1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

8789 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Fire Services Amendment Act 1982 (Bill 63). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Report –– 8789

Indian Cut-Off Lands Disputes Act (Bill 58). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

section 1 –– 8789

Mr. Howard

section 4 –– 8789

Mr. Howard

section 5 –– 8790

Mr. Levi

Mr. Howard

Third reading –– 8792

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

On vote 57: minister's office –– 8792

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Ms. Sanford

Appendix –– 8801

THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1982

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 63, Mr. Speaker.

FIRE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 63; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

section 1.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

By way of explanation, members will note that in the

opening line of

section 1 we have not specifically identified the Fire

Services Act. This was an oversight. This amendment fully corrects the

section to meet that technical requirement.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: 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

63, Fire Services Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete with amendment

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 58, Mr. Speaker.

INDIAN CUT-OFF LANDS DISPUTES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 58; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

section 1.

MR. HOWARD: In "interpretation,"

section 1 identifies "council

of the band." It says it has the same meaning as "council of the band"

in the Indian Act of Canada. If the federal parliament alters the definition

of "council of the band" in the Indian Act, what then is the position

with respect to the definition as it exists now? In other words, are we making

provincial law relating to a cutoff lands question that the province is involved

in, and are we making that subject to what some subsequent action of the Parliament

of Canada might be with respect to the

interpretation of "council of the

band" under the Indian Act, or are we, the Legislature of the province,

now establishing in law that "council of the band" will mean what

the Indian Act says of this moment? Are we making law in our own right

or are we making it subject to some future decision of the Parliament of Canada

which may alter the situation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, that's a matter of the technicalities of statutory

change their definition of "council of the band," then this legislation

will apply to that amended definition as well. The member will note

that the purpose for such identification arises in

section 2, which

identifies the group with whom we can conclude the agreements which

would be covered by both federal and provincial legislation. We want to

be certain that we are dealing with a council, as it may be defined

from time to time, and therefore be authorized under the federal

legislation. As I indicated in second-reading debate, however, these

agreements will also be required to be dealt with by referendum under

the Indian Act, so that the members of the band are directly involved

in the process. not just the council.

MR. HOWARD: I

appreciate that, but I just think it's a bit unwise to have something

hinge upon the uncertainties and unknowns as to what the Parliament of

Canada may do at any time. If, for argument's sake, the Parliament of

Canada, given the White Paper that was introduced by the former

minister, Jean Chretien, in 1969, I believe it was — which is still, I

understand, valid policy on the part of the federal government — at

some point in the future decides to say there is no council of the band

— that such a thing does not exist then the reference here is invalid,

albeit that in

part 2 we are talking about an agreement binding upon

the members of the band. I think it's an unwise approach to make.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

MR. HOWARD:

Section 4 carries forward in law certain exceptions and reservations

contained in an order-in-council of 1938: namely, the infamous

order-in-council 1036, which finally settled the land question insofar

as government was concerned. It didn't settle it insofar as the native

Indian people were concerned. They still have a valid claim in that

regard. However, one of the provisions in order-in-council 1036 is that

land — up to one-twentieth, or 5 percent of reserve land — can be taken

by the provincial cabinet without compensation. That has been a point

which has rankled native Indian people ever since they heard about it.

In other words, if the Highways ministry wants a piece of land for a

highway, they can just simply expropriate it under that

order-in-council without compensation to the Indian band itself. I

think that's an unfair provision to carry forward.

As I

understand the activity of the government of B.C. in that period from

1972 to 1975, while the provision was retained in the order-in-council,

it was not used by policy. It, was discarded, and they said that in no

instance would that

[ Page

8790 ]

take place, that if land was taken it would be paid for. But I still maintain

that carrying that forward here is probably saying to the native Indian people,

with respect to these cutoff lands, that the Crown reserves the right to take

5 percent thereof for other purposes without compensation.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I would like to assure the hon. member for Skeena that the policy that

obtained between 1972 and 1975 still obtains today. The only time the

provisions of order-in-council 1036 are utilized is in those instances

that the policy which involves negotiations for compensation is

resisted by the Indian band. We are preserving order-in-council 1036 in

this particular legislation, which deals only with some reserves of 22

bands, because that order-in-council is still in general application. I

believe it will have to await the resolution of the land claim

situation generally before order-in-council 1036 disappears; it is the

government of British Columbia, and provides the basis upon which all

reserve lands have been created. We would be revising the policy

adopted in 1938, under which reserves have since been created, and

under which there have been resumptions. We would then be in the

process of making a change for these 22 bands, a change not available

to the other bands, creating thereby a multitude of almost insoluble

problems.

MR. HOWARD: I just wanted to get from the

Attorney-General the commitment that the earlier policy to which I

alluded is still in effect and still carried out. The Attorney-General

has said that, and just to have it on the record is helpful.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

MR. LEVI:

I'd like to get an explanation from the Attorney-General with respect

to the agreement that he tabled yesterday. On page 4, paragraph 2, is a

section which reads as follows: "to pay for the use and benefit of the

band, the sum of $13,217,118 in full compensation therefore, the amount

of $352,685, thereof being capital moneys in the amount of $12,864,433,

thereof being the revenue moneys within the meaning of the Indian Act

R.S.C. as amended in 1970."

I want to ask the

Attorney-General if I'm right in concluding that in some way we are

paying the Indians with their own money. When it makes reference to

revenue moneys within the meaning the Indian Act, some of the land was

alienated to the provincial Crown. I'm not clear on this

section as

to.... I know that when the Attorney-General opened the debate he said

that the provincial government is paying $1 million, and the rest is

being provided by the federal government. In the

section it makes

reference to $12 million, plus there being revenue moneys within the

meaning of the Indian Act — one-sixth is revenue moneys.

this money coming in any way from this revenue in respect to the band,

or is this from the total revenue of the Indian groups themselves? All

the money is in trust if they earn any money. I'm not clear as to what

that

section actually says. I don't know if the minister has it before

him, but I got the feeling when I was reading it that somehow we were

paying the Indians with the money that's already there having accrued

from revenues for land that is being used. I'm getting a downer from

the former Attorney-General. What does it actually mean?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

This particular

section is limited, of course, to the source of funds

which the province contributes in the Penticton settlement or any of

the other settlements which will be made. We pay it out of the

consolidated revenue fund. But the member, having read the agreement —

and I wish more would read it — is entitled to an explanation.

Funds

held for the use and benefit of Indian people in their bands by the

federal government fall into two categories: capital moneys and revenue

moneys. The income from capital moneys is dealt with in a different way

than the income from revenue funds. The income from revenue funds is

available to the band immediately. It's their resource, and therefore

they administer it. As I said in second reading debate, I hope the

federal government will change its rules soon so the Indians have the

opportunity to handle all of their affairs. At the moment that has not

yet been achieved.

Let me assure you that these moneys are

not coming from the Indians' own revenue funds. The

section of the

agreement to which you refer simply categorizes the funds, because in

that way the income earned by the two kinds of funds is dealt with in a

different manner. For example, the provincial moneys — $1 million — are

held today on deposit in the Bank of Nova Scotia in Penticton in a

joint federal-provincial trust account. They are currently held in a

90-day term deposit at 6 1/4 percent. As soon as this legislation

becomes effective, and the federal legislation is in place, those

moneys — which will be classified as revenue account moneys — will be

transferred to the federal government for the use and benefit of the

Indians, and all of the interest which has accrued up to June — some

$51,000 — is immediately available to the Penticton band for such

purposes as they may wish. Through the Indian Act they have the ability

to utilize those other funds. Unfortunately, I think that the rules

with respect to the availability of those moneys are a little rigid.

MR. HOWARD:

When the lands identified as cutoff lands were taken, as a result of

the McKenna-McBride commission, one of the arrangements was to sell it

off and the proceeds therefrom to be divided, as I recall, equally

between the provincial and federal governments, the presumption being

that the federal government would use that money for the use and

benefit of the band from which the land was taken. I can appreciate

that there's an agreement involved here, but I think it would be much

more appropriate and correct and respectful if moneys out of the

consolidated revenue fund of the province of British Columbia were paid

directly to the band affected, rather than paid to the Great White

Father in Ottawa to handle as he may see fit. Rather than carrying on

the old activity of the federal government being the saviour of the

Indian people and handling funds for them and deciding by policy

whether at one time revenue money is going to be handled by the band,

that policy can easily be reversed and taken back to the old

colonialistic attitude of the federal government. I think it would have

been much more appropriate and leading the way if the province had

insisted that any moneys payable out of the consolidated revenue fund

of the province of B.C. were to be paid directly to the band affected,

so that it would have the use of the money under its own authority and

control, rather than paid in

[ Page

8791 ]

to the federal government for its handling — or mishandling, as the case might

be.

MR. LEVI:

During the negotiations that you've had — I realize that what I'm going

to cover to some extent is an amendment to the Indian Act — has the

province put forward a position as to how it would prefer to see the

money dealt with? I'm not talking about the money which the province

deals with — which is the $1 million — but the other money. As my

colleague has just said, what we're really doing is having to feed

right into a very ancient and somewhat discriminatory Indian Act. Can

the minister tell us whether there was any indication in the

discussions either from himself or from the federal people as to

whether they are prepared to change this process? I know that opening

up the Indian Act is not easy in this country. The federal government

has continuously been very leery of opening it up, because there are a

number of outstanding issues, particularly ones dealing with status.

Frankly,

I cannot get away from the feeling.... I know the act is intended to

resolve the cutoff land problem, but I'm not convinced that the

compensation that they're getting is really the money that is there in

any case. I feel that they are being compensated with moneys there, and

there is no new money added. The money is simply being held in an

account, and they haven't been able to get it. Now you're awarding them

$12 million of the money from that account and they're still not going

to be able to get it, because under the Indian Act they can't exercise

any right over that without some great negotiation.

Back to

the beginning, can the minister tell me whether, in the discussions

with the federal government, the province advanced the idea that the

money should flow in some way towards the Indians directly, rather than

going through this very ancient paternalistic kind of fund that they

have to keep applying to draw from? I'm not convinced, Mr. Chairman,

that this money represents any form of settlement other than the fact

that they are going to get what is theirs anyway. In all these years

that they've not had the use of the land — and some of it has even been

alienated — where is the compensation, if in fact there's any

compensation at all? When I look at the agreement, I find that they are

not addressing in any financial way.... Other than the money that's

already in trust, there seems to be no attempt to compensate the

Indians for the loss of this land.

I know we operate under a federal act. In a non-Indian society, no individual

placed in a situation like this would be happy unless he was given compensation

for the non-use of the land that was taken away from him. I ask the minister:

were there discussions as to whether the Indians could get the money directly?

Frankly, he has not convinced me that this money they're getting is not

money that they had already in trust, and that no new money has been added other

than the provincial money. That's the $1 million. But the $12 million was

already in the account, so where is the compensatory aspect of this agreement,

or was it not intended in the first place? I know that when I was involved in

the early discussions — and we had no format then; we were attempting to work

one out — one of the things that the Indians did discuss with us was the whole

business of: "We never had this land. We couldn't use it." They

talked about the possibility of compensation for their inability to use the

land. Perhaps the minister could comment on that.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Let me say with absolute certainty, Mr. Chairman, that it is new money.

It's not out of any existing funds which are held by the government of

Canada or the government of British Columbia. The $1 million that we

are paying is money which, under the McKenna-McBride concept, as the

member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has said, came to the province, and it

is being paid back, with interest, to the Indians. But the $13.2

million is compensatory money, not coming from Indian funds but from

The

member asks whether or not, during the course of negotiations, we took

the position that the money should go to the Indian band directly. The

answer is yes. We did that during the course of these negotiations, as

we did during the course of negotiations with the Fort Nelson band in

the matter of their natural gas holdings. We were advised by the

federal government that they could only conclude agreements and

participate in them in accordance with schemes which are presently in

place, and we were assured that the federal government was addressing

this matter of the control of Indian resources by Indian bands

themselves and were in the process of having discussions and meetings

with Indian bands across the country for the purposes of giving them

more autonomy with respect to the handling of their assets, whatever

they might be. That process is still ongoing. I look forward to the day

when the federal government and the Indian bands will conclude those

discussions. Whether they're on the basis of the proposal that has been

put forward by the Sechelt band, or some other concept or combination

thereof, I would like to see this matter resolved. We did not wish to

take the position that we won't make any settlement of this

long-standing issue until that had taken place. We said: "Fine, let's

clear up this particular problem, which is a serious one. But please,

federal government, will you get on with cleaning up the matter of who

controls the Indians' affairs."

As I said, I share the views

expressed by the member for Skeena in this regard. I think the time has

paternalistic role. I say this, however, recognizing that there has

been some experience, particularly in Alberta, of resources being made

available to the Indian bands for their own control and some serious

losses arising. I think there have to be some regulations to ensure

that improvident steps are not taken, the result of which would place

the band and its future in some jeopardy.

MR. HOWARD:

I appreciate what the minister is saying, but it seems to me that we

should take that deliberative step here within our own jurisdiction to

make some decision with respect to what we, as the Legislature of the

province of British Columbia, do about money paid out of our

consolidated revenue fund in settlement of these matters.

seems to me that the words "to Canada" in

section 5 should be removed

and the words "to the Indian band" substituted, so that where an

agreement provides for payment of money out of the consolidated revenue

fund of the province of B.C., it is paid to the Indian band, not to the

federal government — that paternalistic group in Ottawa. I move such an

amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is to

section 5, line 2 to delete the words

"to Canada" and substitute therefore the words "to the Indian

band." The motion appears to be in order at this time.

[ Page 8792 ]

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

As I said before, I understand the position taken by the member for

Skeena and the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), but I

cannot accept this amendment.

The agreement concluded with

the Penticton band, upon which this legislation is predicated,

contemplates payments being handled in precisely the way that this

legislation provides. All the discussions with the other Indian bands

held heretofore also contemplate payments being handled in the same

way. Therefore it would be inappropriate at this stage for members in

this House to interfere with what has been accepted by the band.

While

we may find it very easy to suggest that all the arrangements should be

changed, may I hasten to say that concepts of change with respect to

the relationship of Indian bands in this province to various

governments have made it clear that, in spite of all the complaints

about paternalism on the part of the federal government, when it comes

right down to it, a large portion of the membership of Indian bands in

this province feel much more comfortable dealing with the government of

Canada than they do with the government of the province, because it has

been traditional in their history. This is changing. But I think it

would be inappropriate for the members of this Legislature to suddenly

say to the Indian people of British Columbia: "Well, we know that

you're trying to work out your relationships with the governments of

Canada and British Columbia but we're going to dictate to you what

those relationships should be."

The member will well recall

what occurred when the Hon. Jean Chretien issued the White Paper

Indian Act. While there was a great of support for some aspects of it

there was major resistance on the part of the Indian people to having

their future and their destiny interfered with by the government of

Canada without their being actively involved in the resolution of those

problems. Therefore I think it would be inappropriate to interfere at

this level in this particular matter with an issue which must be

resolved in a much broader sphere.

MR. HOWARD: Mr.

Chairman, there are two things involved here that I think need to be

dealt with. One is that the Attorney-General seems to be saying that

the agreement with the Penticton band is the foundation for the

agreement with all the other bands; whatever that contains, that's what

everybody else is going to get. The other thing you're saying is that

obviously the provincial government, engaged in whatever negotiations

or discussions took place leading up to that or other agreements, did

not press the point that it was an obligation on the part of the

province to pay moneys directly to the Indian band. As I know the

native Indian people — in this province particularly — they would much

rather, in their relationships with any level of government with

respect to money and funds, have that relationship be direct with them

rather than through the paternalistic element in Ottawa. It's obvious

that the minister or the government — whoever was conducting this — was

just not interested in the first instance in pursuing that particular

direct relationship.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't

accept that assessment of the matter by the hon. member. The general

principles upon which these settlements will be dealt with were

resolved on a tripartite basis between the federal government, the

government of British Columbia and the committee representing all 22

bands. It is on that basis that this agreement with Penticton was

concluded. This legislation comes forward only after those general

principles had been resolved. It became a matter of those individual

differences, one band from the other, by reason of the nature of the

cutoffs and of their reserves, that the negotiations continued band by

band. Throughout the entire exercise the Indians recognized that the

moneys would be dealt with in this particular way. As I say, if there

is to be a change, then let it be a change in the broader scope of all

and their several resources.

Amendment negatived.

Section 5 approved.

Section 6 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: 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 58, Indian Cut-off Lands Disputes Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

On vote 57: minister's office, $152,517.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

It's a pleasure to introduce the estimates for this coming fiscal year,

but before I get into my comments I would like to make mention of a

number of recent appointments.

I think it would be most

appropriate to bring to the attention of the House the passing of Gus

Leonidas. Mr. Leonidas was the director of mediation and was involved

in industrial relations in British Columbia for a long time. He'd been

involved in some very significant disputes in British Columbia's labour

history, and he was a distinguished mediator. He had been director of

mediation services branch for some time. He was also a pillar of the

Greek community. I well remember that the last time we were together

was at a function put on by the Greek community for Gus. Taking Mr.

Leonidas' place now is Clark Gilmour, who has had a number of years of

experience in mediation services. He has been appointed executive

director.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Having

said that, I should introduce to the House members of my staff who are

here to assist: my deputy minister, Doug Cameron; the new deputy

minister in charge of

[ Page 8793 ]

women's

programs, Isabel Kelly; the assistant deputy minister, Bob Gray, who is

in charge of manpower, and who has been spending a great deal of time

in the area of training, particularly apprenticeship; and my assistant

deputy minister in charge of administration, Stephen Stackhouse.

number of important appointments have been made over the past year. To

the Workers Compensation Board: Glenn Hall, who came out of management;

Herb Scollan, who is also from management — interestingly, however, his

background is that of a journeyman sheet metal worker, so he has a

great deal of experience on both sides of the fence. A very significant

appointment was that of Arthur Gibbons, who was appointed as chairman

of the Workers Compensation Board. They join with Bob Bucher and Mike

Parr. The chairman has a long history and interest in the areas of

occupational health and safety, and in industrial relations and dispute

resolution. He has undertaken a major task and has made a significant

contribution in his leadership of the board since his appointment.

new chairman was appointed to the Labour Relations Board: Steven

Kelleher took the place of Don Munroe, who has been with the Labour

Relations Board for five years, three of those years as chairman and

two as vice-chairman. It should go without saying that his contribution

to industrial harmony in British Columbia was most significant.

have also the appointment to the Human Rights Commission of Dr. Charles

Paris, Renate Shearer and Bijou Kartha, who join Gloria George. Within

the Ministry of Labour, I did mention Mrs. Isabel Kelly, of course, the

deputy minister responsible for women's programs. She is a welcome

addition and we're very pleased to have her with us.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

The former Minister of Labour is obviously quite enamoured with that

recent appointment. By the looks of it, even your predecessor seems

somewhat enamoured.

I would also like to raise in the House

the appointment of an acting assistant deputy of safety service, Walter

Flesher, and a confirmation of the director of human rights, Hanne

Jensen.

The past 12-month period in the ministry hasn't

exactly been an easy one, and statistics for 1981 aren't too

attractive. I suppose they did receive a fair amount of attention, and

there is not really very much that we can do, about it. In the past

three years, I found myself drawing parallels; and over the last ten

years we can see high periods and low periods. It's interesting how

some difficult statistics follow some excellent statistics; I suppose

that's the nature of collective bargaining. Statistics are something we

have to live with. Interestingly enough, 1980 was one of the best in

history; 1981 the worst in history; 1982 — 1 don't know. I think we've

lost something like 30,000 or 34,000 man-days, and that's explainable

for a number of reasons.

It's pretty difficult, when you get

involved in some of the heavy negotiations, to compete with the Bank of

Canada, the Federal Reserve Board in the U.S., interest rates and

declining markets. I suppose everybody is having some difficulty, and

that is understandable. In 1981-82, the bulk of the stoppage was

certainly in the public sector. In the Canadian Union of Public

Employees there was a carryover with respect to the Greater Vancouver

Regional District and the Capital Regional District, CUPW, ICBC and

B.C. Tel. I might mention that that accounted for approximately

one-third of the number of days which were lost. Of course the big item

was the summer forest industry shutdown. Upon reflection, we can

probably think about readjustment of a lengthy vacation. The

involvement of the Ministry of Labour, particularly in the pulp

industry where there was a small problem at the end, was able, through

a few days' work, to put them back.

In 1981, the mediation

services carried on. Each year it seems to perform well. The batting

average was roughly 83 percent resolution of disputes in which a

mediator was appointed. We lost one of our key mediators, Vince Ready,

who had done a commendable job: and he 's now involved with the

compensation stabilization program. We got a very welcome addition in

David Maclntyre, who had a number of years' involvement in the area of

dispute resolution and bargaining. During my first two years in the

ministry I had a fair amount to do with him in a number of settlements,

and he was always most helpful. He was formerly secretary-treasurer of

the B.C. Federation of Labour, and he's a most welcome addition.

From

time to time we do get compliments with respect to the mediation

service. Recently, Pacific Coach Lines and Western Transportation had a

difficult set of facts. It's always nice to receive correspondence in

the ministry, because as everyone knows, it seldom arrives. There is

always a lot to say when there's a problem, but never when there's a

resolution. I'd like to read the contents, because I think it has

general application and it's typical of correspondence which comes from

time to time.

"It gives us a great deal of pleasure to express our appreciation

for the tremendous assistance and cooperation of the staff the mediation service

branch provided us while reaching a successful conclusion to our first collective

agreement. Throughout negotiations, both the company and the union were subject

to an abundance of operational changes and insecurities that continually added

pressure to both sides. We are certain, and we believe that everyone associated

with the negotiations is convinced, that without the services and assistance

of the mediation services branch we would not have been able to finalize the

agreement without a strike or a lockout."

The other day I received a similar letter from the publisher of the Times-Colonist

in Victoria.

Late

in 1980, after being the Minister of Labour for a period of one year, I

began to recognize some of the forces in the area of industrial

relations. While those issues change, and our ability to deal with them

develops, the basic issues remain the same. Often human nature wins

out. I always conclude with an optimistic remark or two in the area of

labour relations. I've seen a lot of good work and a lot of very hard

work done by a lot of people. My views really haven't changed too much.

The

thing that disturbed me probably most of all over a period of almost

three years is that when things get tough at times, there are those who

wish to challenge the institutions and their administration. It bothers

me, as it would bother all members, of the House. In order to preserve

the process of collective bargaining, there's got to be a fair amount

of give and take, but there must also be the ultimate respect for laws,

the administration, and particularly integrity of our institutions.

I think I'll conclude on that by saying that I have respect for the Labour Code, which I think overall is a superb piece of

[ Page 8794 ]

legislation.

There are always those who wish to try to destroy something, or parts

of it. I can assure you that I resist that, or anything like this. It

must be flexible. There are areas where change is required from time to

time.

Other important activities. The Employment Standards

Act has been in place for a year. About $2.5 million was recovered on

behalf of some 2,900 employees in back wages or holiday pay. We've had

some difficulties with that legislation. One in particular involved

notice with respect to people within a collective agreement, and

particularly in the forest industry shutdown. I think that's a problem

which is going to have to be addressed.

In 1981 in Human

Rights there were more than 9,000 complaints. I think that's something

people don't realize, as that is a large number of complaints. General

inquiries received by the branch — 502 formal investigations were

undertaken, and 453 have been closed. Eleven boards of inquiry were

approved, of which ten were appointed and in the eleventh the

respondent had left the environs. Most of these involved discrimination

respecting employment.

In the area of women's employment

opportunities — I think it's significant, but let's not push it beyond

what it really is — the number of women in apprenticeship training has

doubled. It's still a significantly small percentage, but there is a

change. The women's office in the Ministry of Labour has become a focal

point for activities relating to women's employment. I think you've

probably seen the bimonthly newsletter on employment and training

matters. A wide range of services are provided, and of course, with the

appointment of Mrs. Kelly, I think we're going to give a better profile

of what we're trying to do. There has been financial assistance to

employers to train women in occupations traditionally held by males,

and we've tried to expand these programs.

I think I would

like to raise a few things in the area of apprenticeship. I'm not going

to discount the probability that there are problems in this area. I've

looked over the history of this particular part of the Ministry of

Labour for the last ten years, and I can see the same problems have

been encountered by everybody. I think we've made some significant

moves, changes and improvements each year.

I'd like to make

reference to a broadcast, which I viewed, that was put on by the New

Democratic Party. There were comments by a number of members of that

party, and I really think some of those comments should be challenged.

MR. KING: You don't sound too enthusiastic.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Well, you know, I've wondered. I've seen everybody pounding their

chests and drums and everything else, and I look back and I wonder what

you've all accomplished — sounds of fury with the pounding. I wonder at

times if, perhaps, some dialogue might take place in this chamber in

which we might really get an exchange of constructive information. It

would be wonderful.

Your opening comment in that particular

program was that we had reduced our manpower training by $1.5 million.

That's, of course, incorrect. The money which we have identified for

trades training has risen by $8 million, from $15.8 million to $23.8

million. So the comment which you make about a reduction is not true. I

understand where you got the figures. You looked at the budget of the

ministry's manpower division for last year, you subtracted the money

which has been allocated for the employment development account and so

you looked at a $1.5 million shortfall. But you didn't include within

that calculation the $10 million which we are using for this year's

summer employment program.

Another comment which was made

was with respect to the import of large numbers of foreign skilled

workers instead of training British Columbians for these jobs. I don't

think that's quite correct. We know the position of the federal

government with respect to immigration legislation — that qualified

Canadians must first be given the opportunity before new or potential

immigrants are considered for the jobs. I asked somebody to get some

facts for me on this and I find out, for example, that in the first

three months of 1982 there were 94 tradesmen brought into B.C. —

according to our figures — most, if not all, of whom were specialists

in new technology or working on a particular assignment. They were, for

example, manufacturing representatives for new equipment, special

stainless-steel welders, tile roofers working on a three- or four-day

job, and a sheet-metal specialist on a one-month temporary assignment.

I think that the allegation that we're relying on immigration is really

not supportable, and I think that an examination of those employed in

northeast coal.... I well remember everybody talking about the fact

that northeast coal was going to import, and the press seemed to be

going wild on it. Of course, that has not come to pass at all. As a

matter of fact, I've even got figures available to me with respect to

the percentage of local as compared to provincewide hiring.

the area of trades training, we've increased the enrolment over the

last two years something like 37 or 38 percent. In the last year the

number has gone from 16,400 to 19,000. The significance of this is that

the present level has been pretty well sustained. The number of new

ones who have signed up in 1982 is 1,347. That's not an insignificant

number when you consider what's going on in the economy, and

particularly when apprentices are 90 percent trained on the job. I must

add that the number of unemployed apprentices in British Columbia is

now roughly 2,100, approximately 1,200 of whom are not in construction

— 895 are in construction. From what I gather, in construction there

are normally 300 to 400 who would be unemployed while moving between

jobs. I don't really think now is the time for us to start asking more

employers to take on more apprentices. It's a difficult time for

everyone. I think we have to keep that in mind. It's admirable, though,

that we've got the number of apprentices up to just under 19,000; it's

dropped somewhat now because of the recession in some places in British

Columbia. It has sort of reached a plateau. I think that is fairly

significant. As soon as the economy starts rolling again, I think we've

got a springboard from which to jump.

I noticed one other

thing. The members opposite made some comment they had set up a

training commission to get action on apprenticeship and job training. I

quote: "The commission would develop a way of reliably forecasting the

skills we will need, advise on problem areas and propose solutions. It

would provide funding for 3,300 new apprenticeship positions in

critically short occupations." I'm somewhat taken aback by that

statement. First, you say that you're going to get in and fund 3,300

new apprentices. You are very much aware that we did this with respect

to a skill-shortage program covering seven specific trades, in which

approximately 1,100 apprentices were enrolled. As far as forecasting is

concerned, the fact of the matter is that we started this about two and

a half to three years ago. The report lists phases one and two. We're

in phase three right now, and I

[ Page 8795 ]

think

we're working on our fifth report with respect to forecasting. So it's

nothing new. You mentioned the number 3,300, and I have a very good

idea where you probably got the number from.

When specific

items come up, I'll get into the details. No doubt you are going to

have some questions about the WCB, boards of review, farm labour and

perhaps occupational environment. You may have some problems with

respect to the youth employment program. I think I'll conclude my

remarks on that. This year the Ministry of Labour has tried things in

some new areas, and a lot of things have been done.

Before I

sit down, I want to mention one thing. Someone I do not know.... I

understand from my deputy minister that Charlie Stewart passed away

last week. He was a mediator for ten years in British Columbia, and

most of his working life was as a member of and actively devoted to the

old Street Railwaymen's Union, now the Amalgamated Transit Union. Mr.

Stewart was well known in the area of labour in British Columbia. I

think he should be recognized.

MS. SANFORD: The

Minister of Labour made some complimentary remarks concerning the work

done during the NDP administration; namely, he expressed his confidence

in the current Labour Code. He expressed a sentiment that's not often

expressed in this Legislature: that is, a compliment across the floor

to members on the opposite side, and in this case, mainly to the former

Minister of Labour, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King).

don't know what sort of pressure the minister is under these days to

have that Labour Code changed. He made some reference to the fact that

there are a number of pressures to change the basic provisions of that

Labour Code. I was really pleased to hear the minister express

confidence in the Labour Code as it now exists and in the basic thrust

and provisions of that Labour Code. I am assuming that he is resisting

at this point whatever pressures there might be on him to bring in

changes to the Labour Code. We agree that the Minister of Labour

between 1972 and 1975 did an outstanding job in many areas,

particularly in the area of introducing the Labour Code and doing away

with all the old anti-labour legislation that was in the province at

that time.

However, I don't know why the government has

decided that this minister is worth only half as much as he was last

year. We have a budget last year for the Minister of Labour of $63.8

million, but this year the budget is only $30.9 million. Why is it that

he's worth only half as much as he was last year?

MR. KING: He's a half-measure minister.

MS. SANFORD:

Is he a half-measure minister, half-price minister? Maybe it's like all

those half-price sales we see all over the province representing the

bankruptcies that are taking place: half price here, half price there,

and here we have a half-price minister, based on the estimated

expenditures for this year.

Maybe the government is right in

putting only half a price on this minister this year, because he really

has not shown much in the way of leadership in many of the areas he is

responsible for. He's very indecisive. We've known that over the years.

But in areas of human rights, farmworker legislation, health and

safety, boards of review, the whole question of unemployment and the

minimum wage.... On none of these things has the minister taken action,

been decisive or given us any sort of direction. He drifts. The

problems build up and compound to the stage where, in the case for

instance of the Workers' Compensation Board, we have 3,000 people

waiting for at least seven months to be heard before the board of

review. By the end of the year we can fully expect that injured workers

will be waiting a year to have their cases heard before the boards of

review.

I do hope that one of the first tasks the new deputy

minister responsible for women's affairs has will be to correct the

minister's language. We no longer speak about workmen's compensation.

That's been changed to workers' compensation, The minister has accepted

that, but he has not yet accepted worker-days in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Workers?

MS. SANFORD:

Yes. It's man-days lost no more than it's workmen's compensation in

this province any more; there's one of the first tasks that the new

deputy minister can take on.

MR. SKELLY: Clean up your language.

MS. SANFORD: That's right. Come into this century, Mr. Minister, in terms of the terminology that you're using.

do think that the minister should have a very close look at the kind of

training that's given and the decisions that the adjudicators at the

Workers' Compensation Board are making. We have a situation in this

province where people who are dissatisfied with the decisions made by

adjudicators of the Workers' Compensation Board go to the boards of

review. I mentioned the backlog and the time it takes to be heard

before the boards of review. But the thing is that 45 percent of the

original decisions made by the adjudicators at the Workers'

Compensation Board are being overturned. That, to me, is a clear

indication that there is something radically wrong with the initial

decisions that are being made at the Workers' Compensation Board. What

is the problem there? The minister has not looked at that problem; he

has not made any changes; he has not made any recommendations; and to

my knowledge he has not made any statements whatsoever on that

particular problem. If the minister were to ensure that the decisions

initially made are correct ones, then we would be able to reduce that

backlog significantly. If the minister at this point — I know he has

told me time and time again that he has no intention of increasing the

number of boards of review — were to increase those boards we could do

something about that backlog. That backlog was being reduced when we

had all of the boards operating, plus the additional chairman who could

write decisions while the boards of review were hearing cases. It was

since they lost the one and a half positions that the backlog began to

build again.

Why is he so indecisive in reappointing those

positions? Why is he taking so long? If he wants to make some basic

changes with the boards of review structure, why is he taking so long

to accomplish it? He is very indecisive in these matters, and what we

need is strong, definite action in order to cure some of those

problems. It's a tragedy when injured workers have to wait all of that

time to have their cases heard before a board of review. It's a

disgrace. I think it's completely inexcusable on the part of the

minister. Other provinces don't have that kind of backlog; they have

appeal procedures, but the backlogs aren't there. Has the minister

looked at what's happening in the other provinces in order to

[ Page 8796 ]

determine how we can begin to deal with that particular problem?

must say again this year that I do not think the Workers' Compensation

Board itself should be able to overturn the decisions made by the

boards of review. After all, it is the Workers' Compensation Board and

the adjudicators who work for that board that have made the initial

decision. We then have an independent board of review set up with a

chairman, a representative from labour and a representative from

industry to act as an independent appeal board. Once that appeal board

makes a decision, it then goes back to the Workers' Compensation Board

itself and gets overturned. It doesn't happen that often, but I don't

think it should ever happen if we're going to have an independent board

of review. The whole purpose of setting up a board of review is to

review the initial Workers' Compensation Board decision,

think we should have a greater rotation of the medical staff — the

doctors — who serve on the Workers' Compensation Board. I think that

they should be appointed for a definite period of time, as they are in

some provinces in this country — say three years maximum. In that way

we could have a continual rotation of the medical opinions that are

offered to the Workers' Compensation Board, and workers themselves

would feel more at ease with the medical decisions made on their behalf.

What

a shame that the workers' advisory group — these are the people

appointed by the minister to assist workers to prepare their cases

before the boards of review or the Workers' Compensation Board — are so

overworked and understaffed that they are not able to give the

assistance that they should be able to give to injured workers. Where

is the priority of the government that allows this backlog to develop

so that the staff people appointed to assist workers — and very often

those are the only people workers can turn to for assistance in making

an appeal — are so overworked and understaffed that they are able to

provide very little assistance to the injured workers when they need

it? If you're going to have a system of assistance and advice, then

let's make it work instead of this half-hearted approach. I certainly

don't blame the people who are providing that service. They can't do

any more than they are already doing. The workload is such, Mr.

Chairman, that it becomes an impossible task for them.

The

minister has still not expressed any deep concern over the industrial

health and safety of the workers in this province. One of the

recommendations that came out of the construction industry inquiry as a

result of the tragedy at the Bentall tower was that we immediately

increase inspections at the worksite. Nothing has been done about that,

Mr. Chairman. We have not had the increase in inspections; and tied in

with that, of course, is an increase in the penalties awarded against

companies that are not following the regulations and guidelines laid

down under the act. We still have people in this province being maimed

and killed because we have an inadequate number of inspectors, we don't

have adequate penalties for those companies not complying with the

regulations, and we have inadequate regulations with respect to the

kind of workplace that we in the opposition would like to see.

you took at the statistics of what's happening in Canada today, with

respect to injuries taking place at the worksite.... I recently read an

article by Harry Glasbeek, who is with the Osgoode Hall Law School. I

don't know if the minister has read that

article as well. Every year in

Canada we still have 10,000 workplace deaths. In addition to that we

have 20,000 workers permanently disabled. Why do we still allow that to

happen? I'm talking about Canada as a whole now. The statistics show

that coal-miners have 16 times the chance of developing TB and dying of

that disease than do mine managers. Construction workers have seven

times greater chance of bronchitis death than supervisors and the

managers. Per 100,000 workers, 134 die in mining accidents every year,

41 in construction, one in finance, and seven in police. We think of

being a member of the police force as being a very dangerous

occupation, but if you look at the figures, seven die each year,

whereas in mining in a year we can expect 134 people will lose their

lives. The homicide rate in Canada is three per 100,000, but the

occupational death rate is 33 per 100,000.

I think those

figures are very significant, and I want to impress this upon the

minister, because it's an area in which he has never demonstrated any

interest. I have yet to read a speech the minister has given expressing

his concern about industrial health and safety in this province.

Assaults

in Canada. We have a huge police force, and we have concerns expressed

by citizens every day of the week concerning the violence that happens

in the streets, and we must have more law and order. We hear this all

the time, Mr. Chairman. In Canada we can expect 446 assaults per

100,000 people per year, but in job accidents we have 10,570 per

100,000 per year. Those workplace casualties really are another form of

violence, and it's a form of violence that this minister and this

government must direct their attention towards.

This

professor from Osgoode suggests that perhaps we should lay criminal

charges in order to focus attention on the fact that so many people are

being maimed and killed in the workplace in Canada today. He suggests

that it will dramatically make the point. There's a lot of drama

surrounding assaults and other kinds of accidents. This law professor

suggests that it will raise awareness, help safety committees have a

more effective voice and may scare governments into doing their job of

ensuring that there is a safe workplace, that inspections are carried

out and that penalties are adequate.

There is one change that I'd like to recommend. I suppose this is a small point. In July 1982 there was an

article in the Globe and Mail

which indicates that Newfoundland recently granted workers the right to

sue if, in fact, a company is not covered within that province. What

I'm suggesting here is that in the Bentall accident the fly-form which

gave way was not constructed here in this province, and therefore the

employer was not covered under the Workers Compensation Act of this

province. When people wish to sue a company — in this case for, I would

assume, negligence — they are not entitled to receive workers'

compensation benefits in this province. I raised this earlier with the

minister. In Newfoundland they've now changed their legislation so that

people who are suing a company that is not covered within their

province will be entitled to receive benefits under their Workers'

compensation act. Maybe I should send this

article over to the minister

so he can have a look at it and consider it for this province.

The

minister is right: we do intend to raise the issue of farmworkers in

this province, and to point out to the minister that the situation with

respect to the conditions under which farmworkers work in this province

has not significantly altered under the provisions of the Employment

Standards Act. The minister, with great fanfare — we had headlines in

the

[ Page 8797 ]

paper

— announced the fact that farmworkers were now going to have

protection, the same as other workers have protection in this province.

Those statements made by the minister at that time were misleading,

because we have not seen the kind of changes that the farmworkers or

we, as the opposition in this province, expected as a result of his

pronouncements at that time and the provisions of the Employment

Standards Act.

We proposed a number of amendments at that

time which would have corrected some of the omissions as far as

farmworkers are concerned. They still are not covered by the basic

minimum wage. They still have completely inadequate housing in which

they are living when they have to live on the farms. May I point out

that most of the farmers in this province do attempt to pay their

employees a decent wage, provide them with adequate housing and ensure

that if they have to be transported to work they are transported in

safety. But there are still very serious problems of exploitation of

farm labour by the farm-labour contractors.

The

section in

the Employment Standards Act according to which the farm-labour

contractors are to be bonded and licensed is completely inadequate. We

still have 31 to 35 people being hauled in an Econoline-type van

designed to hold 12 people. We still have barn-like structures that

have stalls put in for the habitation of farm labourers. We still have

the situation in which it is very difficult for the Canadian

Farmworkers Union to talk to people on the farms, because the owners

say no. We probably need changes in legislation there to ensure that

the organizers do have access and can talk to them about their basic

rights in this province — not that farmworkers have many. It's tragic

to think of the kind of work that the farm labourers are expected to do

— it's very difficult work, it's dangerous work; and that they still

are not covered by the minimum wage. I see absolutely no reason why the

minister cannot bring in minimum-wage provisions in addition to

piecework rights to ensure that that minimum wage exists.

think that the minister should look, at this point in time, at the

whole question of farm labour contractors to see whether or not we can

eliminate the farm-labour contractors in this province. For instance,

the farmers are paying $4.40 a flat for the work that's being done, and

yet the farm-labour contractor, who receives this $4.40, passes on to

his workers only $2.25; he keeps $2.15 out of each $4.40. There is

nothing to prevent him from doing this. If there are complaints laid,

he just simply changes his name and gets a licence again the following

year under a different name. That's happening.

We have

inadequate laws with respect to the transportation of these workers.

Mr. Chairman, following the death of that baby in a bucket of water

that we all heard about a couple of years ago, the government indicated

that they would immediately set up a committee — and I think that there

are four cabinet ministers on that committee — to bring in interim

regulations with respect to living conditions. Two years later we still

don't even have interim regulations. We have regulations for people who

are living in logging camps and people in the mining industry who have

to live in camps — basic minimum regulations. Why do those regulations

not apply to farmworkers? Why is it that all this time is allowed to go

by and that those people are still having to put up with deplorable

living conditions? Why doesn't this government take some action? Again,

because we have an indecisive minister who is just not prepared to take

the kind of action that we must have if we're going to cure some of

these problems.

What has the minister done about the video

display terminals? Again, we're getting information about the dangers

that these terminals are presenting to workers — and I'm not going to

spend much time on it. because I'm taking a lot of time this morning,

Mr. Chairman. What has he done? Has he made any provision for the

testing of radiation levels? What protection is he ensuring that the

workers of this province who use these video-display terminals have?

Let's face it, they are here, they are everywhere, and they are growing

at a great rate.

Mr. Chairman. I have barely started, and I

see that I have only two or three minutes left. I have not yet dealt

with unemployment and the problems that the people of this province are

facing. We heard again this morning on the radio the serious

difficulties that people are having with bankruptcies and the fact that

the debt counsellors just cannot keep up with the workload, as a result

of the fact that there is no work for people in this province. There

has been no leadership from that minister responsible for labour and

matters that relate to labour. I've not dealt with manpower training —

maybe we should change that word too — I've not dealt with the human

rights problems, with youth employment, the Essential Services Advisory

Agency or women in apprenticeship. There's a whole list of things that

I would like to deal with, but I'll take my seat at this point and ask

the minister if he would give some responses to some of the issues that

I have raised.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the

opening comment the member made with respect to the boards of

review.... I'm very much aware of the backlog, and I have said on more

than one occasion that I do not believe the expansion of the number of

boards — consisting of a chairman and two representatives — is really

going to handle the number of cases adequately.

In 1981

there were 197,000 injuries reported. The boards of review now have

approximately 3,000 cases; approximately 40 percent of these are

modified in some form. So we're looking at, roughly, 1,200. Based on

the 1981 caseload, they have about four-tenths of 1 percent. That's not

just over a period of one year. That is over a period of more than a

year — I would suspect probably two years.

I have discussed

this problem, in some detail, with the current chairman of the Workers'

Compensation Board. One of the reasons that I did is that concern is

often expressed by the confederation of Canadian unions and the B.C.

Federation of Labour, to mention two. They believe that the problem is

with the adjudication of these particular cases. But when you look at

the total number of cases involved, I would say that the results are

very good and remarkably high. The percentage is in excess of 99

percent.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

I have

before me the last report on this issue — from which I'll take some

comments — from the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board. He is

also of the view that the appointment of further boards is not the

answer, but he does agree, as I do — and I know the member certainly

agrees — that the appointment of one and a half positions should be

made immediately. I can assure the member that it is being done.

[ Page 8798 ]

There

are occasions when the adjudicator.... You can't say the adjudicator

has made the wrong decision, or not the totally right decision, or cast

blame, because what happens is that new information always comes up.

When you're dealing with injuries, we know very well that you don't

know what the residual damage is until a certain period of time has

elapsed. However, he said:

"In recognition of the fact that there are occasions when

the adjudicator is provided with new information but cannot, due to policy,

reconsider the original decision if the worker has already appealed to a board

of review...the WCB has now made a change in its policy, effective immediately.

When an adjudicator is provided with new information following a decision, whether

the worker has appealed or not, the adjudicator will now be in a position to

reconsider the original decision on the merits of the information provided."

This he feels should contribute to a lessening of appeals going to the boards

of review. It is important to point out that this change provides for the request

to readjudicate the claim to come from the adjudicator. In this way the change

will be distinguished from other internal reviews or appeals, where the adjudicator's

work is being reviewed by another person. I accept the sincerity with which

the comment you make, hon. member, is offered. There are times when in fact new

information does come, and previous policy precluded review by that adjudicator;

that's one of the areas. We in the ministry have been concerned with this

problem for many months. My view is that the act — the Workers Compensation

Act — ought to be amended. I believe that regulations ought to be put in place

to allow both written and oral appeals. It might be advisable to consider having

members occupy the position of chairman and have single panels handle these

particular cases. I question whether or not there ought to be an oral hearing

on every appeal. I think we ought to use the Labour Relations Board idea of

a registrar; I think that's a good idea, and it certainly helps. The question

is: why not? Well, when you're dealing with an injured worker, who is usually

represented by an advocate for a trade union....

MS. SANFORD: Usually?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Yes. My point is that you're dealing with consensus here. It's fine to

turn around and say okay, this is the way it's going to be. But it's

just like other legislation which involves a number of interested

people: there ought to be some form of consensus. I can tell you

categorically that there is a fair degree of resistance to this

particular idea, which I have had for some time. I have discussed it in

some detail with my ministry and with the chairman of the board. There

is resistance to this particular idea that we have.

MS. SANFORD: The one person.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

The single-member panel, review registrar. One concern is this — this

argument was thrown out to me, and I fail to understand it. The Labour

Code as a parallel, and the way the Labour Relations Board operates, is

a good one, I think. But no, the objection put forth by trade unions is

that the Labour Code plays an adversarial role. I don't believe it

does. I think it plays a conciliatory role. That's exactly what I

believe boards of review do as well. So I don't see the objection to

that particular type of structure. However, it's consensus legislation.

To be very candid with you, I think there ought to be some consensus

before you start hammering something through.

With regard to

the comment about other provinces, Paul Weiler, who is doing a fair

amount of work on the compensation legislation in Ontario, expressed a

very positive comment about the appeal process through boards of review

for injured workers, that it probably has the seeds of the best system

in Canada. I don't dispute that. But I do think that there must be a

change administratively.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Your

other comment, hon. member, was about appeals. There is a policy that

decisions of boards of review will remain intact and will not be

touched unless there is an error in law or in the policy of the

Workers' Compensation Board. It happens very seldom. I realize the

position of the member opposite is that it should never happen. If you

want to draw parallels to the court system in British Columbia, where

you can go through the full run, the Supreme Court of Canada often

comes back in support of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, much to

the astonishment of the court of appeal; but it does occur.

The

workers' advisers perform a very important and admirable function. I

acknowledge that they are working very hard. My information, though, is

that they are able to handle the backlog. That is not to say that there

should not be some assistance. I think you have made your point in that

regard.

Occupational health and safety was mentioned. We

have done something in that area. I think the member is aware that we

got permission from Treasury Board to spend $300,000 on safety training

at Malaspina. A great deal of work was done on the pilot project by

Paul Petrie in the Ministry of Labour, who is a coordinator of

occupational health and safety. That appointment was made in November

1981. It was a pilot project in the forest industry. It was

administered jointly by the Ministry of Labour and the Workers'

Compensation Board, and offered through Malaspina, Nanaimo.

curriculum was developed through the six-month project. A number of

representatives attended. An evaluation was done by the B.C. Safety

Council, and their comment was as follows: "....the single most

effective safety-training program available for a specific industry in

British Columbia. By mid-July the program will have provided an

intensive, one-week training course to 150 forest-industry workers." It

doesn't take long. If 150 people are involved under a program which the

B.C. Safety Council believes is doing a good job.... The official from

the Ministry of Labour is a most devoted and dedicated civil servant,

and has done an admirable job. In my view, 150 people here, spread

throughout the province of British Columbia.... You have to start

somewhere. It doesn't take long for those seeds to spread. Each one of

those people is bound to have some influence on the safety committees

and programs in logging operations and sawmills.

It's fine to be critical

of it. It's fine to say that it's not enough. But the fact is that it

was started, the money was made available, it's been given a blessing,

it's had good reviews, and a number of people have come through. I

don't think we can knock it. I'd like to do more. A number of these

people involved will obviously be back in the forest industry

[ Page 8799 ]

when

it turns around. There will be a number of individuals promoting and

ensuring safety. This program could possibly spread out to cover a

number of areas. If it's successful now and receives endorsement, I

wouldn't be surprised to see support for it come from a number of

quarters, including financial support. Probably the best thing of all

that could happen is that government make seed money available, and

allow the parties involved to recognize it and cherish something like

this. If it became their project, it would be that much more meaningful.

The

Construction Industry Advisory Council and their report. Yes, the

member is correct that that particular report, or study, and all the

hearings arose out of a most tragic event. The tragedy of that event

was recognized by the Ministry of Labour, and it wasn't very long after

it occurred that this government appointed an inquiry. As I recall,

there were nine people. The chairman of it was Claude Heywood, who is

the construction industry coordinator of the Ministry of Labour and

also the chairman of the Provincial Apprenticeship Board. The research

people in the Ministry of Labour spent a long time going over the

material and assisting in its production.

As a result of

this particular report, concurrently with the appointment of the new

chairman of the WCB, there's been a lot of activity in that area. That

report was released on April 26. I will quote one of its items: "The

objective is to see that any and all lessons we can learn from this

tragedy are applied effectively towards safety in the workplace. We

want to do everything we can to prevent such occurrences." All I know

is that while this was going on, the chairman and commissioners of the

WCB were leading an extraordinarily active life.

I also know

that as a result of a number of their recommendations that I have

received, there has been a fair amount of critical comment from the

construction industry. One of the first things they always ask for is

the appointment of a royal commission or an inquiry. I am generally of

the view that commissions often result in putting the problems on the

back burner.

MS. SANFORD: Because you don't act on them.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Just a moment and you'll have your turn, Madam Member.

The idea is to get responsible and concerned people in these particular positions and to see what can be done.

Since

the new board has been on stream, the WCB issued a report and in

response to the report of the British Columbia construction industry

safety inquiry in April 1982. All the recommendations in that

particular report have been reviewed, and they complimented the

committee for the work it had done. It's a thorough and

well-thought-out report. They don't necessarily agree with everything,

but the fact is that they did put positions across which were

reasonably thorough and represented a point of view. The ideas will

stimulate discussion on a wide range of health and safety issues within

the industry. We hope we'll be able to spring a significant change of

attitude in the new effort to make the B.C. construction workplace as

safe and healthy as possible. They gave me a response to every one of

the items in this report, which is almost an inch through.

I'd

like to tell you a number of things the new commissioners have done.

They altered the management structure so that decisions which formerly

had been made by the executive committee are now handled directly by

the commissioner of interest.

MS. SANFORD: Well, that'll sure make a safe workplace.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, I just wonder. I think that perhaps if we could continue through and spend some time with them you might find it helpful.

Each

commissioner is responsible for various areas of the WCB's operations

and able to recommend policy and procedure changes in the face of his

direct experience. I think that's worthwhile. They're putting a

commissioner of interest on stream. If somebody's responsible for

safety, finance, occupational health or assessments they become

knowledgeable in that area, instead of constantly having to be advised

by long-time permanent employees. Certainly I think the better job is

done by the commissioner and the chairman if they have some feeling for

what's going on.

The health and safety division has been

reorganized to make it more effective and efficient. The occupational

medicine

section has been upgraded to a department and transferred to

the industrial health and safety division — the increasing emphasis

placed on industrial health. They've had innumerable meetings with

trade union and management groups in B.C., and their purpose is

threefold. They are doing their best to work towards some form of

tripartite approach to health and safety so that the board, acting as a

catalyst, can join with labour and management to set up a constructive,

rather than a confrontational, method of improving health. I think

that's what has happened in British Columbia for a number of years. How

many times does a grievance, a stoppage or bad morale arise out of

something involving occupational health and safety? I really don't

believe those problems can be resolved by using the adversarial method,

which everyone seems to be most familiar with when it comes to

negotiating a contract. They seek advice from labour and management in

dealing with the issues that directly affect these groups. I know that

the chairman has met on several occasions with the occupational health

and safety committees of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Upgraded

regulations have just come through from the WCB, and a good-sized

segment of the construction industry is not very happy with them.

They've taken a fairly hard line following the tragedy at Bentall. It

is something they can always back off a bit on if the regulations are

felt to be too severe; that's within their discretion. Remember, it's

an independent, autonomous body.

With respect to

farmworkers, I recognize the concern of the member. The transportation

conditions for those people to farms in the Fraser Valley is

unconscionable. Let's not beat around the bush; it is. The problem we

have is trying to get control of these people, or at least to find out

what they're doing. Have them licensed — we made provision in the

Employment Standards Act for licensing. But the motor vehicle branch

has provision for licensing, and how many people do you know who drive

without licences? The only way we can find out about them, unless

people begin to comply with the provisions of the law, is when they

register with the Ministry of Labour as labour contractors. That

information is fired over to the WCB, because farm-labour contractors

are responsible for WCB assessments. In this case, as soon as that

occurred and it was found out, the WCB

[ Page 8800 ]

worked in conjunction with the RCMP to see what they could do about it.

When

the recent release came out, roadblocks were set up to stop the

contractors from overloading. A team of five WCB inspectors accompanied

the RCMP officers from Abbotsford who were pulling over vehicles they

suspected of being overloaded. They cracked down on Friday morning; the

RCMP laid charges against 12 of the 14 drivers they stopped, and the

WCB wrote safety orders. The chairman said that the labour contractors

will not be allowed to continue risking the safety of farmworkers, and

failure to comply with the safety orders will result in penalties from

the WCB.

Also, penalties will be imposed on labour

contractors who should have registered with the WCB and failed to do

so. At the present time, WCB coverage is optional for farm operations.

We know that those with a high risk elect to be covered by

compensation; those with a low risk take the chances. I think all of

that will be coming to an end. We had a number of discussions last

fall, and the WCB is conducting hearings with the objective of

compulsory coverage for farmworkers next year.

With respect

to that, it's mandatory that farm-labour contractors be assessed.

People kept talking about the regulations. But the fact of the matter

is, Madam Member, under the WCB the regulations are there in black and

white. Noncompliance with these is no different than non-compliance by

any other operator in any other business who falls within the

jurisdiction of the WCB in the province. When you look at the

regulations, you'll see that it covers all of these items. We have just

got to ensure that these people start registering. As a matter of fact,

I have pictures of the van involved.

With respect to

accommodation, yes, the Ministry of Labour was involved, one of four. A

report was prepared. When it comes to matters of accommodation and

health, we have a National Building Code, and it may be that that

particular question could be directed to my colleague, the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen).

MS. SANFORD: I really

despair for the farmworkers of British Columbia, with that minister.

Maybe we should ask the Minister of Health about accommodation

recommendations and so on. The minister sat on the committee. He is the

Minister of Labour, and he says that perhaps I should ask some other

minister about what's happening there. Good grief, we had a

six-month-old child die two years ago because of the inaction of this

government. I really despair that we're going to get anything done

whatsoever.

He did not mention minimum wages for

farmworkers. The other thing is that certainly at the present time when

the farm-labour contractors are licensed, the Workers' Compensation

Board is notified. But the first safety inspections of those vans were

carried out only last week. That's the first time that any Workers'

Compensation Board inspector had even looked at any of those vans. And

that was because we had a serious accident with an overloaded van. The

minister does nothing about these issues. He knows about them, but he

does nothing about them until we have a serious accident. Even then,

what do they do? They set up a cabinet committee, and two years later

there's still nothing done to ensure the safety of those employees and

to ensure that they have adequate living conditions.

talks about the RCMP laying charges. Those charges are laid against the

driver of the vehicle, and the driver is not necessarily the

farm-labour contractor at all. In fact, in many of these cases the

driver is informed that he must say that he is working for the farmer,

and the farmer, of course, is not necessarily covered by the WCB. It's not

mandatory yet. As a result, these drivers are getting charged, and the

penalties are so inadequate that it's not going to do much in terms of

altering the situation. I really despair.

I made a

number of comments with respect to unemployment under the bill that

was brought in in which the government puts forward $132.9 million.

I'm not going to say much more about that today because I know a lot

of my colleagues want to raise this, but I hope that this minister is

embarrassed as well by the fact that he sits on that committee and they

have put forward this bill. It says $132.9 million when, of course,

it's not $132.9 million for job creation at all. Most of that money

comes from existing programs, and it's an attempt to deceive the public

of the province. I hope he's embarrassed about it, because he certainly

should be.

The minimum wage in this province has not changed

since December 1, 1980, and even then it had not been changed for a

long period of time prior to that. I do not understand how people are

able to survive on a basic minimum wage of $3.65 an hour. It is not the

highest in Canada at the moment and yet we in the province of British

Columbia have one of the highest costs of living. The minister has

pointed out that we ought to do this, we should do this, the

legislation should be changed and there are problems here and problems

there. But this is the minister. He is the one who is responsible, he

has the authority, and yet he takes no action in any of these areas.

What about that minimum wage? Are there going to be any changes? I know

he looked at it months and months ago, and we have still heard nothing

from him.

The minister referred to the Malaspina College

safety program. That program was nearly eliminated until both the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) and I got involved in writing

letters. The program was about to be cancelled. We wrote letters

requesting that the program be reinstated. I'm pleased that the

government did respond to our representations. That program was on the

verge of being cancelled. Seven instructors were about to be laid off,

until we got involved and, hopefully, helped convince the government

that they should continue that program.

Human rights. We had

a publication presented to the minister. Here again, it points out the

indecisive nature of the Minister of Labour we have. Over a year ago,

in June 1981, we had recommendations for changes in the Human Rights

Code presented to the minister. The minister knows how inadequate many

of those provisions in the Human Rights Code are. I've forgotten the

figure, but he talked about how many complaints about discrimination

there were in this province before the Human Rights Code. Yet we all

know that the present code is inadequate to deal with so many of these

human rights issues that come before the branch. It's over a year ago,

and we have not yet seen a single, solitary change to the Human Rights

Code that would improve the situation. He's an indecisive minister, who

is just incapable of taking action, even though he has the authority to

take the necessary action. We've had pleas from the disabled. We gave

him a whole booklet of suggestions that would improve the code, yet

there's been no action whatsoever from the minister. I don't

understand. As I said, I despair when I see all the proposals I've made

to him. All the suggestions are there. The answers are obvious. It has

been thoroughly looked at by the Human Rights Commission. We've had

public hearings, and people from all over the province have

[ Page 8801 ]

made recommendations. But there's not been a single, solitary move by the minister.

There

is one provision not included in here which I think should be, Mr.

Chairman, and that relates to a particular case before the minister at

the moment, related to the Army and Navy Department Store. The code

does not provide for a class action to take place. I think the minister

knows what I'm talking about. This was Beverly Anne Yaworski, who

appealed on her own behalf with respect to the payment of wages. Any

decision made there apparently will not apply to all the other

employees similarly affected, because there is no provision in the code

for a class action to take place. The only way that that problem could

be rectified, in terms of payment of wages due there, would be for each

one of those employees to take an action. I hope that someday, within

the next hundred years, when the minister might take some action with

respect to changing the Human Rights Code, he will include some

provision for a class action. It has become very clear that that is

necessary at this point.

Mr. Chairman, why was the youth

employment program cancelled in the first place? What on earth made the

minister decide that he would not proceed with it? "Student Job Scheme

Cancelled" — it was reported all over the place that it was cancelled.

I fail to understand, particularly in view of the extremely high levels

of unemployment, that government would even consider cancelling that

youth employment program. What pressure was on him? Was it his own

decision? Was it one of the few decisions this minister has made, that

he would proceed to cancel the youth employment program?

Women

in apprenticeships. I assume the minister is going to tell me that the

new deputy minister is going to ensure that this changes, but 71

percent of all of the women in apprenticeships are still involved in

hairdressing, barbering, baking or cooking. I've raised this year after

year after year, and I feel that the minister.... Perhaps through

that new deputy minister we might get some action. There should be a

program, a thrust and an initiative through that Ministry of Labour to

ensure that that particular situation changes. I don't particularly

want to hear about the WEAT program in the minister's response when he

gets up.

The Essential Services Advisory Agency. In my view,

it's a waste of money on the part of this government. I know they're

looking at cutting costs all over the place and I think that's one area

where they could certainly save themselves some money, because that

agency is not providing any assistance to anybody in this province.

If the minister would respond to those few comments, I will take my place at this point.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

With respect to the last item, the Essential Services Advisory Agency,

I hear what the member is saying. It's been of some concern. I just

have one problem: We don't get rid of the fire department because there

are not fires. We just never know what will come to pass. However, I

accept your comments.

On the Army and Navy department store

item, I did not have — until last night at least — any cases on my desk

involving this. I don't recall any of these items.

Regarding

the youth employment program, how many times do I have to repeat that

this program was never cancelled? It went into the employment

development committee. I can assure you that the infrastructure was

there; it was ready to go. The important thing is that I and a number

of colleagues on that committee had the opportunity to review the

program. We got more money, as a matter of fact, in that particular

program than we had in the ministry before. That particular program has

done extraordinarily well. Each one of our objectives has now been

exceeded in the four categories which we fund.

I don't see

anything particularly wrong with getting — in fact I encourage —

contributions and input from my colleagues when it comes to this area,

just as Industry and Small Business sits on Economic Development, or

Environment on Economic Development, or Health on Social Services.

Because they're involved in these things, you get the benefit of a

number of other people's views. I don't really dispute that. I think

it's probably a good idea.

The other point which I have to

take exception to was the member's comments on the Malaspina program.

What the member said is not correct. They had a program at Malaspina to

train loggers. That was the program that was cancelled. The

safety-committee training program and the whole idea for it came from

our ministry. We used it, as well as the WCB, which trained the two

faculty members who would otherwise have been displaced. Our program

has absolutely no relationship to the former training program, and I

think we should make that clear.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

The Hon. L. A. Williams to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No.

63) intituled Fire Services Amendment Act, 1982 to amend as follows:

SECTION 1, by adding "of the Fire Services Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 133," after "Sections 48 and 49".

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada