1979 Legislative Session: ist Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JULY 23, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

929 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions.

Natural gas exports. Mr. Macdonald –– 929

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour estimates.

On vote 150.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 932

Ms. Sanford –– 932

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 934

Mr. King –– 935

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 937

Mrs. Wallace 938

Mr. Hanson –– 940

Mr. Howard –– 941

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 943

Ms. Brown –– 945

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 947

Mr. Hanson –– 948

Mr. Passarell –– 948

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 948

Mr. Hanson –– 949

Mr. Gabelmann –– 950

Mr. Howard –– 951

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 951

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing estimates.

On vote 162.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 952

MONDAY, JULY 23, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, long ago, in

the good old days before there was a Burnaby-Edmonds, there was a

Burnaby. At that time it was represented by two members, and we have

the pleasure today to have in the gallery one of the original, ancient

members for Burnaby, Mr. Cedric Cox. Mr. Cox is about to take unto

himself a young bride. She's also in the gallery, and so is her

brother. Would the House welcome them, please?

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce to the House today some friends,

Mr. and Mrs. Fred Middleton, from the central Fraser Valley

constituency. Mr. Middleton is a retired superintendent of School

District 34.

With Mr. and Mrs. Middleton we have our

Abbotsford Rotary exchange student, Miss Annette Eyears, from Brisbane,

Queensland, Australia. Would the House please welcome them?

MR. BRUMMET:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to beg the indulgence of the House to allow me to

welcome a new constituent of mine to British Columbia. Because of his

age he's not able to be with us, but I would like the members to share

my pride in welcoming my grandson, Christopher Thomas Brummet, who was

born at 10:30 this morning in Fort St. John.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the House to welcome Harry and Anne Hooge and

their family, Carol and David. They are very good friends, members of

the teaching profession and very fine people from Dewdney.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan,

Mr. Gordon Barnhardt, and his family are here today. Please make them

welcome.

Oral Questions

NATURAL GAS EXPORTS

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources. In view of the submission of B.C. Hydro to the

National Energy Board — intervention on June 6, submission July 3 —

with the evidence of Keith Kidd of the gas division indicating that the

security of supply and price for British Columbians was in jeopardy

with respect to the El Paso contract, did the minister ask Hydro

on July 10 to withdraw its intervention before the NEB?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, the ministry did not ask B.C. Hydro to withdraw, or anything else.

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary question, can the minister explain,

then, why Mr. Guy of B.C. Hydro, who was to speak in answer to the request for

an adjournment, was unable to speak, and the government spoke only to Mark Moseley

of the Attorney-General's ministry from that point on in the hearings? Did

you ask that to happen?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The answer is no.

MR. MACDONALD:

On a supplementary question, were there any discussions with Hydro

following your press release of July 10, in which you expressed

displeasure at their intervention on behalf of the consumer?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I didn't express any displeasure with B.C. Hydro in any press release.

MR. MACDONALD:

On another supplementary question, why does the minister say that the

positions of B.C. Hydro and the government are the same, in view of the

prepared testimony of Mr. Kidd to the National Energy Board indicating

that breathing, unconceived and unbegot British Columbians will pay the

shot in terms of security of price and supply in the future, and of the

minister's press release that this export contract was just a matter of

getting regulatory approval without difficulty?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

The press release and our statements at the National Energy Board

hearings were that we were in support of the export of natural gas,

subject to certain conditions being met: (

a) that there be security of

supply, and (

b) that the export customers should pay a fair cost of the

line and there be no possibility of any cost coming back to the

domestic consumer. B.C. Hydro intervened and asked very similar

questions, and rightly so. Those questions are put to the National

Energy Board, as the member for Vancouver East knows, and then the

National Energy Board makes its decision as a result of the answers

given by Westcoast Transmission and after studying the submissions of

all interested parties.

MR. MACDONALD: On another

supplementary to the minister, will B.C. Hydro be given full rein to

proceed with the arguing of the points raised by Mr. Kidd in his

prepared testimony, that I've already referred to, or is the government

going to inhibit them in any way in making an intervention on behalf of

the consumer? I see the Premier is going to give me the answer.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is not in order if future action is concerned.

MR. MACDONALD: No, I've just changed the form of it.

Does

Hydro have instructions now to proceed with the very important

questions of objection that are raised in the testimony prepared by

Keith Kidd?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The one mandate that

B.C. Hydro has — as the member is aware — is to ensure their domestic

customers in the province of British Columbia have a guaranteed supply

of natural gas. They will raise those questions and the NEB will have

to take those into consideration in deciding whether or not the export

permits are issued.

MR. BARRETT: I have a supplementary on the same subject, Mr. Speaker. Was the minister present at the B.C.

[ Page 930 ]

Hydro

board meeting when the decision was made that B.C. Hydro be an

intervener at the NEB hearings, at which intervention Mr. Kidd prepared

his testimony that further export would jeopardize the possibility of

shipping gas to Vancouver Island? Were you present at that meeting when

the go-ahead was given by the board of directors to Mr. Kidd to present

his position?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I don't recall that matter being discussed at board level.

MR. BARRETT:

Would it not be on board instruction that Mr. Kidd prepared his

position, or would Mr. Kidd be operating entirely on his own without

board authority in presenting that position?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I think the member knows that there is a management committee of B.C.

Hydro, and that decisions in regard to intervention concerning B.C.

Hydro's supply of natural gas to its customers could be made at that

level.

MR. BARRETT: On another supplementary, Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the minister if he would undertake to inform this

House as to who it was who ordered Mr. Kidd to stop in his intervention

— which is contrary to the statement made by the minister?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

It's an assumption on the part of the member, and maybe he could tell

me where he got his information that Mr. Kidd was ordered to stop.

MR. MACDONALD: In the transcript of the proceedings.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Have you read them?

MR. BARRETT:

Yes, we have a copy right here. In the transcript of the proceedings

Mr. Kidd is quoted as stating — and I'll quote from the transcript, if

you don't have a copy....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, it's quite all right. You're giving away the gas heritage of Vancouver Island to the Americans; and you stopped it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the purpose of question period is not to bring information to the House.

MR. BARRETT:

In answer to the question, "Is there a market for gas in British

Columbia beyond the geographic area currently served with natural gas?"

Mr. Kidd answered: "Yes, there is. As we pointed out in our

intervention, B.C. Hydro currently serves 5,000 customers in Victoria

with the butane-air mixture. Studies are proceeding into the

feasibility of supplying this and other communities on Vancouver Island

with natural gas."

Question: "How would the granting of the licence requested by Westcoast affect this project?"

Answer: "If gas is not reserved for this potential market, the option

to serve it could be foreclosed. Canadians living in British Columbia could

thus be denied access to Canadian gas of British Columbian origin."

ask the minister: who was it who instructed Mr. Kidd to no longer

pursue this line of protecting the gas needs of the people of British

Columbia?

HON. MR. HEWITT: My position is the same.

MR. BARRETT: You told us that earlier.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the answer.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's the gas line to Vancouver Island that the NDP stopped some years ago.

would also like to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I didn't

hear in there any order that Mr. Kidd said he was ordered to stop the

discussion — not out of what you read, Mr. Member. You know full well

it's not there. You'll also know that in the discussions and in the

research done regarding gas reserves, consideration was given by my

ministry and staff with regard to reserves for Vancouver Island and a

pipeline to Vancouver Island.

MR. BARRETT: Could the

minister thus explain a discrepancy in his statement on July 10,

wherein he said that there would be no difficulty in obtaining these

approvals, and it is anticipated, in the circumstances, that B.C.

Petroleum has agreed to support Westcoast? Can the minister explain the

direct contradiction between his press release and Mr. Kidd's sworn

statement at the hearing? Let the minister explain that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's all because of the policies of this government. We're finding gas....

MR. BARRETT: I asked the minister if he can explain this discrepancy, which he denied existed. This is a sellout of British Columbia gas.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT:

Much to the disappointment of the Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips), I asked the minister to explain to this House why

there is a discrepancy between his statements of July 10 and Mr. Kidd's

statement.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I don't need the Premier's assistance; maybe the minister does. Explain the discrepancy.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has the question.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Once again, for the benefit of the member, there is no discrepancy

between B.C. Hydro and the government. We gave our approval subject

to...and Hydro intervened with certain questions. If the member

checked, he would find there is great similarity. But there's no

discrepancy between the two. In the same way, there's no gas line from

Mexico to the United States to import all that gas you keep talking

about.

[ Page

931 ]

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the government's embarrassment. I would

now like to ask the minister at what date he was notified that the B.C.

Petroleum Corporation, as the instrument of this government, was not

charging enough for natural gas into the United States.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Mr. Speaker, the member knows that it's the NEB that sets the export

price. He also knows that the provinces have the opportunity to state

their case before the NEB. I could suggest to him that after the price

went up to $2.30 a thousand cubic feet, this ministry went to the NEB

and said: "You'd better take another look at it."So we got a fair price.

would like to say that it was this government and this ministry who

said to the NEB: "Look again and make sure we get a fair price." That's

why it's moved from $2.30 to $2.80 a thousand cubic feet.

MR. BARRETT:

Is the minister now prepared to file with this House the correspondence

which he has alluded to in terms of asking for a price of $2.80?

MR. SPEAKER: Not in question period.

MR. BARRETT: Did the minister put his request for a price of $2.80 in writing?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I've said to the member that it was this ministry and this government that notified the NEB.

MR. BARRETT: In writing?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Member, in writing. But I'd also like to suggest that....

MR. BARRETT: File the letter.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Why do I have to file the letter? I can file it; I have a letter.

You're a big man and you make a big issue of the fact that we have gone

after it, and your only defence is to say: "File the letter." I'd like

to see you file the letter about the $3.20 you wanted to get for

Mexican gas.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we cannot have more than one member having the floor.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I haven't finished, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KING: He got more instructions.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

That's true. The Premier brought to my attention, Mr. Speaker....

[Laughter.] He suggested that maybe the NDP should file the letter

where they got $1.96 a thousand cubic feet for natural gas before they

left office.

MR. BARRETT: The minister has informed us that he put his request for

an increased price to $2.80 in writing. Could the minister give us the date

when that letter was sent to the National Energy Board?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member is wrong. I did not state that we put the figure of $2.80 in any letter.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, am I incorrect in assuming that the minister said that he

wrote the National Energy Board and asked for an increase? Did you

write the National Energy Board?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT:

I'm not asking the Premier, and you can't listen.... Did the minister

write the National Energy Board asking for an increase in the price of

natural gas?

HON. MR. HEWITT: In sharing the

information with the House, I stated to the member across the way that

my ministry informed the NEB, when we had the price increase from $2.16

to $2.30 a thousand cubic feet, that they should look at a review of

this to ensure that competitive rates are received for export gas into

the United States, and that we do not fall behind in our export gas

pricing. That was the statement I made a few minutes ago, and I repeat

it. The only defence the member has now is to talk about tabling a

letter. The information from this ministry and from this minister is

that we made a request to the NEB which the NEB carried out, and, of

course, we have the increase in August to $2.80 U.S. a thousand cubic

feet.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. I would ask the hon. Minister of Economic Development to

please to come to order. We are trying to move to the next order of

business.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, is the House prepared to grant leave to proceed to Motion 8?

Leave not granted.

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 150: minister's office, $141,341 — continued.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I'll defer to the Minister of Labour, who, I think wishes to make a comment.

[ Page 932 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I didn't have the opportunity on Friday to introduce to the committee

the senior officials of the ministry who are here on the floor, and I

would like the House to know that Deputy Minister James Matkin,

Assistant Deputy Minister Frank Rhodes, and Assistant Deputy Minister

of Industrial Relations Mr. Douglas Cameron are with me on the floor

this afternoon.

If the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is not

at this time going to pursue the matters which he raised on Friday,

perhaps I could take a few moments to respond to some of his comments

concerning the Workers' Compensation Board and the discharge of the

responsibilities of that board under the legislation in this province.

The

member was good enough to point out the basic principles surrounding

the Workers' Compensation Board and the way in which it arose, and to

point out that in the compensation concept workers give up their right

of action against their employers in return for certain assured, but

regulated, compensation rights in respect of injuries or industrial

disease which they may incur as members of the workforce. Having said

that, however, I regret that the member for Skeena did not also advise

the committee — because he was accurate to that point — that one of the

underlying principles surrounding the operation of the Workers'

Compensation Board is that it is intended to operate — and does operate

— without political interference on the part of this government, or, I

would have hoped, of any governments in the past. If, as the member

indicates, there is something seriously wrong with the way in which the

board is carrying out its responsibilities — which I do not accept —

then it is the responsibility of that member, or those who have

knowledge of such serious wrongs, to ensure that they are brought to

the attention of the board directly, because the board establishes its

own policy. I most certainly reject any arguments in this respect which

may have been presented to the member, or communicated to him, from the

Council of Forest Industries, because the Council of Forest Industries

does not dictate the policy of the Workers' Compensation Board, either

directly or through this ministry.

With respect to the

actuarial soundness of the board and the Accident and Silicosis Funds,

may I suggest to the member that he take the opportunity of reading

very carefully the Eckler Report, which dealt with some of the

financial problems facing the board. He should also recognize that the

actuarial advice which is tendered to the board is based upon the

guidance of long-term trends, not on annual aberrations, and

particularly that the statutory changes made in 1974 with respect to

benefits accruing to workers in this province were made without any

consideration for the financial impact which those changes would have

upon the fund and on the activities of the board, and, in so doing,

recognize that the provisions which have been made by this board with

regard to overcoming any unsoundness there may be in the fund have been

taken cautiously, but responsibly, to ensure that the operations of the

board are not in any way hindered, nor that undue burdens are cast upon

those whose responsibility it is to provide the funds with which

Workers' Compensation operates in this province.

mentioned, Mr. Chairman, that the fund was something in the

neighbourhood of $250 million; in fact, he is just about 100 percent

wrong. The investments in the fund are about $540 million, not $250

million. They are assessed actuarially each year, and the financial

statements of the board are certified by the auditor-general.

Most

particularly I wish to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the consulting

actuaries of the board are not involved in making or have no authority

to make, political decisions, and do not — and neither does the

Workers' Compensation Board. They are guided solely by the

responsibility to ensure that the operations of the board are conducted

in a manner which produces the greatest benefits for those people who

are entitled to depend upon the board for service, namely the workers

and the employers in this province.

Lastly, on an incidental

point, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) made comment about the

medical-review panel positions of the board and the fact that their

decisions are final and binding. This is not unique to British

Columbia, and it is a situation which has existed for many years. I'm

sure the member, on reflection, will recognize how inappropriate it

would be if medical decisions — decisions by a panel of specialists —

were somehow or another subjected to the adversary process, which would

be the case if there was an appeal. Medical opinions are medical

opinions, and while some may quarrel with the opinions given by

doctors, the very basis upon which medical review panels are selected

is designed to ensure that there is complete independence, impartiality

and professionalism involved in the rendering of those decisions.

MS. SANFORD:

I would like to change the topic at this stage because of the decision

that the minister announced outside this House last Friday with respect

to the Margaret Caldwell case and the board of inquiry decision on that

case.

Mr. Chairman, the minister has often been accused of

being arrogant, that his whole demeanor and his attitude in the

Legislature and outside the Legislature is one which could quite easily

be construed as arrogant. But I think that his actions on Friday —

particularly in view of the fact that we in the opposition had been

questioning the minister on a number of occasions with respect to any

appeal that might be made in the Margaret Caldwell case — were

arrogant, because what he did, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. Estimates afford the time to discuss the

administrative responsibility of the minister, and while the

administrative actions are open to the subject of conversation, the

word "arrogant" has been ruled unparliamentary in previous times. I

therefore ask you to withdraw it.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, Mr. Chairman, I don't have my list in front of me, and if that's unparliamentary, then....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just ask you to withdraw.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, I certainly will withdraw then.

But,

Mr. Chairman, it seems incredible to me that a minister of this

Legislature would show such contempt for the House and for the

legislative process itself by going outside of the Legislature in order

to inform the press about a decision that he had reached with respect

to this Caldwell case. He did not come into the Legislature to stand in

his place and inform the rest of the Legislature when we, in

[ Page

933 ]

fact, had shown an interest in this and had questioned the minister a number of times on that particular case.

Mr.

Chairman, any minister can stand at the start of the session, during

the session or at the end of the session and make a statement. In this

case he had all of those opportunities plus the opportunity when he got

up to introduce his estimates for the Ministry of Labour. He had that

opportunity. When he got up as the Minister of Labour responsible for

all labour matters — human rights, workers' compensation, all of those

issues — he told this House nothing, even though he had been to the

press that morning and had told them of his decision with respect to

the Caldwell case. Now, Mr. Chairman, that surely is contempt for the

Legislature.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I

can't use the word "arrogant," because that's unparliamentary, but it

certainly is showing contempt for us in this House. There is no doubt

about that. Why on earth couldn't that minister inform the Legislature

that he had finally reached a decision on this? We'd been questioning

him for over a week on it. He called the press together and made the

statement to them. He came in, and when it was time to introduce his

estimates, he stood up in the House and said he would be happy to

answer any questions that the members might have. Really, Mr. Chairman,

I haven't seen a performance like that in years in this House.

Maybe

he was embarrassed to stand up in this Legislature and announce what

the decision was, because the decision with respect to Margaret

Caldwell is completely inadequate in terms of preserving human rights

in this province. I am really shocked that the Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. Williams) would arrive at the decision to launch a partial appeal —

only a partial appeal — in the Margaret Caldwell case. That imposes an

obvious injustice on Mrs. Caldwell. Whatever the court decides at this

stage she will receive neither reinstatement, nor will she receive the

arrears on her salary. Because the minister has decided to make a

partial appeal, and if the court decides against the board of inquiry

on that part of the appeal the minister is launching, Mrs. Caldwell

will still not be reinstated, nor will she be entitled to collect back

pay, because the minister is making only a partial appeal. Under

section 22 of the code she will still not be entitled to receive back

pay or reinstatement.

If the minister is sincere in

guaranteeing the human rights of the people of British Columbia — and,

in this case, of Mrs. Caldwell — he would refer to the courts all the

issues that were decided by that board of inquiry. He has made a

decision on his own about the human rights concerned in this particular

case. He has decided to appeal it, because he's worried about a

loophole that may have been opened in the code under

section 8 with

respect to this appeal. In terms of the human rights, and the alleged

human rights that Mrs. Caldwell has suffered, he is not going to

appeal. A partial appeal means Mrs. Caldwell will be suffering an

injustice. That's obvious.

It seems to me the minister has

no option but to appeal the whole issue. Otherwise he should step down

as the minister who is charged with the responsibility of preserving

human rights in this province. He has a bad record in terms of

preserving and promoting human rights in this province. You may recall

that when the previous Human Rights Commission, headed by Bishop Remi

de Roo, ended the term for which it had been appointed by the previous

minister, this Minister of Labour didn't even say good-bye, or let them

know their term had been finished, or in any way recognize the efforts

they had made as a Human Rights Commission in this province appointed

under the previous government.

Then you will recall, Mr.

Chairman, that we went for eight months without any Human Rights

Commission whatsoever. Finally we had the Minister of Labour make an

appointment. The Human Rights Commission, expanded at that time, has

since gone from one disaster to another. It got so bad that even the

Provincial Secretary, the MLA for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr.

Curtis), just before the election date, indicated to the press that he

felt that the record and the performance of that Human Rights

Commission was so bad that some of those members should be taken off

the commission.

Did the Minister of Labour take any note of

that? No, Mr. Chairman. The Human Rights Commission remains the same,

and I'm wondering just what the new Human Rights Commission has done

since it was appointed. It's been charged, aside from making jokes....

I mean, we all know the Human Rights Commission makes jokes. That's

what upset the Provincial Secretary. He felt some of them should be

removed because they had no obvious interest in human rights. They

hadn't even any understanding about human rights. But what else have

they done? I understand the Minister of Labour has charged the Human

Rights Commission with the responsibility of coming up with

recommendations with respect to retirement at age 65. Has the minister

received any reports from the Human Rights Commission on that issue?

Have they reached any conclusions? Is the minister going to be taking

any action? I know the Human Rights Commission is unable to deal with

any requests from people who are aged 65 or over. The Minister of

Labour doesn't know what to do with them at this stage. As a result,

when anyone complains as a matter of human rights that they are not

being employed because they're over age 65, the minister says: "Don't

deal with them. Don't handle those cases." But has the minister reached

any conclusions on this? Has the Human Rights Commission reported to

him?

What about the Eva Johnstons who are no longer able to

teach in the Vancouver school system, who have been appealing through

various media to get some decision from the Minister of Labour on this

issue? Nothing. I would like also, very briefly, to raise one or two

more issues. One relates — a very quick question — to the compilation

of all those statutes under the labour standards branch. That process

of compiling all those statutes was well underway in 1975, before the

election was held in December of that year. They were almost ready to

be presented to the Legislature at that time. In 1976, I think it was,

we had a promise in the throne speech that there would be a compilation

of all those statutes under the labour standards branch. What on earth

is the minister doing with respect to compiling those statutes? Surely,

four years later, the minister should be able to have those statutes

compiled and put together in some meaningful way. The situation right

now is deplorable. It affects people all over the province. What kind

of changes is the minister contemplating that make it so difficult to

put all those statutes together? I would

[ Page 934 ]

hope

there would be a number of changes, but to date we've had no indication

from the minister as to when those statutes are going to be ready.

The

third issue I want to raise very briefly again relates to other

questions I posed to the minister during this session with regard to

the farmworkers in the lower Fraser Valley and the contracting out of

farm labour. You may be aware of the serious problem that exists in the

lower Fraser Valley with respect to some contractors who are

contracting out farm labour. The minister indicated to the House that

he was having the whole problem researched and that he was hopeful of a

report and hopeful that some action could be taken this session. We

have yet to see any changes in statutes or any proposals made inside or

outside of the House. I'm wondering what the minister intends to do.

What's

happening is that contractors contract out farm labour, then phone up

20 or 30 people and say to them: "I will pick you up at whatever time

in the morning" — sometimes it's 5:30 a.m. — "and take you to the

fields. You do the work, and I'll take you home again, and you will

eventually be paid." There are all kinds of situations that exist in

that whole contracting-out process which result in exploitation of

them are East Indians, and most of them are being exploited by the

present way the system operates.

There are solutions to

this. The farmworkers themselves are attempting to become unionized in

order to avoid the exploitation currently taking place. When workers

work eight hours and more in the field, whether it be picking

raspberries, pulling carrots, weeding, or whatever, and are receiving

sometimes as little as $15 a day for their efforts, there's obviously

something very wrong.

The Minister of Labour himself could

very easily resolve the problem by setting up a system of licensing, so

that the people who are actually doing the contracting out would have

to be licensed under the Ministry of Labour and meet certain

requirements before they could receive a licence. This can be done.

Various employer agencies now have to be licensed. Why could not the

employers — those people who hire the farm labourers — be licensed in

the same way? Then the ministry could have some basic guidelines under

which these contractors could work. There's no reason why the Minister

of Labour could not establish such a system. Maybe, through that, he

could even ensure that people are entitled to UIC benefits and that

they receive a decent salary. There are all kinds of problems that the

Ministry of Labour could ensure would be overcome through this

licensing process.

What about income tax? What about Canada

pension? Many of these simply go by the board through the present

system. I think that the minister is aware of it. I think that the

minister has had preliminary reports. I think that he has enough

information at this stage that he would be able to take some action

which would alleviate the exploitation currently taking place.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I regret very much if the member for Comox judges my behaviour as

arrogant. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I, as the Minister of Labour,

don't have the luxury that is available to the member for Comox to deal

with my responsibilities outside of the law. In the Caldwell case I

will say this and not any more, because the Caldwell case is, I think,

probably now sub judice. The appeal which is being launched by the

government is based upon carefully obtained and considered legal

advice. It's based on the strictures in the Human Rights Code and where

the decision of the board of inquiry was in error. The case is,

therefore, subject to further consideration in the courts. One thing

that the member must recognize — and also all members of the committee

— is that now that we have a Human Rights Code in this province, what

is discrimination within the law is not what any one individual might

think amounts to discrimination, but rather what is decided by a

competent tribunal, be it a board of inquiry or, failing that, the

courts in this country.

The member raised a very important

issue dealing with labour standards. When I became Minister of Labour,

I found that work had been done in the drafting of legislation. Quite

frankly, Mr. Chairman, the legislation was not in any condition whereby

any responsible minister would bring it to the floor of this assembly

for consideration. Hundreds of hours have been spent since 1976 in

reaching the point where — except for the one matter which the member

has properly raised at length today, that of farm labour — the

legislation is ready for presentation.

Now the question of

farm labour is a serious one. It is easy to use such words as

"exploitation," and I suppose even I might qualify some of the conduct

which we see among farm employees as exploitive. But it is one thing to

identify the problem; it is quite a different matter to search out the

solution.

The member spoke of the licensing of farm-labour

contractors. Yes, that has been considered, but one of the problems

about licensing farm-labour contractors is that they can enter the

business and leave the business at will. In the course of the

continuing investigation which officials of the ministry are making

into this problem, we find that this is exactly what is taking place.

When activities are undertaken which we find questionable and which

other levels of government find questionable — particularly the

Unemployment Insurance Commission — the farm-labour contractor who

might offend disappears.

The member talked about bonding.

Yes, bonding is also one of the aspects to which our attention has for

some time been directed. But bonding still doesn't stop you from going

out of business and from somebody else emerging as the contractor,

nominal or otherwise. Therefore the method of enforcement is of such

consequence that our attention is being turned to the individual more

easily identified and more permanently fixed, and that is the person

who actually utilizes the labour itself. This inquiry which we have

undertaken — and I say it's a continuing inquiry — is producing some

new avenues for us to follow. I expect to have the pleasure in the next

week or ten days of discussing this entire problem with the

Undersecretary of Labor for the State of California, who is coming here

for this specific purpose. They too have the problem. They have

attempted a variety of solutions, and we wish to take the opportunity

of addressing to them some of our particular problems as have been

disclosed by official inquiry.

I would not like it, however,

to be understood from my remarks that improper practices are

necessarily widespread in this province. Farm labourers, in many

instances, are paid fair wages and the method of payment and the

conditions under which they work are, in the circumstances of the

agricultural community, the best that can be designed. We in this

province and in this country depend

[ Page 935 ]

upon

farmworkers. Their work is dictated not by the desires of individuals

but by natural circumstances. When the crops are ripe, they must be

harvested; when the weather is appropriate, work can go forward; when

the weather is bad, it cannot.

It is in the understanding of

the implications of this for the farmworkers that we are addressing

this aspect of employment standards legislation with the utmost care,

to ensure that, recognizing the problems that face the farmworker, they

are adequately compensated, depending upon all the vagaries that must

be taken into account.

MR. KING: I have just a few brief remarks to make and some questions to ask the minister.

Mr.

Chairman, I was interested in the minister pointing out that the labour

standards legislation is not ready as yet, and was certainly in no

condition to be introduced when he assumed the office of Minister 'of

Labour — which I certainly acknowledge. Of course, it was not in an

advanced enough stage to be introduced. I rather think, however, that

was not the factor which was responsible for the failure of the

minister to act. I think, rather, it was the contents of the proposed

statute which the minister found unacceptable and not the lack of any

background work — at least in some respects.

Be that as it

may, I would just like to make the point that a Labour Code was

developed in the province of British Columbia with adequate hearings

throughout the province. Basically it combined three of the old

statutes in a very complex area, and that was accomplished within about

a year and a half or two years. I only use that to illustrate that if

the minister set a high priority on introducing a rationalized statute

governing labour standards in the province of British Columbia, he has

certainly had adequate time in office to devote his mind to that

priority. Quite frankly, we haven't seen any heavy volume of

legislation flowing from the minister's ministry, or any other policy

that I am aware of. So it seems to me a matter of having some

priorities.

Two things have happened that I am concerned

about. One is the Workers' Compensation Board, which I want to get back

to a little bit. Mr. Chairman, I think the minister will acknowledge

that I have a fair understanding of the legal parameters under which

the board itself functions and the relationship between the ministry

and that board. Of course, there is no political direction, nor should

there be, nor has there ever been, to my knowledge.

But the

minister also knows that the administration of a Crown agency — or any

agency, for that matter — has a certain style, a certain direction, a

certain psychology and that the consequences of that general approach

and that general attitude do hold implications for the people who are

the clients of that institution. I think what concerns me and many of

my colleagues at the moment is an attitude within the Workers'

Compensation Board which is retrogressive, in my view, which is leading

us backward to the point where literally hundreds, perhaps thousands,

of workers in the province of British Columbia are finding a very rigid

and stringent standard of adjudication with respect to their claims.

can outline, as an example, two cases that I have had in my own

constituency. Before I do that, perhaps I should say to the minister

that I, as an MLA in this House, have seen the caseload of workers'

compensation problems accelerate at a very alarming rate over the past

three years. I think the same is true of all my colleagues, and I'm

sure it must be true on that side of the House. That's a general

indicator. It's a superficial one, but it indicates that there's a

different style of administration and that workers feet aggrieved and

feel that their cases are not receiving, much less than sympathetic

adjudication, either sensitive or humanistic adjudication — nor, in

some cases, the full measure of the law, because the law is rather

flexible in workers' compensation matters. It can be exercised in such

a way that the burden of proof is imposed upon the board rather than

the worker.

What has happened to some extent, it seems, is

that the onus has been reversed and placed on the worker, rather than

the probability being acknowledged to be on his side. There are two

cases that I'll just use as brief illustrations — not major ones in

terms of the kinds of injuries involved, but certainly problematic in

terms of the worker's security of employment.

One was a case

where a faller in the forest industry had been struck by a falling snag

and sustained a hip injury. He had received his time-loss benefits, and

the medical profession had done, in effect, all that they could do —

rehabilitated him to the full level of their medical capabilities — but

he was unable to return to his normal occupation as a faller, which is

a top-level salary position in the scheme of things in British

Columbia. This young lad was foreclosed from pursuing that kind of

career.

He was then interested, and indicated his interest,

in retraining in heavy-duty mechanics or something of that nature. He

received no valuable counsel from the Workers' Compensation Board. His

case dragged on for a year and a half, without even the offer of any

education retraining or counselling in terms of the direction that he

should address himself to in qualifying himself for a new vocation. And

that is a mandate of the Workers' Compensation Board — not just to pay

benefits, not just to pay disability pensions, be they partial or

total, but to try and rehabilitate in real terms workers' lives. I find

them sadly deficient in that particular area at the moment.

This

case dragged on for a year and a half until I finally interviewed the

young man on a number of occasions, and found that if he stayed in the

forest industry he could retain his association with his own union and

a pension plan attached thereto. He had knowledge of the forest

industry, and he was interested in scaling. Mr. Chairman, I was able to

phone the Forest Service, find that they were mounting a scalers'

training program, have the young man enrol in it, because there was a

position waiting for him at a good level of salary in something that

would not exacerbate his physical disability. After my having done all

of this groundwork, I then approached the rehabilitation representative

of the Workers' Compensation Board and persuaded them that they should

put up the tuition fee, and that they should pay him time-loss benefits

for the period of his training as a scaler in the forest industry,

which, I think, was a three-week course.

The reason I raise

this is because that is the job and the function of the board staff.

and they do not seem to be paying adequate attention to it. They seem

most singularly reluctant to put out dollars for retraining of injured

workers. In this case there were a variety of options available, and

after waiting a year and a half, to no advantage in terms of dealing

with the board and appealing to them for assistance

[ Page 936 ]

and

funding for retraining, he had received nothing. It was only after I

was successful in getting him enrolled that I was able to pry,

reluctantly, from the board funds to accommodate this retraining.

The

second case, Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to deal with in any precise

way, because it is under appeal to the board now. But this was a young

man who was also a faller in the bush and he developed an affliction.

It is a rather rare one; I forget what it is called, precisely. It's

the "something" syndrome; it's of the hands. It results in extreme pain

to the wrists and hands, and the inability to control particularly a

vibrating object.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Meniere's syndrome.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. KING: I believe that's what it is, yes.

he received treatment, was subsequently operated on, and it was

suggested that he try to go back to his occupation, after a period of

rehabilitation. That he did, and on his return to work he found that

the operation of a power saw created a major problem with his hand,

even though it had been operated on.

He went back to his

doctor, who advised him to take a few more days off. In the meantime he

received a letter from the Workers' Compensation Board in Vancouver

advising him that under no circumstances could he go back to that kind

of occupation, in light of the particular affliction that he was

suffering from. Taking that letter as gospel, he terminated his

employment with the particular employer he was with, and approached the

board for retraining as a heavy-duty mechanic. Through his own

initiative, which is acknowledged by his employers and by the board, he

was able to find a job with Finning Tractor. It was just a part-time

job as an ordinary labourer, but he was interested in improving himself

and qualifying as a heavy-duty mechanic. The board turned him down flat.

Then,

to add insult to injury, they wrote him a letter back saying: "Please

disregard our letter of such-and-such date, advising you that you

cannot follow your normal occupation. That letter was sent in error,

and you are now free to go back operating a power saw." What kind of

nonsense is that? That's people's lives they are playing with. He'd

terminated his employment. He had seniority with that employer. He'd

terminated his seniority. He'd terminated his benefits — and he's

getting the double shuffle. He's in a Catch 22 situation. He burned his

bridge on one end, on the advice of the board. They won't give him any

assistance in retraining, on the other hand. He has nowhere to go.

Those kinds of specific cases — and if the minister wishes, I'm

prepared to provide him with more details, personally, in his office —

and that kind of circumstance are what we are all encountering. That

kind of particular problem occupies a great deal of time for MLAs and

certainly, I imagine, a lot for the board. But it is that kind of

problem that is causing real frustration and real bitterness among many

hundreds of workers in the province of British Columbia.

speaks to me of an administration of that board which has become very

inhumane. It speaks to me of an administration which, as a bottom-line

administration, is more concerned about the amount of money paid out

than trying to put back the lives of people who have been injured

during the course of their employment. The whole premise and the whole

background of the Workers' Compensation Act is to try to ease the

suffering, to try to compensate for the impairment of any physical

function created through employment. There is a departure from that

kind of sensitive approach. I'm sure the minister must be getting mail

on this too. I know when I was minister I received a great deal of mail

on it. I would be willing to bet the minister's mail has increased

regarding these kinds of claims.

What I'm saying is that

while there should be no political control exercised by the minister

over the board, I think the minister has every right and obligation to

hold that board to account for their style and their philosophy of

administration. In the final analysis it's the administrative

practices, the administrative decisions — the administrative style of

the board, if you will — that affect people's lives. If that style and

that psychology are dedicated toward financial cost control, to the

detriment of the safety and security and proper rehabilitation of

injured workers in the province, then I say that is wrong and the

minister should not hide the fact. It is an independent tribunal. If

that independent tribunal is not fulfilling its mandate in a sensitive

and a humane way, then its members should lose their mandate. A

different administration should be appointed. That is the minister's

political responsibility, Mr. Chairman.

In conclusion, I

want to make this point. Two things disappoint me about the minister,

and I hesitate to criticize him because I know his feelings get hurt

very easily, and I would never want to hurt the minister's feelings. I

would never want to call him arrogant, Mr. Chairman, although I know

some people would. But I'm one of those who defends the minister. I say

he's not arrogant. He just seems that way at times.

Two

things concern me, and I think the minister is dodging a little bit. I

asked him a question on Tuesday, June 12, with respect to the

appointment of a human rights board of inquiry in the fishing industry,

under the chairmanship of Jack Bourne, Q.C., Clarence Alcott, and C.

Lynn Smith, of Vancouver. I asked him what the criteria were for the

appointment of such boards of inquiry, and since it was of an

industrial relations–related kind of dispute, whether or not it was

practice to appoint an impartial chairperson, and someone who is

representative of, or associated with, labour on the one hand and

someone associated with management on the other, so that there can be a

fair balance. The minister assured me that was the case, and he said

Mr. Bourne, the chairman, was chosen because he is a lawyer of long

experience in arbitration matters, who has, in the course of his

practice, made it abundantly clear he is completely impartial in the

discharge of that responsibility. I accept that. I don't even know Mr.

Bourne. But the minister made the point that it is customary. He was

determined there would be one person on the board identifiable from

management and one identifiable from labour. I want to ask the minister

which one was identifiable from labour.

Was it C. Lynn Smith

or was it Clarence Alcott, whom I appointed to the Labour Relations

Board as a management representative? C. Lynn Smith is associated with

management from an industrial relations standpoint. I want to know who

is the labour representative. I'd appreciate it if the minister would

answer that question. I have to assume it's

[ Page 937 ]

probably

Lynn Smith he's talking about. I would like him to explain to me what

is her background with the trade union movement of this province. I'd

appreciate the minister doing that for the House — either that or

reviewing the answer that he gave to me in question period. Perhaps

that's acknowledging that it wasn't quite the way he said it was on

that occasion.

My last and final point is with respect to

two challenges, one to the Human Rights Code related to the case that

my colleague for Comox (Ms. Sanford) talked about, and the other is

related to a wage-recovery claim by the Labour standards branch of the

Ministry of Labour regarding the primacy of wage certificates over

mortgage liens and other kinds of liens. I want to know why the

minister has not been more forceful in protecting the primacy of the

labour law under his ministry. Or does he believe that it went too far?

With respect to the human rights case, he is appealing

section 8, but

he's leaving

section 2 of the Human Rights Code to go unchallenged.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I can tell him something about the philosophy of the

Human Rights Code, and I don't think that's what the Legislature

intended. Why is it not his intention — through the legal appeal

mechanisms that he has at his disposal — to defend the integrity of the

Code that he is sworn to administer? Why has he not challenged the

decision — that terrible, terrible, decision — with respect to the

granting of supremacy for mortgage liens over unpaid wage certificates?

That is something that has really injured the workers of British

Columbia, and I find it shocking that the minister hasn't challenged

that one.

Finally, if it is not his intention to do so — I

certainly can't force him — then I want to ask the minister if, in the

absence of that kind of decisive approach, the minister would agree to

fund legal assistance for the victims of this kind of discrimination,

on the one hand, under the Human Rights Code, and on the other hand, to

the worker who has an appropriate claim under the labour standards of

this province and who has now been deprived of any effective mechanism

for recovery of those wages. Would he consider standing the legal

costs, for a trade union for instance, to appeal that decision

respecting the labour standards legislation? I'd appreciate some

answers from the minister.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr.

Chairman, I was interested to hear the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

(Mr. King) deal with two specific cases with respect to workers'

compensation and direct his attention, as he did, to the performance of

the rehabilitation

section of WCB. The problem which he presents is

truly one of the administration of the board, and in the two cases

which he has mentioned I think there is room to criticize the way in

which the board has discharged its administrative responsibilities to

those workers. I would compliment the member for doing what, I think,

is part of his responsibility — it's a very difficult one — and having

found an opportunity for the injured workmen to have made that known

and to offer that assistance.

On the question of

rehabilitation, the knowledge that is available to rehabilitation

workers is one which troubles us, and I would very much appreciate it

if the member could provide me with the details of those two cases. I

don't think it matters that he identifies the workers, just the

circumstances, because, as he probably pointed out, I'm in receipt of

letters directly from workers and from other MLAs which indicate

similar concerns. We have, as the member knows, the Compensation

Advisory Service. It has now been expanded from one officer, when the

member was the Minister of Labour, to four. In the last ten days we

have been fortunate in recruiting another qualified lawyer who's

prepared to undertake this important and burdensome responsibility.

MR. KING: Was that Maria Giardini?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, we recruited another one in just the last ten days.

MR. KING: To work with her?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, there are four in that group.

But

with respect to the range of problems that the member touched upon, we

are presently contemplating the appointment of a special officer — and

I use that term not as one of art — on a contract to undertake the

responsibility of doing extensive inquiries and interviews into

problems such as the one that the member has raised. Then we can

classify the cases which are causing concern to injured workers and in

that way assist the board by recommending to them how they should

change their administrative procedures to overcome conduct which some

workers have spoken of as being callous, insensitive and demeaning. We

want to identify once and for all whether that's a problem and to

assist the board in taking steps to rectify it.

As I said in

response to the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), it is the obligation of

the board to carry out its statutory responsibilities in a way which

provides service to those who are entitled to it, namely to the workers

and the employers of the province. I think it is my responsibility —

and I accept it fully — to assist them in the full discharge of that

obligation.

With respect to human rights cases that were

touched upon by the member, and first of all with respect to the

Jorgensen case, I was in error in responding to the member's question

in the House.

MR. HOWARD: I accept your apology.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I haven't apologized yet, Mr. Chairman, but I do apologize to him. In

fact, Ms. Lynn Smith, who was chosen as a member of that panel, was

chosen not because of her association with the trade union movement but

because she is recognized as a practitioner who has concerns about

women's rights. At the time that the board, was appointed, that aspect

loomed large in my concern about the matter which was to go under

inquiry. Mr. Alcott was chosen because. as a member of the Labour

Relations Board, he has shown himself capable of exercising responsible

judgment in all matters which have come before him. In the case of Mr.

Bourne as the chairman, the member may not know him — I do. He is a

well-respected member of the legal profession with a broad experience

in a wide range of matters, and therefore could discharge the

responsibility of chairman.

The Caldwell case I've already

answered. It is my responsibility, based upon the advice that I

receive, to uphold the statute. While the member may not believe what

the intent of the Code is, and the words, that is a matter

[ Page 938 ]

which

is to be determined by tribunals. I think it is quite clear that the

decision which has been taken by us in that respect will help to

clarify that important matter of concern.

Lastly, the labour

standards problem, and the Homeplan mortgage case. That, Mr. Chairman,

is another reason why I have not been able to bring the employment

standards legislation before this House. One of the most significant

aspects of the Code will be the question of payment of wages, and we

have been aware for two years that the Homeplan case was developing

through the courts of this country. It finally reached the Supreme

Court of Canada. That's the end of the road, Mr. Chairman; I can't make

any further appeals. We have now from the Supreme Court of Canada the

final decision in this country with respect to that matter. When we

bring the employment standards legislation before this House, it will

accommodate the problems created by the Homeplan case.

However,

I would assure the member — through you, Mr. Chairman — that the number

of instances in which circumstances such as existed in the Homeplan

mortgage case arise to confound the enforcement of the Payment of Wages

Act are extremely rare. As the member well knows, the labour standards

branch of the ministry each year collects something in excess of $2

million in unpaid wages and benefits for workers and, as the largest

collection agency in the province, does an outstanding job for those

employees, and will continue to do so. But I think the member, when he

sees the legislation, will recognize that we have taken steps to ensure

that we have accommodated the Homeplan decision with utmost fairness.

MR. KING:

I want to thank the minister for his information, some of which I

didn't have. I wasn't aware, for instance, that the case on the unpaid

wages had gone to the Supreme Court of Canada; I'm very pleased to hear

that. I trust that the minister will be very alert and very quick in

dealing with any necessary amendments that might flow from whatever

that decision was. I would like to see a copy of that judgment.

Again,

I'm not sure whether I heard the minister correctly, but it seemed to

me he did indicate that subject to proper judicial appeals, with

respect to the Human Rights Code, the government would be prepared to

review its position with respect to the adequacy of that Code, in terms

of ensuring that discrimination of any kind and in any form will not

enter into the workplace or any other institution within British

Columbia. That is encouraging. Perhaps that is why he has chosen to

deal with the appeal related to one section, and view the necessity for

amendment with respect to other sections of the Code which may be

obviously deficient. As I indicated earlier, perhaps it's a case of

hope springing eternal, but I did find the minister's remarks

encouraging.

The minister partially answered the one final

question I was going to ask, which was with respect to the collection

of unpaid wages by the labour standards branch. Could the minister give

me a ballpark figure on the amount of unpaid wages collected in the

calendar year 1978? If the Ministry of Labour annual report is out, I

apologize; I haven't seen it yet.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I'll get the specific figures. Again, I must say to the Chairman and

members of the committee that I apologize for not having the report. It

just arrived in my office in manuscript form. It's not yet available

for distribution to the members, or else you would have had it. The

figure is just in excess of $2 million in unpaid wages, holiday pay, et

cetera.

In the fiscal year 1977, it was $2,096,000; in 1978

it was $2,119,000. In each year there were just over 1,000 firms

affected, with just in excess of 1,350 employees. The total adjustments

were in the $2 million area.

MR. KING: I want to

thank the minister for the information. I want to point out to all

members of the House that this is really a rather scandalous situation.

We hear a great deal of criticism of the trade union movement in

British Columbia today from all sections of the community and from a

lot of politicians. In order for politicians to have some perspective

and some understanding of the dilemma which working people are faced

with, I think we should pay very close attention to the annual report

of the Ministry of Labour, and note that almost $2.25 million is

collected in unpaid wages, where employers had hired people and then

skipped without paying their workers.

One doesn't have to

have a very vivid imagination to appreciate the circumstances that

would obtain in this province without trade unions to protect workers

or without the Ministry of Labour to protect workers to some extent, at

least in the absence of trade unions. That's an equation that is not

very commonly understood or even discussed in the province of British

Columbia. I particularly commend it as reading to the backbenchers of

this government and to the Chair.

I undertake to transmit to

the minister more precise information on the two Workers' Compensation

Board cases I referred to. Because he and I have this kind of

cooperation going back and forth, I trust that he will be prepared to

call me to his office to consult with him in respect to amendments to

labour standards legislation when he's ready to go.

MRS. WALLACE:

I have an item I want to raise with the minister regarding the Youth

Employment Program as it relates to voluntary organizations. There is a

particular organization in my constituency, the Community Options

Society, which has used that Youth Employment Program. They found it

impossible for them to continue using the program, because there is no

funding available for supervision or direction of the employees they

received. There is only funding for the employees. It makes it very

difficult for a volunteer organization to take advantage of this

program and to provide jobs for young people. The jobs are certainly

there. Without some provision in that particular program for volunteer

organizations to have at least part of their supervisory costs covered,

it makes it very difficult. In effect, it discriminates against

volunteer organizations from participating in that program.

just wanted to raise that before getting into the major thrust of my

remarks today, which I wanted to make similar to those which have been

put forward by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke relative to the

Workers' Compensation Board, about the kind of problems that I have

been experiencing as a result of complaints that have come before me in

my duty as a representative for my constituency.

When I was

first elected, some four years ago, I had a very good working

relationship with the Workers' Compensation Board, and we seemed to be

able to resolve the cases

[ Page 939 ]

very

readily. But as time has progressed, we seem to be getting into more

and more of a confrontation situation where there are all sorts of

technicalities and administrative problems involved. It doesn't just

relate to rehabilitation, as the minister indicated earlier. Some of

the cases that I wanted to talk about related to other areas.

a result of some of the remarks that one of my constituents brought to

me regarding the disability awards officers, I even took it upon myself

to write to the Workers' Compensation Board and find out what the job

qualifications were for a disability awards officer. I have an answer

here from one of the representatives of the Workers' Compensation Board

which outlines what the qualifications are and what the functions of

that particular job are. I note that the qualifications include a

minimum of grade 12 education and three to four years previous related

experience. A university degree is preferred, and an equivalent

combination of education experience will also be considered. The

ability to make decisions and to communicate effectively, both verbally

and in writing, is essential. Probably those are worthwhile

qualifications, but I'm wondering whether or not they are sufficiently

broad.

This particular constituent, who was a faller, was

injured in the woods, which made him unable to carry on as a faller. He

went over to take tests, or whatever you call them, to find out what

sort of job he would be qualified to handle. This man was in constant

pain and he was pressured by the particular disability award officer

who was handling his case to work up to the point of exhaustion, and

then go and take the rest of the day off, and finally was advised to

take plenty of painkillers so he would be able to carry on.

Because

this man so wanted to be rehabilitated, so wanted to be self-sufficient

again, he did this up to the point where they found they couldn't

retrain him, but his disability was something like 10 percent, where,

actually, he is quite unable to do any physical work for any length of

time. I think there is something wrong when that kind of approach is

taken by the disability award officer which puts a man in this position

where he has the assessment of a 10 percent disability because he

forces himself to keep going for short periods of time, takes

painkillers, and tries to do the very best he can on the specific tasks

that he's assigned by that disability officer.

So I think

that the minister certainly should have a good look at that aspect of

the Workers' Compensation Board, because that is, I think, reflecting

attitudes, as the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has indicated. It

reflects an attitude. Any government board reflects the attitude of the

government of the day, and that is what is happening with the Workers'

Compensation Board, because the government of the day somehow thinks

that we have to give as little as possible, and I don't think that is

the right attitude.

A person who is injured on the job

deserves to be able to continue to live as a decent human being. The

traumatic experience of not being able to carry on with the physical

kind of work that, say, a logger has done, to have to be on a job where

most of the time has to be spent sitting, where he is in constant pain

and having to take painkillers....

That's a sufficient

punishment for an accident on the job. That is a sufficient handicap

for him to have to face, without having to face the handicap of not

being able to provide for himself, his wife or his family. Those kinds

of awards — a 10 percent disability award, even though it is tied to

the cost of living — and the mechanics of trying to get that up so it's

somewhere a little better than 10 percent, even though it is not enough

for that man to continue to live in decency and to feel an adequate

head of that household to provide a fair kind of living for his wife

and family....

Another instance that has just recently come

to me concerns a chap who had a leg injury. Unfortunately there was

very severe arterial damage, which has affected the main arteries of

the body. After a great many appeals and a great deal of medical

consultation it was agreed that he had to have the main arteries

removed from his entire body — a very serious operation. This operation

was undertaken, and it was understood that WCB would pick this up.

Again, he's on a partial disability, tied only to the broken leg. The

other afflictions that he's feeling as a result of this — and the

medical evidence indicates that they are the result — are not

considered. He has been getting a very small pension. He was supposed

to have the cost of his most recent operation picked up by WCB — he's

getting his painkillers and other drugs paid for. He decided to appeal

because he felt there was sufficient medical evidence that he should

have a larger pension. What happened? As soon as that appeal was filed,

his files were pulled and sent somewhere else. WCB then refused to pick

up his hospital bill; they refused to pick up his drug bill; and we're

not at all sure whether or not he's going to get his pension cheque.

Those

kinds of administrative problems, Mr. Minister, are not in the best

interests of the workers. Surely there has to be some coordination

between departments so those kinds of things don't happen. I have many

cases; that's not an exception. It seems that whenever an appeal is

launched against a given award, everything is stopped until that appeal

is finalized. Now surely, if there is an improvement and some of those

benefits are going to be withdrawn as a result of an appeal, it's not

going to happen prior to the date of that decision — there is no reason

to cancel the benefits the employee has been getting. If it's going to

be a larger award, as in most instances it is, then there is certainly

no reason to cancel those benefits. It seems to be an administrative

problem, and it seems to be one that has developed within the last year

or six months. I don't know why this has developed, unless it reflects

the attitude of government, and the attitude of the Workers'

Compensation Board, that we must give as little as possible to those

workers. That seems to be the trend.

Another case I have is

that of a young chap who injured two of his fingers. He had an

operation; they tried to correct the nerve damage; but it was not

successful. The end of the finger has not matured, he has no feeling,

and in cold weather it is quite painful. The Workers' Compensation

Board say they don't pay for cosmetic damage. I don't want to talk too

much about that particular instance, because I think we are getting an

appeal on that one. But that's a very heartless response to a young man

who has lost the feeling in his fingers and is finding it difficult to

work.

There is another case, and this one has gone on for a

long time. This man has been on a very small benefit, an 11.38 percent

disability. He has been unable to work because he has a back injury,

and somehow the compensation board came up with the conclusion that he

had voluntarily left the workforce. I want to read into the record the

most recent letter I've had from this man, and the minister will

perhaps understand what I'm talking about when I say that the workers

of this province really feel that

[ Page 940 ]

they are not being treated fairly when they are faced with an accident:

again appeal to you for help. Since last we talked I have had several

setbacks in my life — the greatest being that my wife could take no

more, and, seeing no future, she left. She left me and our two girls

and now has repatriated herself as an American and is residing in the

United States. Upon her leaving I borrowed enough money, sold off most

of our furniture and came to Victoria in the hope of seeing some

justice done in my case. My appeal has fallen on deaf cars ever since I

arrived here. Six years ago I had a job with security, two houses and

three lots. Today I have two children and an income consisting of $94

from WCB, $271 from Canada Pension Plan and $145 from Human Resources —

a total of $510. My rent is $246, my hydro $30, and I have a car

payment of $90, leaving me $144 to feed and clothe my children and

myself. I feel I am a victim of a great human tragedy that is going on

in this province, one placed here by the WCB."

That's the

attitude of this man. This is what's happened to him as a result of a

compensable accident, and a small pension award, though that man is not

able to continue to earn a living. He has a Canada disability pension,

but WCB does not see fit to give him a large enough pension to provide

an adequate living for him and his family, to the degree that his wife

left him and he now has those two children to support and he's degraded

to the point where he has to apply for social assistance in order to

support his family. That is not the kind of treatment we should be

giving our injured workmen in this province.

Those are cases

that have developed over the last couple of years. We didn't have that

kind of case when I was first elected. There were very, very few we

couldn't resolve. The compensation board seemed to take a much broader

point of view.

I think one of the most outstanding examples

that came to my attention was where a young man in the interior had an

accident in April 1977. He went through doctors, through appeal review

boards, always being turned down by the compensation board. Every time

he went for an appeal the medical review board granted his appeal. The

accident happened on April 5, 1977, and after two appeals he finally,

in August 1978 and then in October, as a result of two separate

appeals, had his case resolved. So there was a case that went for a

year and a half, with no income, always being told by the Workers'

Compensation Board he could go back to work. Yet when he kept

appealing...and in many instances he had to insist that the Workers'

Compensation doctor refer him to a specialist. There was one instance

where he went to the compensation doctor and was told he was quite all

right to go to work. He insisted on a referral to a specialist with

whom he had an appointment. That specialist immediately put him in

hospital.

It was only because of the persistence of

that worker and the persistence of his union in that particular case

that the two medical review boards finally came through with some

assistance for that worker and some lost-time payments. But that, I

think, exemplifies the kind of thing I'm talking about. There is a

change of attitude that the Workers' Compensation Board is not doing a

job for the injured workers of this province. I believe it's up to the

minister to make sure that the board of management of the Workers'

Compensation Board are made fully aware that this government, and that

minister, do not want to save dollars at the expense of the injured

workers of this province. That's what's happening, and I would ask the

minister to assure the House he will take such action.

one point I went so far as to write to the chairman of the Workers'

Compensation Board to ask him if there had been a change in

regulations; there seemed such an about-face in the way cases were

being handled. He wrote back and assured me there were no changes. But

I can tell you, if there aren't changes in regulations, there are

certainly changes in

interpretation — and it's affecting the injured

workers in this province.

MR. HANSON: I would like to

continue along the same lines as the previous two speakers. They were

talking about the Workers' Compensation Board, the difficulties with

the administration of the present board, and the inequities in the

compensation payments.

I would like to broaden that somewhat

and say the work environment in British Columbia is hazardous. What the

two previous speakers have been talking about are simply just

manifestations of the neglect in the broader area of occupational

health and safety.

There is more time loss, and the minister

knows this, as a result of occupationally induced or occupationally

related injuries and accidents than there are in labour, strikes and

lockout affairs of this province.

Surely that particular

fact should justify more than 70 cents a worker a year out of this

minister's budget to make the work environment safe. What I am talking

about are preventive illnesses — illnesses and injuries that can be

avoided so that the money doesn't have to be spent at the WCB end.

But

there are political reasons why they will not make sure employers clean

up the work environment. It's a cost on the employers. It cuts into

their profits. Occupational disease is silent. It kills in slow motion.

We have no registry in this province to identify and list and

categorize toxic and dangerous carcinogens. We have no registry at all.

We have WCB posters that say: "Don't get in the trench unless it's

shored up." "Wear your hardhat." "Don't cut your leg with a chainsaw."

We don't have any posters saying: "Do not work in a work environment

that has carcinogens in it that are not listed." In British Columbia we

have done no research on toxic materials, on carcinogens. There are

thousands of people contracting diseases. What we get is 70 cents a

worker for preventive medicine. It's lousy. It's cheap. You could do

better.

Thousands of different chemicals are coming out

every year, and there's no research on them. Of two million known

chemicals only 600 have been researched. Hazards in the workplace,

heavy metal, minerals and organic chemicals are potentially hazardous

contaminates of industrialization. The early Romans recognized that

mercury caused poisoning. And 200 years ago cancer was detected in

chimney sweeps. But it is only recently, because of the long latency

period between exposure and first evidence of clinical disease, that

arsenic, asbestos and synthetic chemicals in industry are being

identified as cancer-causing agents. Of the 17 chemicals now linked to

cancer, 14 of them are in the workplace in British Columbia: arsenic,

asbestos, auramine, benzine, benzedrine, cadmium-oxide and

sulphate-chromium compounds, hematite-nickel compounds,

[ Page 941 ]

soot

and tars and vinyl chloride. The need to protect workers from all

chemicals until their hazards are known and guarded is imperative. With

all due respect, through you, Mr. Chairman, we are not getting that

leadership from the Ministry of Labour.

To the best of my

knowledge, a legislative and regulatory morass makes sure that

effective enforcement and effective protection are not in the

workplace. There are 400 different sets of governmental regulations

across Canada, and there are 150 different federal and provincial sets

of regulations affecting workers in B.C., with 31 different Acts or

agencies in this province alone dealing with the worker's safety in his

own work environment. If these figures do not in themselves point out

the intolerable situation that exists, it should be further stated that

the majority of governmental agencies involved cannot, or will not,

enforce the regulations. In fact, they jealously guard their

territories or jurisdictions to the detriment of the health and safety

of the workers of this province.

There is a move afoot, and

representations have been made, to consolidate this legislation and

these regulations. But one thing should not be done. There should not

be a separation between the regulations on the protection and the

enforcement. It should not, for example, be taken into the Ministry of

Labour on the regulation side, while the enforcement is left over on

the WCB side. Any consolidation must contain the enforcement provisions

— and stronger enforcement provisions at that.

I would like

to suggest to the minister that if this consolidation is to take place,

the province should immediately enter into negotiations with the

federal government, invoking

section 69(

b) of the Workers' Compensation

Act, to assume authority for the Workers' Compensation Act, to assume

authority for inspection enforcement of all federal jurisdiction in the

province of B.C. That should be done now.

Also, I'd like to

make another suggestion: that either through your ministry, or through

the Ministry of Health, a registry of chemicals in the workplace be

made and that these be brought to workers' attention when they assume

and perform their duties; that through the Minister of Education,

Science and Technology, and his connections with the University of

British Columbia, the faculty of chemistry and physics could commence

graduate research on some of the chemicals in common use in the

workplace in the province, so that people aren't in jeopardy, so that

their health is not suffering. We know right now they're going to

suffer. We know right now they're going to contract these diseases.

I'd

also like to ask the Minister of Labour to check with the Minister of

Education regarding the Pacific Vocational Institute. I understand all

ceilings in that institute are lined with asbestos. There are not

supposed to be any asbestos linings in any educational institutions in

this province, if I'm not mistaken. Would he please find that out for

me?

I would also like to ask him how the regulations and

threshold limits are established for British Columbia. It is my

information that a private research group in the United States, whose

initials are ACGIH, establishes the threshold limits for all provinces

in Canada, with the exception of P.E.I. I'd like to know if that's

true. I'd like to know why we are going to that particular body.

understand that in Ontario $5 million of lottery funds is put into

occupational health and safety. Wouldn't that be a better function for

$5 million in British Columbia than a few footbridges in Socred-MLA

ridings and other kinds of politically motivated grants? I think that's

sufficient at the moment, and I would appreciate responses from the

minister.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, when the minister

rose at the beginning of the day, I very much appreciated his very

calm, dispassionate, almost disinterested approach to explaining

the function of the board. He did make some comment about this deficit

position, and I think it might be worthwhile, not that's really germane

to what the board is doing, to show him — and I'm sure he knows these

figures as well as I do — that his reference to being 100 percent wrong

is in itself wrong and erroneous. The 1978 report of the board points

out — and I have to read it to get this point across:

"As

stated in the 1977 statements, it was the objective of the board to

fund class balances to be recovered from future assessment over a

nine-year period commencing in 1978. And if actual experience during

1978 had matched the assumptions in the assessment-rating process,

progress towards this objective would have been achieved."

I read this the other day. It means that the board underestimated its position.

"However, for a variety of reasons class deficiencies increased, the majority of which are outlined below.

The

total of that class deficiency increase was $36,408,000. Further on in

the financial statements they talk about actuarial liabilities, and

this is what we are discussing. A further quotation is:

"For a variety of reasons, previous provisions have proved

to be insufficient, and at December 31, 1978, actuarial liabilities exceeded

the reserves which had previously been provided by $50, 376,000. This additional

requirement has been charged with the classes and credited to the respective

funds, resulting in a year-end total for 'class balances to be recovered

by future assessments' of $227,000,163."

That's

where I got the quarter of a billion dollars deficit position in the

funds necessary to be set aside to cover future payments. Sure, as the

minister said, they have bond holdings of some $500 million, and the

interest earned on those bond holdings is credited to the particular

class and subclass from which those funds were obtained in the first

place.

If you look further into the report, things like this

show up. In Class 1, for instance, they started off the year with a $62

million deficit. Their deficit at the beginning of the year was far in

excess of the amount of money that they could possibly earn on the

bonds that were held and credited to that particular class, so they end

up with a negative-interest position, not a positive one. They don't

earn any interest on the money. They start off in that class with a $62

million deficit position and end up at the end of the year at $76

million. That really is beside the main point that we were trying to

get across the other day and again today, but it does show,

statistically, that what the minister was talking about in terms of my

being 100 percent wrong was not an accurate statement on his part and

was just designed to kind of fudge up, in a statistical way, what is

taking place.

[ Page 942 ]

The

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) and members who have not spoken in this

debate can recite individual cases to substantiate the general

declaration that there's something wrong with the way the board is

functioning. The minister admitted to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

that there was something administratively wrong with respect to some

cases that the member related. But if there is case after case after

case, as there are, exhibiting administrative incompetency, then surely

that must reflect something on the board itself in terms of its policy

decisions and in terms of its assessment and its decisions and its

ideas as to what it wants to see happen. I don't want to go into detail

about specific cases — I have a number of them and I'm sure other hon.

members do as well but let me relate one in a kind of a time-frame

situation.

A person was injured on May 25, 1978. Three

months afterwards, on August 23, he received a decision from the board

rejecting his claim. He went to his union as soon as he got the letter,

and the union appealed it to the board of review. On November 21, 1978,

the board of review held a hearing; the employer, in this instance,

elected not to appear at that board of review. Three months later, on

February 16, 1979 — nine months after the injury — the board of review

ruled unanimously in his favour. The board then sent him a cheque for

three months' lost wages. He went back to the board and told them he

had been off work for eight months, and asked them why they had only

paid him for three months. The board said: "If you don't like our three

months' wage-loss compensation, appeal that decision to another board

of review." So he's got to go back to another board of review for a

further appeal, and it goes on and on like that. Then he got opinions

from the board that he wasn't really injured; the employer stepped into

the case; and they have finally got an oral hearing established for

Tuesday, September 4, 1979. In this situation the employer is now

appealing the original unanimous decision of the board of review.

Sixteen months later the case is going to be heard. For all of that

time he has been off work he has received three months' lost wages and

he feels disadvantaged — and justifiably so.

There is a

cliche I've heard — almost a cliche at this stage — emanating, I think,

from the legal profession, that says: "When justice is delayed, then

justice is denied." In this and in other cases that can be related to

the minister, justice has been delayed to these people; and it is

therefore denied. The full responsibility for that can't be sloughed

off by some offhand remark of the minister, such as: "Oh, that is an

administrative question; I'm sure we can clear that up." There are

dozens upon dozens of administrative questions involved reflecting, I

submit, an attitude on the part of the board which does not serve the

interests of the workers in this province.

A few days ago I

asked the minister in the House about the situation with respect to two

skin divers who lost their lives in the course of skin diving for a

species of clam called geoduck. The minister denied at that time that

there was anything lacking in the responsibility of the board, or that

the board had shirked its responsibility. He insisted that was the case

later on. The board now, according to an item I saw in the Daily Colonist

this morning, has determined that the safety rules developed by the

board with respect to undersea divers will now be made applicable to

skin divers in this jurisdiction who are diving for geoduck and

abalone, both of which need to be dealt with below low tide, and

require the activities of a skin diver to obtain the best quality of

fish.

Here is a situation in which the board itself had

developed safety regulations with respect to skin divers, had not

applied them to skin divers employed in those two fisheries — had

shirked their responsibility — and they have now turned around, as a

result of two fishermen dying, and have said: "All right, now we see

that it has happened, we'll make the regulations applicable." Is that

not a shirking — initially at least — of a responsibility on the part

of the board? As far as I'm concerned, it is. They've hidden behind the

spurious question of the constitution and said: "We can't deal with

that, because it is federal jurisdiction." That is a lot of rot, a lot

of nonsense. The minister knows that probably better than anybody else,

because he is a lawyer. Lawyers know these things better than anybody,

and I'm sure the minister does. The constitution deals with the

seacoast and inland fisheries as being under federal jurisdiction. The

minister knows too that there was a decision made — I think it was in

the Privy Council; it was some years back — that did not extend to the

proprietary interest or ownership of the fish itself, nor fish canning

and processing, because the proprietary interest of the owner of the

fish at that time came under provincial jurisdiction. The moment a

fisherman out on the fishing grounds catches a fish, he is involved in

the proprietary ownership of that fish, and I think he comes under

provincial jurisdiction.

At one time the board was examining

the development of safety inspection regulations for fishing vessels, a

process and an activity which was abandoned and suspended by the board

in 1976, because, as I understand it, the board said the federal

Ministry of Transport was going to get into this field of fishing

vessel inspections and regulations. Therefore they said: "We, as the

Workers' Compensation Board here in the province, don't want to have

anything to do with it." They backed off and moved away from the

original thing that they were trying to do. The federal Ministry of

Transport has not developed any inspection regulations, Mr. Chairman,

for any fishing vessels under 15 tons, and that means that fishermen

involved in smaller boats are at the complete mercy of the employer or

whoever it might be, whether they are individual entrepreneurs or

whatever. There are no safety inspections, no protection for lives, no

requirements to be met to preserve the lives of those people, none

whatsoever. So long as that continues, I think the minister has got to

accept the responsibility for the injuries that happen to those people

and for the deaths in that particular industry. He could do something

about it and the Workers' Compensation Board could do something about

it if it just had the guts, as it's called, or the intestinal fortitude

or the interest or the concern about the safety of people in the

fishing industry to get out there.

The minister may be in

doubt about the constitutional requirement. The question of what are

fisheries — be they seacoast or inland — under that

section 91 of the

BNA Act has never been determined by the courts. I submit that this

jurisdiction about fisheries does not extend to the people employed in

the fishing industry. It is a separate matter. But if there is any

difference about it, why doesn't the minister or the government move

under the provisions of the Constitutional Questions Determination Act

and make a

[ Page 943 ]

reference

to the supreme court? It's a very simple process. You just go to the

court and you pose some questions to them. It's happened before. Say,

"This is the question we want to have answered," and see where one

stands in that regard.

The minister's colleague, the

Minister of Environment, a few days ago spoke proudly of the fact that

he had a tremendous rapport and relationship with the new federal

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Hon. Jim McGrath, and that the

federal minister not only would cooperate but would ask the advice of

the provincial government in the area under his jurisdiction. This is a

wide-open opportunity to do something in this particular field.

Let

me touch on one other subject here if I can. In 1942 we had a royal

commission, headed by the late chief justice Gordon Sloan, which dealt

with the work of the Workers' Compensation Board. We had another in

1952, and during that time I had the privilege and honour to be able to

sit in and listen to a number of the hearings that the late chief

justice held with respect to the Compensation Act. We had another royal

commission in 1964, some 15 years ago.

It seems to me that

with the developments over the last 15 years, particularly in the last

three or four years as indicated by statements of members in the House

of individual cases that they have to deal with, of the trade union

movement and the multitude of appeal cases that it has with the board,

of individuals who are clergymen in downtown Vancouver working with

people who have to appeal on their part before the board, that there is

something drastically wrong. It's either in the attitude of the board

to its responsibilities under the statute and to the philosophy of the

statute or something seriously wrong in the administration, or both.

Let

me cite this to you, Mr. Minister. The adjudicators in the board

structure are the people who make the first decisions and the first

assessment of the claim. They make some determination about it. When

adjudicators write, as they have done on particular claims, "East

Indian syndrome," then there is something very seriously wrong. They

heard the message from up above in that board structure which said:

"Oh, don't use that phrase. That's a terrible phrase to use. That

indicates a prejudice." They discontinued using it, and now they just

put the initials in, EIS. It says the same thing.

When

adjudicators working for the board have a position with respect to a

particular race of people, then their decision is clouded. Their

decision is liable to be biased. They automatically respond to the

person coming forward with that particular claim on the basis of his

racial inheritance, and that is wrong. That's disgusting, but it has

happened. When those things permeate through the whole board, and when

you find people spending months and months going through an appeal

process, as shown in the cases that have been related here this

afternoon, you cannot slough that off with saying that's just

administration. It requires a much more serious examination and a much

more open and public examination. To me, the only way that can be done

is through a royal commission. It's happened before. It's been

necessary before to bring the Act up to date, to renovate the Act, to

modernize the Act and to examine the processes and the procedures with

respect to it. It's time again to do that once more.

There's no point, in a total sense, served by having an annual few hours'

debate in this Legislature during which MLAs have a multitude and a dozen other

problems to deal with. There's no point having a debate in which is said:

"That's the time of year you relate things with respect to the Workers'

Compensation Board." That's not good enough. We make the speeches and

we lay the cases out. Sure, we're able to go back to the people who have

been in touch with us and say: "Well, I raised it on the floor of the Legislature.

I told the minister about it. I explained this situa tion." Nothing. Next

year we come back and do the same thing. To keep that up is an exercise in futility.

A one-year examination, in a public way, is simply not good enough, especially

in light of the weight of evidence presented here, which indicates.... It

can be substantiated and supported by nearly every trade union in the province,

by a number of social workers whom I know, by ministers of the cloth in the

downtown Eastside in Vancouver, who deal with individuals on an appeal basis

and who help them out and try to steer them through the labyrinth and swamp within

the Workers' Compensation Board. It's not good enough just to be able

to do that.

The

minister will go down in glory if he would make one commitment to the

House today, even if he only says he'll seriously consider — we don't

want him to make these judgments off the top of his head — the

appointment of a royal commission to examine the workings and functions

of the Workers' Compensation Board. By that one statement, he will do

much to please hundreds and hundreds of workers in this province who

have been disadvantaged in the last few years by the very board for

which he is responsible in this House in giving an answer. If the

minister will do that, I'm sure his estimates will pass in a wink of an

eye, and we'll all adore him — for a very short period of time.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I've had a number of interested comments from some members, and I

should catch up. Because it's fresh in my mind, perhaps I could start

with the matter addressed to me by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).

I won't go into the financial aspects of his comments. Let me say,

however, that there is nothing drastically wrong with the Workers'

Compensation Board. I urge the member to be cautious in the use of such

phrases, because it tends to discredit the very valuable work being

done by a lot of very dedicated people in the Workers' Compensation

Board to the benefit of workers throughout this province. This is not

to say that there are not improvements that can be made and must be

made. Let me point out that in 1978 the Workers' Compensation Board

handled more than 161,000 new injury cases.

The records of

the WCB in this province indicate that 98 percent of all claims made

against the WCB are allowed. Only 2 percent of the total are disallowed

in the first instance. From there they move to the boards of review.

The experience of the boards of review is that approximately 40 percent

of the cases which go before the boards of review are resolved in

favour of the claimant. Therefore the number of cases, the ones which

the members are most likely to hear about, fall within that very narrow

percentage which don't fit within the system. The Workers' Compensation

Board is predicated upon regulatory concepts. As a result, there are

guidelines to be followed and standards to be met before the claim can

be accepted and paid. Some people don't fall inside those limits, and

that may be unfortunate. But consider the alternative; to do away with

[ Page 944 ]

the

Workers' Compensation Board and send those 161,000 cases to be decided

in the courts of this province by actions initiated by the workers

against the employers. I suggest to you that the consequences for the

workers of the province and for the employers would be many thousands

of times worse than any situation which the member has described.

The

member raised a subject which I hesitate to speak about, because in so

doing it may lend credence to the rumours he's been hearing: the

notation on files of matters which are completely unacceptable in any

standard — ethnic slurs. I don't know where the member got his

information. I heard the same rumours last Friday. I have spent the

morning checking with officials of the ministry who deal on a regular

basis with the files of WCB. I am advised that they have never seen

such a notation on any file that has come across their desks. They deal

with the files of people who have the most difficulty with Workers'

Compensation Board, the cases that are turned down. If the member has

evidence of such practices, then I ask him to let me have it. It will

be referred directly to the chairman of WCB, and it will be stopped.

However,

in the course of these investigations this morning, I did find that

some private physicians have written to WCB on behalf of their

patients, making reports with respect to the conditions of those

patients, which raised doubts as to their sincerity. Having told the

patient one thing, they tell WCB something else. That may be where the

rumour starts. But as I say, if the member has any information with

respect to such practices, I would like to have it.

Now on

the matter of the geoduck divers, the member has opened the matter, and

this touches upon matters raised by the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Hanson) as well — divided jurisdiction between the federal government

and the provincial government. In 1976 I was aware that, aside

altogether from what might be the best interests of the people in the

fishing industry and the fishermen of this province, there was a

constitutional problem. It's all very well to suggest that we should

ignore the constitutional problem, but that only leads to challenges in

the future. We attempted, in negotiations with the federal government,

to get them to accept the regulations of the Workers' Compensation

Board in the fishing industry, and subsequently to continue the

arrangement that existed with respect to the operation of the

longshoremen in this province, whereby WCB had been accepted for years

as discharging a regulatory and inspectional function, only to find

that the federal government was beginning to exert what it considered

to be its sole jurisdictional responsibility, both with regard to

fisheries and with regard to our ports. As a result of those actions by

the federal government, legal proceedings have been started for the

purposes of determining once and for all where the jurisdiction of WCB

begins and ends, and where that of the federal government commences.

must say that as a result of continuing efforts by the board and by

officials of the ministry, it now appears that there has been a

reversal of the position taken by the federal government. In

occupational environments we had working arrangements with the federal

government, including funding, which was stopped. That has now

recommenced. We have the same with pressure-vessel inspections; we have

recommenced the successful cooperative operations that we have enjoyed

in the past with the federal government. Now it appears that the way is

opening for the Workers' Compensation Board to establish and enforce

regulations covering both the fishing industry and the ports. This, we

think, is a very positive sign.

It's all very well to take

the time to fight lawsuits about constitutional issues, but I hold the

view, as do officials of this ministry, that in matters of such

importance to the people of British Columbia as occupational health and

safety, and workers' safety on the job, it ill behooves two levels of

government to be arguing about legalities when we can work out

comprehensive and cooperative arrangements which will ensure that there

are fair and adequate working conditions and proper enforcement of

regulations.

WCB is on the spot in this province, and can do

it and is willing to do it. We will work out with the federal

government the way in which we can accomplish this end without imposing

upon the employers a double set of regulations and a double standard.

This is our objective, and I look forward very shortly to seeing it

resolved.

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) raised

interesting matters concerning occupational environment. One of them

was how certain threshold limits are established. Yes, the organization

to which he refers is utilized, but only in the establishment of

international standards. Those standards are themselves subject to

adjustment by various organizations and by various provinces. Some

provinces set higher standards, some set less stringent standards than

others. The province of British Columbia supports the Canadian centre

concept, and we trust that active support of that centre will enable us

in this nation to achieve a uniformity of thresholds, a uniformity of

regulatory approaches, to the very serious problems that the member

raises.

He spoke of the number of regulatory enactments that

we have in this country dealing with hazardous substances, their

production, their storage, their transportation and their use. I agree

with him that it ill behooves any province or the federal government to

ignore the lessons which scientific advances present for us each day,

and to ignore the serious consequences that careless use of new

substances can produce for the people who are closely associated with

their use in the working environment. But their established status,

province by province, in a nation such as ours, where there is ease of

transportation of goods, where the use of goods in one jurisdiction

with one set of regulations could be permitted but disallowed in

another, can cause serious consequences for all of us. Therefore the

standardization of regulations of this kind is a direction in which we

must all work. The Canadian centre has intended to achieve that, as

well as other objectives, and I think it's one which should enjoy the

wholehearted support of everyone in this House.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The

member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) asked, first of all, about

the Youth Employment Program. We do make allowances providing

assistance for supervisory costs to non-profit organizations if we're

made aware of them at the time that the application for employment is

made. There are limits, and I'd be pleased if the member would give me

details of the case that she referred to in her opening remarks. We

don't generally pay the cost of all supervisors in order to ensure that

employees can be taken

[ Page 945 ]

the job, but we do have in our regulations the ability to assist with

supervisory costs when additional employees are taken on. The Youth

Employment Program 1979 is an improvement over what we had in 1978, and

that over 1977, and that over 1976. It's a dynamic program, and we want

to see that it continues to improve, and to benefit those young people

who enjoy the training and opportunity prior to taking a permanent

place in the workforce. It is through cases such as the one the member

raised that we are able to make adjustments. And if this is a problem,

I'd like to know about it so that we can have it examined when we

review this program — the review will start in about five weeks.

Workers'

compensation. The member raised a number of specific instances. One

problem about workers' compensation and the cases that are brought to

my attention is that each one depends upon separate circumstances, and,

without having the opportunity to examine the file, it's impossible to

know precisely why there has been one result in one case and a

different one, apparently, in another, and what the reasons were behind

the decisions made.

Freedom of information is a subject

which is of concern in many areas, and it certainly is in workers'

compensation. Nonetheless, files are not readily available to

claimants, for very good reasons: the free expression of medical

opinion is absolutely essential for the proper functioning of workers'

compensation, and all of the experience seems to indicate that if the

files are open to examination, that freedom might not be recognized. I

think it's unfortunate that's the answer that has to be given, but it

is. However, the compensation advisory service of the Ministry of

Labour — and these are government employees, not employees of WCB —

does have access to files, and does use them when they represent

claimants before boards of review. I'm satisfied that if any member has

a particular case that has given him concern, he need only call the

compensation advisory service and an opportunity will be made available

to him to have a clear understanding of the precise basis upon which

any decision has been rendered. If that is not satisfactory, then there

are rights of appeal.

One of the problems we have with

workers' compensation is that the system which has been adopted since

the outset is that no file in workers' compensation is ever closed. We

have two ways to go. You can have a closed system whereby, having had

your decision, you go to appeal, perhaps to a second appeal, and that

one is final, binding, and there is no more. The other way is that a

file is never closed, and each decision brings in turn its own right of

appeal. That's the system we have in British Columbia. Quite frankly,

of the two, I think the one which we have here serves best because,

with changing policies in the board and changing benefit levels, we are

finding that cases which appear to be closed some years ago

unsatisfactorily so far as the claimant was concerned are now being

opened and being reviewed. And I think that in light of changing

circumstances and changing knowledge about the causes of industrial

disease, we would like to preserve the flexibility, even though it will

significantly multiply the administrative tasks which are associated

with the operations of the board.

MS. BROWN: I would

like to say that statistics notwithstanding, I certainly cannot share

the minister's opinion that the Workers' Compensation Board is working

on behalf of the working people of British Columbia. If the cases that

come across our desk and that are brought to our attention constitute a

mere 2 percent of the cases that go before Workers' Compensation Board

and are the ones that are disallowed, I would hate to see the ones that

are allowed. The decisions made by Workers' Compensation, certainly in

the cases that we see, are quite inhumane. All of us could add to the

long stories of various colleagues on this side of the floor in terms

of the inhumane decisions made by Workers' Compensation on a number of

points.

However, that's not the issue that I would like to

deal with today. My colleague, the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Hanson), touched on the issue of occupational health and the fact that

there is just not sufficient testing available in terms of the

dangerous chemicals and compounds which are being used in industry

today. This results in the workers of British Columbia really, being

used as guinea pigs.

I think that women have a special kind

of concern. We're in a Catch-22 situation as a result of this. Not only

are women exposed to the hazards, the chemicals and all of these other

untested compounds which are being used in industry, but we're also

being discriminated against because industry has decided that we have

special kinds of biological functions that are more open to impairment

by some of these. There is impairment to urinary and sexual functions

from radiation, for example, and impairment to pregnant women and to

their fetuses as a result of either exposure to these chemicals and

compounds or even exposure to noise.

The result of this is

that companies like General Motors of Canada prohibit the hiring of

women of child-bearing years in its battery plant, for example. The

reason they give for this is that they think that the lead oxide

emissions in the plant could conceivably hurt the unborn child. Yet

such research as there is shows that they will hurt both the male and

the female reproductive system. In fact, what should be done is

something about cleaning up the emissions in the plant, rather than

simply claim that no women of child-bearing age should be hired. I

would certainly like to support the second member for Victoria's plea

that the minister look much more clearly at this whole area of health

and occupational hazards.

The B.C. Federation of Labour

prepared an occupational and safety legislation report for the

minister, which was presented to him in May of 1978. I think at that

time they did not get an opportunity to meet with the minister.

Although it has been his practice to meet with this particular

committee, this is not happening any more. Is this correct? I don't

know. What I've been told is that the minister is no longer meeting

with the occupational health and safety committee of the B.C.

Federation of Labour.

In any event, there was a report

prepared for the minister in May, and the report, which was prepared by

the compensation and safety committee for their convention, has in it a

number of pieces of information which would be of great interest. I'm

sure, to the minister. If he doesn't have a copy of it. I would

certainly like to share mine with him.

A number of

recommendations were made at that time in this report. One of the

recommendations was that the premises of industry need an ongoing

investigation. It's not sufficient just for it to be done in a spot way

or from time to time. It has to be consistent, and it has to be

ongoing. In fact, the government could take the lead in demanding a

healthier workplace for all people. Because if this happens,

[ Page 946 ]

then

certainly no company like General Motors could decide to discriminate

against women in hiring practices and use the specious argument that

they are doing it on behalf of the health of these women. It is

incredible that you wipe out one form of discrimination and another

form of discrimination raises its head. I know that the minister does

support the concept of equal access to the workforce, and that women

should have a right to any of the jobs that they are capable of doing.

The

fact that occupational and health standards are now being used as an

excuse to keep women out of certain jobs should be of concern to the

minister. I'm sure that he will look into this matter at once.

Certainly those areas that have to do with radiation and the impairment

to the sexual functions, to the unborn fetus and noise exposure risks

these kinds of things, the general health hazards in these areas — have

to be of particular interest to the minister, not just on behalf of

women, because, of course, they affect both male and female workers.

But in any event, if this were the case, that would be one excuse that

would be removed from the employers, certainly in terms of their hiring

practices.

The other issue that I wanted to raise with the

minister is this whole business of unemployment. Mr. Chairman, I notice

that the last report that came out said: "Men and women share the

burden of unemployment almost equally between the ages of 20 to 24, but

beyond this age group women are hit much harder." It says once you hit

the 25 to 34 age group, the gap in unemployment between men and women

becomes quite noticeable. For men it starts to drop, but for women the

jobless rate continues to increase. As we are finding at the same time

that we are running into more and more single-parent families where

women are the sole support of their families and they have to work, as

we're finding at the same time that everyone is living longer,

including women, and that a number of women are finding that they have

to re-enter the labour force in their 50s, and even in some instances

until they're 65 and can qualify for some kind of pension.... With the

general unemployment, a number of women, even where there are two

parents involved in the family, are finding that they have to work,

either because unemployment has hit the male or because one salary is

just not sufficient to deal with inflation. It is unfortunate that the

unemployment rate among women seems to be on the increase at this time.

It's not just the national figures. I notice that in British Columbia,

for example, the last report that we have showed that although the male

unemployment rate remained virtually unchanged, the female unemployment

rate has experienced a real worsening, "rising to 10.2 percent from 9.8

percent of last month, and 9.3 percent of last year."

Now

this coincided, of course, with the decision made by the federal

government that women were no longer a target area for assistance. I

have here before me a letter dealing with a memo which was sent out by

the previous Minister of Employment and Immigration, in which he said:

"Projects which have been developed to serve women are no longer

included as target groups under the current policy guidelines." This

brings me to my question. In terms of apprenticeship programs and job

training and these kinds of things, what kind of efforts will the

provincial government be making at this time to address the worsening

problem of unemployment among the women of British Columbia?

Now

I understand that the Ministry of Labour is doing some kind of internal

study on the Women's Bureau, which has been so dormant it's hard for us

to remember that it even exists. But I'm wondering whether this study

which is being done in the Women's Bureau.... Is the minister even

aware that such a thing is going on? Is it an attempt on the ministry's

part to address itself to the whole issue of the worsening problem of

unemployment among the female labour force? If so, when is the study

going to be completed, and would the minister be willing to release it

so that the public could have some kind of understanding? Are we going

to see a rebirth of the Women's Bureau, a reawakening, a rejuvenation,

or whatever the word is? If it's going to at last come alive and do

something, there will be great rejoicing in the land. Once the study's

completed, I hope the minister would be willing to share it with the

rest of us.

The final thing that I wanted to touch on is the

issue of domestics. You know, a number of years ago I introduced a

private member's bill on the floor of the House about the fact that

domestics and farmworkers were not really protected by the Labour Code

in British Columbia. As a result, the exploitation of these two

particular areas of the workforce was being allowed to proceed

unchecked. My colleague from Comox earlier raised the issue of the

farmworkers.

Domestics are in an incredibly vulnerable

situation. They have no rights at all, really, under the law. No one

lays down any kinds of rules about the number of hours that they can

work, or should work. The domestics find themselves in a situation

where they're working from sunup, in some instances, until long after

the sun goes down. They're not even really covered by the minimum wage

law because it's easy to get around that in many instances where the

domestic lives in. What the person is told is: "You are being paid the

minimum wage, but out of this has been deducted your room and board.

Therefore this is the salary you get." In many instances they can end

up working five, six, seven days a week and their salary turns out to

be just a token gesture, not a living wage whatsoever. Yet there is no

proof that they are not getting the minimum wage, because the person

who is employing them can place any kind of financial level in terms of

their perception of what the room and board is that the person is

getting in exchange.

There is no protection in terms of

holiday pay. There is no protection in terms of their even having a

holiday. There are instances being brought to my attention of domestics

who just never get any time off,