1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7241 ]

CONTENTS

An Act to Rebuild the British Columbia Economy Through a "Jobs First" Employment Strategy (Bill M225). Mr. Skelly

Introduction and first reading –– 7241

Oral Questions

Hospital user fees. Mrs. Dailly –– 7241

Omineca Enterprises Ltd. Mr. Lea –– 7242

Log exports. Mrs. Wallace –– 7243

Northeast coal. Mr. Williams –– 7243

Charter of Rights Amendments Act, 1985 (Bill 33). Report

Third reading –– 7244

Family Law Reform Amendments Act, 1985 (Bill 34). Report

Third reading –– 7244

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985 (Bill 55). Report

Third reading –– 7244

Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985 (Bill 68). Hon. Mr. Segarty.

Committee stage –– 7244

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Travel Agents Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985 (Bill 69). Hon. Mr. Hewitt.

Committee stage –– 7252

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Macdonald

Third reading

Capital Commission Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 71). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Committee stage –– 7253

Third reading

Equity Investment Plan Act (Bill 73). Second reading

Mr. Mitchell –– 7253

Mr. Lauk –– 7255

Mr. Cocke –– 7256

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7257

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter (Bill PR402). Mr. Parks.

Committee stage –– 7258

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Chabot

Third reading

An Act Respecting Pacific Bible College (Bill PR403). Mrs. Johnston.

Committee stage –– 7259

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Pacific Vocational Institute and British Columbia Institute of Technology Amalgama-

tion Act (Bill 72). Hon. Mr. Heinrich. Committee stage –– 7260

Mr. Rose

Mr. Gabelmann

Third reading

Family Law Reform Amendments Act, 1985 (Bill 34). Hon. Mr. Smith.

Committee stage –– 7262

Mr. Lauk

Third reading

Equity Investment Plan Act (Bill 73). Hon. Mr. Curtis. Committee s. 7262

Mr. Lank

Third reading

Royal assent to bills –– 7263

Appendix –– 7264

MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1985

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. PARKS: Yesterday, today and tomorrow a group of fine

British Columbians are meeting with us in Victoria; they are the

constituency secretaries from throughout the province. It's my pleasure

to introduce them to the House today.

From Victoria, Mrs. Donna Eraut; Prince George South, Mrs. Laurie

Atkins; Burnaby-Willingdon, Janet Bayer; Columbia River, Peg Beaton and

Melody Zdanovich; South Peace River, Bonnie Beil; Saanich and the

Islands, Penny Boone and Edna Sargent; Atlin, Anne Crawley; West

Vancouver–Howe Sound, Shirley Anderson; Cariboo, Jean Closson and Lily

Mower; Okanagan South, Jan Duncan; Comox, Patrick Fraser; Point Grey,

David Jacobs; Dewdney, Jill Jamieson; Nanaimo, Neva Kisling;

Boundary-Similkameen, Joan Konfederak; Kootenay, Judy Koopmans; New

Westminster, Judy Matheson and Marilyn Cassady; Cowichan-Malahat,

Charlie Boas; Richmond, Helen Mytko; Surrey, Marguerite Leach;

Shuswap-Revelstoke, Edith Rizzie; Chilliwack, Beth Stobbe; Oak Bay,

Lynda Dickie and Elizabeth Lacey; North Vancouver–Seymour, Betty Water;

and Central Fraser Valley, Angela Zenzen.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, we have a member from Social Credit Party

headquarters, Ella Hembroff, and a member from the Expo 86 volunteer

bureau here in Victoria, Jane Thomson. I'd ask the House to make them

all very welcome.

MR. SKELLY: I would ask members of the Legislature to join me

in welcoming our newest candidate for Vancouver East, Glen Clark, who

is sitting in the gallery today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on his first visit to our

evergreen playground, I would like to bid a special welcome to His

Excellency Valerio Brigante Colonna Angelini, who is the ambassador of

Italy. He is accompanied by Dr. Damiano Spinola, who is the counsellor

for social and labour affairs in Ottawa, and also by our good friend

Mr. Giulio Terzi di Sant'Agata, the consul-general in Vancouver, and by

Mrs. Yolanda McKimmie. A warm welcome to you all.

MR. LEA: I would like to add my voice of welcome to the

secretaries, regardless of which party they work for. We know they are

underpaid and overworked. I know they will agree with that.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the House to join with me in

welcoming two Fort Nelson residents today, John Peterson and Roy

Peterson, who are in the lumber business in Fort Nelson.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we are also very fortunate in having in

the galleries this afternoon Mr. Qu Ru from China. Mr. Qu has been in Canada

since August on a Canada-wide tour. He is renowned in China as a master calligrapher

and painter, and in addition — I think this will be of interest to the members

— he has gained a worldwide reputation for his miniature carvings, which include

a carving of an entire poem on a piece of ivory no larger than a grain of rice.

We might bear that in mind when we make some speeches in here.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO REBUILD THE BRITISH

COLUMBIA ECONOMY THROUGH A "JOBS

FIRST" EMPLOYMENT STRATEGY

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Skelly, Bill M225,

An Act to Rebuild the

British Columbia Economy Through a "Jobs First" Employment Strategy,

introduced and read a first time.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I understand that I am allowed a

short period of time to explain the bill. In spite of the laughter of

the members opposite at our concern for employment generation in the

province of British Columbia, I want to outline for you the purpose of

this bill, which is to focus the attention of this Legislature on

critically high levels of unemployment in this province of British

Columbia and on the stimulative measures which can be taken to address

the problem.

The bill proposes to make jobs the number one priority of this

province and to stimulate the provincial economy in such a way as to

raise the level of job creation to at least 50,000 new jobs a year for

three years. Mr. Speaker, that goal has been reached. It was reached in

two of the three years of New Democratic Party government in the

province, and it was reached in three of the ten years under Social

Credit. So it is an achievable goal.

Included in the bill are measures to encourage new employment in

virtually every region and every community of the province, as well as

in every sector of the economy led by construction, forestry and energy.

We are using the vehicle of a private member's bill to focus the

debate on this issue because in our opinion the government has failed

to bring in any initiatives in this session of the Legislature which

would create or promote employment in the province of British Columbia.

We would hope that the government members will take a careful look

at this piece of legislation. If they have any opposition to specific

sections of the legislation, then we would hope that they would present

some positive proposals for change and some positive alternatives,

rather than dealing with this legislation as Negative Nellies. So we

would hope to have universal support for this legislation, and hope to

have an opportunity to debate it at the first possible opportunity the

Legislature has.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

HOSPITAL USER FEES

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of

Health. The federal government has returned, in the last few months,

money to both Saskatchewan and Manitoba because they have banned extra

billing. Now as B.C. has now lost approximately $47 million — over $2.3

million per

[ Page 7242 ]

month — because they have refused to ban hospital

user fees, has the minister now decided to ban hospital user fees in

British Columbia?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, he is continuing to be stubborn and obstinate on this matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. DAILLY: The people of British Columbia are the ones who

are suffering because of that attitude. Is the minister aware — and

this is a supplemental to that question — that plus having to have user

fees imposed upon our citizens, plus the fact that they've all been

imposed with a health surtax of 8 percent, that because of all these

impositions the people of British Columbia are probably having to be

responsible for more health taxes than anywhere else in Canada? Because

of this, I want to ask the minister: is he also aware that on top of

all this the Vancouver General Hospital has recently sent out a letter

to people who have just returned from having surgery or any other form

of care in the hospital, asking them to contribute money to that

hospital? On top of all these other things, we now have people being

asked to contribute through charity for our hospitals. Is the minister

aware that that is being done in B.C.?

[2:15]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would presume that if the

member is speaking of that, it is probably the Vancouver General

Hospital Foundation which has been soliciting funding over quite a

number of years, as do other hospital foundations. I'm not aware that

the Vancouver General Hospital is soliciting, but I would not be

surprised if their foundation is soliciting funds, which they have been

for some time, as are many other hospitals in the province by way of

their foundations. That could be what you're speaking of.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm referring to the research institute, to which they've been asked to contribute funds.

To follow up on this whole matter, it seems to me that the people of

British Columbia are now finding that this government is trying to turn

our hospitals into being financed through charity. We are going to lose

the universality of medicare if this government continues to impose

this kind of financing on our hospitals. So I'm asking the minister: in

view of all this, will he at least give consideration to removing the

user fees from our hospitals? Or are we waiting for just before the

next election?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would hope the member for

Burnaby North is not suggesting that within our society individual

citizens cannot and should not be encouraged to assist hospitals in

attempting to improve their facilities by way of soliciting funds from

either friends of the hospital or those who have benefited at some

point or time from the hospital; because if the member is saying that,

then the member is offending many of the people who are responsible for

hospital foundations.

Most recently the Mount St. Joseph Hospital in Vancouver has

launched a campaign to raise funds for some specific reasons. They

would like to see certain modifications and acquisition of some

equipment in their hospital. Several other hospitals in the province

have raised funds over the years for acquisition of certain equipment.

The Variety Club of British Columbia has raised about $7 million for

acquisition of certain equipment, specifically for the Children's

Hospital. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to acknowledge the great success of

Timmy's Christmas Telethon. which on the weekend raised in excess of $3

million to assist handicapped children in B.C. I hope the member isn't

suggesting that there's no room in our system, in our society, for

individual citizens to offer a contribution. I don't know why the word

"charity" has a bad connotation according to that member, but I see

nothing wrong with citizens wishing to acknowledge their appreciation

of a system by offering some form of contribution, if they can afford

it, to assist other people who may not be able to.

Mr. Speaker, the user fees in British Columbia have been part of our system....

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, Vancouver City Savings Credit Union.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the user fee has been part of

our hospital program since the very beginning. It does not impose a

hardship on citizens. On the very rare occasion where it may, other

arrangements are made. It is not our intent at this time to discontinue

the user fees in our system.

The money that the member referred to is presumably in an account in Ottawa, At least we hope it's in an account in Ottawa.

MRS. DAILLY: In referring to the letter, does the minister

consider that sending such a letter to someone who's just at home

recovering from surgery is not an attempt to lay a guilt trip on that

patient?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would think that a person

who has successfully undergone surgery at one of our major hospitals,

and probably is somewhat relieved that his problem may have been

corrected or improved, would not necessarily feel imposed upon if he

received such a letter. However, if the member wishes to direct me to

contact the Vancouver General Hospital and order them to cease sending

such letters, then I wish she would make that point clear.

OMINECA ENTERPRISES LTD.

MR. LEA: I know that the Premier is familiar with the Fort

Nelson company called Omineca Enterprises Ltd. and that he's aware that

there's been a long-standing dispute between Omineca and the Ministry

of Forests and other government agencies. I know that that has been

brought to the Premier's attention. In fact, a board appointed by the

government under the Forest Act found that the government had illegally

taken timber licences away from Omineca, and that board ordered that

those licences be returned. Over a period of years, a number of

government agencies in the ministries.... It is obvious in going over

the files that those agencies and government ministries have been the

biggest contributing factors to Omineca's going bankrupt in the forest

industry.

[ Page

7243 ]

Has the Premier recommended to cabinet that a commission be

appointed under the Inquiry Act so that an impartial justice can take

place, away from government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I haven't, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: But the Premier is aware of Omineca and the

long-standing dispute between that company and different agencies and

ministries of government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I have received letters, I believe, and representation personally, I believe, some time ago from the owners of the company.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the Premier whether he would be

willing to take time out in his

schedule to meet with the principals of

Omineca. When the Premier does go over the evidence in detail, I think

he will agree with me that the biggest contributing factor to that

company going broke was a mishmash of errors and mismanagement. I'm not

laying the blame on any political motivation, just mismanagement of

government and how government can act in its big bureaucracies against

the little guy. Would the Premier undertake, if I could call his

office, to at least set two hours aside, because it's a complicated

issue and would take that long for the Premier to understand the kind

of injustice that has happened?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member

expressing a concern for the members he introduced earlier. I will

undertake to get a report from my Forests minister on the issue and

review the matter with him.

MR. LEA: I don't think it would do much good to get a report

from the Forests ministry, because I don't think the report would be

able to satisfy the questions that are being asked, I'd much prefer to

see people from the Forests ministry and the Forests minister eyeball

to eyeball with these people in front of the Premier so the truth can

be gotten at. I've seen the report. There was a court case....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, clearly question

period is beginning to digress totally from the intent of question

period, which is to ask a specific question of a specific minister. We

must narrow our questions and not resort to addresses at this

particular time.

MR. LEA: I appreciate the Speaker's advice, and I admit that I've been going a little close to the line.

MR. SPEAKER: Close?

MR. LEA: But if you have to go a little close to the line to

get justice for British Columbians in this province, you'd better be

prepared to do it. I believe this company is in bad shape; they've been

driven bankrupt by government. I'm asking the Premier if he would

personally intervene, not just take the word of the officials in that

ministry, because you're not going to get the straight goods. Quite

frankly, I don't think you'll get the straight goods from the minister

either.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member has drawn a conclusion. Obviously

I can agree with him on one thing philosophically, and that is to look after

the little guy in British Columbia — for those who do have a problem with bureaucracy.

I do not agree. He has made a number of assumptions that obviously

may not be correct. I will deal with the minister, as I do have

confidence in my Minister of Forests as a colleague and one who has

served the people of this province well.

LOG EXPORTS

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

of Forests, who, as is his wont, is not in his place. So I'm going to

address it to his number one stand-in, who is, according to the words I

have, the Attorney-General, who I'm sure knows all about forestry.

Some time ago the Minister of Forests announced that he was going to

take some steps to control log exports, effective the end of this year.

He has now moved that date back. Why has this government decided to

expand and extend log exports at this time?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll take the question as notice for the Minister of Forests, Mr. Speaker.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Human Resources, who is not in her seat, but I'm wondering whether her

aide, the member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), is qualified to respond to this question. Or should I just hold it until tomorrow? What do you think?

MR. SPEAKER: You can't ask me, hon. member. You must either pose or not pose the question,

MS. BROWN: I think I'll hold it.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Trade and Investment was responsible for carrying out the northeast coal project…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: …and for getting the hole in the wrong place —

and for helping to add to a worldwide surplus with respect to coal,

which has impacted the southeast part of the province desperately.

There have been cutbacks in employment of 1,000 people in the southeast

part of the province. In view of the fact that the southeast has taken

the brunt of that decision and the northeast is running at 107 percent

of contract vs. 50 percent in the southeast, does the Minister of Trade

not think it would be reasonable to share the distribution of pain with

respect to cutbacks in the province so that there is fuller employment

in the Kootenays of British Columbia as a result of his adding to the

surplus?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that the member for

Vancouver East has finally been unmuzzled by his leader, but he's still

flushing the same old toilet — northeast versus southeast. The member

seems to forget that there were three new mines in Canada — in the

southeast and in Alberta — brought on at the same time that there were

two new mines brought in in the northeast. He doesn't realize that

there were mines brought on in Australia and indeed mines

[ Page 7244 ]

brought on in Russia. But like the rest of his

party over there and like his leader, he would far sooner see the jobs

go to Australia or to Russia or to South Africa or to some other

country than to British Columbia. So I say he's just flushing the same

old information.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it should not be necessary for the

Chair to constantly remind members that we have a rule for question

period, and that rule is that question period is to seek information,

not to bring information to the floor; nor is it an opportunity for

short speeches. It is an opportunity for a short

preamble followed by a

question. The Chair has been most lenient in allowing members an

opportunity to prepare their questions with the proper verbiage ahead

of them. However, clearly the Chair will be forced to take direct

action if members do not somehow or other address the rules that bind

us in question period.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 33, Mr. Speaker.

CHARTER OF RIGHTS AMENDMENTS ACT, 1985

Bill 33 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call report on Bill 34.

FAMILY LAW REFORM AMENDMENTS ACT, 1985

Bill 34 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 55, Mr. Speaker.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1985

Bill 55 read a third time and passed.

[2:30]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 68, Mr. Speaker.

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1985

The House in committee on Bill 68; Mr. Ree in the chair.

section 1.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman,

Section I deals with the increase in

the maximum wage that a worker can insure. I recognize that the members

over there — the ministers and other odds and sods — are busy, so I

will just take my time and wait until they settle down a bit. I'll

press on in due course.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the House come to order and the member continue.

MR. COCKE: This first

section deals with the increase of maximum insurable

wages. Now I contend that an increase in maximum insurable wages is a valiant

offer. But it is also a bit deceptive, because what we are doing here is turning

over the responsibility for seeing to it that claims are met to people who don't

want to pay claims. I would have confidence in a

section such as this were I

to see that the Workers' Compensation Board was at all sympathetic to the

claims of B.C. workers. I earlier brought it to the minister's attention

not only that claims adjudication is tough but also that, when a claim is turned

down and two years later, when the person is absolutely flat broke and on welfare,

that claim finally gets to a board of appeal, and the appeal board reverses

the original adjudication, then that is turned down by the Compensation Board.

So what is the good of a $40,000 maximum if in fact you don't collect!

Too many people in this province are hurting badly right now by

virtue of the irresponsible, cold, rough, tough attitude of the

Workers' Compensation Board. I just ask the committee, on behalf of the

people we represent: how long are we going to put up with an absolutely

arbitrary Workers' Compensation Board in this province? It's all very

well for the minister to come in to this House and say: "Look what

we're doing. We're giving them an increase in their workers'

compensation." Marvellous, isn't it, Mr. Member from Little Mountain?

MR. MOWAT: It's a help.

MR. COCKE: Sure it's a help to those lucky enough to get by

the adjudication. That's not the kind of luck we need. The kind of luck

we need is justice of adjudication at the Workers' Compensation Board.

We are not getting justice of adjudication now.

Mr. Chairman, let the minister get up and tell us that there are

going to be some new changes of real assistance to those people.

Appointing a bunch more chairpersons for your boards of appeal isn't

going to do that much good. So far we haven't seen any rectification to

speak of in terms of the time people have to wait. What we need here is

a minister who will stand up and make the Workers' Compensation Board

reflect fair play in British Columbia. While bringing in adhesive

plasters like this looks great on the surface, it doesn't do the job

that must be done in workers' compensation in this province.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That whisper of "not true" from an MLA who's

looking after his or her responsibility.... They know perfectly well

that it is absolutely true. I can't be the only person that has been

loaded right up to the neck with workers' compensation problems. Every

member of this Legislature that is responsible is, of course, receiving

the same kind of complaint — day after day and horror story after

horror story — that I'm receiving.

So the $40,000 in and of itself is only one aspect of this. The real problem....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, debate in committee

should be strictly relevant to the section. Debate elsewhere may be

appropriate in second reading but not in committee. Would the member be

relevant to

section 1, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the relevancy is as follows: the

$40,000 maximum reflects whether or not.... That says that there's

access to a claim. I say there is not the proper

[ Page

7245 ]

access to that claim, and it's specifically

relevant to this section, not any other section. This is the relevant

section of this bill. Mr. Chairman, what's the point in us having a

debate in committee if, in fact, we can't bring the relevancies

forward? That's precisely what I'm doing here. The minister knows it,

and everyone else knows it, Mr. Chairman.

This is an opportunity for the minister to reply directly to

questions vis-à-vis

Section 1 of this bill. What are we doing here?

Give that minister an opportunity to answer these questions. Mr.

Chairman, that's precisely what I'm doing now. I'll sit and let the

minister answer my question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 1 pass?

MR. COCKE: No, Mr. Chairman. Obviously the minister is not

observing a responsible position with respect to answering questions

around this particular section. The minister has the responsibility

provided by the Legislature, provided by cabinet, to be the minister

responsible for the Workers' Compensation Board. He, better than

anybody, knows the travesty that's being wrought. He, better than

anybody, knows that people are not being given fair play, so his

$40,000

section is irrelevant to the great number of people out there

who are being unfairly dealt with by this adjudication.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Well, I'm in a bit of difficulty because I

understood that the principle of the

section was to be dealt with. The

debate would be limited to the principle, but if it's the Chair's wish,

I will respond to the member's question as I did in second reading of

the bill. I am open to the direction of the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair does not direct, hon. minister. The

rule set by the members of this House is that debate should be relevant

to the section, and the minister will conduct debate accordingly.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Following your judgment, then, Mr.

Chairman, I can only debate with you the principle of the section. I

would have to agree that the debate with respect to the appeal process

isn't relevant to the section. So I'm tied by the House rules, and I

don't want to offend the House rules or the members of the assembly.

MR. COCKE: Ducking and dodging isn't going to change

anything; wimping out on a particularly important argument isn't going

to change anything. The minister is dodging his responsibility to

debate the really practical aspect of this. He has raised the maximum

limit. Having raised the maximum limit, what is the point if people

don't have access to their claim? That's as relevant to this.... I

mean, after all, what are we doing? We're not playing some child's game

in this committee. What we're doing here is discussing whether or not

people have access to that $40,000; otherwise, Mr. Chairman, what's the

point of it all?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, to the member for New Westminster, 95

percent of all of the appeals made to the Workers' Compensation Board are

dealt with and processed automatically. So it doesn't at all involve the

adjudication process that one has to go through to have his case reviewed. This

section of the bill doesn't deal with that, but 96 percent or 95 percent

of all of the applicants who make application to the Workers' Compensation

Board are approved and adjudicated automatically.

MR. COCKE: I'm so excited about that; I just can't tell you

how marvellous that is. The fact of the matter is that 95 percent of

the claims to the Workers' Compensation Board are not claims of great

significance. The long-term claims are the ones that are hurting here.

Certainly there are claims that the Workers' Compensation Board

responds to very quickly. A person breaks a finger and is back at work

within a week or two, etc. We all know that there are short-term....

The claims of magnitude are the ones responded to negatively by the

Workers' Compensation Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. COCKE: Not true! What the blazes does that member know about anything!

HON. MR. SEGARTY: As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, 95 percent

of those who make application for workers' compensation are approved

automatically. The rest go before the boards of review, and of the ones

that the boards of review deal with and approve, only 3 percent then

are referred to the commissioners for further discussion. So the appeal

process does provide access to all individuals.

I explained to the member in second reading the other day how the

appeal process was being cleaned up, and I hope to have that in place

by the end of December, with a report on my desk from my staff on the

interviews that they've conducted around the province with regard to

personnel by December 11. The regulations governing the boards of

review are being discussed between the parties of interest and my

deputy minister in the hope that the parties of interest will agree

with the regulations governing the boards of review. In my belief, if

the parties of interest agree on those regulations, they will have

respect for the regulations when they're in place, and that will enable

the parties to have fair, decent and even-handed treatment by the

Workers' Compensation Board with respect to a review of their claim.

[2:45]

MR. GABELMANN: I would like to he able to congratulate the

minister for bringing in a change of this kind, which is positive in

and of itself. Unfortunately, in the climate of today that's not

possible to do, because this is tinkering with the biggest cancer in

our province's society that I can remember. The state of the Workers'

Compensation Board is so bad that I, as an MLA.... I'm sure if every

MLA were honest he would tell you that wherever you go in this

province, meeting with workers who are involved directly or indirectly

with compensation, all they can talk about is the problems they've had

with the Workers' Compensation Board. Claims are submitted and it's up

to two years before the first adjudication is finished, in some cases.

Then it's another two years before a board of review is finished. These

people in some cases are living on welfare for the first years of their

claim.

What we should have in this province is not a

section I bringing up

a level so that workers can get a maximum $30,000 a year; what we

should have is a full public inquiry into the rot that exists at the

Workers' Compensation Board. That's what's required. We don't need

these kinds of piecemeal amendments. The amendment is well and good by

itself, but we've got a major crisis out there. There is no other

[ Page 7246 ]

institution of government that is so badly and so

deliberately misrun as that institution. There is only one concern over

there, and that is to maximize the benefits that can be made to

employers. There is no concern about the accident rate. There is no

concern about looking after injured workers. There is only a concern

about reducing the amount of money people have to pay on their

assessment. Mr. Chairman, that has got to stop.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, the Chairman is

certainly very lenient, but I don't think that that member has yet

referred to the section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair earlier pointed out that debate in

committee should be relevant to the section. The Chair has allowed a

certain leeway for members to develop an argument. The member did make

reference to the section, hon. minister, indicating he considered it

preferable. But if the member for North Island would contain his debate

section 1, please.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I'm just warming up.

Section1I has a provision which in effect — the numbers are

different because it's a 75 percent rule — brings workers up to

$30,000. Workers earning $40,000 a year can get $30,000. That's what

the

section requires. But has the minister directed the chairman of the

Workers' Compensation Board at the same time to increase the assessment

level? I'm not sure of the terminology that's used inside the board for

this particular figure, but employers are assessed at $26,000-some-odd

for their employees, no matter whether the employee is making that

$40,000 that we're referring to in this section. Has the minister

directed the chairman of the board to fix up that particular problem?

It's a problem that hurts those small employers who are paying on the

full payroll, as opposed to the big employers like perhaps Cominco and

some of the major employers who are not paying on full payroll because

they're limited to $26,000-and-some-odd per worker. Has that change

also gone in, accompanying this change?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: That would be subject to a policy announcement by the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board.

MR. GABELMANN: When will that happen, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Whenever the chairman of the Workers'

Compensation Board feels that it's a priority. I won't give the

Workers' Compensation Board chairman direction in that area.

MR. GABELMANN: So what the minister is telling us, Mr.

Chairman — because as he sees it he has jurisdiction over this

particular set of dollars and the chairman has jurisdiction over

another set of numbers — is that he's going to bring in this one

change, and he doesn't really know whether the chairman of the board is

going to bring in the other change which should accompany this change.

As far as I'm concerned, we should hold this up until the chairman

brings in that change, because why should those employers who are

paying on payrolls that average more than $26,000 a year get off

scot-free, while the smaller employers who have payrolls averaging a

lesser number of dollars pay more in proportion? Why are we bringing in

this

section before that change is made? Doesn't it go together? Isn't

that obvious?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I can only say that that is subject to a policy decision of the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman,

section 2 is amending

section 73(1)

of the Workers Compensation Act. We had a bit of a discussion during

second reading on this section. All of us recognize and all of us have

memory of the arbitrary possibilities and the arbitrary — sometimes —

use of the power of the commissioner of the Workers' Compensation

Board. We remember the arbitrary penalty of $1,500 minimum for

transgression of hygiene and safety regulations. I asked the minister

before, and I want him to really clarify this: will this kind of an

amendment then take away the necessity for that arbitrary situation?

The reason I ask that is because can you imagine a firm such as Cominco

being fined $1,500 and, as I used in an example, a firm with seven

employees being fined $1,500? The percentage is so obvious. One would

be hurt and one wouldn't even feel it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The offence doesn't matter?

MR. COCKE: There's a minister of the Crown saying: "And the

offence doesn't matter, eh?" The offence of Cominco, for an example, is

pretty major in this province. The offence of a corner drycleaner may

be an offence, but you're going to drive him into the ground with this

kind of an arbitrary attitude. That's all. Fair is fair.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The amendment does give more flexibility to the

Workers' Compensation Board in assessing penalties of that nature to large

employers and small employers.

The purpose of the

section is, though, to force compliance with

industrial health and safety standards, and not necessarily to make the

Workers' Compensation Board rich. I would hope that they would be able

to use the

section in that area to try to get compliance to

regulations. Many of the industrial health and safety people in many of

the large industries across the province would argue that it was

cheaper to pay the fine or the assessment that was levied by the

Workers' Compensation Board for non-compliance than it was to comply

with the regulations. I hope that this will give the Workers'

Compensation Board more flexibility in getting compliance to regulatory

standards.

MR. GABELMANN: When I first saw the amendments the other day,

my first thought was that this was going to be the experience-rating

question. Then on looking closer I realized it wasn't, and it was

simply a change in the way the levies operate. I don't really

understand why this is needed. A percentage could be 1 percent; it

could be 80 percent; it could be 7,000 percent. It can be any number of

dollars that is deemed appropriate by the commissioners of the board.

Maybe I'm thick and just don't understand why it is that this

[ Page

7247 ]

particular wording was required. It seemed to me

that the percentage approach was one that would have allowed the board

to do what it wants to do anyway. I'll quit for a moment while I get

the answer.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the lawyers would argue that

1 percent means something less than 100 percent. What this does is give

the board more flexibility in assessing penalties for non-compliance.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, it's not just lawyers who would

argue that 1 percent is less than 100 percent. The fact is that a

percentage could be any amount. It's not limited to less than 100

percent or more than1I percent or any number. Athletes, all the time,

are doing 110 percent of their ability; we hear that every day. So

what's wrong with a percentage? You can levy any percentage you desire.

Why the change?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the

section says that they'll

now be able to assess for non-compliance of regulations. An employer

will be able to be assessed more than their last year's total

assessment. It may be beyond the amount that they were paying the

previous year, depending on the violation of the regulation.

MR. GABELMANN: One of us is very thick, Mr. Chairman, and I'm

not going to say which. If your assessment last year was $110,000, and

the board decides to give you a 200 percent penalty, you're going to

have to pay $220,000. I don't understand what the minister's trying to

say. However, maybe it's me. Maybe I'm not understanding.

I want to make a couple of other points about this section, Mr.

Chairman. It deals with the whole question of how health and safety

regulations are going to be practised and adhered to on the job site —

because if they're not, penalties are going to be assessed in this new

manner. I think we should understand that when penalties of this kind

are imposed, unless they are accompanied by some very significant

administration on the part of the board, we are going to have countless

walking wounded around this province. It will be, more than ever, in

the employer's best advantage to insist — or to encourage, at least —

that workers stay on the job even though they're sitting in the

lunchroom or the coffee shop or whatever, not working, while their

broken arm mends, because the board isn't interested in having its

experience rating increased. They will inevitably have both the

experience rating, which is coming in tomorrow.... The chairman of the

board, I understand, is going to make that announcement tomorrow: that

experience rating, at the request of the Employers' Council, is going

to come in tomorrow despite the fact that most people active in the

whole issue of compensation are very nervous about experience rating

because it will lead to walking wounded. We're going to have a double

whammy of encouragement to employers to encourage their workers not to

report their compensation claims. Instead of being off for a couple of

weeks on compensation, the employer will let them be off a couple of

weeks but pretending to be working so their experience rating doesn't

go up, because it will be far more damaging to the particular employer

under an experience rating system, and then with this on top of it.

We're walking into some very dangerous territory here, Mr. Chairman.

It's why I said at the outset that these kinds of changes, without a

full inquiry, without the full participation of everybody involved in

this issue.... To make piecemeal changes is potentially — and I think

in this particular section, more than potentially — a very real threat

to the existing kind of compensation system that we have. We're going

to see more walking wounded than we have ever seen before in this

province with those changes.

The whole question of this

section is very much connected to the

regulations, too. If the regulations are loose, like the proposed ones

that couldn't be brought in because the former minister didn't get his

amendments last spring, but that are sitting out there — and the

employers have been assured that they're going to get it.... Those

regulations very much impact on this particular section. So what's

going to happen? Is it true, as representatives of the board say, that,

in fact, the sections relating to farmworkers are not going to be

brought in, and that the sections are not going to be introduced for

discussion, as the act still requires, but that the sections that have

been drafted and have been sitting there for some months now — despite

denials by the chairman of the board, by Mr. Greer and by others — and

that were prepared by the employers for the employers, are now going to

go out for discussion minus the farmworkers sections? What's going to

happen to this kind of section, Mr. Chairman, when the regulations

won't be very tough anymore? What employer is going to worry about

that? And if there are accidents on the job, to avoid excessive — in

his mind — premiums, because of experience rating, he's going to

encourage injured workers to continue to work and to continue on the

payroll.

[3:00]

More than anything else, Mr. Chairman, this

section symbolizes for

me why we should not bring in changes to the compensation act

piecemeal. There is a major crisis out there. What's happening on the

board is eating away at health and safety in this province. It's

damaging people's lives. And the minister brings in piecemeal changes —

this one in particular, which I don't think is even needed. At the same

time the whole system is changing so that workplace health and safety

will not be valued, and will not need to be valued by employers. There

will be an increase in walking wounded. When a worker does stay on the

job for a couple of weeks with some injury, instead of reporting to the

Compensation Board, and then has a repetition of that injury sometime

later.... If he aggravates that injury off the job and is forced to go

to the Compensation Board, there will be no work history. Because he

was encouraged to be one of the walking wounded, the board will say:

"Well, we've never had the initial report. It has nothing to do with

us."

Whatever happens to these amendments — pass or fail doesn't matter.

If the minister is interested in doing something about compensation in

this province, he will urge the government to pass an order-in-council

setting up a royal commission with full powers of inquiry over this

rotting stench over there on the mainland.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I have a tough time

responding and staying within the parameters set out for debate in

committee stage with respect to the changes in

section 2. But just to

help the member, who I don't think was here the other day when we were

discussing second reading of the bill, accidents are down in British

Columbia by 21 percent; and that's a credit to the individuals who

volunteer their time in industrial plants across British Columbia to

make the workplace a safe place for all participants. I don't find many

people walking wounded around the plants. In fact, I know

[ Page 7248 ]

those industrial health and safety committees

wouldn't tolerate too many people walking wounded around the plants. I

put more faith and confidence in them and their ability to supervise

their plants than in many of the critics of the workers' compensation

system and individuals who sit in the top bureaucracy of trade unions

and companies — and, indeed, in the workers' compensation system itself.

For the member's information on regulations, in 1983, and before

that, there was discussion with respect to regulatory change, and on

October 14, 1983, representatives of the British Columbia Federation of

Labour walked out of meetings being held with the Workers' Compensation

Board and the employer community in protest against a proposed

regulation. I have no difficulty with that. But all of those things

took place prior to Walter Flesher becoming chairman of the Workers'

Compensation Board. In fact, those regulations were going through the

benefit of public hearings when he became chairman of the board.

The worry out in the community was that they would be put into place

and carry the full force of law, because there were the public

hearings. There has been no amendment brought to this House by me to

change the Workers Compensation Act to eliminate the public hearing

process. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of bringing

any amendment to this House that would eliminate the public hearing

process with respect to regulations. However, you've got to know that

when I became minister I did discuss those regulations with the

chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board; and because of the fear

out in the community with respect to those regulations, I asked the

chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board to commit them to the

incinerator — which he did. We received some criticism for that from

some labour representatives, who complained that many of them put in

many hours of hard work in the development of those regulations.

Nevertheless, there was fear in the community that the Workers'

Compensation Board would proceed with those regulations because they

did have the benefit of public hearings. When I became minister, the

chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board committed those regulations

to the incinerator, even though they had the benefit of public hearings.

I have said time and time again, and I give my word to the Chair and

to all hon. members in this House, that no amendment will be brought to

this House that will eliminate the public hearing process. But I have

asked that draft copies of the regulations be now sent out to

industrial health and safety committees across British Columbia. They

will be discussed by the individuals who sit on those industrial health

and safety committees, who have to work with them on a day-today basis,

to get their input, to have them discuss the draft with their

colleagues in the workplace, and to forward them back through their

various union locals and employer communities to the Workers'

Compensation Board for drafting, and then to be sent out to public

hearings at that time. The community will have a full opportunity to

debate and discuss all aspects of those regulations. The area that is

particularly sensitive to the community at the plant level is the area

dealing with pesticides, chemical use, and a number of other areas that

are new today because of changing technology and a whole variety of

things; your ability to keep up with those changes is limited.

But that's the area that's of concern to the industrial health and

safety committees. I made them a commitment, and I honour that

commitment to them, that they will have full opportunity to sit down,

discuss those changes, make suggestions where there are none, and

improve on them where possible. That's the only way that we'll be able

to develop those regulatory changes. It's my belief that the process

will take a long time, but by doing so British Columbia will have the

best industrial health and safety standards in all of Canada because

they will have been developed by individuals who have hands-on

experience in the workplace on a day-to-day basis, and not by some

bureaucrat in the Workers' Compensation Board or by some representative

of a major union or employer group who hasn't seen the inside of a

plant for the past five to ten years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If members keep their debate relevant to the section, the replies might also be relevant to the section.

MR. GABELMANN: When these regulations are mailed out, and I gather that it's going to be either Christmas Eve or before....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Before Christmas or after, the member says;

yes, before the turn of the century or later. When they are mailed out,

as I understand they are going to be, will regulations No. 5 and No. 6,

as they are called, be included in that mail-out? No. 5 is pesticide;

No. 6 is agriculture.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Again, Mr. Chairman, this has nothing to do

with the section, but if I can answer the hon. member, the proposal is

to send out all regulations that are in draft form today.

MR. GABELMANN: All, I assume, includes 5 and 6. In that

event, after this public process takes place, will all of those

regulations, as amended and agreed to by this public process, then be

implemented as regulations to the act?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The process, as I understand it, is that

they will go out to the communities of interest for discussion; they'll

be forwarded back to Workers' Compensation to be put in draft form

again and forwarded out then to public hearing; and after they have

received the benefit of public hearing, they can be put in place by the

Workers' Compensation Board. I said earlier on that I wasn't going to

bring an amendment into the House that would take away the authority of

the Workers' Compensation Board to make its own regulations after they

have received the benefit of public hearings.

MR. GABELMANN: I understand that and I applaud the member for that.

According to Country Life ,

following a meeting between the minister, the Minister of Agriculture

and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), WCB commissioner Hall and the member,

unnamed, of the Attorney-General's staff, the Federation of Agriculture

representatives won assurances that guidelines would be published, not

regulations. Is that now no longer government policy?

[ Page 7249 ]

MR. GABELMANN: In that event, I'm not able at this point to

ask Mr. Flesher his opinion, but I can ask the Minister of Labour his.

Is it government policy that these draft regulations, once approved

following the public process, will in fact be regulations?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I understood I answered that question a

little while ago when I said that the process was that the regulations,

now in draft form, will go out to the parties of interest for

discussion; they will be returned to the Workers' Compensation Board,

redrafted and forwarded out then for public hearing and discussion.

Once that takes place, the Workers' Compensation Board has the

authority under the act to impose those regulations, because the act

requires it.

MR. GABELMANN: Let me try again, Mr. Chairman. Does that mean

that sections 5 and 6, if they meet a mixed reaction when presented to

the community interest groups, may well be pulled out of this set of

regulations? Is that a possibility? Or will in fact this entire set of

regulations — hopefully in some perhaps amended form — be enacted as

regulation by the WCB?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The process is open to the parties of

interest to make amendments to the draft regulations as they're

distributed. They have to work out their areas of difficulty, and there

may be many. But their ability to work out all of those areas of

difficulty and to meet consensus on all of those areas, or on the

majority of them.... I would hope on all of them, because by sitting

down together and working out a consensus you strengthen the bonds of

relationship and better understanding between both parties. Once they

have achieved consensus, I would hope the Workers' Compensation Board

would proceed according to the act.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. GABELMANN: The consensus may not be achievable in one or

two areas. It's possible, therefore, that some workers in this province

will be working for employers who do not wish to have regulations, and

therefore the board will say that no regulations will be imposed in

those sectors. Is that a possible conclusion of the process the

minister talks of?

[3:15]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, our ability to get along with

each other in 1985, and to reach consensus in many areas, will be the

key to our success in the future. I would hope that we wouldn't hold up

a whole package of regulations where we have met consensus — not put

them into regulatory form where we have met consensus. Our ability to

continue to work in the areas of difficulty will be keyed to our

success or failure in the future.

I don't know what they will do, but I intend, in the spring, to

conduct a series of industrial health and safety workshops across the

province because I have a special interest in that area and because, as

a former member of the IWA and an individual who spent many years in

the plants across the province, I understand the process very well. The

support we can give to those industrial health and safety committees

across the province will be key. I would hope that developing consensus

in many areas of regulation reform will strengthen the bargaining

process and many other areas of relationship between the two groups.

That's the process I would like to see developed. I know there is a

genuine interest on the part of both parties to achieve consensus and

to recognize that their ability to get along with each other will be

key to success in the future.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully, and I

think I now understand government policy; that is, that if the

employers in a particular sector do not wish there to be regulations,

there will not be regulations.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm talking about a specific situation which

the minister knows full well. The minister has given assurances to the

agricultural industry that they will not have to have regulations,

according to government policy. The Minister of Agriculture and the

Minister of Labour, at the meeting, together with Mr. Hall from the

board, said that guidelines are government policy, not regulations. So

why are we going through this sham process of sending out draft

regulations when in fact it's government policy, as reported by the

Federation of Agriculture — government and WCB policy, I might add....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Have you talked to your family lately?

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, and my family supports me on this issue.

I've had this consistent position since.... When we were government we

went around this province asking farmworkers what their views were on

this issue, and we got a consensus then too. That's just straying a

little bit.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! One at a time. The minister will come to order, please.

MR. GABELMANN: What we have is a

section amending

section 73,

which is the levies. The levies can apply based on regulations and

other things. What we've got is a situation where government policy —

and not denied by the minister; I welcome him to deny my assertion that

it's government policy that guidelines instead of regulations be

applied in the agricultural industry. I welcome him to deny that. This

was in October. He may now have a new policy in December. I would

welcome him to deny that the October statements are government policy —

that regulations will not apply, but guidelines will in that particular

sector. And if it's still government policy, as it was six weeks ago,

then why are these regulations being sent out when government policy is

clear that they won't be regulations, they'll be guidelines?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the Workers' Compensation

Board has the authority, once all of the public discussion has taken

place, to impose the regulations across the board. As I told the member

for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) the other day, this Minister of Labour

will not have a

[ Page 7250 ]

deal in his drawer for one group or another

anywhere in British Columbia. He will treat all British Columbians in a

fair, open and even-handed way. I will not open the drawer and have a

deal for the agricultural community, nor will I have a deal for the

B.C. Federation of Labour, nor will I have a deal for their affiliates.

That's the way it's going to work. I will not change that process or

the public hearing process or anything else for one group or another in

British Columbia. That's the role that I intend to play.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, we're making some progress. The

minister described an even-handed policy for all groups. May I ask him

if that means that all workers, no matter where they work, will be

treated equally under the Workers Compensation Act?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, the act speaks for itself. I

have no intention of making any amendments to the Workers Compensation

Act with respect to the public hearing process.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North Island — and once again

the committee is reminded that we're dealing with "flexibility

in...additional assessments on employers with poor safety records."

That is the specific intent of this section.

MR. GABELMANN: I recognize that, Mr. Chairman, and I'm

looking at

section 73 of the act, subsection (1)(c), which I think

makes this debate in order.

Mr. Chairman, the minister was.... Well, he got warmed up and the

Irish temper got going; he started to give us an answer, and then on

the next one he backed off again. He says the act speaks for itself.

The act speaking for itself right now does not treat workers equitably

in this province. Not all workers are covered in the same way. Not all

workers have regulations in their place of employment. That's what I'm

asking for. I'm asking that when these draft regulations go out for

discussion and come in, all of the various sections contained within

are going to be — once the full process has happened — part of the

regulations for health and safety in all workplaces in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 2…?

MR. GABELMANN: Well, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: On

section 2, the member for North Island.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, the minister can't just nod his

head. I can't go out and say to the people that when I asked that

question the minister nodded his head. I need it in Hansard .

HON. MR. SEGARTY: It must be my Irish accent or something

today, but what I said earlier on was — and I say it again — that the

regulations will go out to the parties of interest for discussion. They

will come back in to the Workers' Compensation Board, be redrafted and

be sent back out in draft form for public hearing. The reason some

groups in our society today are not covered by workers' compensation is

because those regulations or whatever you choose to call them haven't

had the benefit of public hearings. Once they've had the benefit of

public hearings they will be put in place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Further, the committee is reminded that the

debate on

section 2 specifically deals with the amendment as we see it

printed in the

section before us and does not include and cannot

include references to subsections (a), (

b) or (c), but to the paragraph

following, which is clearly stated in the bill that we are debating at

this point.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the minister has given us assurance

that all things are going to be fair: the assessment proposition and so

on and so forth. I contend that there is a group that has been given an

assurance that no assessment will be made, and that is the farmworkers

of the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, let me read to the minister, and let him deny if he will, the following. This was an

article by Carol M. Gore on Country Life

magazine's front page, following the discussion on the set of

regulations: "Following that announcement, in a series of meetings with

Labour Minister Terry Segarty, Agriculture and Food Minister Harvey

Schroeder, WCB commissioner Hall and a member of the Attorney-General's

staff, BCFA representatives won assurances that guidelines would be

published, not regulations." Does the minister deny that? Otherwise the

whole thing is....

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the guidelines are already

published. There's been an education program in place for two and a

half years, and they're already covered under the act. What we're

talking about is imposing or working out regulations dealing with the

farm community.

MR. COCKE: It says "not regulations."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! At this point, hon. members, even the

minister has been allowed too much latitude. Clearly now we must

address the

section before us, which deals specifically with greater

flexibility in imposing additional assessments on employers with poor

safety records. That is all we can do at this point. The

section is

quite clear, the explanatory notes are quite clear, and so are

section

73(1) and the amended paragraphs quite clear, if the members wish to

look at either the act we're amending or the

section that does amend

that act.

MR. GABELMANN: I acknowledge that there appears to be some

straying in terms of the specific element in the amendment. But there

isn't, because if workers don't have regulations in place as mentioned

under 73(1)(

c) of the act, the effect of this penalty

section changes

entirely. So we've got to discuss this question.

The minister is reminding me of Allan MacEachen — a Scotsman and an Irishman, both good at saying lots but saying nothing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are not discussing

section

73(1)(a), (

b) or (c). We are discussing a following paragraph in

section 73(1) of the act that is being amended. To that following

paragraph please, and the amendment that is before us in the bill.

[ Page 7251 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I am talking about the penalties

that could be applied in a particular situation as defined by this

section and as amended by the bill in front of us. That's what we are

talking about.

There is a significant impact for literally thousands of workers in

this province who want to know the answer to the question. We haven't

yet had an answer. Is the statement of October that guidelines will be

in place government policy, or is the policy that regulations of some

kind following the various processes that need to go through the

government policy? Regulations in each of these cases. Will sections 5

and 6 of the draft regulations in fact reappear as regulations at the

appropriate time?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think

you have been very generous with the member for North Island. You have

pointed out to him repeatedly that he is out of order and that the

section he is referring to in the act is not the

section under

discussion in the amendment. I think you have been most generous with

your time, and the member repeatedly insists upon following that line

of argument. I don't know what the Chair may do, but the member appears

to be out of order and apparently will pay no attention to your ruling.

[3:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a remedy, hon. members, but I am sure

the member for North Island can relate his remarks specifically to the

amendment in front of us in Bill 68, which does not deal with

regulations but rather with deleting one clause and substituting

another clause.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, it is 3:30. We could have had this finished at 3 o'clock if the minister would give us a straight answer.

MR. MITCHELL: I really wasn't going to get into this debate

until the minister opened up a very serious issue that is facing a lot

of workers out in the workforce, when he mentioned the herbicide and

pesticide problem. I am dealing with that

section amending the

regulations.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no

section amending regulations, hon. member.

MR. MITCHELL: Setting up the installation of the regulations the minister referred to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That

section is not amended, nor is it in the bill.

MR. MITCHELL: Okay, the assessments. It alters the

assessments that are indirectly affected by the type of claims allowed,

and if you are going to juggle the assessments to any employer, you

have to cover.... The assessments are there to cover the compensation

given to the worker on the job. That is the

section I am referring to,

part of

section 2, dealing with the assessments.

One of the big problems when you are setting up the regulations that

you keep referring to, the process of them going out to the various

people involved.... It is important that there should be some thought

in what proposed regulations go out.

One of the big problems that I have found in dealing with the

compensation board is what they recognize as being ailments based on

the use of herbicides. One of the issues right now is: what is a

justifiable ailment of misuse of such things as 2, 4-D, 2, 4, 5-T,

commonly called Agent Orange, which was used heavily by B.C. Hydro and

some of the forest companies? It was misused by those who were using

it. It is very much the same as your asbestos problems: you don't

realize the damage it has done to the worker until years later. Now I

know many of the veterans that came back from Vietnam managed to get a

$500 million or $700 million settlement from Dow Chemical out of court.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order. Attempting to follow

the member's debate with respect to an amendment of "an additional

assessment determined by the board and may collect the additional

assessment," he is now speaking about something that involves people of

another country, few of whom were covered by the Workers' Compensation

Board. It would appear that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is

speaking about something entirely different — barely within the same

universe — to that which is under discussion here. I've tried to follow

his connection between his earlier debate. I have absolutely no idea

what point he is trying to make, other than to consume time. Perhaps

you could point out whether he is in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order stated by the minister is

correct. We are dealing specifically with a

section that deletes one

clause and substitutes another. Therefore debate along the lines and

intent of the clause stating "an additional assessment determined by

the board and may collect the additional assessment" would be in order,

but nothing else can be permitted under our rules of debate. The Chair

will have to instruct members who don't wish to follow that standing

order to take their place. We have a clear

section in front of us, and

only debate on that

section and its intent will be allowed in

committee. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew continues on

section 2.

MR. MITCHELL: On that point of order, I was shocked that the

Minister of Health could not see the connection between the use of

Agent Orange in Vietnam and the use of that same product on the workers

in B.C.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Getting away from that, the Minister of Health knows more than I do that the danger there....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. One moment. The minister will

withdraw the reference to another hon. member. The minister will stand

in his place and withdraw. The Minister of Health is recognized.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, I will withdraw.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you have just instructed that

member to stay in order with respect to this amendment. He stands in

his place and immediately, once again, is absolutely out of order. Mr.

Chairman, it is not the position of a member to instruct the Chair, but

if I can offer advice, perhaps he should be told to either be in order

or just simply take his place.

[ Page 7252 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The point of order is well taken.

Once again, I will remind all members in committee that we are dealing

with a clause which deals with additional assessments as determined by

the board and nothing else. Can we stick to that section? The member

for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew continues on

section 2, Bill 68.

MR. MITCHELL: Through you to the minister, if the minister

would listen to what I said, I was on the point of order that he

brought up. I was referring to that. I was not trying to be out of

order, Your Honour; all I was trying to do was refer to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we speak to the section.

MR. MITCHELL: That's what I was hoping to get back to.

All I want, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister.... As I

said, I haven't been privy to the leaked documents with all the new

regulations that he referred to. I'm not getting out of order; he

referred to them. All I'm asking is that he look at those regulations

and make sure that when he circulates them to all the people who are

going to be involved, that there is something dealing with the danger

of herbicides and the type of qualifications needed to come under that

particular area.

Right now, the Minister of Labour is getting away from it, because

the Minister of Health has to pick up the costs, and that's all I'm

trying to get through. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

MR. ROSE: Well, I'd just like to clarify what the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was really asking. The clause, as I understand

it, deals with more hazardous occupations. I suppose what he is asking

is: in terms of occupations, such as B.C. Rail and B.C. Hydro, that

regularly employ hazardous chemicals, would these firms — and what

others would — fall under the occupations requiring a higher

assessment? Because of the possible dangers in a longitudinal theme —

retired people getting cancer — what occupations does the minister have

in mind?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, any company in British Columbia that's in violation of regulations that are currently in place.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. ROSE: Does that mean that those firms that defy the regulations pay higher fees to poison? Is that what you are saying?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Only a member of the New Democratic Party

would play games with the lives of individual British Columbians, the

disabled and the handicapped. To make such a statement is totally

erroneous. What I said earlier on was that any company in violation of

industrial health and safety standards would be assessed — maybe double

last year's assessment — and that the object of the exercise was not to

collect the fine but to force compliance to regulations, with worker

health and safety being the concern of every individual in this

province and not just the members of the New Democratic Party.

Section 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 68, Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 69, Mr. Speaker.

TRAVEL AGENTS AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1985

The House in committee on Bill 69; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

MR. LAUK: I didn't quite get, from the minister's public

statements on the question of the travel assurance fund, why the

cabinet would be allowed to set different amounts to be paid into it.

Could he give a brief explanation of why this

section is necessary?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, it allows us to adjust the amount of

the assessment per $1,000 of business transacted, and it also

recognizes different classifications of people in the business, such as

the travel agents themselves and the travel wholesalers.

Concern is primarily about where most of the problem occurs. Up

until this point there hasn't been any differential with regard to the

amount of assessment, and by watching where the problems occur, the

heavier assessment may fall on that class of person — i. e., a travel

wholesaler as opposed to a travel agent. So it gives us flexibility.

MR. LAUK: Some members of the industry are expressing concern

that this allows the cabinet to discriminate against them without

guidelines. I wonder whether or not guidelines should not be set out in

the act and why the decision was made for such guidelines not to be set

out in the act.

Their fear is that they will be discriminated against on grounds

other than the grounds that they just fall into a class of operator in

the industry, when in fact they themselves under ordinary insurance

situations would not be penalized if they had a good record, for

example. How does the minister answer those concerns?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the fund, as the member knows,

is a pool of funds which has been created through assessment of travel

agents, tour operators and travel wholesalers to insure themselves

against a possible disaster. As the member knows, in insurance you can

create classes or pools of funds related to how great the risk is. In

the past we have found, although the assessment is the same for all,

that

[ Page 7253 ]

most of the problem that we have today with the

travel assurance fund is created by tour operators who get into

difficulty, so it may well be that we would be able to prescribe a

different type of insurance premium, if you will, for that particular

class.

I can tell the member that the travel agents' association is in

agreement with this type of approach. I have had meetings with them;

and also under this amendment — which we deal with in another section,

Mr. Chairman — there will be an industry council which will have input

into any changes in regulations prior to their being made. So we have

involved the industry itself, and we are trying to create a system

which is fair to all, as opposed to being unfair.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vancouver

Centre has referred to the danger of very arbitrary rulings under this

act. I know that for suspensions and stuff you have an appeal to the

Commercial Appeals. You look at

section 6, and it sounds perfectly

innocuous, but some have to have their statements audited and some can

be unaudited. So what's the difference in cost between those two — a

thousand bucks in a year? There's a big difference. You insist that

travel agents D and E submit audited statements. In effect, you've

fined them $1,000, $1,500, without any kind of guidelines. I agree with

what's been suggested here: that you're taking a real rush at this

industry with this kind of power in the hands of a registrar. It may be

that he'll look at a firm and say: "We like this one; they've made

contributions; they're friendly; we trust them." They know somebody and

they don't have to have an audited statement, but somebody else does.

There's no appeal over that. It's an example of arbitrary government

power.

I'd like to hear what the minister says. What will the guidelines be?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, under the present legislation

regulations, any travel agent who does more than $5 million worth of

business has to file an audited statement. Anything under that doesn't

have to. What we're attempting, recognizing that we do have a problem

with regard to the viability of the travel assurance fund, is that we

must have some advance notice of when problems are going to occur. We

want to prevent them from occurring, as opposed to picking up the

pieces after.

[3:45]

I can appreciate what the member says about this tremendous power

the registrar may have, but where the registrar is concerned about the

activity of a small or medium-sized agency — maybe not one that's

reached the $5 million figure in volume — he can require an audit in

order to prevent a serious problem developing, thereby protecting the

travel agents' and travel wholesalers' investment in their fund. Again

I refer the member to a later section, which we have identified: an

industry council that will give guidance, assistance, input to the

registrar in general terms, recognizing that if he is getting "too

powerful" in his decisions, they always have access to my office and my

registrar, who is a public servant. Of course, we'll have to justify

the reasons why he's called for an audit, but I can assure the members

that this piece of legislation is primarily one that deals with

prevention as opposed to dealing with a cure — in other words, paying

out travelers who have been stranded somewhere because of the failure

of a travel tour operator or a travel agent.

Section 6 approved on division.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, once again this allows the cabinet to exempt

persons from the regulations — to exempt a class of persons from all or part

of this act. It's a very broad power, and when the Legislature grants such

powers, the guidelines for the granting of such an exemption should be set out

in the statute. I'm going to oppose this on division.

Section 10 approved on division.

Section 11 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 69, Travel Agents Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 71, Mr. Speaker.

CAPITAL COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 71; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 71, Capital Commission Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 73.

EQUITY INVESTMENT PLAN ACT

(continued)

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to read this bill, as I managed to do over the weekend. I often wonder

[ Page 7254 ]

who the legislative counsel who put it together was

and the reason for it. When you go through it, it appears that the bill

was thrown together very quickly. It has 11 references to regulations

which the Legislative Assembly will never see. This is hidden away in

the seventh

section of the bill. We have eight references to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which may prescribe conditions and

circumstances under this act.

What we're looking at here is $100 million of taxpayers' money that

is going to be invested in the stock market. I really don't think that

the $100 million is well protected or that it will create what the

minister hopes it will create. I don't say that...because the minister

didn't give an explanation when he opened up second reading. I have to

take the record of this government in their last attempt to allow the

residents of British Columbia to learn a lesson in investment. I think

we have to look at the record of BCRIC. That was highly touted by this

government and by the media. It raised in the neighbourhood of $700

million of taxpayers' money from every level of the community. We were

all led to believe that this $700 million was going to be invested in

corporations that were going to create new jobs, stimulate the economy

and broaden the base of employment. I think we all know the horrible

result. That $700 million did set up a corporation, and certain jobs

were created within that corporation which, when I go through their

annual reports, I see are well paid. But the jobs it was designed to

stimulate, the new industry it was designed to create, never took

place. The bulk of it was used to buy coal mines in the southeast. That

never created one new job, nor did it discover one new tonne of coal.

Those jobs were already in place. Those resources were already known

and discovered. That $700 million went to inflate the price of the

stock of that particular company. It was bought up, and that money was

taken down across the line by Mr. Kaiser. That was $700 million of

British Columbia investment that came about in a very interesting way,

and a lot of people believed in what was promoted.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

This is what I'm afraid is going to happen in this particular piece

of legislation. It will be promoted, and there will be that gimmick. If

you put $10,000 in it, you're going to have a tax-free $2,500 in your

hot little hands. It's very much like the lotteries. You have a carrot,

and that carrot is $2,500. That scares me, Mr. Speaker. I can see that

what will happen is what happened with BCRIC. A lot of people will be

encouraged — I think the word is "encouraged" — to invest in the stock

market. They're going to have instant wealth, and that instant wealth

will be in the $2,500 they get back with their first $10,000. What will

a lot of them do? I remember 1980 when BCRIC was in the headlines

everywhere. I talked to the head of my credit union, Roger Lutz, who I

always considered to be a fair administrator of a credit union up until

at that point. Now I look back. I took his advice. He said that as an

MLA — and my particular investments were in the credit union — that I

was qualified for the maximum amount of shares. I could have borrowed

the $30,000, and I could have gone out and bought the 6,000 shares. He

was all set up to write up the loan; and I would only have to pay it

back. Now I'd still be paying back that $30,000 for the 6,000 shares

that I would have bought at $6. Now, if I were lucky, I'd get $3 a

share for them.

Those are the types of methods that are used to draw a lot of money

— the wrong way — out of our economy. It's important that we realize

that right now in British Columbia we do have a lot of money sitting in

the banks, the trust companies and the credit unions.

Last spring, when we met with the B.C. Central Credit Union, they

advised us that between $35 billion and $37 billion was being

squirrelled away into the bank and was just sitting there. Where is

that money coming from? I think this is the important part that we have

to understand: where is that money coming from? I'll tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that that money is coming from the 70 percent of the people

who are working in British Columbia. Seventy percent who normally work

are using that money to keep our internal economy in operation.

What is happening out in the communities — and I say this very

wisely — is that every one of those 70 percent is still working. They

can look around at their neighbours and their friends. They have seen

school teachers laid off, engineers laid off, architects laid off and

public servants with many years of service instantly dismissed. What

has happened, Mr. Speaker, because of this government's so-called

restraint policy? They have built up a fear out in our community.

What is happening, Mr. Speaker, is that so many of these people

don't want to be caught in the same position as the people who I know.

University-trained people who held important positions thought that

with their education and with their job choices that they had security

in our community, and all of a sudden they were out of work. They

couldn't make the mortgage payments that they thought they could when

they committed themselves to making those loans. They thought they

could maintain a lifestyle that they had been led to believe they were

entitled to. I think that until this government, instead of playing

games and putting together a piece of legislation that, to me, appears

to be very hurriedly put together, with a lot of sections dealing with

rules and regulations that no one will ever see.... It is not going to

do what we must do in B.C. — that is, to create jobs and to encourage

investment in a manner that is not going to have all the bad

connotations that the stock market has and is not going to fall in the

footsteps of BCRIC, which raised $700 million, and didn't do what the

people who put that money up were hoping for.

The little investor of British Columbia wants B.C. to prosper. They

want the investment; they want the jobs; they want the security that

they don't have right now. They have fear. They have fear in every

level. It's not the little guy, who is traditionally out of work.... .

but the fear right now is at every level of the middle class — if you

want to call it that, for want of a better word.

[4:00]

It was interesting when I was listening to the minister reviewing

what happened in Quebec when they had a similar plan. Who did they find

as the biggest users of that particular plan? Sixty-five percent of

them had $100,000 a year income. I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker,

but not too many of my constituents have an average income of $100,000

a year. Now 65 percent of those who are involved in it are from that

income, 30 percent are from the $50,000 to $100,000 income, 20 percent

are from the $40,000 to $50,000 bracket and 9 percent are from the

$30,000 to $40,000 bracket. That is the bracket most back-bench MLAs

find: themselves in. The only thing I find interesting.... I thought I

had all these figures written down, and I couldn't really understand

[ Page 7255 ]

how he came to them, because when I added them up

they came to 134 percent. But I guess that would be the way the present

minister gets us into debt all the time. When he puts figures in his

budget he has overruns. I hope that when he closes debate he explains

what he meant by saying 134 percent of the people use that particular

program. But I did check the figures I had with the Blues, and that was

the figure that we came up with.

I think it is important that we realize that we do live in a mixed

economy, and that if the taxpayers are going to be asked to put up $100

million, they get a return on that investment that is going to be

beneficial to British Columbia. I really can't see that this bill is

going to accomplish it. It is not going to accomplish getting those

people who have the $35 billion to $37 billion hidden away in their

bank accounts, to do what they normally would have done if there had

been some feeling of faith and security in the economy. A lot of that

money was the money that was used to build a new sundeck on their home,

to build a summer cottage, to build a rec room, to buy a second car.

That was the money that would have been invested in the internal

economy that keeps British Columbia moving ahead.

But because of the fear that this government has pushed on the

people, those who have the money are not building the recreation

cottage; they are not putting the sundeck on their house. They are not

hiring people locally. That has to take place. We have to create jobs.

We have to get money into circulation, and we have to build. To do that

we have to build some faith and some hope into the community.

When I go through this bill, I don't think it will do it. When I

read the Blues, the explanation given by the Minister of Finance, I

don't have any real feeling that I can go out to those who make up the

majority of my riding, who are having trouble making their mortgage

payments today, when maybe only one of them in the family is

working.... Or worst of all, they have used all their savings, have

used all their UIC and are now faced with losing their home. Not too

many have $10,000 to invest in this. They want to get to work. They

want to be able to create an income to pay their fair share of taxes.

They don't want another scam whereby we're going to all go into the

lotteries of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, and we're all going to put

up $10,000, and we're all going to have an instant $2,500 to stuff in

our pockets. They're not interested in that, Mr. Speaker. They're

interested in working. They're interested in sitting down with this

government and with their trade unions and the business leaders of this

province. If we have $100 million we can create some long-term

meaningful jobs. The 65 percent of the people that the minister

referred to who have $100,000 incomes don't need that extra $2,500.

They're going to play the stock markets because they are experts on

playing the stock markets. They know the system. But I don't want to

see another situation like BCRIC, where money was taken out of the

community and blown. I don't want to see this money go into building a

corporation for corporate takeovers.

We all know what happened in B.C. when Noranda Mines decided they

wanted to take over Mac and Blo. What did they do? By dealing in the

stock markets, they ran the value of stock from $35 to $60 to $65, and

what happened? They took over Mac and Blo. They haven't created one new

job; they haven't built one new plywood plant; they haven't found one

new tree growing that is ready to be harvested. But a vast debt was

loaded onto that company, a vast debt that was used for corporate

takeovers. It was not used and invested in a manner that would create

new jobs, new industry, or that would broaden the base of our economy

in British Columbia.

I don't think this bill will do anything else but become a political

scam that will be touted throughout the province on Social Credit

election pamphlets or on TV with taxpayers' money, encouraging them to

get rich and to have an instant $2,500 in their pockets, which will not

do what is needed: that is, create jobs. As my colleague says, how many

welfare people will be investing their $10,000 when you realize that

their wages, benefits, were indexed, shut off, frozen, in 1981? There's

not going to be too many of those. And not too many MLAs are going to

fall into that 9 percent who will be putting their money in. The people

it is designed to help — the $100,000 a year income and up — understand

the system. They know where to invest it. But let's not try to sell

something that is not going to do what we want. A lot of people will be

burned, like they were in BCRIC. A lot of people out there did borrow

$5,000 and $10,000. Maybe they didn't qualify like I did for $30,000,

but they are still paying that loan for $3 stock which they paid $6

for. Now that we have a little change people will be buying $3 stock or

$10 stock....

This is a game; that's what bothers us. No one knows what particular

stock or what type of stock will be available. It will be at the whim

of the government. Everyone will have that fear: how are they going to

make that decision? There's nothing in the legislation that says that

any of the money or any of the stock has to create jobs. All it says

that it will create is $2,500, and if the stock goes down, the province

of British Columbia will lose half of their investment. If it goes up

they don't get any of the profits. But there's nothing in there about

the type of jobs, the type of industries, the type of investment.

What we need in British Columbia is a solid plan of investment so

that we know where we're going to go. We can't continue to go from one

megaproject to cover one disaster to another megaproject that covers

another disaster. You don't make your economic planning based on

short-term, four-year elections. We don't want to have gimmicks that we

sell for elections. We must have investments that are going to create

some security, some hope, not only for those who are working but for

the young ones going to school who need an education and must go ahead.

Unless we bring in legislation that covers that type of long-term

development, B.C. is going to have another large amount of money taken

out of the economy to make a few rich; but it won't do what we need to

have done in B.C., and that's to create work.

So I would like to say formally that I'm going to vote against this

piece of legislation because I don't think it will do the job that is

needed.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I'm opposed to this bill on the

following grounds. One, it is a pathetic attempt to recoup from the

disastrous taxation policies of the federal government. Secondly, it's

a completely dictatorial and unwarranted interference in the

free-enterprise system; I'll explain that in a minute. The bill is

badly drafted and reveals a complete lack of understanding of why the

province of British Columbia has not been able to attract increasing

amounts of investment capital into our economy.

The problem is attracting capital out of the savings accounts of

British Columbians throughout the province to increase or to maximize

these amounts of capital investment in new job-creating projects. The

Leader of the Opposition has told the House and the public of British

Columbia for the past year and a half that there is well over $40

billion in

[ Page 7256 ]

savings in British Columbia. While new capital

investment in this province has been cut off, the economy has staggered

to its knees, and in desperation this government, in an election year,

brings about a totally hopeless, inoperable and disastrous scheme.

[4:15]

This bill is too late. Any effectiveness has been destroyed by the

Conservative government's myopic destruction of the tax write-off

provisions for investments in the stock markets of Canada, and this

impossible idea of a $500,000 lifetime capital gains exemption, which

is totally unrealistic and does not reflect an understanding of the

capital investment markets of this country. They have destroyed and

repealed the provisions that during a time of recession allowed for

some attraction of capital even in British Columbia under this Social

Credit government: that is to say, the tax write-off provisions for

losses on the stock market. The Conservative government destroyed that.

This incentive program, which was announced in skeleton form by the

Premier last year, would have been complementary had it not been for

that disastrous step taken by the federal government. It's now

obviously a token gesture by the Social Credit government for election

purposes. It simply won't work.

The bill is very badly drafted. The power that this government is

asking this Legislature to just hand over to the cabinet is immense.

The power handed to this cabinet to structure the corporate lives of

British Columbia companies, and even Canadian companies operating

within British Columbia, is absolutely staggering. There may be some

very poor-sighted individuals in the corporate boardrooms of British

Columbia who do not see the dangers here, but it is the most awesome

transfer of power this Legislature has ever been asked to make. This

government can totally manipulate the corporate decisions of companies

in British Columbia in every aspect of boardroom decisions.

Shareholders and boards of directors will be shackled to the investment

decisions of the cabinet, and not by their own decision; they cannot

opt out of the investment equity plan. Any shareholder who wishes to

buy on the open market, in all of our law in our system, must be free

to do so, and must be free to apply under the equity investment plan,

because it must apply to all citizens of British Columbia. But they are

at the whim of the investment judgment of the Social Credit cabinet.

Under this bill, if it becomes law, the government will be able to

dictate what companies can and cannot do.

This is the government that brought you BCRIC. This government was

warned by the Leader of the Opposition and the previous Leader of the

Opposition, and by members of the opposition from as long ago as 1979,

to be careful of large government investments, because in the 1980s you

won't have enough money to provide the proper services of health and

education to the citizens of British Columbia. They ignored those

warnings and proceeded to make massive further investments in hydro,

railway and northeast coal. They proceeded to encourage the most

dubious high-tech investments, which was a further bilking of the

federal taxpayer. And that, by the way, is one of the reasons why the

Premier abjectly failed in dealing with the Prime Minister recently

with respect to increased transfer payments to British Columbia. These

disasters encouraged by the Social Credit government are a full warning

of what kind of investment judgments the cabinet of this province will

make and dictate to the corporations of British Columbia.

The offence provisions and the provisions of this bill requiring

individual corporations and their directors to repay amounts under the

fund and face criminal penalties, not to mention one year in prison,

are unconstitutional and again reveal a complete lack of understanding

of the laws of Canada. To have a penalty of one year is running

dangerously close to criminal law, and to impose these penalties

without guilty knowledge on the part of individual corporations and

their directors is repugnant to the sense of fair play and justice that

has historically been a part of Canada.

The corporation may or may not encourage its investors to use this

fund. How are they then held responsible for curtailing their own

investment decisions to conform with the government's dictates? How can

the government ask boards of directors, without a decision of the

board, without an intention on the part of the company, on behalf of

the rest of the shareholders…? But they must conform to this act and

the dictates of the government if investors decide to apply to use this

fund. If this is not the intention of this bill, the fund again becomes

useless. I think it is anyway.

This bill is an absolute disaster, and it's being.... I would have

hoped that it not be introduced at all, but I hope that if it's passed

it will be completely ignored by the government and not proclaimed. I

invite the government to use it as an election gimmick, but please

don't proclaim it, because it is a total disaster. It is unworkable. I

invite the government to take the $100 million, hire their own broker,

invest in the corporations of their choice, and leave the public out of

it. Let the public not be duped once again by this flimflam

organization. Leave them alone. They've got high mortgages. A lot of

them are unemployed. They're making less money than they've ever made.

Don't suck them in once again with the Alabamian flimflam trap. This is

BCRIC revisited, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Michael in the chair.]

I'm suggesting that this is the most cynical bill ever introduced in

this House, and if they're serious, it's the most serious attempt at

transferring total power to the cabinet, expansively controlling the

corporate and investment decisions of the so-called free marketplace.

Wouldn't you know it: it comes from the right-wing, so-called free

enterprise government.

This is so strictured that I can't see any way in which a new share

issue would not be hobbled by the restrictions in this act. The

government is trying to protect its $2,500 so badly that it's using an

atomic bomb to do it. I can't understand why anybody would be bothered

with this thing. It's totally useless. If anybody investing in the

stock market needs $2,500, I can tell the world right now they

shouldn't be investing in the stock market. They don't need it. They

could vary their investment with a variety of new issues. Still, if

you're investing in new issues and you haven't got the wherewithal, so

that you have to worry about receiving a subsidy of $2,500, forget it.

You're probably not even going to get it anyway.

I think all members should carefully reflect on the passage of this bill. I certainly am opposed.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I concur with most everything my

colleague for Vancouver Centre said, with possibly the exception of the

fact that I don't feel that this is an election gimmick. Even a

government as stupid as this one could

[ Page 7257 ]

hardly use a bill like this as an election gimmick.

It is a bill that is virtually placing all the power in the cabinet.

It's really an enabling bill, full of.... There are at least two or

three major sections of this bill that provide them the opportunity to

regulate.

One of the big problems that we have when we stand in this House is

that debating is almost a will-o'-the-wisp with this government. A

government that continually brings in enabling legislation, which is

not definitive in any way, shape or form.... The only thing that's

definitive about this is the $2,500 and the time and so on. But as far

as the expanse of this bill, we're really debating something that is in

the government's hands — as you do with any piece of enabling

legislation. A piece of legislation that doesn't tell us what we're

debating, really, is just not sufficient; it's just not something that

we should be having before us in this Legislature.

I looked at the news release in the first place and I have, of

course, heard the Premier talk about the marketplace, heard him talk

about what people should do vis-à-vis learning what happens in the

stock market; and I always have to remember that he gave us the best

lesson of all. He said that people in British Columbia will learn; they

will be investors.

MR. ROSE: People's capitalism.

MR. COCKE: That's right. People's capitalism — they would be

investors in British Columbia, they would learn, they would understand

the marketplace; and what did the people of British Columbia learn? I

tend to agree with my colleague that it's not so much what the people

are going to learn on this one; it's that the people that are involved

with corporations that are public companies will qualify for this

particular help. I have one concern, also, about the way they may use

this help, converting equity into a means of paying back loans as

opposed to creating more jobs as opposed to creating some energy in the

marketplace.

I have very little to say, because I have listened to my colleagues

and felt that they've said it. My colleague from Nanaimo said it all

the first day, or a good deal of it; and others have certainly added to

it. I just feel, Mr. Speaker, that this bill leaves much to be desired;

it provides the government with an opportunity to move in any way they

see fit. In saying that, with this government's track record, I would

think that everybody should be getting a little bit worried.

Let's hear what the Minister of Finance has to say with respect to

replying. We don't see this bill as doing one bit of good for the

economy of British Columbia in terms of creating jobs, in terms of

getting people back to work. It's a token gesture and one that wields

so much power that I think that it's not worth the effort. Very few

people are going to find this advantageous. I believe that this bill

should have been well thought out instead of being brought in here as a

great gesture. We've had a short session — a few days; nine, ten days —

and what have we done? This is their answer to us when we said create a

job or two. Show us where this is going to create a job or two. That's

what we felt we were being brought back here for — to discuss something

of consequence, something of substance, something where the government

is showing they really have a desire to get this province back to work,

this government that put the people in this province on the dole. Now,

as a dying gesture in this particular session of the Legislature, they

come up with a bill like this.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is inadequate. It's not going to do the

job. Show us where the work is, other than for maybe two or three

bureaucrats that are going to be provided with the responsibility of

overseeing whatever the cabinet decides is going to be the substance of

this bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would think, pursuant to

standing orders, no one else stood to speak; therefore I close the

debate on second reading.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the several speakers from

the opposite side who have taken varied views of Bill 73. I want to

respond to some of the points that were raised by those members. I may

miss some, but we will have the opportunity in committee.

First of all, I want to restate my belief — the belief that I had,

actually, when the Premier took the Canada equity plan to the first

ministers' conference in February. My belief then and my belief now

insofar as the British Columbia bill is concerned is that it will

further stimulate the economy and that it will indeed create more

employment. Because I would offend the rules, I won't recite the very

positive indicators that we already see at this point in 1985. The

Equity Investment Plan will impart further momentum to the B.C. economy

by encouraging investment and creating jobs.

The other day the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) posed two

specific questions, and — recognizing his unavoidable absence today — I

would like to respond to those. He asked first: what will happen if a

participating investor leaves the province? Mr. Speaker, in that event

the investor will no longer be eligible to earn additional incentives.

In other words, the investor has left the province, but so long as his

shares remain in trust with an approved administrator in B.C. — and I

would refer interested members to the definition of what an

administrator is in the investment context of this bill — he will not

be required to repay the incentive until he sells the shares or the

plan terminates. Putting it another way, that investor may well leave

the province, but the shares he or she has purchased under this act

will not leave the province. They will remain in B.C.

The member for Nanaimo also asked if the federal government was

prepared to accept this plan. Well, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of

courtesy, just at the time of introduction of the bill last week, I

spoke with the Hon. Barbara McDougall, Minister of State for Finance,

to tell her that the bill was at that moment about to come into the

House. But I can answer the member and other interested members that

this is a British Columbia plan. It has no federal participation. It is

not a tax program. It is a provincial government incentive program, and

therefore federal approval is not a consideration.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), who is not in

his seat at the moment but may well be listening elsewhere in the

House, made an error in his calculation, and I respond kindly to that.

The percentage of investors in various tax brackets in the Quebec stock

savings plan would not reach 100 percent. He simply added the

percentages, but that was not what I said. We don't have printed Blues

— at least, I don't have them available — but on page 20 of the Blues

for Friday morning, towards the bottom of the page, I simply described

the tax brackets. It was stated as this: "…taxpayers participating is

as follows: $100,000 and up taxable income, 65 percent." What I was

attempting to say

[ Page 7258 ]

there, and it reads correctly, is that of those in

a particular tax bracket, a certain percentage of investors

participated. That is the Quebec plan. So for his information, it is

not a question of adding all those percentages up and reaching 100.

Mr. Speaker, I don't share the pessimism that has been enunciated

today — and the other morning, but particularly this afternoon — by

members opposite. I believe that many British Columbians, and not just

the wealthiest British Columbians, will, as they learn more about the

Equity Investment Plan, whether they are new participants in the

Vancouver Stock Exchange or in issues trading there, whether they have

had experience before or not, become interested in this plan, and they

will take advantage of it.

The Vancouver Stock Exchange has its supporters and it has its

detractors. It is not the perfect exchange. Mr. Speaker, I don't know

of any stock exchange that is absolutely perfect, that does not have

difficulties from time to time. But I must say that I took some

exception to a few of the negative remarks about the Vancouver Stock

Exchange from members opposite. I've been quite clear in my intention

not to direct but rather to protect; and that's the key point, the key

difference, between the

interpretation placed on this legislation by

members of the official opposition and indeed by what is intended and

what I spoke of the other day.

I've been very clear in the intention to vigorously apply strict

regulations to ensure that the companies that gain access to the

program are operating concerns, not simply vehicles for promoters and

speculators — and that's a very important point. These companies will

be examined in that context and in that context only, because we are

not bringing this legislation forward simply because there is a sign on

a door on Howe Street suggesting that somewhere there is something in

which an investment should be made. Rigorous inspection will be on that

basis, and that will occur.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I state clearly, as I did earlier,

that the government, or the registrar, will be endorsing the program

but will not be endorsing the quality of the eligible issues. After

all, the decision, first of all, to participate or not, rests with the

individual. The decision with respect to one of a series of companies

will also rest with the individual. By putting this plan in place, the

government — in the statute, as well as in the regulations — is not,

and I repeat "not," endorsing any approved issuer. That's really what

the marketplace is all about, Mr. Speaker — the market and the

marketplace. And I find that completely, absolutely, in tune with the

philosophy which this government has, and which it has enunciated and

acted on for now some nearly ten years.

I want to thank the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) — "thank" may

not be the correct term. But I was appreciative of his remarks the other day,

when he indicated that he sees the opportunity, through this program, to generate

more activity in British Columbia. I listened very carefully to what he had

to say, as well as what others across the aisle had to say. I also noted one

or two cautions which the member for Prince Rupert offered.

Mr. Speaker, when this passes committee and is given royal assent,

we expect investors to continue to exercise their judgment in all

aspects of the plan. One of the major advantages of the program, Mr.

Speaker, is that it will be open to corporations in virtually every

industry in the province. I fully expect that investors will be

presented with a broad selection of investment opportunities from which

to choose, under the plan. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to committee

debate, when that occurs.

I want to just conclude by saying that the member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) again referred to regulations that no one will

ever see. Well, I invite members of this House, I invite interested

British Columbians, to give me their views with respect to what the

regulations should or should not include; I invite that, and I shall

continue to invite that. And I shall heed the comments which are

offered by members of this House, regardless of their political

affiliation, and by interested British Columbians. The regulations will

require considerable care, for the reasons which I identified in

opening debate, as well as in these last few minutes.

This bill will achieve many objectives, which this government has

already proved are working. This is another important piece of the road

to recovery, about which we have all spoken. It will encourage British

Columbians to invest in the economy by buying equity shares. And it has

a side benefit as well: it will further strengthen the importance and

the stature of Vancouver — I speak of it in the greater Vancouver sense

— as an international financial centre. There can be no doubt about

that. This, I've pointed out, is also in support of this government's

long-standing objective to that end. We continue to work on that. And I

can tell members that as recently as just six or seven days ago I had a

most productive and useful meeting in that regard — but I stray from

Bill 73 just slightly.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Equity Investment Plan will help to

recapitalize firms that do business in all parts of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the criticism which I've heard today, I'm

pleased to have been able to introduce this bill. A lot of work

remains. But it will be good for the people of British Columbia, for

those who choose to participate — and let there be no misunderstanding

about that — for those who choose to take advantage of that which is

offered in the Equity Investment Plan Act. Mr. Speaker, I move second

reading of Bill 73.

Motion approved on division.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to defer the motion to commit to later today.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill PR402.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

The House in committee on Bill PR402; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I'd like to advise the committee

that there are two versions of Bill PR402 in the book, but the one that

we will be debating has on the cover "An Act to Amend the Vancouver

Charter As Amended in the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders,

Private Bills and Members' Services." So this is to advise all members

to make sure that they have the appropriate bill in front of them as

they're debating it. If that's acceptable, we will proceed.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

[ Page 7259 ]

MR. ROSE: I don't have very much to say on this, Mr.

Chairman. However, I've been waiting for about two hours this afternoon

to say what I have to say, so I don't think I've abused the time of the

House at all.

Just let me say to you that the Vancouver city council suggested

certain kinds of amendments to cover certain classes of people which go

beyond our B.C. Human Rights Act. I see no reason that that couldn't

prevail. However, government members in the committee felt that it

would be wise to delete some of these classes, in their own wisdom. In

that way I feel that the rights of certain classes of people have been

diminished to the point where they are not the same classes that were

put forward by the Vancouver city council.

So just on the general principle of extending rights, I see no

reason why a particular council couldn't extend rights beyond

an act of

this Legislature. But I'm not prepared to filibuster this matter. In

the wisdom of the committee and the government members, the amendment

passed, and I will be supporting this amendment on division.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will point out for the record that the member

for Coquitlam-Moody has said "on division." However, we still have the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam to speak to

section 5.

MR. PARKS: I think it should be noted, just for the record at

the very least, that the present charter has a clause with respect to

discrimination which only covers race, creed and colour. This amendment

extends that fully so that it's consistent with the provincial human

rights legislation. I think that's a great step, from the perspective

of consistency, in our legislation.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I just want to take this opportunity of

congratulating the committee on its wisdom in rewriting that particular

section, and removing what I consider the extension of a right beyond

where a right should be extended and what I consider offensive words.

Section 5 approved on a division.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

Preambles approved.

Title approved.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.,

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill PR402,

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill PR403, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT RESPECTING PACIFIC BIBLE COLLEGE

The House in committee on Bill PR403; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 19 inclusive approved.

section 20.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The government does not object to the amendment.

MR. ROSE: I understand that the effect of the amendment is to

remove the retroactivity of the taxes of some $53,000 owed by the

college to schools and hospitals and GVRD grants. I'd like the member

to confirm that henceforth the college will have certain tax privileges

along the lines suggested in the amendment and outlined further down on

section 2; but in the meantime the money that has been paid —

presumably owed — which was to be given back to the college, has now

been removed, and some $50,000-plus will be paid. Thus the citizens of

Surrey will not be subsidizing this institution by that amount for

years gone by — henceforth they will, but not in the past.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, this does remove reference to

the retroactivity. It was my understanding that the committee requested

definitive explanations on the exemptions, and that is the purpose of

this amendment. It is to spell it out very clearly. You're correct in

your assumption that the back taxes will not he picked up by the

citizens and taxpayers of Surrey. They will be picked up by the college

in whatever way they can find the money.

I want to tell you that we've heard a great deal about the lack of

necessity for this session, but as far as the Pacific Bible College is

concerned this is the most important piece of legislation that this

House is dealing with, and I would hope that we can complete it

forthwith without any further delays.

MR. ROSE: I'd just like to say, without prolonging anything

here, that my concern about this piece of legislation is that it is an

act of this Legislature. It commits future Surrey councils to the

forgiveness of certain taxes amounting to thousands of dollars over

forthcoming years. So if a future Surrey council decides it will not

necessarily support this kind of combination of park, church and school

any longer, it is committed by

an act of this Legislature, which is a

higher legislative body. I think that I would have preferred it to be

done on an annual basis rather than to have something in perpetuity.

Amendment approved.

Section 20 as amended approved.

Sections 21 to 23 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 7260 ]

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill PR403,

An Act Respecting Pacific Bible College, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the b