the

habitat conservation fund is expended on the advice of the advisory

board and only for that purpose.

MRS, WALLACE: I thank the minister for the information.

COAL SLICK ON STUART CHANNEL

The Minister of Environment told me yesterday, relative to the coal

dust spill or supposed coal dust spill in Stuart Channel, that he had

people in there investigating and that he would let us know what was

found. I wonder if he has anything further to report on that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't believe I said that I had people in

there investigating. I said I had people checking on it, and I did

check into it. The federal authorities have been investigating the

spill. Our people have been checking on that, making sure that they are

aware of what is being done or what might be done or what should be

done. I understand from the federal people that they believe they have

identified the ship that caused the problem, and it would seem that the

coal dust problem is dissipating.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On Vote 76: minister's office, $200,936.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I have two or three different

subjects that I'd like to deal with, and I'll try to deal with them

expeditiously. This is one of the few opportunities that we get to deal

on a one-to-one basis with the minister and his officials. I'm sorry

his officials aren't here, because some of the questions I have are of

such a nature, in terms of their specificity and detail, that they may

require the attention of the minister's officials. But we'll see as we

proceed.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) made a good deal about

the restraining devices for children, and the minister responded that

he didn't feel that compulsion was necessarily the answer. At the

moment there's nothing like that and I would think any improvement

would be worthwhile. I realize it's the cost. I won't elaborate on that

except to say that cost is always used as an impediment to better auto

safety. We know that the kind of lobbies the American automobile

companies have mounted to the president's office and the department of

transport in the U.S. opposing better auto safety standards in their

structure always use the argument that it's a matter of cost. Health

costs and costs to individuals through poor auto safety and

construction and poor seatbelt legislation! We've known for 25 years

that seatbelts were the answer; they used them in planes years and

years ago, but we've only recently got around to using them in

automobiles. A lot of people still don't like them, for a variety of

reasons. Sure, there are always going to be those people who will not

use them, despite the spot checks. They get sloppy and lazy. But I

don't think people are generally aware of the dangers to children in

automobiles and how they can become projectiles in even a very small

accident. If there was an element of compulsion there, it would also be

an educative force. I would like to identify myself, as a grandparent,

with the remarks of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

I was also noticing that I don't think there is any rule or

regulation about people riding in the backs of campers. I know you

can't ride in a trailer, but I've see a lot of people riding in

campers, especially children — lying on their tummies up on top,

looking out of the window over the cab. Surely that's the height of

foolhardiness for families to permit that. I've seen travel trailers

made of plywood and aluminum that have been absolutely smashed like

matchsticks in an auto accident, and surely a camper's construction is

no better. To allow children to be lying on their bellies and peeking

out the top window of those campers is a tremendous and grave risk, and

I am sure it adds to the hazard. I won't say any more on that, except

to say that I do support better kinds of regulations and legislation

dealing with auto and camper safety.

I don't want to hang this committee up for a long period of time,

but I'd like to deal briefly with a couple of riding problems. What was

true of Burnaby being an artery is also true of my riding, Coquitlam.

As you know, Port Moody has a tremendously heavy traffic flow; it was

described the other day in the paper as the ozone capital of North

America, and that's because of a combination of things. A major factor

is always the high traffic density. There is a tremendous traffic

density through those communities, and I don't think there is proper

access. There is certainly little or no possibility of a bypass, so it

seems to me about the only thing we can do is to widen existing

arteries in the case of Port Moody, and it is probably possible to do

that on the Lougheed side over by Riverview.

I want to deal first with the Port Moody situation. The second

member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) made quite a pitch for Surrey and the

accesses to the new Annacis Island bridge, having to do with the saving

of $20 million on the main span. I would like to suggest that if you're

looking for places to throw that $20 million, you could take the ALRT

into Port Moody. That's where it was intended to go in the first place.

There was a commitment that it go there, but that certainly seems to be

receding. If you can’t unclog the traffic arteries for that city, then

you've got to serve it with some kind of an alternative. I don't think

there's any way, regardless of the objective, that you can keep up the

freeways, with the kind of growth we've had in the urban areas over the

past 25 years. If I may, I can give the House a personal example.

In about 19611 was driving from Coquitlam to UBC. At that time there

was really only the Lougheed, and it took me an hour. Subsequent to

that time an improved Canada Way, an improved Hastings Street and the

401 were put into force. With all those added arteries there, by 1968 —

between 1961 and 1968 — it took an hour from my place to UBC. So what

happened was simply that more cars loaded on the freeways, and the

answer has to be some kind of mass transportation.

[ Page 3128 ]

We know that the CPR has held the ministry up for ransom on $30

million worth of upgrading, and that's held back a lot of things. I'm

really pleased that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis)

is here and listening to this, because of his intense interest and

commitment to public transportation. I just wish his interest in coming

to Port Moody with that ALRT was a little bit more enthusiastic,

because I think that if anything, he has been pessimistic about that.

I would like to leave the Port Moody side of it for a second and

dwell a little bit on the Coquitlam problems. I'd like to know the

status of the upgrading of the Mary Hill bypass. As the minister knows,

plans have been around for at least ten years for the city of Port

Coquitlam to be bypassed. A part of the connecting road between Port

Coquitlam and the Pitt River has been completed. It's wide, it's

terrific, it's like a lot of overpasses, but it really goes from

nowhere to nowhere. It hooks on to Kingsway and it goes on to the Pitt,

but it really doesn't help us very much when.... We had a bridge

washout about two years ago and we've had a Bailey bridge with a light

on it ever since. Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman — this is

not good enough. There is a tremendous population of suburbanites in

that Mary Hill area, and I don't know how much longer they are going to

be expected to have to put up with a temporary Bailey bridge when that

bypass needs to be completed.

If that were not enough, there are other problems. The other main

problem is right in the downtown part of Coquitlam. The truck traffic

now is so heavy through the downtown over the Kingsway bridge that it

is virtually impossible. You can't pass two cars on it, or a car and a

truck, and there has got to be some solution to that problem too,

because as long as you don't complete the Mary Hill bypass, the

Kingsway bridge is a problem. So that community is part of the

bottleneck. Every bit of interurban traffic — road traffic and rail

traffic — goes through that community. It's a very difficult thing to

get any motion there at all. So I'd be interested in knowing what the

minister has in mind in terms of times and dates of completion for

those two problems. I think if one of the problems were solved, the

other would be solved automatically. If we completed the Mary Hill

bypass, then I'm quite sure that the truck traffic intensity on the

Kingsway bridge would lessen dramatically, even though it is an

inadequate old bridge.

[2:30]

The other thing I want to talk about is probably of wider interest;

it isn't just an interest of the people of my community. I don't

pretend to be any expert about this, but it concerns the practice of

licensed tour vehicles licensed under the Motor Carrier Act. I received

a representation from a constituent who is a duly licensed operator in

the lower mainland. His particular problem, since he was licensed to

carry tourists, is that in spite of the fact that he complies fully

with the licence, he has no protection against the bandit tours, the

bootleg tours or the unlicensed tours. I know that in the Motor Carrier

Act there is a lot of legislation. Parts of that act deal with the

licensing of these people, and it covers a very wide spectrum. We have

the duties and the responsibilities of the licensee. That's spelled

out, and I can give you the

chapter and the verse of the section. It

has to do with safety, loading, inspection of vehicles, keeping to the

schedule, abandoning schedules, and all that stuff. It's all covered in

there, and I won't bore the House with that. The second part of it has

to do with the general supervision of motor carriers by the commission,

and the duties of the commission are spelled out in tremendous detail.

But there is nothing really about enforcement with respect to people

who do not comply with the licence. I am told that there are up to half

a dozen companies — and I have the names right here — operating out of

the Vancouver airport without licences from either the city of

Vancouver, under the vehicles-for-hire licence, or the Motor Carrier

Commission. They can operate far more cheaply because they often don't

have class 4 drivers, the names of their vehicles are not on their

buses or their vans or whatever they use.... They park, though, in the

parking lot. They do not park downtown in front of the hotels. They

pick up their tours — frequently people who do not speak the

language.... So we have inadequately policed vehicles, perhaps with

inadequate drivers without a licence, operating without any protection

or endangerment from the Motor Carrier Commission. I'd like to know why

this is permitted to go on. I can tell you on a number of grounds how

they allegedly are offending the rules. You have a

section 61 in the

Motor Carrier Act. I don't intend to read it entirely, but it says:

"Soliciting of business by unlicensed persons.

(1) No

person other than the holder of a licence for the operation of a public

or limited vehicle, or his agent authorized in writing, shall without

the consent of the commission

"(

a) sell or offer to sell transportation of persons

or tickets for transportation, or sell or offer to sell transportation

of freight...."

That's clear enough. Unless you have a licence, you can't do these things.

"(

b) by advertising or otherwise solicit the transportation

of passengers or freight...."

In other words, you can't advertise in a B.C. paper or magazine. These things are now happening.

"(

c) operate, control or manage a travel bureau or place

for the sale of tickets or for soliciting or advertising the transportation

of passengers or freight...."

The big problem with all this is that these things are all

happening. The Motor Carrier Commission knows about this because they

have received complaints, but there is no enforcement. Nothing is done

to protect the people who hold licences, while these gyppo outfits that

don't even offer or have a label on their motor vehicle.... Maybe they

don't even own it. Maybe they're just agents that go and advertise, get

the trip from the foreigner and then hire some carrier licensed to

complete the trip.

Another thing they're doing, I'm told, is that they run on

prescribed routes for the licensees, and they're not allowed to do

that. But I am told that there are a number of them — and I can give

you the evidence — that operate and come over to Butchart Gardens,

leaving Marguerite Tours, Gray Line and those that operate out of

Victoria open to unfair competition. So this is a very serious matter,

and I think it is certainly worth looking into. What's the point if you

have a penalty

section with fines and rules and you have no

enforcement? When the Motor Carrier Commission is told about this,

they're saying: "I'm sorry, there's nothing we can do about it."

Somebody flagrantly breaks the rules, hauls tourists in an unlicensed

vehicle and then comes along and applies for a licence and is given

one, which has happened at least in one case.

That is as briefly as I can put it. The only other thing I would add is that what seems to be the case here is that they

[ Page 3129 ]

also operate not only with leased vehicles, but

they operate with passenger vehicles, and this is an ICBC problem. They

are not supposed to be using those automobiles for commercial purposes

if they exceed 1,600 kilometres per year, and they do it all the time.

Nobody, including the airport people, the Vancouver licence-for-hire

inspector, the MOT and the Motor Carrier Commission agent seems to be

policing this. What is the point in teaching people — the licensees and

the legal ones — that to be crooked pays? If you're crooked and you

don't bother with the licence, you can make money and sell your trip to

a tourist from the airport and around Vancouver for $50, instead of

$80. Licensees require trained drivers, decent vehicles and all the

attendant advertising and extra costs that go with legitimate firm, and

they are allowed to be undercut by some sort of a gyppo operation that

operates outside the law.

HON. A. FRASER: You raised a lot of issues. Regarding the

non-enforcement of the Motor Carrier Act and unlicensed vehicles, I

wasn't aware that it was as bad as you say it is. I am certainly not

aware that the Motor Carrier Commission did not act. They're acting all

the time on it, and they get the complaints from the licensed carriers,

I would appreciate getting and pursuing anything you have on it. That's

the only answer I can give on that reference to tour vehicles.

The other item in your own riding you asked about was Mary Hill

bypass and its status, First of all, the money spent to date has been

about $25 million. All road work is either complete or under contract.

That is the dirt side of it. Two structures still have to be built: a

bridge over the Coquitlam River and a railway overpass. What we're

looking at is the completion of that whole extra artery by 1985. Funds

are available, but everything is under contract now, with the exception

of the bridge over the Coquitlam River and the railroad overpass.

Hopefully that will be done in the next fiscal year. But we're already

covered by legal contracts on the larger jobs.

Regarding the Kingsway bridge, that is a city bridge and a city

responsibility. As a matter of fact, we loaned them a Bailey when the

old one fell down. I think that's the one you were referring to, but

that's on loan from us. It's their problem. They're aware of that.

MR. ROSE: You should have given them two; then you wouldn't have had to put in the light.

HON. A. FRASER: Right. But we did help them and they were most appreciative of it when they had that emergency when the bridge went down.

Another thing you mentioned was about the money saved — I want to

clear that up; I've heard that from our own members as well — on the

bid for the main structure of the Annacis. There isn't anything saved

as far as our ministry is concerned. The treasury hangs on to the

savings. That's the way it works.

The other item I'm very interested in, Mr. Chairman, is about

people, whether children or others, riding in campers. I completely

agree; it's unsafe. I understand from the superintendent of motor

vehicles that they're not allowed in trailers but they are allowed in

campers. I think maybe we should change things and make it illegal for

people to ride in campers unless they at least have a proper seat. I

think we can pursue that and ban what's going on. It's a highly

dangerous practice. I think we can do that in 1984, hopefully by

regulation.

I appreciate your remarks on child restraints. You are correct that

the cost factor does get into it; maybe so from the vehicles, but there

also is a cost factor on the individual who has to buy the restraint. I

would hope the responsible citizens who can afford it are doing it. I

think to a great degree they are, but we aren't finished with the

decision process on child restraints being compulsory. We're still

looking at that.

I think I've covered most of your items, Mr. Member.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, this morning some of my colleagues

raised a number of issues that apply in my constituency, and I'm not

going to go over those again. I share the same concerns about the

charges on the Highways ministry ferries as my colleagues do, comparing

that with the fact that so many of the ferries in this province make no

charge whatsoever.

Every year during these estimates I have spoken about the need for a

highway bypass on Vancouver Island from Parksville north. The minister,

I know, recognizes the danger of the existing highway, and the minister

does not deny that it's a very dangerous route indeed. Yet I must stand

every year and mention again the fact that the Island bypass is still

unconstructed. The government still has not purchased all of the land

that is needed. I would like the minister to give us some idea today as

to a starting date for that particular bypass route so that I can let

the people in my constituency know that we are not going to be

neglected forever by this ministry.

[1:45]

Mr. Chairman, yesterday during the debate on these estimates the

critic for this particular ministry, the member for Atlin (Mr.

Passarell), mentioned to the minister that he felt the issue of bus

safety and vehicle testing should be left until it could be dealt with

in the Select Standing Committee on Transportation, which has been

assigned the duty of looking into privatization of the motor vehicle

testing in this province. The minister agreed yesterday that that

should happen, that during these expenditure estimates that particular

issue should be left because it could be better dealt with on that

committee that's looking into motor vehicle testing and how it's going

to take place in the future under Social Credit philosophy. I would

like to quote from Hansard yesterday, Mr. Chairman, where the

Minister of Highways and Transportation responded to the member for

Atlin on this very issue:

You mentioned the vehicle inspection branch

and all that. Well, I think you're right, Mr. Member. that we're in

committee on this now — a House committee that was set up. As a matter

of fact, there's a meeting tomorrow. Maybe that's the best place for

that to be discussed at this time.

That's very clear to me. Mr. Chairman. It's not to be raised under these estimates. It's better discussed in that committee.

So I attended the meeting that was held today of that particular

committee looking into vehicle testing in this province. I'm not a

member of the committee, but because this is an issue I have been

particularly concerned with — and I happen to be the first one to have

raised the issue in this Legislature following the tragic accident on

Mount Washington just over a week ago — I attended that meeting and

heard the request advanced by my colleagues, based on the statement of

the minister saying that the issue of bus testing and bus safety is

better brought up at that committee.

[ Page 3130 ]

Mr. Chairman, I regret to report that the Social Credit members on

that committee refused the request made by the NDP members following

the instructions of the Minister of Highways. They refused to discuss

that issue in committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must to bring to the hon. member's attention

— I'm sure she is aware of this — that it is not permissible to discuss

committee items in this House.

MS. SANFORD: I'm discussing the statement made by the minister yesterday in this Legislature, as reported in Hansard .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, you were, and the Chair was permitting

that, hon. member. But then you got off onto discussing what was taking

place in the committee that you attended today.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, based on what happened today in a forum which I can't discuss in this Legislature....

MR. VEITCH: You weren't there.

MS. SANFORD: I was there.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: Based on what happened in that other forum

outside this committee, I can only conclude that the Social Credit

members are not interested in the issue of bus safety and bus

inspections. I can only conclude that there is something they are

covering up and hiding, and I'm going to tell you why.

On a number of occasions we have called for the government to

conduct a public inquiry into bus safety and bus inspections in this

province. The minister has stated flatly that the government will not

undertake such a consideration. It is very clear that the coroner who

is involved in the particular investigation taking place was very

concerned about what was happening, in order for him to order that bus

to be taken apart and put together again piece by piece. But I think

the editorial in the Vancouver Sun is correct: we cannot expect

the coroner from the Courtenay area to undertake the larger

consideration of general bus safety in this province. Why is the

government not prepared to conduct a public inquiry? We have had

indications from the people involved in bus inspections in this

province that they actually switch parts from one bus to another in

order to have them pass the safety requirements of the province. The

minister said he hoped they were doing that responsibly. I'm quoting

from the Vancouver Sun article: "I hope they're switching the

parts responsibly." It's an irresponsible act, in my view, to have

these companies switch parts in order to meet inspection requirements

in this province. On the sole issue of all of those seats being torn

out of their location in that bus during that accident, I think the

minister should undertake a public inquiry into bus safety in this

province. Surely the minister cannot be happy with the existing

regulations — if in fact this bus met those regulations, which the

minister indicated it did the other day in this House. He cannot be

happy with those regulations if in fact the seats are going to be torn

out of their location in the bus in an accident of this type. That

alone, it seems to me, would require a public investigation and a full

public inquiry.

Why can't a committee look into standards of construction on these

vehicles and make recommendations? Why can't a committee or a full

public inquiry look into the question of the use of seatbelts, which

has been discussed since this particular accident? Why can't a

committee or a full public inquiry look into the question of spot

checks that should take place on these buses on a regular basis, far

more regular than is happening right now? That committee has been

established by this Legislature to look into public safety. Public

safety is what we're interested in. I think the committee is remiss if

it does not deal with this issue at this time.

Surely the minister can't be happy with switching parts. Surely the

minister can't be happy with seats that are torn out of their place.

Surely the minister can't be happy with the kinds of problems which

arose as a result of this particular accident. Surely the minister

can't be happy with the reports that come from his own department about

cannibalizing one bus to put parts on another bus to pass inspections,

or the rental of tires for a day so they can pass inspection. The

public safety in this province demands a further look at this whole

question, and the minister, in my view, is dismissing the whole issue

at this time without the kind of concern that he should have for public

safety in this province.

Vote 76 approved.

Vote 77: administration and services department, $9,035,729 — approved.

Vote 78: highway operations department, $468,289,850 — approved.

Vote 79: hydro development — highways, $10 — approved.

Vote 80: motor vehicle department, $25,400,685 — approved.

Vote 81: motor carrier commission and branch, $1,258,273 — approved.

Vote 82: transportation policy department, $5,721,481 — approved.

Vote 83: air services branch, $4,385,176 — approved.

Vote 84: Crown corporation assistance, $54,822,700 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

On vote 58: minister's office, $182,042.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I will take only a moment before we ask

the members opposite to relay their questions, but I did want to pay

tribute to the people on my staff who have helped us over the past

years to develop programs in the Ministry of Labour. Joining me in the

chamber a bit later will be Mrs. Isabel Kelly, deputy minister of

womens' programs and acting Deputy Minister of Labour; and Mr. Stephen

[ Page 3131 ]

Stackhouse, assistant deputy minister of management operations.

During the past year a number of appointments have been made to fill

vacancies as vice-chairmen of the Labour Relations Board. They include

Ms. Dale Michaels, formerly vice-president of the Institute of

Resources and Development at BCIT; Mr. Alex Markides, Ms. Shona Moore,

Mr. John Kinzie and Mr. Brian Williams, all of whom have been

well-respected practitioners in the field of industrial relations. I am

also pleased to have been able to appoint a very distinguished member

of the Vancouver bar, Mr. Gerald Levey, as the new administrative

chairman of the Workers' Compensation boards of review, as well as a

person who brings a wide range of experience at the administrative

level, in both the private and public sectors, in Mr. Walter Flesher as

the new chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board itself. I know all

members would join me in wishing these people well in their new

positions.

Mr. Chairman, the past year hasn't been either a great one for

British Columbia or an easy one. We have come through one of the worst

recessionary times in 50 years, and it has had a significant impact on

labour relations in our province. Loss of corporate earnings has led to

wage rollbacks, unfortunately to the loss of jobs, and to a change of

priorities in bargaining, with job security rather than pay increases

becoming the most important item on the agenda. The difficult economic

times have perhaps had one or two positive by-products. To date the

amount of time lost due to labour disputes is a fraction of what was

lost in the year before, That is a pretty good sign, I would think,

because normally labour relations are cyclical, and this year we seem

to have broken that cycle. I hope the improved work-stoppage statistics

indicate a willingness by both employers and unions to recommend

economic realities and to act responsibly.

Job creation is perhaps one of the most important areas of this

ministry, particularly during these times. In 1982-83 direct provincial

funding was provided to help create almost 24,000 jobs, focusing in

particular on student and youth employment, persons new in the labour

force and women interested in pursuing a non-traditional occupation.

The province, in cooperation with the federal government, provided

funding to create an additional 9,000 jobs in various smaller

communities around the province to help these communities retain their

skilled labour force and economic base. In the area of apprenticeship

training we have to admit, and I'm sorry to say, that the number gains

achieved over the past few years have been lost through apprentice

layoff or transfer — again because of the recessionary times — because

unemployment in our major industrial sectors of forestry and mining,

where most apprentices had been placed, simply suffered worse than

other areas of employment opportunities. We hope to be able to find

ways in which we can admit more apprentices into the system and to make

more provisions such as the federal-provincial simulated work

experience program, which worked very well in our province and perhaps

better than in any other part of Canada, mostly because all parties

involved — management, labour and the two levels of government — really

got behind the program and pushed so that it became extremely

successful.

[3:00]

We'll be taking some steps in the rest of this fiscal year and

certainly in the next fiscal year to coordinate our activities in the

training and industrial relations areas and in the areas of

occupational health and safety as well. We will likely be putting

forward, sometime soon, some legislation to help us do that and to go

along with some legislation that this House has already approved,

including the Gas Safety Amendment Act, the Electric Safety Amendment

Act and the Power Engineers and Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Act.

Again, as with all legislative changes, I'd welcome any suggestions

from the members opposite or anywhere else on how the system is working

and how it might be improved.

I'd like to turn just for a moment to the area of women's programs.

We now have a policy development and research office in full operation

in Victoria. The community outreach office in Vancouver has established

a wide network of contacts with women's organizations, counselling

centres, employers. unions and educational institutions to offer better

direction to women seeking information about work. An advisory group to

the deputy minister of women's programs has now been established,

comprising senior officials from all provincial government ministries

to represent the needs and concerns of women within these ministries

and, of course, women clients of the ministries as well. Women's

programs is also coordinating the work of the interministerial working

group on family violence, with representatives from the ministries of

Health, Human Resources, Education and the Attorney-General. This group

is reviewing all British Columbia legislation and programs in the area

of violence in the family, and it will be making recommendations for

improved coordination and program delivery. It is expected their

summary report will be presented to the federal-provincial territorial

working group on family violence in the spring of 1984.

Mr. Speaker, those few comments are really all I wish to say at the

opening. I'd be pleased to hear any comments and try to answer any

questions to the best of my ability.

MR. GABELMANN: First of all, my thanks to the minister for

his decision to introduce these estimate debates with an overview of

what he is doing in the ministry. I suspect the brevity of it was

probably related to the note he received partway through.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It certainly was.

MR. GABELMANN: I too intend to be brief this afternoon, Mr.

Chairman, simply because it doesn't make any sense at all to me that we

prolong these estimate debates when we have some couple of months left

— less than that now — before we're into the new fiscal year and, I

trust, an opportunity within a few months to have a proper debate about

the spending that will take place starting April 1.

I do want to say a few things, however. In making these comments I should remind those people who read Hansard ,

I guess, rather than those of us in the Legislature, that because of

the strictures of debate, it is difficult, if not improper, to have the

discussions on the amendments to the Human Rights Code, the proposed

amendments to the Labour Code and possible changes to the Workers

Compensation Act which are very high on my mind and, I know, very high

on the minds of a lot of people in British Columbia. I should say

simply that I recognize that this isn't the appropriate time to have

those discussions, other than to say — and I think this would be within

the rules, Mr. Chairman — that I trust the minister will go very easily

and very slowly when he begins his...he isn't beginning, because the

process has gone on for some time, but when he deals with the processes

leading

[ Page 3132 ]

to changes in the Labour Code. I doubt that there

is anyone who would argue that the Labour Code should be unchanged.

None of us believes in writing legislation and leaving it forever in

its original form because it happened to be good at that time.

Obviously, improvements can take place, and if the minister is looking

for support for some of his attitudes, he should know that I have an

immense amount of sympathy for his view that the arbitration process,

among other aspects of labour relations, has become far too bound up in

legal processes and far too expensive. As one who has served on an

occasional arbitration board myself, as a non-lawyer, I recognize that

the legal processes and requirements that have been built into the

system recently are such that the worker really isn't being dealt with

quickly or fairly, and certainly not cheaply. I think if the minister

will consult widely with both labour and management he will find a fair

amount of sympathy for his desire to speed that process up and to make

it more efficient, not to deny any of the fairness that is built into

the present system, but to get it out of the virtual courtroom setting

that it has almost got into at the present time.

Short of that, I find that I have to really scratch to find very

much more that I am sympathetic with regarding the minister's musings

about changes to the Labour Code. It is not my right or responsibility

to warn him, but let me say that we have difficult economic times in

this province right now and the confidence for investors isn't as

strong as it might well be, and if the minister wants that to get

worse, the way he can guarantee it is to open up that Labour Code in

the way in which he has been talking in other respects. Certainly if

the draft that was floating around last summer has any validity to it

at all, in terms of the direction of the government, then we're facing

some very difficult times in this province, because people who have

worked for decades to build up certain rights will not sit by idly and

watch those rights be taken from them. The resulting labour-management

conflicts that could well develop from that kind of action will do

nothing whatsoever to improve investor confidence or get people back to

work in this province.

Having said all of that, I recognize that I was probably out of order, but I did want to get it off my chest, Mr. Chairman.

I noticed that in his opening comments the minister paid tribute to

various people who are working for him and who have recently been

appointed. I want to pay tribute to somebody who is no longer working

for him, and that is the immediate past chairman of the Workers'

Compensation Board. Art Gibbons did a good job. I didn't always agree

with him, and I know that both management and labour didn't always

agree with him, but I think he got hold of some serious problems inside

that organization — and there are serious problems inside, as the

minister knows better than I, I suspect — and was moving in positive

directions. A plan was in place to deal with the unfunded liability.

There was more involvement with people at the workplace, in terms of

programs for safety and in terms of designing regulations, and in my

view that process was beginning to really produce some good rewards.

Unfortunately that was stopped.

We've got this curious dilemma: on the one hand these are times when

businesses can't afford increased assessments, and we all recognize

that. The assessment levels, particularly in some industries, are

extraordinarily high and in some cases are almost crippling to the

financial viability of those businesses. Yet many of those same

employers were castigating the Workers Compensation Board for carrying

on with an unfunded liability in the amount of — and guesstimates range

— between half and one billion dollars. My guess is that it was closer

to the half a billion dollar figure. But the same people who were

complaining about having their assessments increased so that the plan

to reduce the unfunded liability could continue in place over that

nine-year program that had been developed were complaining about the

increase in assessments that would have dealt with that problem. Now we

have what is, in effect, the fourth freeze in assessments in eight

years, and in the fifth year there was a 6 percent limitation on

assessments. Out of the last eight years we've had five years with an

inability on the part of the board to raise, in effect, as much as they

were spending, even if the spending was going to be some years or

decades down the road. Mr. Gibbons was getting hold of that in a way

which was difficult and was hard medicine for a lot of people, but I

feel some tribute should be paid to him for that.

I am going to come back to the WCB in a few minutes, but I just want

to go through a couple of other issues. I only have four or five areas

that I want to discuss. Certainly during the estimates for 1984-85

we'll deal with more of it in more detail.

Unquestionably, there isn't much publicity about employment and

unemployment in respect to the Labour ministry; most of the publicity

around the minister and the ministry relate to the WCBC, the Labour

Code and human rights. I think the primary responsibility of the

ministry must be this job training mess that we are in in this province

— and for that matter all of us in this country — where we continue to

train people for jobs in which there are already 80 percent

unemployment rates. When I look through the apprentice

summary that's

in the annual report — the most recent one I have is for 1982 — on line

after line I see apprenticeships in large numbers for careers that are

already full of unemployed craftspeople. Fifty percent of the

carpenters in this province haven't worked for two years, and in most

of the other trades similar figures apply; yet we continue to train

people.

[Mr. Passarell in the chair.]

I'm not blaming just this government; I think the whole country has

failed. All of us have failed to properly understand that we need to do

some planning about employment. I don't see much done in the way of

employment forecasting. Kids in grades 11 and 12 now don't know what

the best information is about what jobs might be available for them in

five or eight years when they are ready to go into the job market. I

don't know that we're spending enough time on that kind of area. I

appreciate that it's not just the Ministry of Labour; we obviously have

involvement from other ministries in this. What we desperately need is

an overall planning arm or agency which includes representation from

people out there in the real world who have some day-to-day experience

and expertise in what really is happening in future job markets.

I must say — I can't let it go — that when we look at the

unemployment rate among young people, the under-25s, using federal

government figures, 25 percent of that age category is unemployed. That

doesn't include all of those people lost and not counted, people who

have decided to stay an extra year at school if they can afford it or

who have simply stayed at home and not got into the system. Even the

new way Statistics Canada is counting doesn't include a lot of those

people. But even if we take the minimum figures — they're

[ Page 3133 ]

talking about 25 percent of those people under 25

not working — what we're really doing now is training a whole

generation in a skill that we don't want them to learn: that is, the

skill of not knowing how to work and how to find work, because jobs

just don't exist. It takes a graphic illustration like the one in

Vancouver yesterday or the day before, which the Vancouver Sun

showed in a front-page photograph, to put it into some perspective. It

isn't a question any longer of people not knowing how to work, or of

not wanting to work or not looking hard enough; the jobs just aren't

there. No one can deny that anymore. If the government has one priority

at this time, it should be to find a way.... I'm not sure exactly what

it is, but there are a variety of alternatives that could be considered

and should be publicly discussed and thought about. Perhaps after some

community consensus has developed there might be ways to put young

people to work in a whole range of jobs that are essential and are

going undone at the present time.

So I urge the minister not only to beef up his own program in terms

of employment forecasting, but to put together some kind of

interministerial program to deal properly with that. I heard a rumour

the other day that there's going to be a new ministry dealing with

advanced education and employment, but I don't know....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's Jim Hume now?

MR. GABELMANN: That's why I didn't give the rumour much credence.

Anyway, I'll leave that. While I'm on the question of jobs I want to

raise one issue that I thought about raising in question period and

then didn't, because the rules of question period are such that I would

have had to give a very brief explanation and the minister could very

well have done a political hatchet job on me. I wouldn't expect it from

that minister, but he could have. And because I didn't want to get into

the constraints of question period I've left it for these estimates,

where I can take a few more minutes and explain to the minister that

I'm not attempting to put any blame on him or on the government, or on

B.C. Hydro in this particular case.

[3:15]

The situation is with Ferranti-Packard, the only producer in British

Columbia of power transformers for B.C. Hydro. The minister is aware of

it, Mr. Chairman. The rule basically is that any firm in British

Columbia has a 10 percent advantage on bidding. This company was

underbid by 14 percent by a non–British Columbia firm, so B.C. Hydro is

now going to an eastern firm for its transformers, with the result that

the only firm in British Columbia that produces transformers, employing

now about 32 people and previously in the range of 60 or 70, is

probably going to have to go out of business. I have no way of

predicting or knowing this, but the concern I have and the thing I

think we must find a way of keeping an eye on, is that it's quite

possible for a non–British Columbia firm to figure out what the B.C.

firm would bid and then underbid that by more than the 10 percent, take

a loss for a year or so until the B.C. firm is well and truly out of

business, and then the rates go up again — particularly in an area like

this where there isn't a multiplicity of suppliers and so you aren't

going to get very many bids. I recognize that the company uses as their

argument that the wage rates here are higher than they are in their

companies back east and what not. I'm not disputing that. But what I am

wondering about, and wondering whether the minister can provide some

assurance, is the basic question of what protections there are against

artificial underbidding so as to drive British Columbia firms out of

business. Over the years we've lost a considerable number of jobs as a

result of that kind of non-provincial underbidding. As I said earlier,

I'm not saying that you guys are bad guys; I'm just saying there is a

concern and one I think we need to deal with seriously.

Back to the WCB. I've said for years now, and I'm getting tired of

hearing myself say it, that what we need to do in this province —

labour, management and the government; the government through the WCB —

is to embark on a major job safety, environmental health program. The

reason the assessments are going up, the reason so many employers are

screaming, isn't that the WCB is mismanaged or has too many employees,

or is paying out benefits in too liberal a manner. There may be some of

that throughout the system, sure, but that's not the real problem. The

real problem is that there are too many accidents on the jobs and still

too many environmental hazards that create valid compensation claims.

That's where the focus has got to be. The current direction of the

board to limit the assessments and to cut its expenditures is going to

do nothing but increase the number of claims. So we have the human side

of it on one hand, of people being injured and not being productive

members of society, and on the other hand increased costs to the

employers as a result of not focusing on the primary problem: that

there isn't enough emphasis on safety.

I think the minister or any member of this House who has spent any

time looking at it knows that you can go into different operations —

whether it's in the woods, the mining industry, or wherever else — and

you can see totally different work habits relating to safety. I see

that in small logging operations in my riding, some of which are

virtually accident-free — not entirely; no operation's ever going to be

totally accident-free — because both the company and the workers spend

an immense amount of time and energy and make their prime focus job

safety. Then you can go down the road to the next one and find that

they don't even talk about it and their accident rate is demonstrably

higher. That's what the focus has to be, not scapegoating the chairman

of the board, or not scapegoating various parts of the way the WCB

operates. It's not to deny that there doesn't need to be some careful

look at the way it operates and an attempt to smooth it out, but let's

remember what the priority must be there. It's on job safety.

I have to talk about the boards of review. I've still not seen the statement of Friday afternoon last, in which the minister....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, the minister is quoted as having said

after we all left Victoria on Friday afternoon that the boards of

review are finished and that the appeals will be handled in-house, in

effect. Certainly there have been some public musings about that, if

not a public announcement. I would like to know: if the minister hasn't

done that, does he intend to? And if he does intend to, how does he

plan to ensure that someone who works for or with somebody else in the

same office or administration isn't dealing with the appeals? I'll

never forget being in this House on that side in the early seventies

when bits of legislation were presented by the NDP government and

having the minister and others over

[ Page 3134 ]

here talk about the need to have a fair and

independent appeals procedure. We heard more about independent appeals

than we did about anything else for three years. I think that applies

for workers in the Workers' Compensation Board too. Maybe the present

system is cumbersome, but to have a three-person board of review is

appropriate, in my view, because at least the worker — who's the one on

the firing-line, for the most part, in the appeals — has some sense

that at least he will have a sympathetic ear on that board. If the

boards are single-person boards, if they're outside the WCB, then

you're never sure of the particular bias of the person who's handling

the appeal.

I urge the minister not to reintegrate the appeal process into the

WCB. It must be kept separate, it must be kept independent. It's got to

be improved; it's ridiculous to have a 4,500-case backload. There is

obviously something wrong with the administration when something in the

order of 40 percent of the appeals, I understand, are overturned. The

decisions of staff people in WCB are overturned in 40 percent of the

appeals. If that's happening, it's outrageous. It means the board

system isn't handling them properly in the first place. Normally in a

situation like that to have more than 5 or 10 percent overturned would

be unusual, but to have approaching one half? Something is really

screwy there, if I can use the vernacular. And I don't think it's the

boards of review. I've represented workers at board of review hearings,

and as far as I'm concerned there has been no indication on the part of

the board that they are intending to be favourable to the workers; in

fact, quite the contrary. In a couple of cases where I was confident

that the worker had a sound case, the board of review said "no." So I

don't think it's a question of bias toward the worker on the part of

the board of review; I think it's a question of bias against the worker

within the WCB, and that's got to be dealt with. If you haven't

abolished the boards of review, don't. Okay?

I've talked about the unfunded liability and I won't say anything

more about that. I just want to talk about farmworkers for a moment.

One of the things Ministers of Labour have done for years in this

Legislature — including the Minister of Labour in the NDP government —

is that whenever members got up and raised particular questions about

things going on within the WCB, the standard response of the Minister

of Labour would be: "The WCB is independent and the government doesn't

interfere in their operations. I can't interfere. I write the

legislation, I appoint the commissioners, but for the rest of it,

they're independent." How was it possible for the minister to delay, as

I understand it, the implementation of the regulations concerning

farmworkers which were supposed to go into effect in April 1983, if my

memory is correct on that date?

I grew up on a farm in this province, so I see it from that side. I

have two brothers who are farmers and who employ farmworkers, so I

understand it and I see it from that side. I don't understand why their

workers should be treated differently than any other workers in this

province. It's as simple as that. They are citizens, they are workers,

and they should have the same rights as any other worker. In other

marginal economic endeavours like restaurants, for example, we don't

say: "Okay, we're not going to enforce certain regulations, because if

we do some restaurants might go out of business. They go out of

business if they can't compete." We say to ourselves that farming in

this province is socially worthwhile and necessary, and we want it to

be maintained and to prosper. The way you deal with that, Mr. Chairman,

is to make sure the income side of the farmer's operation is such that

he can meet all of the standards required by society. Farmworkers have

as much right as any other workers in this province to have WCB

regulations properly drafted and then applied to them.

I want to deal with a few issues in the farmworker area that go

beyond WCB and relate to employment standards and various other

aspects. When I make these five comments, I'm not stating them to be

true, because I don't know personally, but stating them as

representations that I have received from farmworkers. It's what they

think, it's what they say, and I have no reason to believe.... In fact,

in the one case where I think they are wrong, I have deleted the item;

I'm not going to present it. But in the cases that I do want to

present, there is no reason to believe they are not telling the truth.

The Employment Standards Act states that a farmworker must be paid

weekly, and payment must be made within 72 hours after each seven-day

pay period. Many farmworkers complain that farmworker contracts

withhold wages until the end of the harvesting season, and I have heard

that from many different sources now. What happens is that the

contractor gets paid at the beginning of the season by the farmer and

then withholds payment to the farmworkers until the end of the season.

So it's not the farmer who is at fault in this case; it's the

contractor. I'm told others pay before the end of the season, but not

on a regular basis, as the act stipulates. Some farm labour contractors

enter into an agreement with the farmer or employer to receive 50

percent of the total payment for the harvest in advance of the work

being done; however, they refuse to pass the money on to the workers.

This is the case where I said they get paid in advance and don't pass

that on. That's the first issue. It's just a question of regular pay

for farmworkers.

Farmworkers also say that the contractors who are supposed to pay

half of the contributions to the benefit plans — CPP and the like — are

actually deducting the employer's share of those contributions from the

wages that are paid to the farmworkers. Many who work on piecework in

the Fraser Valley — that's the majority of them, I believe — complain

that scales are not accurate. Again, I don't have any direct knowledge

of that, but there certainly is a widespread feeling that many of the

scales on which their pay is measured are not accurate, and people are

being underpaid as a result. I grew up picking cherries, apples and

peaches, and so I know all about piecework. What would be wrong with

guaranteeing a minimum daily wage, as we do now with domestics? If a

picker is so inept and inadequate that he is not being of any value to

the employer, then clearly the farmer or contractor cannot continue to

keep him on. That is a reasonable employment practice. But to guarantee

them the $29.20, or whatever it works out to for an eight-hour day,

seems to me to be a reasonable approach and something the minister

should consider.

The question of the employment standards branch. When I or those on

my behalf call the employment standards branch to find out what they're

doing about some of these complaints, one answer we get is: "Last year

we put a team of twelve IROs into the Fraser Valley to deal with the

problem." But no one on the farms has ever seen them, it seems. I

wonder if what happens is that the twelve IROs, when they do swoop into

the valley, actually don't go and spend a day or two and maybe only

deal with the contractor issue, because that had flared up in the

overloaded vans and that sort of thing as a result of accidents. How

many of the industrial relations

[ Page 3135 ]

officers who are employed in that region — I think

you have 30 or so altogether — and deal with farmworkers speak the

languages that are spoken on the farms? I am curious to know what's

being done about that. I really think there should be some unannounced

visits right to the farms, checking the scales and pay records.

[3:30]

The final issue is one of safety: pesticides, lack of showers, those

kinds of things that I mentioned with respect to the WCB regulations. I

just don't understand why those regulations aren't being put into place.

Those are the complaints that I have received, and they appear to be

valid from all the checking around that I am able to do. I wanted to

raise two other issues, but I see that green light on. I'm not sure I'm

going to make it in the minute or two left. Perhaps a colleague will

help me out in that respect.

MRS. WALLACE: Once again, I have been very interested in what

my colleague is saying and would like the opportunity to hear the rest

of his remarks.

MR. GABELMANN: Thank you. The question of fair wages as

defined in the Hospital Act is now an issue with the Vancouver General

Hospital. I wonder what response the minister has given to a letter

from the Building and Construction Trades Council, dated October 31,

1983. It clearly indicated that carbon copies had been sent to several

people, including myself. That's at least three months ago, and I

haven't seen a reply to it. They may well have replied and not sent a

copy to me. Based on the conversations I had with the people in the

building trades, I don't think that's happened. I am sure the minister

knows, without my going into a lot of detail, what concern this refers

to. There is a requirement that fair wages be paid, and there is a

tradition that fair wages are those that approximate wages being paid

in the organized construction industry. I would like to hear the

minister's response to that. If I'm not happy with it, I might follow

up a little more after his comments.

The final issue relates to human rights. Let me start by asking what

seems a silly question, but why wasn't their phone number put in the ad

in the newspaper the other day when the offices were changed? Is it

because you have no intention of allowing people to phone the ministry

concerning human rights issues? It does seem like a silly little issue,

but it strikes me that it may well be a signal that human rights

officers in this province are soon to be a thing of the past, and you

didn't want to spend the money putting a telephone into that branch.

I'm sure there is a simpler answer to it, and I'd like to hear what it

is.

I am concerned that the IROs — industrial relations officers — who

are now required to investigate and in many parts of the province

respond to human rights complaints neither have the time nor the

expertise to deal properly with human rights questions. While I

recognize we're dealing to a certain extent with possible changes to be

brought up in the next session, the fact is that the Human Rights Code

of British Columbia of 1974 is still in place. To have IROs handling

investigations under that Code is totally inappropriate. Some of them,

no doubt, because they are experienced people in labour relations, can

do a good job, but I suspect that most of them don't have the time or

the inclination, and certainly not the training, to handle human rights

cases. I'm not sure that I can appeal to the minister to hire more

staff for the human rights branch when he's just laid a whole bunch of

them off, nor am I sure that it makes much sense to appeal for that

when I suspect he's got a pretty drastic legislative change in mind for

the Human Rights Code. But I just make that appeal to the minister. I

hope he recognizes that having human rights complaints dealt with by

IROs is unfair to both the complainants and the IROs, who, for the most

part, are over-worked already.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back and

deal with the issues the member raised in the order he raised them, but

I want to deal with two before I forget them. One of them is the phone

number. I am told that it was simply a bureaucratic slip-up and it's in

the second edition, which has been published with the phone number in

it.

The question as to how many industrial relations officers go out to

the farms: I know they do go. I'm probably on the other side of the

question, because I represent an area where a heck of a lot of farms

are and I get the opposite complaint from the farmers: "What are you

doing with all those IROs fouling up our business and looking into our

business, " and things like that. So I know they do go, and I know they

do go unannounced. With the exception of the matter of minimum wage,

farmworkers are covered in the same way that domestics are.

On all of the other questions, with your permission I'd like to have my staff research Hansard

and get you a written reply to those other questions, because I think

there are some errors in some of the assumptions made in there. I

recognize that you're just bringing forward questions that have been

raised with you.

The matter of the amendments to the various codes that we have,

including Human Rights and Labour Code. You will know that the Premier

promised during the so-called Kelowna accord that a committee would be

established on both of those items, which would be an advisory

committee to me, as minister, to deal with some possible amendments

before those bills are presented to the Legislature. We've had some

trouble getting names. I would be very hopeful that the committee on

the Labour Code could be announced this week and the committee on the

Human Rights Code could be announced very quickly, perhaps within the

next two weeks.

The Workers' Compensation Board is a very large corporation with

very large responsibilities, and it has many of the pains that very

large corporations have, whether in the public or the private sector. I

think there are improvements that can be made with the WCB,

particularly on the financial side, which, if made, will help us attack

some of the other problems that we obviously have in the Workers'

Compensation Board. I don't get as excited about the unfunded liability

as a lot of people do, because it is largely a bookkeeping entry. Just

look at last year, with $500 million unfunded liability, at the same

time the WCB made a $300 million profit. They took in $300 million more

than they paid out. I look to all the bookkeepers and accountants

around here, but something seems to be a little out of whack there, in

my opinion. The other thing, of course, is that in October this House

passed amendments to the Workers' Compensation Board, following changes

to the Financial Administration Act, which allows us to greatly improve

our investment opportunities in the Workers' Compensation Board. We're

allowed, under the new act, to invest 35 percent of our funds in equity

investments. We're not going to go that high, but we are going to start

this spring with 30 percent investments in equities. We

[ Page 3136 ]

think we can improve the investments. We've got

over a billion dollars to invest. We're a very large investor in the

market. We use a very conservative investment figure of 2 3/8, I think,

investment to interest, based on the rate of inflation. I don't think,

particularly in times when the inflation rate is way down, that that's

very realistic either. So there are lots of things you can do with

pencils to change that unfunded liability. I think we should look at

the harder stuff first and worry about that as we go. Not that we

shouldn't worry about it, because future pensions depend on our having

the money to pay for those future pensions.

The member mentioned that this was the fourth freeze — and perhaps

even the fifth, counting the 6 percent last year — in recent years.

Actually it's only the first freeze, because in each year, because of

the way the legislation is written and indexing that's required, the

only freeze was on the administration side of the assessments. Even

with the 6 percent so-called freeze, the increase in assessments to the

firms in the province was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 12 or 13

percent. In other areas, when the freeze was put on it was only on the

actual administrative side of the WCB. So there haven't been freezes.

This year we've frozen everything. I think it was the only possible

thing that we could do, faced with the horrendous increases that

industry was going to have to face this year. I said, when the chairman

of the Workers' Compensation Board announced that freeze, that we would

ensure.... I feel that we will have no difficulty in ensuring that it

won't impact on the unfunded liability.

Moving on to job training, I agree with the member 100 percent that

that's got to be where our major emphasis has to be. We've been talking

about task forces and job forecasting agencies — we've got them all

over the country. They're forecasting till it's coming out of our ears.

We haven't got everybody all forecasting the same thing, so it's a big

problem. I think I agree with the member that some kind of joint force

should perhaps be Put together on a national basis, that can zero in a

little better than what we do by moving all over the place. We, in our

own ministry — and interministry.... Within our own government a review

of apprenticeship and training is going on right now. I heard the same

rumour that the member did, but I haven't got it on any better

authority about a new ministry. One of the things that we're trying to

do is establish ways in which we can train people to be more prepared

to change careers, because careers are not likely going to be the same

in ten years as they are today. A lot of the jobs that were available

five years ago may never be available again in the same way. I think

we've also got to have people trained with broader basic skills, so

that they can then move into other areas if they have to. One of our

senior staff people is currently talking to labour and to management

and industry to try to pull some of these things together in this

province. But we probably need to move farther than that.

I agree that we've got a chicken-and-egg situation here in some

ways, because we shouldn't be training people for jobs when there's

high unemployment. But at the same time, if we all really believe that

recovery will come, we should be training people who will be ready when

recovery comes. So where do you go from there? Perhaps we need, again,

better methods of deciding where those important skills are. I'd say it

goes far beyond my ministry too. Maybe we should look at the

universities, where they are turning out lawyers and teachers when

there doesn't seem to be much need for any more lawyers and teachers;

yet we're sending them out the end of the funnel non-stop. I came

across an interesting.... Well, I'd better not say that about lawyers;

there are too many of them in the House here. Well, I will. I came

across an interesting statistic the other day which showed that in

Japan they have a total of 40,000 lawyers in a country with 120 million

people. In the United States, with double the number of people, they're

turning out 40,000 lawyers a year, and I'm sure that proportionately

it's the same here in British Columbia. That's horrible.

Ferranti-Packard. Well, I think we feel very sad about the situation

they find themselves in. It is a company which, I guess, has run into

the difficulties of the recessionary period to a large degree. I don't

know whether there are people deliberately trying to underfund or not.

I know that we've had complaints of some provinces having

under-the-table subsidies to various of their industries so that they

can do that. I don't know whether it's true or not. I can say that we

try our very best, in our Crown corporations particularly, to make sure

that all bids are very thoroughly evaluated in every possible way that

they can be. Ferranti-Packard's problem.... You mentioned 14 percent.

I'm told that it was much higher than that, even with the 10 percent

taken into account, but it was quite a lot higher than that in the

latest round of bids. I'd have to look into that.

[3:45]

The other problem, however, in order for Ferranti-Packard to

continue to compete, is that they would have had to have B.C. Hydro add

significantly to their stockpile of transformers at a time when B.C.

Hydro cannot justify adding to that stockpile of transformers. They

would have had to have something in the order of double the number of

transformers that Hydro was going to buy in this next fiscal year. As a

responsible Crown corporation — responsible to the same taxpayers that

you and I are — they simply were not able to give that commitment. So

that was, I think, perhaps more serious than the other thing.

I've written to Ferranti-Packard. In fact, the letter probably

hasn't gone out yet; I wrote it today, just expressing our concern and

hoping that there is some way they can stay in business in Surrey until

the economy recovers.

Back onto the WCB, I agree with you that job safety programs are of

major importance. I also think something else should be done, though,

and we should look very carefully at experience rating, rather than the

kind of across-the-board rating today — to, first of all, penalize

those employers who don't keep a safe workplace, and penalize them very

heavily. I also think that we could probably, on the opposite side,

give some kind of reward to those people who keep a safe workplace.

I've instructed the Workers' Compensation Board to have a look at that

to see whether that's not a better way to go than just a kind of

blanket, industry-wide rating.

I don't know where the story about the appeal boards being finished

came from. They are not finished. I couldn't finish them even if I

wanted to, because the legislation is in place and it requires that

they be there. I will say that we're looking at that whole system, and

I've asked the chairmen of the boards to report to me on ways in which

we can improve that situation, because I think it needs improvement. I

can't promise the member that I will come up with ideas that will suit

him. We may find ourselves at odds somewhere down the line. But right

now I have absolutely no idea where that story came from.

On the matter of farmworkers regulations, the member asked how it was possible for us to delay those regulations. It

[ Page 3137 ]

came about as a result of consultation between me

and members of the board. I agree that the Workers' Compensation Board

is an autonomous board, but I also believe that as the responsible

minister — and the government is ultimately responsible, as in the old

saying, "The buck stops here" — I have a responsibility to represent

the shareholders of that place, and that's all of the taxpayers of

British Columbia. I won't say that I will never discuss matters with

the chairman of the board or with the board of directors, or in fact

offer suggestions from time to time, if I think that's necessary. I

don't consider that to be political interference. I believe it is the

responsibility of my ministry to do that.

I talked about employment standards, and I really will get back to you in detail on those, Mr. Member.

The building trades and the VGH letter. I'm told by one of my staff

people that that was replied to on November 29, 1983. I think I've had

a further reply from someone since then, in the last couple of weeks,

which I may not have had a chance to answer. At the present time our

legislation doesn't define what fair wages are. The letter, I believe,

asked us to adopt the federal fair wages standards. The federal fair

wages standards, as the member will probably know, are under some

attack at the present time. The Minister of Finance, Marc Lalonde, has

said that if the public works procedure demands it, they will relax

those standards. I don't know who decides that or how that works, but

at the present time in B.C. we don't have any written standards.

On human rights, Mr. Member, I think I've answered the question. We

will be putting the committee together. We do intend to make changes,

but until then I will not be making any other changes until we see what

form the new legislation might take after it is reintroduced following

this session.

Mr. Chairman, I think I've answered all the questions.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, my thanks to the minister for

the comprehensive way in which he has answered some of the points I've

raised. I just want to pick up on three things very briefly. One is the

boards of review — the minister says he doesn't know where the story

started. I'm told by reporters that it started at the UFAWU convention

on, the Thursday night, either in the speech or in the question period,

I'm not sure which — if there was a question period.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Anything is liable to happen there,

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: And it did.

MR. GABELMANN: Let me just say that — despite the fact that

you'll be getting a report from the new chairman of the WCB — I hope

nothing is done until full discussions have been held with the

compensation and safety committee of the federation — it's now called

occupational health, I think — which I think are on February 23. I hope

that that meeting will be held in good faith and that no decisions will

be made at least until then. When they are made, let me say again,

there must be, in my view, an independent process outside the

jurisdiction of the board itself.

The second thing is that the minister argues that the Minister of Labour should have the right to interfere...

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Consult.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm on your side, so don't get your back up.

...in the sense of having discussions with the board of directors of

the WCB. I've had that argument for years with various Labour

ministers. I’ve always felt that that's the case. You appoint these

people to be commissioners. That doesn't then deny you the right to

have discussions with them about what government policy should be.

Someday, when somebody on this side is Minister of Labour, I hope we

carry on in that vein. because I think that....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I hope I support you, although it will never happen, but I hope I do.

MR. GABELMANN: So on that we're agreed. The disagreement is

about the results of the conversation. We would be saying different

things to the board commissioners than you might be saying — that's

all. There isn't a disagreement about the absolute and unfettered

independence of the board, because I have never held that view,

although I might say that it may well be that my colleagues have held

that view. If so, we may disagree on that.

On the fair wages question, I think the Hospital Act,

section 46(2),

is fairly clear. Let me just read this, because I think it should be on

record: "Should any dispute arise as to what are current wages and

conditions in the municipality or regional hospital district, the

question shall be referred to the Minister of Labour for determination,

and his decision is final and binding upon the contractor and the board

of management." The words that I think matter are "should any dispute

arise as to what are current wages and conditions in the...regional

hospital district" — I've left some words out to make it clear. I think

the minister has ample opportunity with that wording to make a

determination of what fair wages are in a ballpark sense, and if he

fails to do that I think he's in contravention of the act when asked to

act on that issue. I’ll leave it at that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I won't comment on that one any further,

because we have not at this point defined "fair wages." Maybe at some

point down the road we might want to.

On the question of the boards of review, as you might expect it was

quite an interesting meeting we had with the United Fishermen and

Allied Workers' Union the other evening. I was on the question period

for something like one and a half or two hours. The matter of Workers'

Compensation Board reviews was brought up by one member on the floor of

the convention. and I do recall saying that I was extremely concerned

about the backlog, fairness and justice involved in the delays that are

going forward, and that I expected to recommend changes to the

government. But I also recall saying to that meeting that I had not

made any recommendations to the government at this point. So there

haven't been any recommendations made, because I don't know what they

should be at this point. I can guarantee you, though. that there will

be no action taken until after I have the meeting with the people from

the B.C. Federation of Labour, which, as the member pointed out, comes

up on the 23rd. So there will absolutely be no action taken at that

time and probably not until some time after that, if any.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman. I see this as something that I might well raise with the minister privately, but I'm

[ Page 3138 ]

afraid we may run out of time before I have an

opportunity. It is not something I expect him to have an immediate

answer for, but on the other hand there is some point, maybe, in

sharing it with him publicly. It is with respect to his

responsibilities for the WCB. I have a letter addressed to a

constituent of mine, dated November 28, 1983, and I will send a copy to

the minister:

"Dear Mr. Harrison:

"re: Your Claim No. A.C.83...."

I won't read the rest of it at this point.

"Our records indicate a balance of $36.53 is still

owed the board for an injury you sustained to your back on July 12,

1949. The overpayment initially resulted from days worked not being

deducted from wage loss benefits paid to you. This amount will be

deducted from your cheque for the period November 7 to 27, 1983, under

your current claim."

As I say, I don't expect the minister to know about

this offhand, but I would appreciate it if he would review with the

board whether or not this is their practice. This is going back a long

way in history. The constituent did write to the board, dated January

6, 1984:

"Re your letter dated November 28, 1983.

"I don't think it is fair charging me for an

overpayment you claim I owe you from 34 years ago. I cannot prove it,

but I am sure this was paid in the 1960s, and even that should have

been wiped out by the Statute of Limitations."

I don't know whether that has anything to do with it.

"It is not like you have not had a chance to find this

before now, as I have been on compensation quite a few times between

1949 and the 1960s, when I'm sure this was paid. So why wait until

1983? It just doesn't seem right to me."

Mr. Chairman, it doesn't seem right to me, and I'm

sure it doesn't seem right to the minister, from what he knows so far.

Here is the concluding paragraph, and this is why I raise it at this

point:

"If I don't get some kind of satisfaction and answer to this letter, copies will be sent to my MLA and other people."

Mr. Chairman, I leave it with the minister and ask him to let me know something about it some day.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Statute of Commonsense.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That was just what I was going to say. The Statute of Commonsense is the one we should be using.

Mr. Chairman, this is almost as bad as Revenue Canada breaking into

my constituents' piggy bank for the funds that their family owed.

We'll look into this. I'm sure that there could be some polite political interference, maybe.

Vote 58 approved.

Vote 59: ministry operations, $56,023,326 — approved.

Vote 60: boards and agencies, $2,693,975 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL

SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

On vote 67: minister's office, $197,095.

[4:00]

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's always a pleasure for me to comment on

a ministry which has many diverse programs. We're now discussing the

1983-84 estimates, which have virtually been expended because of the

lateness of the hour, but I want to say that no other ministry covers

the range of interest that ours does, nor is any other ministry more

involved in the development of human talents and resources. On the one

hand we're constantly striving to improve the efficiency of government

through central services such as the postal branch, Queen's Printer and

records management; on the other hand we are instrumental in the

development of individual human potential and the general quality of

life in British Columbia through our recreation and sport, cultural,

heritage and museum programs.

In fiscal 1983-84 our estimates show an overall decrease of 3

percent from our actual expenditures of 1982-83. This decrease has been

realized despite the transfer of all government advertising and

publication funds to our ministry and the transfer of ministry travel

expenses to the protocol budget and the cost of a provincial general

election to the elections branch. Our efforts to realize the 3 percent

decrease despite these transfers, while at the same time maintaining

the vitality of our programs and services, reflect the determination of

this government to make economic discipline the cornerstone of its

philosophy.

I could go on at length, but I know that there is some anxiety on

the part of the opposition to pass these estimates, which have

virtually been expended, but first of all I want to introduce my new

deputy minister Bob Plecas, who is with me today. I am a new minister

in this ministry as well. This is the first time that I have had the

privilege or the opportunity to come before the assembly to answer

questions about the administrative responsibilities that have been

given to me. I look forward to that challenge at this time.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. HANSON: The minister who just spoke was a contributing

factor — in fact he was one of the main factors — to a very disastrous

economic event that we have had in our province in recent months. We

saw legislation come before us in this fiscal year that we are

presently debating under that minister's authority — Bill 3 and Bill 2.

I remember him very well looking tired....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Determined.

MR. HANSON: Mean. It had a disastrous effect on our province.

It knocked the stuffing out of the recovery that this province was

beginning to feel; and in my own and my colleague's riding of Victoria

and southern Vancouver Island, we're still feeling the impact of those

chops that are coming daily. I couldn't help but listen carefully to

the minister's use of the words "development of human talents" as an

objective of his ministry. The development of human potential, cultural

authority and the mandate to look after cultural affairs are with that

minister. Heritage. I have a few things to say along those lines.

Travel. What he did not mention is that that is an

[ Page 3139 ]

extremely political ministerial portfolio. That is

the one where the polling often takes place, and where the information

services reside. Even today that ministry has sacked and robbed

educational opportunities out of the Provincial Educational Media

Centre in BCIT. I think all members should realize that Doug Heal and

his operation within that ministry have laid off 54 Ministry of

Education personnel: ten in the Provincial Educational Media Centre at

BCIT and the remainder in the print services in Richmond, who do the

lithography work.

Mr. Chairman, you'll be surprised to learn that all the equipment

that was in place in these operations is going to Mr. Heal's operation.

That may be a surprise to you. I'm sure it would be, because I just

received the information today, and the employees have been advised

today that $200,000 worth of equipment that was used to make

educational films and other visual aids for the school system has been

taken out of BCIT and has been put into Mr. Heal's operation. That is

what we call the development of human potential? That is what the

minister refers to as the development of human talent. We have in Mr.

Heal's budget — I believe that's under vote 69 — $17,861,000 to do the

government's political brainwashing of the public. They have the gall,

Mr. Chairman, to go to BCIT — and you know where BCIT is — and take

$200,000 worth of equipment that made educational films and transfer it

under the control of Mr. Heal. Shame, I say, Mr. Chairman. What kind of

government is this? And they talk about human potential, culture and

heritage. This is a single-dimension government; this is a government

that is in the present, in terms of greed and of holding onto power.

That's what this ministry's about.

Here we have him talking about culture. We had the great privilege

of having a site in our province named as a world heritage site —

Anthony Island. Ninstints, it's called. It's a Haida word. It's a very

famous place. For three years it's been under this provincial

authority. It's a travesty. Nothing has been done. It's rotting away.

I'm advised by archaeologists and other people in this province who

know what they're talking about that this government has let this world

heritage site slip away into disrepair. The poles and everything are

rotting. They can't get any proper conservation work done. They send

somebody up from the Provincial Museum who goes up once a year with a

can of pesticide or herbicide to attempt to arrest the rot. That's what

this government is all about.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Which budget do you want to take the money from to do this?

MR. HANSON: We're not like you, Madam Member. We on this side are not for robbing educational facilities for Mr. Doug Heal's operations.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Victoria has the floor, hon. members.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Dick Melville — of the Ministry of Education,

I guess — is the information officer who was given the pleasant task of

advising the 54 Education employees that they are now redundant. I

wonder how he told them — what he was thinking of when he told the

employees that the equipment they used for the benefit of the children

of this province was to go over as part of the empire-building

operation of Douglas Heal, to be brought into the Victoria media

centre. Things like videotape machines, synchronizing equipment,

mini-cameras: this is state-of-the-art equipment that was supposed to

be used for the children of this province. I probably shouldn't call

them children; these are students at BCIT — young men and women who are

looking for employment. All of this equipment was approved for purchase

two months ago. It found its way into BCIT and now it comes back to the

Victoria media centre. No wonder this government wants a new throne

speech and a new budget. They want this session over with so they can

reshuffle their cabinet, so they can make sure that the Public Accounts Committee doesn't meet and doesn't go through the polling bills, the travel bills. Unbelievable!

Vote 68 has a 23 percent increase — a $200,000 increase — in what

they call "protocol and special services." Why did that increase occur?

That increase occurred because of other ministers who got in trouble

with their travel budgets for their extremely generous living. So what

they did was lump all of the travel under the "protocol and special

services." Hopefully thePublic Accounts Committee — all members of the House — will have a chance to go through the expenditures within that vote.

I'd like to question the reason for the $325,000 cut in the

insurance and risk management, which provides for technical advice and

support services to government ministries, while at the same time they

can increase by $200,000 the travel budget for the cabinet ministers.

I touched on vote 69, government information services. Here we've

got this empire under the minister there which produces these

misleading documents to try and make this government look good:

"Restraint and Recovery." And some of them don't even see the light of

day. I've got one here. This one didn't even get published, Mr.

Minister. This one is called "Recovery '83." It's a little different

than this other one here. There are incredible things in it. Let me

just read you page 18. This is what the tax dollars that are being

taken away — robbed from the minds of the children of this province and

robbed from health care in this province, so that we can produce

booklets by Mr. Heal that say things like this in response to the sales

tax imposed on restaurant meals over $7.... This is what the government

with your tax dollars, Mr. Chairman, decides it's going to say to the

public: "We are not taxing the hamburgers, we are taxing the filet

mignon. I guess the NDPers who are criticizing this one can afford $10

lunches every day. I can't honestly say that my heart bleeds for them."

What a lot of baloney, Mr. Chairman! The taxpayers' money is used to

print this kind of thing, and they ignore the argument of the small

restaurants around the province and the hospitality industry, which

found this a very expensive and difficult transformation to make, in

terms of their accounting procedures and the way they conducted their

business, to collect this tax on meals over $7. So here we have a

booklet called "Recovery '83." This one was probably deep-sixed because

it was just too much. So they decided to come out with this other one,

which is just full of lies and misrepresentation.

Vote 70 under this minister is the shortcut to heritage

conservation. What is heritage conservation? Heritage conservation is

the protection of historic sites; it is the protection of Indian

heritage resources in this province, which are in sad neglect. In fact,

the whole heritage and conservation board — the board that was composed

of lay people, university

[ Page 3140 ]

people and native people who had served this

province for years and years in an advisory capacity to the minister —

was disbanded. They got a "Dear John" letter. Professors and other

people who wrote books on the history of British Columbia, who gave up

their time and had their ferry fare and one of those ferry meals and

perhaps an overnight stay in a motel for the service of British

Columbia.... Margaret Ormsby gave her considerable expertise to the

minister in terms of making recommendations on heritage site

designation, on programs for native people, on programs for schools

that should be attending to heritage matters. She got a "Dear John"

letter saying: "Thank you. Your service is no longer required. We now

have Doug Heal with state-of-the-art video equipment. We don't need

your ideas, because Social Credit is turning the clock back. We don't

need your ideas on spaceage culture and heritage management. Instead,

we have our own agenda, which is to try to maintain control so that the

public resources of this province are used for private benefit." That's

essentially what it is, Mr. Chairman. Heritage conservation was cut by

$523,000 or 22.8 percent. Cultural services were cut by $617,000. These

are not big votes to start with. We are not talking about large votes;

we are talking about crumbs and what is left of this magnificent

province of a third of a million square miles, of 200,000 Indian people

who want something done about their own linguistic and physical

heritage, and here we have that cut. That cut of $617,000 is 40.5

percent.

Vote 71 is another $617,000, an 18.3 percent increase in the budget

of GERB. If anything should make us all laugh cynically, it's the

increase in the Government Employee Relations Bureau budget. Here we

have an organization of fine, talented, skilled, dedicated labour

relations experts and their support staff who are set up to do

independent collective bargaining and contract management with the

government employees of this province and to offer assistance to Crown

corporations and other public employers. What happened? The government

circumvented the whole process, set up the office of Mr. Peck and his

little operation, and these people are relegated to looking at their

old photographs. Yet we have a $617,000 increase for that operation

which has been totally scotch-hobbled. What kind of a facade is this

government?

[4:15]

So, Mr. Chairman, we had a very large expenditure of public funds in

this ministry during the 1983-84 fiscal year that went out to

advertising, to large advertisers such as McKim Advertising. I put a

number of questions on the order paper, because the role of Her

Majesty's Loyal Opposition is to ask questions about expenditures of

this government. I just want to find my Orders of the Day

here so that I can inquire of the minister why in six or seven months

he has been unable, in his ministry, which is amply funded, to provide

answers to questions such as: "What was the cost?" This is all

preelection advertising, Mr. Chairman, prior to the 1983 May election,

where the taxpayer footed the bill for an election campaign that went

on six or eight months before the call of the election. I think that

someday there should be some kind of tribunal to investigate

misappropriations of funds used for political purposes by that party. I

think that that should take place at some point in the future.

What was the cost of production of B.C. Lottery's ALRT series of

television advertisements during 1982-83? No particular answers in that

respect. What was the cost of the series of ads for Expo 86? How were

these funds paid? What votes did they come out of? What was the cost of

purchasing air time for B.C. Lottery's Expo 86, broken down by

television station? What evaluation was done of the effect and the

effectiveness of this advertising series'? What was the cost of the

health care TV ads, broken down by television station? What were the

costs of "Province Reports" — these political reports that were put on

and advertised during 1983? What was the cost of the TRAC series of

television ads?

I never received any answers, Mr. Chairman. When we put questions on

the order paper so that we don't take up precious time in our question

period, which is only 15 minutes in length, I thought we would get some

kind of response. But here we've had a minister who has been afraid to

provide the public with the details of these very specific questions of

the use of public funds for advertising on the television networks,

handled through McKim Advertising and so on. Is he afraid? Is there a

scandal here? Is there misappropriation of funds? Why would a

government be afraid to provide that kind of detail to the opposition?

That's one of my questions, and I look forward to detailed answers to those particular questions.

A number of things are occurring in the structure of government

service which come under this minister. I would like to ask a couple of

questions about them. One thing concerns me greatly; again, he is the

minister responsible. There is a large amount of contracting out of

government activity now. One of the proposals is the contracting out of

the food services in correctional operations. One of the things that

this minister knows very well and refers to in his pamphlets that come

out from Mr. Heal on how the ministries are managed: the food services

are going to be contracted out. I would like that minister to respond

and provide this House with the Government Employee Relations Bureau's

information to him about what security precautions will be taken to

ensure that there are no hostage-takings, and that no dangerous

equipment or materials flow back and forth from private operators.

These are very legitimate questions, Mr. Minister. They are of concern

because, as you know, food service workers in the government service

are trained in security matters. If you contract out the food services

for Wilkinson Road jail, Oakalla, Metchosin and so on, what security

precautions are being taken?

Another aspect is that from what I understand from probation

officers and other people in the corrections branch, to people

incarcerated in an institution the most important thing in the world is

their food. The quality of food, if it is not substantial, nutritious

and adequate, creates a morale problem which is a security hazard in

such an institution. By contracting out, what does that mean? Do they

feed the inmates less? Do they put them onto macaroni and cheese so

they can make more money as a private contractor? Is there any kind of

dietician or nutritional expert involved in this, or is this strictly a

bottom-line measure?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Kraft Dinner.

MR. HANSON: The minister says that the people at Wilkinson

Road can look forward to Kraft Dinner. I will tell you that if they're

on Kraft Dinner for very long, you're going to have a real problem at

some of these institutions.

HON. MR. CHABOT: My kids like Kraft Dinner.

MR. HANSON: I know you like Kraft Dinner.

[ Page 3141 ]

MRS. JOHNSTON: I love Kraft Dinner.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I heard someone mention baloney a

while ago, and now it's macaroni. We will come back to order, and the

member will continue.

MR. HANSON: I have covered some initial ground. I would now

like to have a specific answer on justifying the expropriation of the

educational equipment from BCIT that was used for the students and is

now under Doug Heal. I would like the minister to tell me why the

advisory board was fired from their work in heritage resources. I would

like him to tell this House why Ninstints on Anthony Island, a world

heritage site and one which in any other part of Canada would be

treated with pride and looked after, is left to someone going up with a

can of pesticide once a year to paint a bit of wood to keep it from

rotting into the ground. I'd like him to tell us why the travel budget

for cabinet ministers has been increased. I'd like him to tell us why

Mr. Heal's operation seems to get bigger and bigger and why more

erroneous material is being sent to the public. I'd like the minister

to give us some idea about when he intends to respond in detail to

pre-election advertising and polling, and I'd like him to give us the

total amount on polling. I know a considerable amount was in the

Minister of Labour's estimates for Goldfarb and various other Canadian

facts. What is the total amount of taxpayers' dollars for polling

purposes? I'd like him to tell me and this House why this particular

booklet, "Recovery '83," didn't see the light of day. Rather than file

this with the minister, I think for proper purposes it should be

donated to the Provincial Archives as a historic document, and that is

what I intend to do: "The failed recovery of 1983, the hon. James....

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. CHABOT: If that member over there would send over that document, I'll make sure that it gets into the archives.

MR. HANSON: It would never see the light of day again.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll look after it, and it'll get to the archives in due course.

That little member over there from Victoria seems to confuse the

responsibilities of this ministry with those of other ministries.

First, I want to respond in order to the questions that he has put. He

talked about the Provincial Educational Media Centre being closed. I

want to say that this is a Ministry of Education initiative. It has

nothing whatsoever to do with the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and

Government Services. There is no plan to consolidate any facilities or

equipment with government information services. None whatsoever. That

is an initiative taken solely by the Ministry of Education. You're

asking the wrong minister. You may have an opportunity fairly soon to

ask the appropriate minister that question.

MR. HANSON: Is Doug Heal under you?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, if you will listen to my replies. You

seem more anxious to speak and make wild accusations and allegations

than you are to listening to the answers.

He talks about Anthony Island. The management of Anthony Island was

recently transferred to the parks branch. Since it was declared a world

heritage site there has consistently been a native caretaker. We are

meeting all the terms and obligations under the world heritage site

designation. The member makes the accusation that the totem poles

situated on that island are rotting and falling over. I'm not

suggesting anything to the contrary, but the member knows full well, as

an archaeologist himself. that those poles — and I want to say that I

supported and advocated that designation of a world heritage site there

at Anthony Island — had deteriorated severely long before it was

designated. What we're attempting to do now is not to build new poles

but to preserve those poles in their present condition. We're meeting

suggest that the poles are crumbling is absolute nonsense. I've been to

Anthony Island, and I know the condition of the poles on that island. I

think we're doing a responsible job in preserving what's left of that

world heritage site at Anthony Island.

[4:30]

Government information services is a consolidation of expenditures that

heretofore took place under all ministers of government. Essentially we

have consolidated them, and through that consolidation and through

cutting back we have realized a very dramatic saving on behalf of the

taxpayers of this province. This fiscal year alone, Mr. Member, we've

saved $2.5 million. We've cut back on the number of people dealing with

public relations and advertising. First of all, the FTEs who existed in

other ministries have been cut back from 206 to 102 positions, of which

62 are presently in government information services. The others are in

ministries of government which need information officers and public

relations people. So we’ve made a very dramatic rationalization of

information services in government, and I think the taxpayers expected

of us that we should save money and not fritter the taxpayers' dollars

away as was done between 1972 and 1975.

The member fails to understand that there is a statutory obligation

on the part of government to advertise, and the dollars shown in a lump

sum under vote 69, government information services, are dollars that

essentially are earmarked for every ministry of government. There's an

allocation. Not only is there an allocation and a cutback in staffing,

but there has been a very substantial cutback in the expenditures, as I

mentioned a little earlier. I'm prepared to give the member the

figures, if he wants, for every ministry of government, and the

comparative figures for 1982-83. I'm not embarrassed by those figures,

because every ministry has different obligations as far as advertising

is concerned.

The member talks about the ministers' travel allowance. Yes, for the

purpose of economy, that allocation has been consolidated in my

ministry. It hasn't been concealed there; it's been consolidated there.

I want to say as well that the allocation in the current fiscal year is

20 percent less than it was in the previous year.

The heritage advisory committee: yes, that committee has been

abolished in the ministry. When the member asked a question in the

House as to who would fulfil their role, I indicated to him that the

Heritage Trust would be reinforced and beefed up, and that has taken

place. The Heritage Trust, along with officials in my ministry, are

doing a tremendous job in British Columbia of preserving our history.

There is an

[ Page 3142 ]

allocation of about $1.2 million annually to the

Heritage Trust. They are fulfilling a very important role and doing it

efficiently as well.

The member asked a question about the contracting out of food

services in the correctional institutes of the province and about the

security of these people. I suggest that the member ask that particular

question to the appropriate minister.

I believe I've answered the questions put to me by the first member for Victoria.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: Did you send me that valentine?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no. Cowichan-Malahat sent you that valentine. "Anybody but Passarell," she says.

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

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister's answers were

entirely inadequate. He failed to touch at all on the advertising

expenditures, which were in the millions. The television advertising

bombardment that the citizens of this province experienced included

Lotto ads and Expo '86 ads, provincial reports, B.C. Place ads and four

hundred ways of looking at the Premier with a hard hat on. That cost

millions, and you have not disclosed the breakdown to the public.

You've not given an accounting to the public, and we are still awaiting

that.

This full-time equivalent shell game that you play with government

employees is appropriate to discuss under your ministry, because you

are responsible for the establishment of government. Here we have the

general thrust of maintenance and supervisory functions being

contracted out in the parks area. I'm just going to give you a few

examples of employees engaged in habitat management through the

heritage conservation fund, and so on. Ministry of Health — 816 jobs

going, 21 from privatization of Greater Vancouver Mental Health

Services, 250 jobs in the building maintenance to be transferred to

BCBC.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, we are on vote 67 of the Provincial Secretary, not the Ministry of Health estimates.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the building crew that was

responsible for the preservation of this building has just been

transferred from this minister to BCBC, and I want to direct a few

comments and remarks to that.

I want on our side of the House to go on the record as saying that

that particular crew deserve the commendation of the people of this

province, and of this community particularly, for their work on

preserving, enhancing and saving this building from that government.

Clearly, as the minister is very aware, it was the New Democratic Party

government that started the restoration of the capital buildings of our

Legislature.

I admit, Mr. Chairman, that it is with considerable regret that I

see the transfer of that very fine crew to BCBC, because there is no

guarantee that that will be held together as one unit. They have

considerable talents. Some of those people have plasterer skills,

stoneworking skills and other building trades expertise that really are

dying trades. That was an opportunity for all British Columbia to have

that crew intact to go out and do other public works in the heritage

conservation area for all citizens of the province. Unfortunately the

bottom-line mentality of this government means that they're transferred

to BCBC and are going to different areas, and that very highly

coordinated and integrated crew is no longer going to be here to do the

kind of work that's around us — and in all of the fine offices that

these ministers lavish in in their great creature comforts. In terms of

a heritage resource, this building belongs to all the people of this

province, and that crew was the only thing that really kept this

building from falling down.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: They're still all around.

MR. HANSON: For the time being, Mr. Minister. There are no

guarantees. If we were in government, they'd still be here and would

continue to work.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The job is finished. What's the matter with you?

MR. HANSON: This job is not finished.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HANSON: One of those workers was one day breaking up one

of the large granite blocks, chipping it into shape, and he said: "You

know, the Socreds are so cheap, they buy their granite in bulk." I

thought that was a good line.